I consider Paul one of the most influential people in Western Culture. I believe that Christianity is the religion of Paul and not Jesus. Imagine if Paul would have gone east into Asia instead of West. Rome most certainly would have never become Christian; perhaps the East would be Christians and the West Muslims? Perhaps not, anyway on to Paul.
Paul traveled around not to spread the teachings of Jesus, but to transform Christ into a god. I believe that he alludes to that in Galatians. “Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. For I did not receive it from a human being…but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 2, 11-12). Revelations of Christ after his death, to me, this speaks volumes. Jesus never claimed to be a god nor did he desire to create some universal religion, he wanted Judaism to reclaim its morals. Not so with Paul, he was intent on creation of a new order.
Paul said that the laws were in place because of the excessive depravity from humans. Paul said that with the coming of Christ the need for laws to obtain salvation or to be righteous is no more, all that one needs now is faith. Before the coming of Christ, the Hebrews relied on adherence to the laws to gain access to the promise land. Faith in Paul’s teachings not in the teaching of Christ.
Even though Paul claimed to be spreading the teachings of Jesus there are some differences in the message they deliver to the people. Paul was forcefully telling people that the laws no longer applied, “…because by works of the law no one will be justified,” (Galatians 2, 16). Paul was upset because the pagans he converted to Christ had begun to observe Jewish law after enticement from other missionaries (Galatians, Intro). Paul constantly reminded new converts that faith, not laws was the ticket into heaven. Paul said that faith replaced law because this was Gods will. This message was vastly different because Jesus did not tell people that the laws were no longer relevant in such absolute terms.
“…I say to you until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law…” (Galatians, 5, 18). As Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount, he focuses on obeying the spirit of the law, not the abolition of the law. Jesus told his followers that it would be harder to get to heaven following his words because God will judge people by what is in their heart not just by their actions. Not once did Jesus claim that faith in him would lead to salvation.
No matter, because I have lost this argument I believe that most would consider this a ridiculous position. Unfortunately, once the split from Judaism occured they manipulated scriptures and used Christian law (such as only clergy can interpret scriptures) to maintain their power of society. It appears that Paul is the catalyst behind this change. The only logical step after this would be for Martin Luther to discredit Catholic laws, which of course he did. It appears that you cannot rescue religion from human corruption.
3 comments:
You are right on about Paul. I think it can be argued that Pual, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity. I don't think you neccessarily lost the argument about Christianity. Some people are incapable of understanding or thinking outside the box. People beleive what they want to beleive - or what they are told to believe. Most do so blindly, without investigating or understanding what they subscribe to. Religious institutions, like all human institutions, are inherently corrupt. Martin Luther was right to step in and make his pronouncements against the Church, even if all his points were not correct. Now the Protestants themselves are corrupt. As time goes on, Christianity is becoming more and more splintered. Each subgroup beleives what it wants, and tosses out what it wants.
I find it weird because even though I am not a believer anymore I still feel a connection with the Catholic church. It is part of my identity (small part) I find the urge to defend Catholicism when I hear someone putting it down. Even when I read Martin Luther, I know he is right yet I still feel a connection. Perhaps it was my father always reminding me about JFK being Catholic or this person being Catholic, it is almost an ethnic group.
Same here. I still have a great deal of respect for the Church and the clergy. They both played a fundamental part in my upbringing. I owe a great debt to the nuns and preists that taught me in school. Things that went way beyond reading , writing, and math.
While I do not agree with everything the Church has done historically, I think in modern times they are on the mark with most moral and ethical issues. Certainly there are individuals within the Church who do things that are not consistent with the Church's teaching. I try to separate their actions from those of the Chruch as a whole. I was/am really disappointed with how the Church handled the priest-sex abuse situation. Some many suffered because of their fear of scandal and their desire to keep it all secret. That being said, I find the media's treatment of the Chruch to be reprehensible. They try to give the impression that the Church is a breeding group for pedophiles - which it is not.
Despite the fact that I am struggling with some of the fundamental issues of Catholism (the Jesus is God thing, etc), I still keep some connection with the Church and the clergy. I find most clergy a notch above your average person.
Post a Comment