Is Pauline Christianity a real thing? Did Paul radically alter the teachings of Jesus into some sort of cosmological religion rather than a reformed movement of Judaism?
>>896194
>reformed movement of Judaism
This is exactly what Christianity was before Paul, in fact it doesn't even make sense to call it a new religion. Ideas about kosher, circumcition, and all of that were still in place. The other Gospels are constantly at odds with Paul for making the religion Gentile-friendly. For instance in Mathew Jesus comes not to "fufill" or change Jewish law but to make it more intense. In contrast Paul really tries to abounden the Jewish roots entirly, saying Mosaic law was from angels rather than God and calling it a type of prison.
Paul also emphasized Jesus's death as the central point of his life while the Gospels other than John (the last to be written) do not see it as important. For instance Mathew's Gospel doesn't even mention his resurrection in the origenal version.
>>896441
Don't you mean Mark? Which ends on 16:8 with the women running away in fear and not telling anyone?
>>896451
Yes. I goofed there.
>>896441
I would argue that this might have to do with the Gospels having their own ideas about what they want to do with Christianity to some extent.
For the most part these anonymous Gospel writers (Though I will still be using the names because reasons) can with very few doubts be argued to not be eyewitnesses and generally can be argued to be writing for specific audiences, just like Paul would be writing for his audience and would be conveying his viewpoints on things.
The Gospel of Mark maybe can be argued to be an eyewitness if you ignore that it's probably an adaptation of oral traditions.
The Gospel of Matthew grabs stuff from Mark so is probably not an eyewitness since he could just write down his own account instead (Also adapting for a jewish audience and rather obviously written with the old testament firmly in hand to pull prophecy and quotes from).
The Gospel of Luke is explicitly not an eyewitness and grabs stuff from Mark anyway without crediting that anonymous writer because Mark is popular. Probably also uses the Q document as a source which explains some overlap with Matthew.
The Gospel of John is written long after the events, puts some anachronisms in there, is apparently written in multiple hands and seems more intent on making a theological point than it is in conveying events, so it's probably not an eyewitness account.
And considering that the Gospels in full probably surfaced sometime after the Epistles of Paul came into being (Between 70-100 CE for the Gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) I wouldn't really bank completely on Paul being outright in conflict with all of early Christianity but rather in conflict with several audiences if the argument is based purely on the Gospels.
>>896520
Some of the main arguements Paul was in conflict with
*Is Jesus divine?
*If so what level of divinity is he? Prophet, Angel, God?
*Did he become divine at a certain point (baptisism? death?) or was he always divine?
*What is the role of God's old commandments in the Jewish scripture?
*Are the followers of Jesus Jews or something else?
Paul is not orthodox in all of his views. He doesn't seem to think Jesus was on the same level of divinity as God and he views the followers of Christians as being Jews. I heard some scholars say he supports exaltation theology, that Jesus became divine on the cross.
It is not correct to say he set every dogma however when you compare him to other traditions he is closest to our modern orthodox viewing, with perhaps the Gospel of John. However given how early his teachings one could say he was the one that got the ball rolling with a strong emphasis on disregarding Old Testament law and making the cross the zenith of Jesus's life.
>>896520
New to the thread, but I would argue that Mark is the least likely to be an eyewitness, what with his near constant misquoting of extant laws, customs, proper titles, and geography.
>>896593
Matthew and Luke do take passages from Mark though so I think I would still argue that Mark is more likely to be an eyewitness even if I don't think he is an eyewitness (for pretty much the same reasons you mentioned).
And John simply stretches the belief too far when asked to consider it an accurate eyewitness account so I would still consider Mark the most likely.
>>896441
>Mosaic law was from angels rather than God and calling it a type of prison
