Kierkegaard on Paul's Influence on Christianity

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Regardless of Kierkegaard"s preference, he should have preferred to accept the apostle Paul's teachings on the gospel of Christ.

-Removed-

I have never met a Christian who would find it obvious or who agree with them.

Your experience seems a natural result of what Kierkegaard was saying.

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"

As such, the vast majority of Christians have been indoctrinated in the "degenerate" form of Christianity of which Kierkegaard spoke.

What's "obvious" to them is so because it supports their opinion of the subject.

Do you really think that they drew their conclusions prior to observing the evidence? You really need to think about what you're saying here.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I suppose that there are any number ways of carving up that particular pie.

Evidently Jefferson considered himself a Christian and states his reasoning here:

1816 January 9.  (Jefferson to Charles Thomson).  "I too have made a wee little book, from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. a more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what it’s Author never said nor saw.[ they have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognise one feature. if I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side, and I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gassendi’s Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics, and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagancies of his rival sects."

Pasted from <http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs>

The following link might also be of interest to you:

Of all the American founders, Thomas Jefferson is most closely associated with deism, the Enlightenment faith in a rational, law-governed world created by a “supreme architect” or cosmic “clockmaker.” For many modern Americans, deist and “Christian” are antonyms, juxtaposing prideful reason—the apotheosis of man—and a humble faith in an all-powerful, triune Godhead. But the terminology is misleading and the opposition false.

Pasted from <https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/age-jefferson-and-madisonreligion/essays/thomas-jefferson-and-deism>

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Seems like you've missed his point. The key is in the following:
"The one prays in truth to God though he worships an idol; the other prays
falsely to the true God, and hence worships in fact an idol."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I have never met a Christian who would find it obvious or who agree with them.

Your experience seems a natural result of what Kierkegaard was saying.
[quote]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 Pa ...[text shortened]... lusions prior to observing the evidence? You really need to think about what you're saying here.[/b]

As sonship has pointed out, if you are going to throw the teachings of the apostle Paul out then you will have to throw out the teachings of John too. These two are obviously in agreement as to who Jesus is. It is not clear who wrote Hebrews, but you need to throw that out too. The Acts of the apostles looks suspect too, especially the preaching by Peter.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems like you've missed his point. The key is in the following:
"The one prays in truth to God though he worships an idol; the other prays
falsely to the true God, and hence worships in fact an idol."

Perhaps Soren was considering Luke 18:9-14 about the two men praying, ( a Pharisee and a tax collector).

Originally posted by CalJust
[b]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![/b]

One thinks faster than one can type, haste leads to typing errors, and few people proof-read these days. The phenomenon is common in emails as well as forum posts. Modern men of letters have become slovenly compared to, say, Samuel Johnson's or Samuel Coleridge's time. It's a slap-dash world we've made for ourselves, and I am not exempt.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems like you've missed his point. The key is in the following:
"The one prays in truth to God though he worships an idol; the other prays
falsely to the true God, and hence worships in fact an idol."

What do you mean by praying falsely? Is that praying for material things?

Originally posted by moonbus
One thinks faster than one can type, haste leads to typing errors, and few people proof-read these days. The phenomenon is common in emails as well as forum posts. Modern men of letters have become slovenly compared to, say, Samuel Johnson's or Samuel Coleridge's time. It's a slap-dash world we've made for ourselves, and I am not exempt.

I believe his point is that I am too convincing of a moron to be pretending.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe his point is that I am too convincing of a moron to be pretending.

Oh, you're convinced, all right. Of what, we're not convinced.

Originally posted by sonship

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 resurrect ...[text shortened]... it.

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

C'mon jaywill. Instead of addressing the germane point of my post, you went off on a tangent, made things up in your mind and addressed your own thoughts. As such, I'm not going to address much of what you've written here.

Now you tell me that "HIS word" is alone important and following HIS commandments alone is important.

Actually what I'm telling you is that while He walked the Earth, JESUS repeatedly emphasized that HIS followers must keep HIS word, follow HIS commandments, etc.

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...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.


This is exactly what Kierkegaard was talking about in the following:

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"

While He walked the Earth:
Jesus spoke at length on what is and is not righteous.

Jesus spoke at length on what is required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

Jesus repeatedly emphasized that HIS followers must keep HIS word, follow HIS commandments, continue in HIS word, etc.

Jesus seemed to believe that HIS words contained all that is required for one to have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

As Kierkegaard pointed out, Christianity lost its way beginning with Paul.

Originally posted by sonship

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

It is the case that the New Testament is about the [b]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 i ...[text shortened]... s" the way Soren Kierkegaard wanted to teach.

But I will have to argue with Soren latter.[/b]

What's particularly telling here is how much the teachings of Paul influence your beliefs as opposed to the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth even though Jesus emphasized following HIS word.