Definitely! The Jews were (are) looking for a warrior-Messiah, in the line of David to kick butt. But then along comes Jesus preaching a salvation by faith, telling people they didn't have to be circumcised to be a child of God and they could eat all the pork chops they wanted..it's easy to see why Jews would reject such teaching.
Don't confuse Jesus' teaching with Paul's. Jesus followed the mosaic laws just like any other Jew. He never taught against circumcision. That was Paul's shtick. Which is understandable since his main audience turned out to be the gentiles, who obviously wanted nothing to do with being circumcised. And when the gospels say Jesus "deemed all food as clean" is suspect. In Mark 7, when he said it wasn't what went into a man that made him unclean, but what comes out of him... the issue at hand was not eating porkchops. The pharisees were wanting the disciples to wash their hands before eating. I'm sure the meal was Kosher. They just hadn't washed which was ceremonial. If they had porkchops out there the pharisees would have crucified them all probably. In fact, the jewish apostles continued to observe the dietary food laws well after Jesus passed away.
How do you think 'Paul's Jesus' differs from the gospel accounts and other writers of the New Testament? I think the point that Paul was a devout Jew, a Pharisee who studied under Gamaleil and was a chief persecutor of the early Christian church speaks volumes to his status as the preminent New Testament writer.
Paul was what ever the situation required. 1 Cor 9:20-23. He reminded everyone of his internship under his pharisee instructor and his status among the pharisees. When he was arrested by the Romans, he quickly announced he was a roman citizen. To become a roman citizen didn't come cheap, or easy.
Anyway, there is study out there that talks about Paul's idea of Jesus. Arguments that his jesus was a spiritual christ as opposed to an earthly man who walked and talked. Paul doesn't seem to know what Jesus taught when he was on earth. He never uses any of Jesus' teachings to settle issues in his church, when he had opportunity to do so.
If you only read the epistles and had no gospels, you wouldn't have a clue of really anything about Jesus as a man from Galilee. No mention of Mary, virgin births, empty tombs, miracles, etc.. Paul spoke of spiritual realms. Mormons I believe use Paul's "third heaven" to mean there are different realms we can attain. Paul could have been talking about Jesus dying/resurrecting in the spiritual world, not Jerusalem. The gospels come around years later and fill in an earthly story of the hero, Jesus... and put a face/life to the Jesus in Paul's letters.
It's odd that no contemporary writers of the day, even christian writers, mention anything about Jesus until Mark's gospel surfaces in about AD 70.
But that's one school of thought.
So you DO believe in miracles..you just don't think Jesus did any?
No, I don't believe in miracles. Those others I mentioned are also fables. My point was that there were other literary characters that supposedly performed similar miracles before Jesus did his. The author had presidence I mean. Jesus turned water into wine in the large jars.. Elisha had numerous large jars filled with lamp oil from a single small jar of oil... Jesus walked on water, Elijah and Elisha did the same.. both healed a man with a shriveled hand, etc.. None of it likely happened, but the author of the NT miracles had something to go on is the point.
Do you think He probably coulda been resurrected too?
well that is the million dollar question. If I believed that, this thread wouldn't exist.
All of the gnostic gospels that I've read (Barnabus, Thomas,etc.) display a salvation by works, much like the Jewish faith. The crux of Christianity is that man is redeemed by faith and faith alone. Works are a RESULT of faith rather than the means.
That is the crux of Pauline christianity, yes. The gnostic gospels display salvation from within. They believed that Jesus came to earth to show man how to find this inner salvation and once found, then man can pass this world, which is evil, and enter heaven... perfection. They believed Jesus was neither God nor man, actually. Some believed he didn't even leave footprints in the sand when he walked. He was perfect and tried to teach them how to become like him. Not much is known about these people in the mainstream, but there is lots of interesting information available now online. The discovery of the hidden gnostic gospels in 1945 is extraordinary.
Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels
Here's one recommended book on this discovery.
Gnosticism's Christian form grew to prominence in the 2nd century A.D. Ultimately denounced as heretical by the early church, Gnosticism proposed a revealed knowledge of God ("gnosis" meaning "knowledge" in Greek), held as a secret tradition of the apostles. In The Gnostic Gospels, author Elaine Pagels suggests that Christianity could have developed quite differently if Gnostic texts had become part of the Christian canon. Without a doubt: Gnosticism celebrates God as both Mother and Father, shows a very human Jesus's relationship to Mary Magdalene, suggests the Resurrection is better understood symbolically, and speaks to self-knowledge as the route to union with God. Pagels argues that Christian orthodoxy grew out of the political considerations of the day, serving to legitimize and consolidate early church leadership. Her contrast of that developing orthodoxy with Gnostic teachings presents an intriguing trajectory on a world faith as it "might have become." The Gnostic Gospels provides engaging reading for those seeking a broader perspective on the early development of Christianity. --F. Hall
Review
"The first major and eminently readable book on gnosticism benefiting from the discovery in 1945 of a collection of Gnostic Christian texts at Nag Hammadi in Egypt." --The New York Times Book Review
Wonder how Christianity would have formed out of the 2nd century if this school of thought survived and made it into the canon.Whether this is what Jesus meant, or what Paul taught is the truth, or even if all of it is a load of tripe... It just goes to show that there was more than one version of the Jesus story in the early centuries.
wow. I didn't know that.
Everything (and everybody) else teaches vengeance and/or isolationism. It is only through Christ that I could feel the love.
