Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
I think it is clear that the NT is the foundation of the church (the rock the church is built on is the revelation of Jesus Christ).
So I assume when you use the term "Christianity" in this post it is referring not to the church but to the "poor, poor christianity" of this thread.
Therefore they are both based on the NT, the difference is that Christianity is based very much on the interpretation of these verses by particular Christian teachers whereas the church does not suffer such a limitation.
For example, Witness Lee greatly limited the way in which the NT could be understood, interpreted and even what the members of the LRC could read, write and say.
|
My point was simply that the New Testament writings we have are from hellenists who were of the educated class of that era.
It's possible that the fact that Paul was educated gave him an advantage over the 12 apostles who weren't. The gospels were written anonymously so we don't actually know if Matthew or John wrote the gospels that are attributed to them. Likewise the Epistles of James Peter and John.
But, even if they did write those documents, what about Andrew, Phillip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Simon the zealot, or late comer, Matthias? Despite the fact that Jesus chose all but Matthias to disseminate his teaching we have nothing from them. Jesus appointed them. Where are their teachings?
Paul didn't know the pre Resurrection Jesus. He conveys little of Jesus's pre Resurrection teaching in his letters. And Paul also dominates the story in Acts. Since his Epistles came before the gospels were written Paul's brand of Hellenism may have influenced them as well.
In 2nd Corinthians 5 Paul says "...from now on we regard no one according to the flesh even though we have known Christ according to the flesh yet now we know him thus no longer." Was Paul suppressing the teachings of those who actually knew Jesus before the resurrection in favor his own Hellenistic gospel? If so, he succeeded.
It was the Pauline vision that prevailed and was used to build the church. In his epistle to the Galatians Paul questions the authority of James Peter and John calling them "reputed pillars". He boasts that he opposed Peter to his face because Peter disagreed with him about eating kosher food.
If the Galatians were to accept Paul's teaching over that of Peter and the other apostles then Paul would would be the dominant authority to them. This in fact seems what transpired among the churches eventually. The Hellenists prevailed. Those that didn't accept it came to be called Judaizers when in fact they may have simply been adhering to the practices of Judaism like Jesus did as the Book of Matthew presents him. What do you think?