I spent several posts explicating Paul’s understanding of his - TopicsExpress



          

I spent several posts explicating Paul’s understanding of his gospel, that by Christ’s death and resurrection a person is put into a restored relationship with God. He had several ways of explaining how it worked (the “judicial” model; the “participationist” model; and the other models I described). But in all of these ways, it was Jesus’ death and resurrection that mattered. It was not keeping the Jewish law. It was not knowing or following Jesus’ teaching. It was not Jesus’ miracles. It was not … anything else. It was Jesus’ death and resurrection. I then summarized in my previous post, the teaching of Jesus himself, about the coming Son of Man and the need to prepare by keeping the Law of God, as revealed in the Torah, as summarized in the commandments to love God above all else and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Do these represent the same religion? I see this as one of the most fundamental and important questions in all of early Christianity. I’m not asking if Paul invented Christianity, for reasons that I have explained: he inherited his understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus from those who came before him, even if he understood its significance for Gentiles differently from his predecessors. But I am asking if the gospel that Paul preached is essentially the same or different from the message of Jesus. A very good case can be made, of course, that they are fundamentally different. The way I used to try to get to this in my undergraduate class was by having my students write a short paper with the following instructions. First, I had them read and analyze the famous story of… To see this and other posts in full ehrmanblog.org/paul-and-jesus-for-members/ and join the blog by clicking the Register button!
Posted on: Tue, 06 May 2014 23:15:28 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015