New Testament question - Jesus and Paul

[2xx1xy1JD]

Thanks to Lori insistence on scriptural references (*except when she's quoting Hallmark movies, Dr. Mercola or her own experieces), I've been searching up quotes on Google and Biblegateway. Obviously, as a Jew, my religious education didn't include the New Testament, and what I have learned about it generally comes from an academic, often Jewish, POV.

So....I'm noticing that Lori tends to really focus on very specific parts of the NT, like Ephesians, Corinthians, Titus and Timothy. From what I can tell, these books are attributed to Paul, as he was working to spread Christianity to the gentiles and establish the early Christian church, and are basically letters from Paul to church leaders in various places.

Oddly enough, Lori doesn't quote Jesus himself all that much. She's also admitted in the past that she hasn't read all of the Old Testament.

Is it common among conservative Christians to focus more on Paul's writings that the words of Jesus in the NT? [For clarity, I'm talking about attributed authorship here, I know there's some debate about whether these folks actually said or wrote everything that is attributed to them.] Is it also common to completely disregard context or contradictory statements by either Jesus of the OT, and simply say "it's written here, it's the Word of God, end of story"?

From my (admittedly non-Christian) POV, the Pauline epistles really only make sense if you keep in mind that they were written to local church leaders during a time of turmoil in the Greco-Roman world, and early expansion of the church among the gentiles. Jesus was a rabble-rouser. He mixed with people that didn't necessarily have any power or standing, he criticized the existing authorities, and he likely saw himself as a Jew criticizing from within. Paul, OTOH, breaks with the Jews, wants to spread the new religion to gentile converts and establish a new organization. He knows that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, and sees that things are badly deteriorating between Romans and Jews in Judea. So, you get these epistles that focus on the growth and survival of the new church under these conditions. In essence, Paul is saying "tell our follows to set a good example, but make sure that they don't rock the boat. Sure, we may be attracting followers that include women and slaves, but we need to tell them to wait for the coming salvation and not demand freedom, not cause problems in existing marriages and not rebel against Roman authority, because we don't want to be seen as a threat." [i'm not a big fan of Paul, but I have to admit that the Jews were badly defeated by the Romans and exiled while the Roman empire eventually adopted Christianity, so you can argue that his approach was effective.] I just find it weird to see conservative Christians cite quotes from the epistles to argue that things like submission are "Gods plan regardless of what the World says", when the epistles themselves are obviously VERY conscious of what the Greco-Roman world said and reinforce ROMAN structures of authority even when they seem to go against the teaching of Jesus or the OT.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed this focus on Paul while ignoring everything else?

[kpmom]

Yes, I've often thought conservative Christians should really call themselves Paulians rather than Christians.

Let's face it, if they quoted only, or mostly, Jesus, they'd have to stop harping on submission, gayz, etc., as Jesus is not quoted as saying anything on these subjects.

[Pammy]

Is it common among conservative Christians to focus more on Paul's writings that the words of Jesus in the NT?

Yes. Paul's writings tend to contain a lot more easily taught 'tips for practical Christian living' because they were fairly practical letters. These make "great" proof texts for lots of today's issues that they don't really apply to. (You are EXACTLY right about the correct way Paul's practical advice makes sense for his context.)

The Jesus' narratives and the concept of the Kingdom of God are considerably take more effort to grasp, and often are internally focused on the believer, or cosmological in nature, rather than practical. Fundies don't need that 'stuff'.

Is it also common to completely disregard context or contradictory statements by either Jesus of the OT, and simply say "it's written here, it's the Word of God, end of story"?

That's somewhat common. Context is completely a non issue among fundies. On the other hand "contradictory statements" (if NT focused conservatives even notice them) tend to gain some attention, because they are considered an apologetic issue, "No, the Bible does not contradict itself, here is where it seems to, and here is an explanation that harmonizes them."

[MamaJunebug]

I just find it weird to see conservative Christians cite quotes from the epistles to argue that things like submission are "Gods plan regardless of what the World says", when the epistles themselves are obviously VERY conscious of what the Greco-Roman world said and reinforce ROMAN structures of authority even when they seem to go against the teaching of Jesus or the OT.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed this focus on Paul while ignoring everything else?

2xx2xy1JD, cradle Christian here and yes, I've noticed it and yes, it's not what Christianity should be about.

kpmom observed,

if they quoted only, or mostly, Jesus, they'd have to stop harping on submission, gayz, etc., as Jesus is not quoted as saying anything on these subjects.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But the second-most-conservative Lutheran church body explains that while Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality, he also didn't condemn pedophilia or bestiality, and you know He wouldn't have endorsed those, so: no gay marriage, no okay to be gay. They further say that Paul was a contemporary of apostles who actually walked with and learned from Jesus, and so whatever Paul says has the imprimatur of Jesus' values and instructions.

I lament the lack of scholarship and the obvious politicking of those who use the Pauline letters to say "God's plan! Gotta do it!" and I don't know what to do, vis-à-vis my own [sic] denomination's unrelenting attitude on some things. But that's going off-topic.

In answer to your original question 2xx, no, it isn't right that they emphasize Paul over Jesus. And yes, many of them (us) do recognize that while some of Paul's writings contain truths, other parts of the writings have to be understood in the context of the times in which he wrote them.

[nolongerIFBx]

Is it common among conservative Christians to focus more on Paul's writings that the words of Jesus in the NT?

I would say yes. Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews. Paul was a Jew who converted to Christianity and preached to Gentiles. Since the majority of Christians are Gentiles, Paul's teachings are an explanation of how we are to live Christianity.

From my (admittedly non-Christian) POV, the Pauline epistles really only make sense if you keep in mind that they were written to local church leaders during a time of turmoil in the Greco-Roman world, and early expansion of the church among the gentiles. Jesus was a rabble-rouser. He mixed with people that didn't necessarily have any power or standing, he criticized the existing authorities, and he likely saw himself as a Jew criticizing from within. Paul, OTOH, breaks with the Jews, wants to spread the new religion to gentile converts and establish a new organization. He knows that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, and sees that things are badly deteriorating between Romans and Jews in Judea. So, you get these epistles that focus on the growth and survival of the new church under these conditions. In essence, Paul is saying "tell our follows to set a good example, but make sure that they don't rock the boat. Sure, we may be attracting followers that include women and slaves, but we need to tell them to wait for the coming salvation and not demand freedom, not cause problems in existing marriages and not rebel against Roman authority, because we don't want to be seen as a threat." [i'm not a big fan of Paul, but I have to admit that the Jews were badly defeated by the Romans and exiled while the Roman empire eventually adopted Christianity, so you can argue that his approach was effective.] I just find it weird to see conservative Christians cite quotes from the epistles to argue that things like submission are "Gods plan regardless of what the World says", when the epistles themselves are obviously VERY conscious of what the Greco-Roman world said and reinforce ROMAN structures of authority even when they seem to go against the teaching of Jesus or the OT.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed this focus on Paul while ignoring everything else?

I can see why some people see Paul as a misogynist, but for his time he was quite progressive. He taught that there is no difference between male and female, Jew or Greek, bond or free-- God loved all. He talked to and about women in his letters, rather like Jesus did. And they absolutely go against the teachings of the OT at times. So did Jesus'.

However, I do agree that we should pay a lot more attention to what Jesus said than we do!

[salex]

Given that I was practically born a feminist, I began having problems with Paul, and certainly how he was taken out of context and used as a club, by the time I was about 12-14.

My "liberal" methodist church in the 70s (We had a woman minister) viewed Paul's letters to be taken in context and as answers to specific things that were happening at the time they were written. Thus the women talking in church was not meant as an eternal problem, as much as a problem one particular group was having at one particular point in time, in part because of cultural issues of the time.

This is an interesting scene between Paul and Jesus in the Last Temptation of Christ

[homeschoolmomma1]

Interesting to note that Paul and Peter would fight about what Jewish Traditions to keep in the new "Christian' religion. Peter wanted to keep the old ways along with the new and Paul wanted a whole new religion. Paul was the one who spread the Gospel more (better?) than Peter and that is why Christians (or Catholics which would be the first Christian religion) don't keep the high Jewish Holy Days. I was told this and did not have a link, however I think this link sort of explains the tension between them.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/gal2-11.html?vm=r

I myself have struggled with Hanukkah Since it is in the catholic Bible under First and Second Maccabees. I personally won't celebrate it since I don't want to disrespect anyone. If that makes sense....

This was sort of off topic lol

[rward]

Yes. Paul's writings tend to contain a lot more easily taught 'tips for practical Christian living' because they were fairly practical letters. These make "great" proof texts for lots of today's issues that they don't really apply to. (You are EXACTLY right about the correct way Paul's practical advice makes sense for his context.)

The Jesus' narratives and the concept of the Kingdom of God are considerably take more effort to grasp, and often are internally focused on the believer, or cosmological in nature, rather than practical. Fundies don't need that 'stuff'.

That's somewhat common. Context is completely a non issue among fundies. On the other hand "contradictory statements" (if NT focused conservatives even notice them) tend to gain some attention, because they are considered an apologetic issue, "No, the Bible does not contradict itself, here is where it seems to, and here is an explanation that harmonizes them."

Yeah, context is very important- but only to explain contradictions. Otherwise, some passage about ritual sex in pagan temples is suddenly about gay Americans in 2013.

It's funny, fundies like to say Catholics know nothing of Jesus, but most fundies concentrate mostly on Paul and every Catholic mass contains one reading directly relating to Jesus and something he said. Which is probably why I shake my head when fundies start going on about Jesus hating whores and gays. I attended mass every Sunday for 18 years (plus the Holy Days), I don't ever recall that particular parable.

[snarkopolis]

See if these (fundamentalist) "Christians" had to talk about what Christ did in the NT then they would have a problem cuz all Christ did was hang out with the poor, the downtrodden, the rejected from society, And teach and feed and care about them. You know, that whole "Love your neighbor as you would love yourself principle Jesus talked about". Can't have THAT message, now can you ? [insert eyeroll, sarcastic tone and smirk here please] Better to talk about someone who never met Jesus but came to the movement later. And probably knew some of the Apostles, a friend of a friend. Yeah, and concentrate on the OT cuz that's what Jesus wanted [repeat eyeroll, etc. here as well]. These jokers would do better to READ the BIBLE they keep thumping on.

[theologygeek]

Oddly enough, Lori doesn't quote Jesus himself all that much.

It's not odd. MANY conservative Christians who aren't even extreme and whacked out don't quote Jesus. They quote everything but Jesus. Liberal Christians quote Jesus more than conservatives do.

[Rachel333]

I would say yes. Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews. Paul was a Jew who converted to Christianity and preached to Gentiles. Since the majority of Christians are Gentiles, Paul's teachings are an explanation of how we are to live Christianity.

I can see why some people see Paul as a misogynist, but for his time he was quite progressive. He taught that there is no difference between male and female, Jew or Greek, bond or free-- God loved all. He talked to and about women in his letters, rather like Jesus did. And they absolutely go against the teachings of the OT at times. So did Jesus'.

However, I do agree that we should pay a lot more attention to what Jesus said than we do!

Totally agree with that. It does annoy me when people just dismiss Paul by calling him a misogynist (I also think it's kind of a cop-out from the liberal Christians I've seen who say they don't like Paul so they just ignore that part of the Bible). In context, he actually wasn't particularly misogynistic, but in today's context I think people who follow his teachings literally often are.