by jimwalton » Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:47 pm
I agree with a few of your points (like, "The letters of Paul provide all the essential Christian doctrines") but disagree radically with your premise. Obviously Paul's letters were written first, so you seem to be claiming that the Gospel writers fabricated the material tapping off of Paul's preaching/teaching/writing.
I think that falls apart because of the numerous creeds that Paul includes in his writings, such as...
- 1 Cor. 15.3-5: Jesus died for our sins, was buried, rose again.
- 1 Tim. 3.16: Jesus appeared in history in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit (presumably His baptism), was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up into glory (Acts 1.1-11)
These creeds seem to have been in circulation long before Paul wrote. The one from 1 Corinthians is said to be from 3-5 years after Jesus's death.
In addition, there is evidence that Mark got his passion narrative from an earlier source that was written before AD 37, just handful of years after Jesus's resurrection.
Baptism was preached by Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2.38) in the same year Jesus died, a mere month and a half later.
The Lord's Supper was practiced in Acts 2.42 also in the same year Jesus died.
"Love your neighbor to fulfill the whole law" was even a common teaching among Jews in the first century. "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary." We don't have to perceive this as invented by Paul and attributed falsely to Jesus.
What I'm saying is that there is evidence that these beliefs were believed and circulated long before Paul was preaching or writing, so I think those weigh against your conclusion.
> The New Testament itself gives evidence that Paul created a religion based on his own private visions (Gal 1: 12, 1 Cor 9 & 15, 2 Cor 12) of a divine figure that he called "the Lord Jesus Christ."
This is false because there is no "evidence" he created a religion based on his private vision. Instead, what Paul said is that what He preached is true because it's from God—he received it in a divine manner. Galatians 2 then verifies that he checked in Jerusalem what he had been preaching with what the apostles had been preaching all along and found that there was no difference (Gal. 2.7-8). Paul was not "inventing" anything.
> From the little that Paul says about "Jesus," it's not even clear that Jesus is a person distinct from Paul himself (Gal 1:16, "in me"; Gal 3:1; Gal 6:17).
This is false. By "in me" (Gal. 1.16), Paul is emphasizing his inward experience of salvation. He experienced a revelation of Jesus on the road to Damascus. You can't justifiably take it to mean that Paul is claiming oneness with Jesus.
Gal. 3.1: “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified." What does this have to do with Paul claiming Jesus and he were the same?? Paul is saying that Christ's crucifixion is public knowledge. They all knew it had happened under Roman rule in Palestine. And Paul acts out that same crucifixion in front of them (Gal. 2.20).
Gal. 6.1: "...for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." Paul has been flogged, as Jesus was. He has suffered with the sufferings of Christ (Phil. 3.10).
> For Paul, Jesus is no pretender to the throne of David, crucified in Jerusalem as "king of the Jews," but an altogether different type of "Christ": a divine presence within.
I disagree. Paul mentions the crucifixion of Christ 10 times. The Cross is central to Paul's preaching. But Christ is also a divine presence within.
> After Paul died, and over many many years, the churches he founded came up with the story of a remembered historical man, "Jesus of Nazareth." A story told in 4 different ways, all linked to one another, all confirming Paul's Christianity in its essentials. "The Greatest Story Ever Told."
Based on the evidence I've presented, I consider this a false conclusion.