Kierkegaard on Paul's Influence on Christianity

Originally posted by sonship

As I recall, Leo Tolstoy believed that Paul distorted Jesus's teachings.
Jesuism is a movement that disagrees with Pauline Christianity.

Every so often the Forum comes around to this theme. This is rehash, revisiting a oft repeated concept -

"Jesus we like but Paul messed it all up."

So it comes around again. "Let's see if we c ...[text shortened]... n the red letters in Matthew, Mark and Luke."

Oh, usually the Gospel of John has to go too.

Given the repeated emphasis that Jesus made about keeping HIS word, following HIS commandments, etc. that He shared while He walked the Earth, a reasonable case can be made for dispensing with all but - for those who choose to follow Jesus.

Originally posted by sonship
C'mon ToO, I read your post very carefully this time. Smile.

Nonsense. Utter sophisticated sounding nonsense.
Paul as a pioneer into the depths of the experience of Jesus Christ pointed to Christ's all-inclusive ministry. His living, His death, His resurrection, His ascension were all emphasized.

I think Soren Kierkegarrd here is probably telling ...[text shortened]... thing. And this revisit probably confirms my earlier experience.

Thanks for this quotation.

C'mon ToO, I read your post very carefully this time. Smile.

Here's to a "new and improved" jaywill.

What respect I had for Kierkegaard is now pretty much adjusted to the more realistic. He had no idea what he was talking about in this instance.

How so? Kierkegaard was hardly the only Christian to draw that conclusion. Look at the quote from Thomas Jefferson in my response to D64.

Originally posted by JS357
I think that there was no Christianity before Paul, he took it from an attempted reform of Judaism to a stand-alone religion (although still rooted) and made it accessible to the Gentile (along with John's contribution). On this analysis, Paul was an essential ingredient in delivering the religion based on Jesus Christ to all. As products of this work, how can ...[text shortened]... one who counts themselves as "Christian" agree with Kierkegaard?

That my non-theistic 2 bits.

On this analysis, Paul was an essential ingredient in delivering the religion based on Jesus Christ to all. As products of this work, how can anyone who counts themselves as "Christian" agree with Kierkegaard?

Seems pretty evident that for all intents and purposes "Christianity" has superceded the teachings of Paul with the teachings of Jesus. So in that sense, "Christians" would not agree with Kierkegaard. Of course if one includes as "Christian" those who choose to follow the teachings of Jesus rather than the teachings of Paul, then this is not true.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]C'mon ToO, I read your post very carefully this time. Smile.

Here's to a "new and improved" jaywill.

What respect I had for Kierkegaard is now pretty much adjusted to the more realistic. He had no idea what he was talking about in this instance.

How so? Kierkegaard was hardly the only Christian to draw that conclusion. Look at the quote from Thomas Jefferson in my response to D64.

The comment above was enough to leave me disappointed. Upon thinking on it, I think at best he has misdiagnosed a problem with mainstream Christianity of his day.

He might fault some Christians for speaking too much of the death of Jesus in some neglect of some other areas of His ministry. But he cannot fault Paul for this kind of limitation.

Romans is Paul's most basic epistle outlining "the Gospel of God." It is not realistic to blame Paul in the book of Romans for not speaking of the living Christ.

Now I notice that Kierkegaard says some thought provoking things. As far as I can see he speaks something about a personal relationship with God. And I would not claim to know deeply his main contribution of philosophy.

But just taking your quotation, which I can see why you would be fond of his opinion there, it is misdirected critical blame not at all fairly laid at the feet of the Apostle Paul.

But you have a right to preach your "Jesus is Good, Paul Misled Us" message, which I suspect you have reinforced and strengthened. We have argued before and I suspect probably more of the same kinds of concepts you'll want to present to me, maybe with some more homework done to back it up.

Maybe this time I'll just do more watching what others may say.

I also expect that as before, no one will be able to pen you down on what constitutes the canon of the New Testament. I suspect that you probably are still working with an attitude that the things Jesus said that reinforce your philosophy are the reliable words of the New Testament and the things that teach otherwise are the questionable texts.

Possibly you are the chief proponent on RHP of what I would call "Red Letter Skepticism."

The red letters in English versions of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) come closest to what you want to regard as the only thing Jesus wanted the world to believe. And these verses can come under skepticism also if they deviate too far from your own self chosen philosophy.

Believe it or not, I am not trying to be obnoxious.
And thanks for realizing that I realize I could always improve.

Now I fear that I may have been better to review your post which I did not this morning. So you can help me if I misread you again. I am going by memory and I think I got your point about too much death of Jesus and not enough "imitation" of how Jesus lived.

Was that not the essence of it?

Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

Okay ToO, I read it again today.

I strongly disagree.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. [b]What Martin Luther in his reformation, failed to realize ...[text shortened]... rkegaard, The Journals

Why is the above so obvious to some Christians and not others?

So sad, without Paul we would not understand how the Jewish religious observances and types related to the Christian anti types. Its no surprise that your commentator failed to recognise this and made the most absurd and ludicrous of assertions on the basis of failing to do so. Even to this very day, many are so utterly engrossed in the Christian Greek scriptures they are spiritually myopic, having little inkling on how the Hebrew scriptures relate to the Greek, sniffing paintings which are meant to be looked at and harbouring an inability to put the constituent parts together so as to form a whole.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Was John to beloved by Jesus for them?

Moonbus, if you are reading this by any chance: people who PRETEND to be morons, would not make such obvious spelling mistakes?
(refer the "DNA thread).

Or is this the "I know that you know that I know" trick?

You've got me sleuthing now!

😀

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. [b]What Martin Luther in his reformation, failed to realize ...[text shortened]... rkegaard, The Journals

Why is the above so obvious to some Christians and not others?

To which Christians is this obvious?

Originally posted by sonship

How so? Kierkegaard was hardly the only Christian to draw that conclusion. Look at the quote from Thomas Jefferson in my response to D64.

The comment above was enough to leave me disappointed. Upon thinking on it, I think at best he has misdiagnosed a problem with mainstream Christianity of his day.

He might fault some Christians fo ...[text shortened]... eath of Jesus and not enough "imitation" of how Jesus lived.

Was that not the essence of it?

The comment above was enough to leave me disappointed. Upon thinking on it, I think at best he has misdiagnosed a problem with mainstream Christianity of his day.

Kierkegaard makes it pretty clear that His issue is with the teachings of Paul.

But just taking your quotation, which I can see why you would be fond of his opinion there, it is misdirected critical blame not at all fairly laid at the feet of the Apostle Paul.

How so?


Now I fear that I may have been better to review your post which I did not this morning. So you can help me if I misread you again. I am going by memory and I think I got your point about too much death of Jesus and not enough "imitation" of how Jesus lived.

Was that not the essence of it?

No idea of what you're talking about here.

Originally posted by divegeester
To which Christians is this obvious?

Kierkegaard for one. Jefferson for another. What are you looking for here?

Originally posted by sonship

Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away ...[text shortened]... l proclamation of Christ"

Okay ToO, I read it again today.

I strongly disagree.

Can you explain exactly what you disagree with and why?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Can you explain exactly what you disagree with and why?

Okay. Maybe tomorrow morning. And I will speak not only from theology but from my personal experience.

I have experienced living through Jesus.

Given the repeated emphasis that Jesus made about keeping HIS word, following HIS commandments, etc. that He shared while He walked the Earth, a reasonable case can be made for dispensing with all but - for those who choose to follow Jesus.

Now if I ask you whether or not you believe His word concerning His redemptive death and resurrection, what will be your response ?

In the past you seemed to labor that the resurrection was not important. At least your personal belief in it you argued was beside the point.

Now you tell me that "HIS word" is alone important and following HIS commandments alone is important. If you are going to argue that Christ's words and Christ's commandments involving the matter of His resurrection can be dispensed with, that's ridiculous. Worse yet, it is an antichrist teaching.

You message amounts then to:

1.) Teaching people not to believe in Christ's resurrection.

2.) Or teaching people that it is not important what you believe about Christ's resurrection.

3.) Imitating Jesus out of your own natural effort - self improvement, self reform, thinking "What Would Jesus Do?" and attempting to be a copycat.


This is a subtle kind of opposition to the work of Christ. I would compare it to refusing to eat the pieces of the loaves and fish that Jesus commanded His disciples to distribute. Your attitude might be when they came to distribute the food -

"No thanks. I will only take this food directly from your Master. I do not recognize any delegated service or authority of you disciples. Jesus I like. All the disciples and apostles cannot be trusted. They only messed up all the teachings of their Master."

It sounds good. But what I sense it conceals is disdain for all the words of Jesus cloaked in a facade of complaint against His disciples. It is the "Jesus of MY CHOOSING" that you have self confidence you can work out from the strength of your own goodness. I doubt that Christ's redemption is needed. Grace is not needed either outwardly or inwardly.

In other words Christ's redemptive atonement is not needed.
And Christ's resurrection, let alone His ascension and enthronement as Lord, is not needed. So His indwelling as the Holy Spirit is none existing and not needed.

The oldest New Testament writings we have are the letters of Paul. Though historically the Gospel records happened prior to Paul's ministry, the writings of Paul are older documents.

Paul presents what HE RECEIVED and PASSED ON in the book which even critical scholars attribute to Paul, First Corinthians.

The resurrection of Christ is vital in his summary of the doctrine he received:

"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;

And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;

Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; And last of all He appeared to me also, as it were to one born prematurely. For I am least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Cor. 15:3-9)

This is possibly the oldest evidence written of what the early Christian apostles believed and taught. You may not believe it. But this is at least what they believed.

Any kind of attitude of: "Go home now and act like Jesus. Imitate Jesus. Think what He commanded and go do it. Muster up some good old self effort and self improvement and be good Christian people IRREGARDLESS of Christ's redemptive death and resurrection" is not the Gospel the first apostles taught nor what they record Jesus teaching.

Paul emphatically says that if there was no resurrection of Christ the entire Christian faith is FINISHED. Game over. It is irrelevant, all of it, if Jesus did not rise from the dead. And in that case Christians are to be pitied as the most duped fools on the earth.

"But if Christ is proclaimed that He has been raised from the dead, how is it that some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised.

And if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is vain; your faith is vain also.

And also we are found to be false witnesses of God because we have testified concerning God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if indeed the dead are not raised ...

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

IF it is only that we have hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most miserable." (See First Cor. 15:12-19)

If no resurrection of Christ, then any "Christian" teaching stating "Go away now and pretend to be Jesus, imitating Jesus, so-called keeping His commands, apart from His grace, apart from His presence, apart from Christ being in you" is vain. It is unrepresentative of the New Testament.

While you may regard such a "Gospel" of "another Jesus" as useful in putting a few humanistic band-aids on a corrupted society to maybe halt the downward decline into ultimate Noah like ruination, it accomplishes nothing for the kingdom of God. [Edited]

" ... if Christ has not been raised, your faith is FUTILE; you are still in your sins. " (v.17a)

I don't take that to mean merely "You are still unforgiven." I take it to mean in addition to that that we are still under the power of sin so as not to be able to overcome and live victoriously above it.

Ie. " ... your faith is futile; you are still [living] in your sins."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. [b]What Martin Luther in his reformation, failed to realize ...[text shortened]... rkegaard, The Journals

Why is the above so obvious to some Christians and not others?

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense:

It is the case that the New Testament is about the availability of a Lord and Savior Jesus who rose and is alive and can be known today. But because His finished work is so effective for us looking to Him includes reviewing the work that He did. And that work was in the past.

So the Christian has the available Spirit of Jesus Christ today to live today and His accomplished and finished work done so effectively in the past to continually review and believe.

Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple.

The task is only imitation in so far as He lives today within those who receive Him. He indwells them. He is in a form in which He can blend and mingle with the people all over the world in all times after His resurrection.

We have to know what He did in terms of finished accomplishment in order to understand the moving of the Holy Spirit within us. We are not use to living in this way. We are use to just living in the self.

The disciple of Jesus must learn to live a life mingled and intertwined with the living and available Person of Christ who has dispensed Himself as "life giving Spirit" into one's innermost being.

Just looking at the past without moving in Him is dead religion.
Yet having the Holy Spirit but being ignorant of His finished work, His attainments, and His obtained victories as recorded in the Gospels, is dangerous. For we can be deceived unless we line up His moving within us with His life and work as He lived upon the earth.

But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner.

If you check Paul's mentioning of the cross or of Christ's death, I would bet that usually they talk about termination rather than redemption.

He is crucified with Christ - that is termination
He has died with Christ - again termination.
He is buried with Christ - again termination rather than redemption.

His mention of the cross of Jesus is probably more often about denying the self rather than the blood shed on the cross.

Paul's talk about the cross in First Corinthians is more focused on termination of the natural life than the bloody sacrifice of His cross.

I do not mean for a moment to suggest Paul did not teach about the blood atonement of Christ's redemptive death. I mean that if one would check with a concordance his usage of the word "cross" or "death" I wager that more passages relate to denying" the soul life in favor of following Jesus.

It is crucial to realize that any self denying of the old man is based upon a revelation that we HAVE been crucified with Christ. So to look to the past of His being crucified is unavoidable.

In the exact same way I exercise faith that I was washed from guilt in the blood of His cross, I also exercise faith that I have been buried and raised with Him.

Faith in my co-death and termination with Christ's death is no different from faith in the blood of the cross for redemption. Both are a matter of His finished work. We have to look to what He did. We have to be reminded of what He did.

And we have to remind Satan of what He did. For ever the human tendency is to look at ourselves, what we have, what we think we can do, and our resources. The believer has to look away to Jesus. And in the Gospels we are much aided to look away to Jesus.

Having said that most of the Pauline talk about the cross is about DYING with Christ rather than forgiveness, probably most of the Christian HYMNS which mention the cross of Jesus, emphasize the atoning blood sacrifice. In this regard I could sympathize with the critic somewhat. I mean most mainstream Christianity thinks of the death far more as a matter of His shed blood for redemption. The cross in most Christian hymns is the equivalent of the Old Testament altar.

That cannot be blamed upon the Apostle Paul. It can be blamed upon the fact that the majority of Christians think of Christ's mention to be primarily a matter of being forgiven and washed from sins.

A minority appreciate a deeper aspect that we are forgiven and terminated to live a new life in His resurrection presence.

Emphatically, that is NOT Paul's fault. The book of Romans does not stop at chapter 4. It goes on for another 12 chapters.

Chapters 6,7,8 for sure are focused on dying with Christ to live with Christ. Justification by faith and cleaning from sin in the blood of Jesus are well dealt with in the earlier chapters. PAUL, mind you, spends considerable explanation on having the old way of living terminated that the believe could "walk in newness of life".

I only refer to Romans here because it is so basic of his teaching.

What Martin Luther in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul.

He didn't "fail to realize" what is merely Kierkegaard's opinion and false accusation. He didn't "fail to realize" the invention of Soren Kierkegaard that Paul corrupted the Gospel message.

And that is all the time I have this morning. I must leave much unwritten for the moment.

Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

No. Paul did not teach "another Jesus" the way Soren Kierkegaard wanted to teach.

But I will have to argue with Soren latter.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Kierkegaard for one. Jefferson for another. What are you looking for here?

You asked "why is it obvious to some Christians and not to others"

I have never met a Christian who would find it obvious or who agree with them. What's "obvious" to them is so because it supports their opinion of the subject.