Jesus-Centric Christianity

The Oral Tradition in the First Congregations

A little know fact among most church-goers today: the Gospels as we know them didn't come into written existence for at least 40 years after the resurrection.

Seriously.  How can that be?

Is it really true the congregation at Rome (and all the other first century Christians) had no Gospel?  How could a group of people follow a man, even to the point of death, without knowing about Him?

The simplicity of the earliest congregations was part of His genius.   

When Paul or any other Apostle went to a new area to proclaim the resurrection and teachings of Jesus they went there with a certain body of knowledge.  That body of knowledge was carried - verbatim - in their minds and in their hearts.  It was memorized.

The Hebrews used Holy Oral Tradition to pass on the teachings of their great rabbis.  This had been done for centuries before Jesus... and they continued this practice for a short time after Jesus, too.  The deeds and teachings of the great rabbis were stored not on paper, not written, but on people's minds and hearts.  This was simple genius.  The rabbis forbade the writing of their words because if they were written on paper they wouldn't be adhered to easily.  For the lessons to be effective, they mustn't be on a piece of paper somewhere in the learner's home but stored in their heart.  We've forgotten this great wisdom. 

But the first century Christians hadn't forgot this great way.  The Apostle would go to a certain area and proclaim the resurrection.  And to those who believed, the Apostle would then began to give them, orally only, the pertinent deeds and teachings of this Great Risen Rabbi.  And they charged them with the memorization of same.  Along with the words and deeds were lessons - some quite advanced - that were given only to the more mature among the believers.  These lessons had come from Jesus, Himself. 

And so it went.  In the first congregations they were memorizing the words and deeds of Jesus and living them out in their own lives and communities. 

I charge you with thinking on this.  How would this change your community?  What if your church was interested only in mimicking Jesus, person by person, in your community? and nothing else? No politics, no building funds, no great worship productions, etc.  What if they stopped spending 98% of their budgets on themselves and starting turning that money into the community?  What if Christians stopped spending their energies simply on what goes on at church and started helping single mothers and others who needed the help?  This is what the earliest believers were doing.

The first congregations were simple.  Memorizing Jesus and living Him.  Bible studies weren't important.  Jesus studies were.  The Oral Tradition of Jesus WAS the First Century Church.

I find this could be quite revolutionary if anyone really cared.

Next post: So what exactly was this Oral Tradition?

 

Church or Congregation?

Today we might use these terms interchangeably.  But that would be a mistake.

Many of you already know what I think about our modern-day churches.  Not a fan.  I won't delve off into that too deeply right now. 

Over the first few hundred years of early Christianity, the organization known as the Church was born; it morphed and then evolved eventually into what we have today.  It wasn't what Jesus had set forth and it wasn't what the disciples wanted either.  It became an organization focused on itself rather than an informal gathering about the Resurrected Rabbi. 

In the earliest days, the members of a loosely formed congregation were responsible for doing the work.  A gathering of Christians was called a body.  Many today use that term to mean just a group of believers and nothing more.  But the term body had a very important meaning. 

Jesus spent His days teaching the disciples to do what He was doing.  This is the essence of a true rabbi/disciple relationship.  And when He left He charged them to continue doing what He had been doing.  It was as simple as that. 

A congregation was called a body because it was meant to be His body doing what He had previously been doing.  In other words, the believers, who sometimes congregated in a certain area or place, were mimmicking Jesus in their communities; in their everyday lives.  By doing this, they were allowing Jesus to do what He had been doing even after He was gone.  His BODY was at work.  Make sense?

Now I don't mean to say that there wasn't any informal organization to these congregations.  But the individuals who were believers understood their primary goal/job was to continue to work as His body, doing exactly what He had done.  There were Elders (who were disciples) who taught and at times disciplined.  But it wasn't a group of people worried about by-laws, budgets, parking, child care, worship formats, salaries and all that.  They were not an organization.

As the early church grew they began to formally organize.  They began to own land and property.  They used their communal funds to hire pastors and other clergy to minister.  It was a more 'efficient' way to do the work of Jesus.  They became lazy.  But what actually happened was the ministry of Jesus became crippled.  People were abdicating their responsibility to these paid clergy.  And the paid clergy?  They were there to get paid (commentary for today). 

Without even a simple question, people today project back onto the gathering at Rome (and other congregations) our method of how we currently do church; most believe the earliest churches operated as we now do. It was no coincidence that Christianity flourished in the first and second centuries.  Why?  They were NOT doing business as we do today.  They were focused on the person of Jesus and we're shackled today by an organization and it's self-serving/preserving mindset.

For the church (large and small) today, the first step would be to lose this massive organization and return to being simple congregations; congregations of people mimmicking Jesus in our communities.

The first Christians were simple people learning what Jesus had done (through the Oral Tradition and the disciples) and then doing their best to do just that.  Jesus' body was truly at work. 

Next post:  The Oral Tradition in the First Congregations

 

Restarting The Blog

Over the last few weeks I've received several requests to restart my three Typepad blogs.  So I shall.

As I've gone back and looked at the previous posts I've also come up with a direction for the next few months.  We'll start with a picture of what the First Century Church looked like.  I'll do my best to make one post per week.  Since there are three blogs it may be more like every ten days. 

From there we'll get into looking at what it was like to be a follower, on a personal basis, for those earliest (and most successful) Christians.  Along the way we'll also see what that would look like today.

I'm glad to be back. 

A note to pastors and teachers...

5  While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"

6  When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.

7  And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up, and do not be afraid."

8  And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

Matthew 17:5-8 (NAS)

I'm increasingly unwilling to condone actions that communicate that Christianity should be focused anywhere but Jesus Himself alone.  Now you men and women who have the weighty responsibility to teach will all agree with me in word, but how about in deed?

When you teach, is it from His teachings?  We have four major Gospels (which Westerners simply think are biographies) and I know that many of you treat them as such.  But embedded within the four most important books in the Bible are the treasure of wisdom that passes all other treasures; the true and precious teachings of the One that God the Father told Peter, James, and John to LISTEN to: yes, above Moses and above the Prophets, Elijah being their representative in this passage.

Okay, maybe you think you know and teach His perfect lessons, and that you have become a follower of Jesus.  Really? 

What did it mean to become a disciple (follower) of Jesus then?  It didn't mean one simply followed Him around and tried to learn whatever he could.  It didn't mean revering Him so that they simply worshipped Him as they traveled.  It didn't mean one followed Him as He taught pop-psychology 'life-lessons' about being married and about how to manage their money, ETC.  It didn't mean that when He had gone that they were privileged and elevated by simply having known Him. 

When a first-century disciple followed their Master, their Rabbi, they were doing so with a single-minded purpose.  They were there to learn by heart and then perform their Master's yoke - which was a group of very specific teachings - and eventually to pass on these +specific teachings+ to others.

The disciples of Jesus were priviliged and elevated after His departure because they were in possession of, and charged with dispension of, His treasure, the +specific teachings+ of the Great Rabbi, Jesus.

Most Christians sadly believe that the disciples simply learned 'life lessons' from Jesus.  And today many model their "discipleship" after this ill-informed idea, which is usually called mentoring.  The mentor's lack of knowing, memorizing, and living the +specific teachings+ of Jesus is the reason why many think that this form of discipleship is okay.  A first century Hebrew would have thought this pure nonsense - utter bullshit (skubala, Philippians 3:8).

Don't miss this point: If you are not teaching Jesus' +specific teachings+ then you are not discipling them according to the Great Commission.  Read the GC again and understand the command, '...teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.'  If you are trying to 'disciple' people from Paul (remember, Paul doesn't write of Jesus' specific teachings or actions), or if you are trying to teach them how to live to the best of your ability, even with ordinary Christian principles, you are not discipling people to Jesus.  You are discipling them to Paul or yourself.   

Do you KNOW, pastors and teachers, the +specific teachings+ of Jesus by heart? each and every one of them?  Are you consciously living them out daily?  Are they your focus?  By the way, you cannot LIVE them unless you KNOW them.  Having them referenced in your Bible will not translate into personal, physical action.  Mark that down.  Are they worked into EVERY lesson or sermon, or better yet, are they the centerpiece of each?   

Yes, Paul had some good things to say, but remember, as we've seen and learned before, the Apostle to the Gentiles doesn't even mention the earthly actions and teachings of Jesus the Great Rabbi within his letters (not denigrating Paul here.  See the previous series of posts, The Truth About Paul to understand why).

What if Paul had been there with Moses, Elijah, and Jesus, too?  Would God have said "Listen to my Son and Paul?"

The way most teachers operate today, one might think that The Father surely would've said, "Listen to Paul and My Son."

But I remain completely convinced that had Paul been there as well, we still would be reading this verse as it was originally written by Matthew:

And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

P.S. The tone of this blog is about to turn positive (although I'm not giving up my right to rant every now and again).  What does it mean to be Jesus-Centric?

 

Who should we be listening to?

1  Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves.

2  And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.

3  And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.

4  Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."

5  While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"

6  When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.

7  And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up, and do not be afraid."

8  And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

Matthew 17:1-8 (NAS)

The Problem with (our view of) the Bible

One thing that has bothered me for a while - and I know some of you think I'm really bothered - is that Christians view the books of the Bible as all equal.  And what I mean is really that most Christians see any study as being a good study.  Now I won't argue too long with that.  I do think it's all in some way profitable.  But...

There are sixty-six books and thousands of pages in the ordinary Bible.  That's a lot of territory to cover.  And the problem I have is we've continuously neglected the most important books within the whole.  Those of you who've been following my blogs will undoubtedly know which books I believe are the pinnacle and worthy of 90% of our time and effort.  They are the Gospels, of course.

I believe that most Christians believe like I do.  The whole of Scripture points to the coming of the Messiah.  In that Person, all is fulfilled, all is revealed.

But most people's Bible study is like an astronomer looking out into space.  Myriad of constellations keep him from settling on a single place to observe.  He sees a lot of stars but KNOWS none of them.

If Elijah were here.  If Ezekiel were here.  If Jeremiah and Noah and Moses were here.  They would - I believe - understand the Torah in a whole new way.  They would see their writings and their work as a foreshadowing of that which was to come.  Jesus is His name.  And if they were to have an opportunity to read about Him in the Gospels, they would throw rocks at the OT and at Paul, too.  Understanding that the OT leads us to the climax of the story, even to the whole of the story, allows us to see the Gospels for what they are.  They are the PINNACLE of the Bible.  Everything leads us to Jesus and His words and deeds, which reveal to us the Father.  But we are content with Paul and Psalms and Isaiah.  I simply am not.  The Revelation has come and His name is ...

Now maybe they wouldn't throw rocks.  But because they are from a different perspective and a more right one, I believe they would concentrate their existences - each and every one of them - on the Christ, the Messiah, the Prophesied One.   

Why is it that people prefer the Psalms to the Gospels?  Why do they insist on Paul over the Gospels?  And don't give me that 'all Scripture is profitable'.  Jesus has come and if you've seen/known Him, then you've seen the Father. 

I want to see the Father.    

A Few Final Thoughts on Paul

Did the first century churches see Paul's letters the way we see them?  Did they conduct their primary teaching from his letters as our pastors do today? 

If so, then where and how did the earliest Christians learn about Jesus?  How did they come to know Him and His ways; come to know Him as Savior AND Lord?  How could they have become disciples of His, seeing that it took an intimate and thorough knowledge of His deeds, words, and teachings to do so? Paul simply does not write about the details of Jesus' earthly ministry.  And remember, there weren't no such animal as a New Testament for the earliest Christians to fall back on. So then, how did they know about the head of their religion, Jesus?  I implore you; do not pass over these questions without some level of meditation.

And if they utilized Paul's letters as their primary teaching, then they must have ignored the teachings of Jesus.  How could this be?  I'll tell you how.  They didn't.

I'm convinced that if Paul could speak to us today, he'd say to the pastors and teachers, "Cease at once from using my letters as your primary teaching".  I believe he weeps even today over this.  Jesus, His words and deeds, was Paul's primary teaching, only it wasn't in written form.  It was in verbal form, transmitted in person, face to face, planted there as the cornerstone, the focal point, and prize possession, at the inception of each congregation, consisting of the Jesus Tradition, or that which now resides in/makes up the Gospel forms, passed on in accordance with the rules of Holy Oral Tradition.

But our pastors and teachers are content to teach Paul's letters as though they are the highest form of Scripture.  They simply are not and I firmly believe that those in the earliest Pauline churches would wholeheartedly agree with me.  The Gospels, which contain the revelation of God the Father through Jesus the Son, that which the righteous and wise men LONGED to see and hear but didn't, is found not in Paul's letters, but in the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the OT and all the covenants.  The pinnacle of all Scripture is Jesus Christ, Himself.

Why did Paul refuse to mention the words, deeds and teachings of Jesus in his epistles? 

Because he'd already delivered the highest teaching to them in person, the Holy Oral Tradition regarding Jesus Christ (again, the rules re: Holy Oral Tradition forbade it's written form).  His letters were merely supplemental (I didn't say unimportant).

The earliest churches knew the tradition, focused on the tradition (and not on Paul's letters), lived out the tradition, and changed the world.

We need to change our perspective as well.  Paul's letters are fine.  They are good and useful to a smaller degree, much smaller than the Gospels of Jesus Christ.  I'm only saying what I firmly believe Paul would say if he were with us today. 

Paul-centric Christianity cannot change the world.  Jesus-centric Christianity has already proven it can.   

The Truth about Paul, part 4

To rightly understand Paul and his letters, we must identify with the audience to which he wrote. 

I contend that Paul did teach his new congregations about the Rabbi Jesus (he obviously knew perfectly the Jesus Tradition, or otherwise the leaders at Jerusalem would have never bestowed upon him the title of Apostle).  I believe with my whole heart that he also did this through the convention of the Hebrews known as Holy Oral Tradition, which meant he taught them in person and by word of mouth only.  I find I cannot explain otherwise the fact that Paul refuses to mention Jesus' words and deeds in his letters (again, Holy Oral Tradition was forbidden to be written down).  It's not as though he mentions Jesus' words and deeds infrequently in his letters.  It's not as though he uses them rarely within his correspondences.  He simply makes no mention at all of his Master's earthly words, deeds, or teachings within the letters he wrote to his churches. 

Even still, I'm convinced that Paul taught the early congregants in each city about Jesus, and this seminal teaching regarding the Resurrected Rabbi - not Paul's later letters - were at the core of their faith. 

Yes, the earliest Gentile churches were focused on Jesus the Resurrected Rabbi.  They were focused on memorizing, understanding, and living out the stories and teachings that eventually made up the Gospels.  So at the heart of the earliest churches - the ones that received Paul's letters (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.) - the congregants were constantly learning about and meditating on the teachings of Jesus the Rabbi.  There were no other distractions, such as other books of the NT.  There weren't countless books on 'Having Your Best Life Now" (what a load of crap).  There weren't mortgages on massive buildings and so much other BS.  There was Jesus the Rabbi and the Holy Oral (Jesus) Tradition that was passed from person to person.  Paul's letters - which pastors and teachers currently treat as primary texts - were secondary (subordinant) to the Jesus Tradition within the earliest churches.   

As time went on, obviously, Paul needed to write letters of clarification on such intellectual subjects as sanctification, justification, and other such topics.  He, at times needed to admonish, sometimes to scold, sometimes to encourage and sometimes to settle debates.  But when he needed to reinforce the Rabbi's specific teaching he did it in person, or sent Timothy to remind them face to face (in keeping with Holy Oral Tradition).  Paul's letters were not seen by those first Christians as primary texts.  The Jesus Tradition was their penultimate and primary 'text'.

We too should see Paul's letters as subordinant yet garner from them whatever they might yield.  But even moreso we must realize that a teaching that preceded and superseded these letters was given to the earliest churches regarding the Savior, the Rabbi Jesus.  This teaching was the Jesus Tradition; a group of memory texts that now make up the Gospels.  The teaching regarding the Master had to be the foundation of their faith and therefore, their congregations.  Otherwise are we to assume that all they knew about Christianity was what was in Paul's Jesus-free letters?  Surely not. 

Indeed, the earliest churches were focused on the Person of Jesus and His teachings regarding the kingdom of heaven. 

Likewise, the Jesus Tradition (the Gospels) should be our focus, not Paul's letters.  Return, O Bride to the Resurrected Rabbi, Yeshua.   

The Truth about Paul, part 3

The earliest Christians were the most successful in history.  We need to understand why. 

Holy Oral Tradition played a huge (read primary) part in the practice of their faith.  Memory texts - the ones that make up the entirety of the Gospels - were how the earliest Christians knew their Resurrected Rabbi, the focus of their faith. 

The earliest Christians had no New Testament.  They didn't have the letters of Paul or even the Gospels.  They didn't have other writings from other apostles, either.  But instead, they collected in their memories the stories about, and teachings of, Jesus, handed down person to person by word of mouth.  Don't let this fact escape your understanding.  It's of utmost importance.

Now, not all of the earliest Christians knew how to interpret each of the teachings or sayings.  Not all believers even had access to all of the stories.  But within each vignette of the Jesus Tradition, there were layers of meaning and understanding that had to be learned in a discipleship manner, that is, being taught the meanings by one who had been taught by one who had been taught by an original apostle (we can find many instances in the Early Church where the references of teachers were checked.  Those who learned wanted to make sure that the teacher's origin could be directly traced back to one of the original disciples, thus insuring an uncorrupted transmission of the original teachings).  But rest assured, the earliest Christians knew by memory many of the stories and teachings of Jesus.  This, even though these memory texts weren't written down.

Back now to Paul.  Our modern teachers and pastors and theologians teach Paul's letters as though they were the basis and foundation of the early churches faith.  Today, sermon series come from Romans and Corinthians and Galatians, etc.  Our leaders believe these letters to be primary texts.  They teach them as primary texts.  But I don't believe that the early churches would have seen them that way.  One clue is these 'hallowed' letters don't mention, recall, or recount the earthly deeds and sayings and teachings of the One they called Lord.  Their focus - Paul and the churches both - was on Jesus, not on the letters that Paul wrote.  Paul encourages them in their faith and clarifies too, so we can accept his letters likewise.  But they were not the primary texts for their faith, as some of our modern leaders have made them out to be.

Why Paul's Letters Should Not be Viewed as Primary Texts 

The fact that Paul refused to mention Jesus' words and deeds in his letters is a mystery to most.  I would also say that most have never even realized that Paul consciously avoided writing about Jesus in his epistles.  Strange for sure.  But the question of why merits our most careful thought and examination, especially if we still choose to see Paul's letters as the highest Scripture available to us as Christians. 

Some theologians have promoted the idea that Paul neglected Jesus because he wanted to form his own sort of religion, relegating the Messiah to figure-head only status.  Paul could then mold the religion to his own liking while ignoring the teachings of Jesus.  But this seems rather ludicrous when we read of his undying love for his Savior within the pages of his letters AND his willingness to suffer great hardship and even death because of his faith in the Resurrected Rabbi.  The more likely truth is that the words and deeds of Jesus were first seen as Holy Oral Tradition.  Again, in Hebrew culture, Holy Oral Tradition was meant to be memorized and expressly forbidden to be written down, passed along only by word of mouth.  This would account not only for Paul refusing to include these things in his written work, as well as for the bafflingly long period between the Resurrection and the appearance of the First Gospel. 

What if Paul transmitted the Holy Oral Tradition regarding Jesus to the leaders of each church at its inception?  This seems most likely considering the combination of these facts:

1.  Paul refuses to mention the words and deeds of Jesus in any of his letters

2.  The rules governing Holy Oral Tradition forbade its written form

3.  Holy Oral Tradition was only to be passed on 'by the mouth'

4.  Holy Oral Tradition often contained stories and teachings of Sages and Rabbis

5.  If we assume Paul was not a charlatan intent on hijacking a new religions, then we must also believe he - as the founder of many early Christian churches - taught them about the person and teachings of Rabbi Jesus.  But again, he doesn't do that in his letters

When I first learned about how the Hebrews viewed the Holy Oral Tradition (from Sages and Rabbis) and that they considered it too holy to be written down, I was appalled by what I perceived as their arrogance.  The written Word was much more holy than their opinions, I thought.  But here's how the ancient Hebrews defined the difference between the Written and Oral Traditions:

The Law (The Written) is like a father who tells his children what to do.  The little one, still immature, may not even understand the command or how to fulfill it.  The Oral Tradition then, is like the child's mother (she's more mature and knows the father well) who explains what the father meant and the best way to go about obeying.  Holy Oral Tradition was meant to help the initiate live by the Law, or by The Way.  Memorizing kept it on the mind and heart and tongue.  Simply brilliant and quite effective.  If one was to pass it on, then they had to know it by heart.

The Ancient Hebrews wisely prohibited the writing down of the Tradition for a very specific reason.  It wasn't because there was a shortage of paper.  It wasn't because most people didn't know how to read and/or write.  It was because the Rabbis knew the enormous pratfall caused by relegating that which was intended to be written on the heart into books. 

We've downloaded Jesus from our minds and hearts and tongues into lifeless books. 

So how should we then see the Pauline letters, the letters that make up the bulk of the New Testament?

To be continued.   

The Truth about Paul, part 2

Ever heard of Holy Oral Tradition?

The Hebrews had just such a convention.  And I believe it's one of the missing links in our study of the earliest Christianity.

In Jewish antiquity, memory played a large part in their religious life.  Stories were memorized and as such, were kept at the forefront of their minds and lives.  The treasured vignettes provided patterns to follow or patterns to avoid.  It was a tradition of memory and speech, perscribing right attitude and action, anchored in their hearts and poised on the tips of their tongues.

Today, we've downloaded our memories into books and computers.  We don't need to memorize anything anymore.  We have blackberries and palm pilots and cell phones freeing our minds to better ambitions, like trying to remember where the stylus or ear bud was left.  We don't need to memorize what Jesus said either, cause we have it several times in the different Bibles we have at home.  If I want to know what He said, I can just go and look it up.  Yes, we're more advanced than ever.

Since the first Christians didn't have 5 Bibles for every believer, or even one for that matter, how did they know about Jesus, His words and His deeds? 

Most all theologians agree that the first Gospel written (whichever it might've been) wasn't written for many, many years (20-45 years) after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.  Now does that make any sense to you?  I mean, the disciples who wrote Canonical Gospels, Matthew and John, could've written, should've written their accounts immediately and had them publised by Zondervan.  What kinda book deal could they've gotten?  And what a disservice they committed by neglecting to write those things down immediately for those who wanted to read/know about Jesus? 

Enter the Holy Oral Tradition.  The stories of Jesus and His miracles and deeds were known from the beginning.  They were remembered and their wording crafted so as to be easily memorized by His disciples and later committed to memory by others who followed.  They were stylized and repeated with precision.  For many years the mythical Q was in existence.  Only it was in the minds of countless Christians.  The fact that these short quips and stories found their way into the Gospels, albeit in very similar forms, testifies that these were memory texts.  That's one reason why there are small variances from one Gospel to another. 

So why didn't they write these things down immediately?  Simply enough, it was against the practice of the Hebrews to convey Holy Oral Tradition in writing.  For years and years the Jesus Tradition was passed from person to person, from memory to memory, living in the minds and hearts of His followers as Holy Oral Tradition.  They didn't need a WWJD bracelet.  They had His words and deeds emblazoned on their hearts.   They knew exactly what He'd do because His words and deeds had invaded their minds.   

Today, Jesus is not the central focus of most churches.  When I say most, I mean over 95%.  And I believe it's even closer to 100%.  Jesus has been relegated primarily to a figure-head status.  Why aren't His words and deeds focused on each and every week?  Why aren't people fixated upon Him alone?  Why haven't they memorized His words and deeds?  He is God's Wisdom revealed.  He is what the wise men and the righteous had longed to see and His teachings hear, but they did neither. 

You think I've forgotten about Paul. 

I believe - with my whole heart - that today, Paul would be sorely disappointed in the way we use his letters.  Our pastors and teachers and theologians prefer his letters to the pericopes of Jesus.  But this was not the way it was in the First Century.

Paul, when he started a church, went to a specific city.  He spent much time wherever a church was started.  And I'm convinced it was then and there that Paul delivered the Foundation, which was the Jesus Tradition, to them in person.  It was Holy and it was Oral and it was the Basis, the Centerpiece, on which they believed. 

To be continued.