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.
Comments