This is brilliant! Paul made Christianity a mental exercise, a Theology. Jesus presented a Way of living and loving. I have been stuck very much in Paul’s mental constructs, thinking I have arrived, while actually doing very little Jesus living for Father and others. Jesus rejected being anyone’s king, choosing instead to be everyone’s servant, helper, and friend. Choosing to ride to his certain death in Jerusalem on the back of the foul of a donkey, humble and lowly speaks volumes. Up is down, down is up.
I appreciate your desire to live more like Jesus, but I think you’ve accepted a false contrast between Jesus and Paul. Paul didn’t reduce Christianity to ideas he repeatedly calls believers to lives of sacrificial love, humility, forgiveness, generosity, and holiness. Likewise, Jesus didn’t present only “a way of living.” He continually asked people to believe specific truths about who He was: the Messiah, the Son of God, the One who forgives sins, the Lord of the Kingdom. Finally, Jesus didn’t reject being King. He rejected a political kingdom on the world’s terms. Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey wasn’t a denial of kingship it was the deliberate fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, announcing Himself as Israel’s promised King. The New Testament presents Jesus as both the humble Servant and the reigning King. Paul didn’t invent that; he proclaimed it.
Fair points, mostly. But to say there's no difference is also disingenuous, and it's highly doubtful that the historical Jesus would have known what all these people would claim after his death. Funnily enough, this seems easier for Catholics to believe than Protestants, as a Catholic would say yes—that's what we need the church and tradition for!
I think we’ve finally uncovered our fundamental disagreement, and I appreciate you stating it so clearly. You write that it’s “highly doubtful” Jesus would have known what people would claim after His death. But that conclusion only follows if we’ve already decided Jesus was merely a human teacher. That’s precisely what’s under debate. The Gospels repeatedly present Jesus predicting His death and resurrection, foretelling Peter’s denial, the destruction of the Temple, the worldwide spread of the gospel, and the coming persecution of His followers. Whether one believes those accounts is another question, but it’s difficult to argue that the New Testament’s Jesus was unaware of what His followers would later proclaim. Likewise, I don’t think Paul invented claims about Jesus that would have shocked Him. Jesus forgave sins, accepted worship, called Himself the Son of Man from Daniel 7, declared Himself Lord of the Sabbath, claimed unique authority over judgment, and identified Himself with the divine name (“Before Abraham was, I AM”). The apostles didn’t suddenly elevate a merely human rabbi into something He never claimed to be. They spent decades explaining the significance of the claims He already made. I agree that Catholics and Protestants differ on the role of tradition. But both traditions agree on something far more fundamental. The apostles faithfully handed on Christ’s teaching rather than replacing it with their own religion.
So for me, the question isn’t whether later Christians developed doctrine they certainly did. The question is whether those developments faithfully unfolded what Jesus revealed or fundamentally changed it. I don’t see evidence for the latter.
It took me years to realize that Paul was writing letters to particular groups of followers/churches, and that he might be slapping his forehead today and saying, “Hey!!! This isn’t scripture—it’s LETTERS to a particular group of people.”
You're absolutely right Cynthia!! Also, I find it odd that people try to piece together Paul's theology, claiming he had special insight, but we only have a tiny insight into what he thought...
Agreed. I believe Paul did what he could with his experience and his background as a Pharisee. I blame the later church MEN for using his writing rather than the gospels’ descriptions of Jesus to form The Church. And I came to this very late. I swallowed it all for decades.
Thank you for sharing your journey. I don’t doubt that you’ve arrived at these conclusions honestly. The question I keep coming back to is this: if the later church fundamentally misunderstood Paul and elevated him above Jesus, why don’t we see the apostles correcting that trajectory while they were still alive? Peter doesn’t merely acknowledge Paul’s letters he places them among “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). Luke devotes much of Acts to Paul’s ministry. James, Peter, and John extend Paul “the right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). Even the disagreement at Antioch was over Peter’s conduct, not Paul’s gospel. I also think it’s worth asking whether Paul is really as different from Jesus as he’s often portrayed. Jesus preached repentance, faith, the Kingdom, His sacrificial death, the new covenant, and His resurrection. Paul preached repentance, faith, the Kingdom, Christ crucified, the new covenant, and the resurrection. Paul certainly develops those themes, but development isn’t the same as contradiction. Finally, if we set aside Paul because he interpreted Jesus through the lens of his encounter with the risen Christ, on what basis do we retain the authority of the Gospels themselves? Matthew, John, Mark (through Peter), and Luke all wrote decades after the resurrection, interpreting Jesus’ life in light of Easter. None of them are simply stenographers recording raw history; they’re theological witnesses. If theological interpretation disqualifies Paul, it becomes difficult to see why it wouldn’t also disqualify the Gospels.
It’s certainly true that Paul’s letters were written to real churches facing real issues. That’s one reason they’re so rich they’re rooted in history rather than abstract philosophy. But I don’t see why that means they cannot also be Scripture. Nearly every biblical book has an original audience and historical context. Isaiah preached to Judah, Jeremiah wrote during the exile, Amos addressed Israel, and Revelation was sent to seven specific churches. We don’t conclude those writings are “just letters” or “just sermons.” More importantly, the New Testament itself doesn’t make that distinction. Peter refers to Paul’s letters alongside “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15–16), and Paul instructed his letters to be read publicly and circulated among multiple churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Understanding the original audience helps us interpret Paul’s letters correctly. It doesn’t diminish their authority. In fact, recognizing the context is part of taking Scripture seriously.
I didn't say we shouldn't take them as scripture. But the Church fathers made Paul's letters more important than Jesus' life, his emphasis on how to live Kingdom lives by serving each other and helping those who are at the bottom. Paul's words--I believe--were elevated beyond what Paul ever intended, leaving Jesus as little more than the payment for our sins.
I appreciate the clarification. I certainly agree that some modern Christians can emphasize systematic theology while neglecting Jesus’ ethical teaching. That’s a legitimate concern. Where I hesitate is the historical claim that the Church Fathers elevated Paul above Jesus. When I read Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, or Irenaeus, I don’t see them treating Paul as correcting Jesus or replacing Him. I see them treating Paul as explaining the significance of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. I also don’t think Paul would recognize the contrast being drawn. His letters are filled with exhortations to serve, forgive, love enemies, bear one another’s burdens, care for the poor, practice hospitality, and imitate Christ’s humility. Those aren’t distractions from Jesus’ teaching they’re applications of it. Perhaps the issue isn’t Paul, but the tendency of some Christians to separate what the New Testament keeps together. Jesus didn’t only teach us how to live; He also taught who He was and why He came. Paul didn’t replace that message he proclaimed it to the Gentile world.
This is a great discussion, and you both are making excellent points!! The only thing I would add is that Thomas, you seem to be the very model of a good, thinking Christian, where most people aren't ever afforded the time or opportunity to read Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarpe—let alone know who they are. I paid $100k in student loans to get the privilege lol
Well I am older than you imagine and am a voracious reader. This is my faith. Why would I not want to understand it as fully as possible? The ruthless elimination of hurry does wonders with one's time.
If Paul distorted Jesus’ message, why didn’t Peter, John, James, or the other apostles ever publicly correct him? Instead, they recognized his ministry, extended him fellowship (Galatians 2), and Peter even refers to Paul’s writings alongside “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15–16). That historical reality is difficult to reconcile with the idea that Paul eclipsed Jesus.
Peter in 2 Peter 3:16 credits Paul but says some of his work is difficult and misconstrued. As I read looking for that verse I saw the imminent coming of Jesus emphasized also. There is a lot going on in the early church. Jesus’ return was huge until people began to die off without seeing it. I will bow out here. I find that what I know of God—not what I know about God from scripture ( which is often puzzling)—has me focused on Jesus more than any other person/prophet/epistle-writer, and Andrew’s writing seems to do the same. The back and forth, for me, is new and uplifting. Thank you.
Thank you for the thoughtful exchange. I’ve genuinely appreciated your willingness to engage respectfully. I think your last comment actually highlights where we differ most. You wrote that you’re guided by “what I know of God not what I know about God from Scripture.” For me, those two ultimately have to remain connected. If my understanding of God begins to outweigh His own self-revelation, how do I know I’m following God rather than the version of Him that feels most compelling to me? I agree that 2 Peter acknowledges Paul’s letters can be difficult. What’s striking, though, is that Peter doesn’t question Paul’s authority—he warns that people distort Paul’s writings “as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). That’s an affirmation, not a caution against Paul himself. You’re also right that the early church lived with an eager expectation of Christ’s return. But even as they wrestled with delayed expectations, the apostles didn’t distance themselves from one another’s teaching. They continued to present a unified witness to Christ. Like you, I want my focus to be Jesus. The difference is that I don’t believe I can separate Jesus from the apostles He chose to bear authoritative witness to Him. If I trust Jesus, I have good reason to trust the men He entrusted with proclaiming and explaining His gospel. Thank you again for the conversation. Even where we remain unconvinced by one another, I’ve appreciated the respectful dialogue.
Andrew, I appreciate the clarity of your thesis because it lays the disagreement on the table instead of hiding it. You argue there are two religions: The religion of Jesus. The religion about Jesus. The problem is that this distinction depends on separating Jesus from the very people He commissioned to explain Him. That separation is never demonstrated it is simply assumed. Your argument hinges on the modern “historical Jesus” project, but that project is not a settled conclusion of scholarship. It is a methodology built upon methodological naturalism. If miracles, resurrection, prophecy, and divine inspiration are excluded from the outset, then of course the resulting Jesus becomes merely an ethical Jewish teacher. The conclusion is built into the method. You write that the Gospels are “propaganda.” Every ancient biography has a point of view. That does not make it propaganda in the pejorative sense or render it historically unreliable. Luke explicitly states that he investigated eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1–4). Paul reminds the Corinthians that the risen Christ appeared to hundreds of witnesses, many of whom were still alive (1 Corinthians 15:3–8). Those are invitations to verification, not the language of myth making. The greatest difficulty, however, is your treatment of Paul. You write that Paul “totally disregards Jesus’s ethical teachings.” That simply isn’t true. Romans 12 echoes the Sermon on the Mount.“Bless those who persecute you.” “Repay no one evil for evil.” “If your enemy is hungry, feed him.” Galatians speaks of bearing one another’s burdens. Philippians commands believers to imitate Christ’s humility. Ephesians repeatedly calls Christians to forgiveness, love, and self-sacrifice. Paul’s ethical teaching is saturated with the life and teaching of Jesus. Likewise, your claim that Paul replaced obedience with mere belief creates a false dichotomy. Paul writes that “the only thing that counts is faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). He speaks of “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5). He insists that those who practice unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9–11; Galatians 5:19–21). That is hardly “say a few words and live however you like.” You also make Paul into a lone innovator. Yet Paul himself tells us he received the gospel he preached (1 Corinthians 15:3). In Galatians 2 he meets with Peter, James, and John, who extend him “the right hand of fellowship.” If Paul’s gospel truly represented a different religion, why do the apostles recognize him rather than condemn him? Your explanation that Rome later enforced Paul’s version comes centuries too late to explain first-century evidence. The earliest Christian writings we possess after the New Testament Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, and others already proclaim Christ’s divinity, resurrection, atoning death, and lordship. These men lived long before Constantine. That historical fact matters. Finally, I think you’ve created another false choice. Believe in Jesus or follow Jesus. The New Testament refuses that distinction. Jesus Himself says: “Repent and believe the gospel.”He asks not merely to be imitated but believed. He forgives sins. He claims authority over the Sabbath. He accepts worship. He identifies Himself with the divine name (“Before Abraham was, I AM”). The same Jesus who commands us to love our enemies also asks, “Who do you say that I am?” The apostles did not invent that question. They answered it. The irony is that your essay ultimately asks readers to trust a reconstructed Jesus created by twenty-first-century historical criticism over the testimony of the first-century men who lived with Him, heard Him teach, watched Him die, claimed to have seen Him alive again and died rather than deny those truths. You call that recovering “the religion of Jesus.” I would suggest it is creating a third religion altogether one that retains Jesus’ ethics while discarding His identity. The earliest Christians never saw those as separable. Neither, I think, did Jesus Himself.
As always, Thomas, I appreciate you detailed and thoughtful argument. I'd like to rebut some of them (as time limits me from replying to everything). You make a good point about ignoring those Jesus "commissioned" to explain him. But I'd argue that if our goal is to understand the historical Jesus, we are only interested in what they have to say as it likely relates to what he actually said and did. And more importantly—so much of theology we have *about* him came from someone who *wasn't* commissioned by the historical Jesus—Paul. Paul claims to have had a vision or revelation, and you are welcome to believe that. But that claim doesn't definitively link Paul's theology to the historical Jesus's, especially knowing that Paul was often at very heated odds with the very people you (rightly) point out that got the commission (the Jerusalem Conference, the incident with Peter).
Also, I'd argue that we are limiting—not excluding—our evidence. This is how many devout Christians participate in historical Jesus scholarship. We simply say that there are lines to what history can theoretically prove (allowing of course that our understanding is an evolving scale, not a binary), and that things we know to be scientifically impossible (or improbable) should be left out of the question of history and kept in the realm of faith. It doesn't say *no that never happened*, it says *we can't prove it so let's set it aside.*
I'd also argue that this doesn't reduce Jesus down to just an ethical teacher. History proves that people believed he had these powers—and that he was viewed as a spiritual teacher and healer as well. It just says, again, that history can't prove that, so the individual is left to make their own judgement... which is the point of faith, right? If we had all the proof in the world, it wouldn't require faith?
And yes, I think everything is propaganda! This essay is propaganda. Your comments are propaganda. In my book—and I am no expert—not all propaganda is bad. But let's understand what it is instead of insisting that everything is an objective report on truth. Again, glad you're here to keep this dialogue going.
What matters to me here is the difference between a faith that protects an identity and a faith that transforms a life. The nafs loves a religion about holy words, correct labels, and guarded boundaries, because it can feel righteous without becoming merciful.
The nafs is an Islamic term for the self or ego. It’s the part of us that can crave control, praise, certainty, and the pleasure of feeling righteous. The Qur’an speaks about the nafs in different conditions, and much of the spiritual life in Islam involves purifying and training it so that it serves God rather than ruling us.
A great article. The religion of Jesus reflects basic humanity. It is one that sits comfortably with my world view as a humanist, and with that of other systems that are based around doing, not believing. The corruption of the message of Jesus by the "about" faith has done immeasurable damage to the world and its people over time, and continues to do so. As you say, there are many in the "about" camp who are very nice people. It is also the "about" camp that is/was behind the slaughter, dispossession, and disenfranchisement of millions of people.
This piece raises a necessary question: Has our faith transformed the way we live, or has it simply given us another label to wear?
For me, believing in Jesus and following Jesus were never meant to be separated. If we speak His name but ignore the hungry, reject the outsider, defend oppression, chase power, and withhold mercy, then our words have traveled farther than our walk. Jesus did not come merely to be admired—He demonstrated a life of radical love, humility, forgiveness, courage, and service.
People may disagree about Paul, history, doctrine, and theology, but the central challenge remains: the fruit reveals the tree. Faith is not only found in what we profess inside a church. It is revealed in how we treat people when there is nothing to gain, how we respond to suffering, and whether we choose compassion over control.
Truth without love can become a weapon, and love without truth can avoid accountability. Jesus carried both perfectly. I do not want only to speak about Him. I want the way I live to show that I have been walking with Him. Powerful and thought-provoking, my friend. 🤍🙏✨
You're absolutely right Aaron, and the Christians I love and respect the most carry both—the religion OF and religion ABOUT Jesus in the same hand. Peace be with you!
Well stated, and from my view. it lands exactly on the problem which I have been pointing out for many years. I explains the large disconnect between those who try to follow the teachings of Jesus by showing love and compassion to all, and serving the poor and disadvantaged, against the country-club religion of those who are jest seeking the "get out of hell free" card. The mission, as Jesus taught us, was to construct the "Kingdom of God" on earth. not wait for Peter to let you past the velvet rope once you die.
Well written. You’ve explained exactly what has been going on inside my brain and my flip flopping from being involved in religion versus being a Christ-follower for years. I don’t need nor want to be involved in organizations that know some specific things about Jesus that get used or quoted for hatred. I don’t even want to be involved in churches where the people engage as a way to strike their own egos. I want to be with people who walk the walk as I continue the walk.
Yes. Thank you for this. And then is the Mystic Christ Path another stream of knowing Yeshuah? As he also came to heighten the consciousness, to teach that this "God" and awareness are one? That God as love is everywhere at once, that reincarnation lives, (Before Abraham " I AM"), that he is not the only son of God, but that the Aramaic term "son" means offspring? That all creation is the offspring of the One Source? Meaning all is equal, all is one. How would you describe this, gnostic? Or coming from the gospel of St. Thomas and the other forgotten gospels? Elaine Pagels cast here light on this. Perhaps, in truth, Yeahua did not stop teaching after the resurrection; he just found new prophets, channels, who became his scribes. ACIM, The Way of Mastery, Choose Only Love, etc, etc. Its a broad swath. There is no separation. Amen.
Hi Eliza - I'm actually not very familiar with the Mystic Christ Path, so I don't think I can answer your question. I will say that what I'm trying to do is to help illuminate the difference between the historical Jesus and the later Christian interpretation of him. The Mystic Christ Path, in the light research I've done, seems to be more of a later, more modern interpretation. From my light research, it seems to be a blend of many different philosophies. That doesn't make it bad or wrong. Sorry I can't be of more help!
Are we talking about the Paul who wrote that all that we do should be done in love? Are we talking about the Paul who raised funds to take care of the poor? Are we talking about the Paul who said that we were intended to do good works? I think that you try to create a separation between Paul and Jesus which doesn't exist.
There’s a huge separation between Jesus and Paul. There are quite a few scholars and regular people alike who don’t buy the idea that Paul proffers that any of us are not bound by Jewish law. Paul’s assertion that belief in the blood sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus is all one must proclaim in order to be a Christian is totally suspect. Since when are we not ruled by the notion of loving our neighbors as ourselves? Since when are we not ruled by the commandments if sharing our food and resources with immigrants and the marginalized? Since Paul?
Paul is a self aggrandized man whose letters were included in the later cuts of the Bible for the way they instruct on a social order that does not benefit mankind equally and benefits womankind even less.
Nope. Paul isn’t the one to be listening to, creating his own version of something he can’t even claim firsthand knowledge of.
This is brilliant! Paul made Christianity a mental exercise, a Theology. Jesus presented a Way of living and loving. I have been stuck very much in Paul’s mental constructs, thinking I have arrived, while actually doing very little Jesus living for Father and others. Jesus rejected being anyone’s king, choosing instead to be everyone’s servant, helper, and friend. Choosing to ride to his certain death in Jerusalem on the back of the foul of a donkey, humble and lowly speaks volumes. Up is down, down is up.
I appreciate your desire to live more like Jesus, but I think you’ve accepted a false contrast between Jesus and Paul. Paul didn’t reduce Christianity to ideas he repeatedly calls believers to lives of sacrificial love, humility, forgiveness, generosity, and holiness. Likewise, Jesus didn’t present only “a way of living.” He continually asked people to believe specific truths about who He was: the Messiah, the Son of God, the One who forgives sins, the Lord of the Kingdom. Finally, Jesus didn’t reject being King. He rejected a political kingdom on the world’s terms. Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey wasn’t a denial of kingship it was the deliberate fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, announcing Himself as Israel’s promised King. The New Testament presents Jesus as both the humble Servant and the reigning King. Paul didn’t invent that; he proclaimed it.
Fair points, mostly. But to say there's no difference is also disingenuous, and it's highly doubtful that the historical Jesus would have known what all these people would claim after his death. Funnily enough, this seems easier for Catholics to believe than Protestants, as a Catholic would say yes—that's what we need the church and tradition for!
I think we’ve finally uncovered our fundamental disagreement, and I appreciate you stating it so clearly. You write that it’s “highly doubtful” Jesus would have known what people would claim after His death. But that conclusion only follows if we’ve already decided Jesus was merely a human teacher. That’s precisely what’s under debate. The Gospels repeatedly present Jesus predicting His death and resurrection, foretelling Peter’s denial, the destruction of the Temple, the worldwide spread of the gospel, and the coming persecution of His followers. Whether one believes those accounts is another question, but it’s difficult to argue that the New Testament’s Jesus was unaware of what His followers would later proclaim. Likewise, I don’t think Paul invented claims about Jesus that would have shocked Him. Jesus forgave sins, accepted worship, called Himself the Son of Man from Daniel 7, declared Himself Lord of the Sabbath, claimed unique authority over judgment, and identified Himself with the divine name (“Before Abraham was, I AM”). The apostles didn’t suddenly elevate a merely human rabbi into something He never claimed to be. They spent decades explaining the significance of the claims He already made. I agree that Catholics and Protestants differ on the role of tradition. But both traditions agree on something far more fundamental. The apostles faithfully handed on Christ’s teaching rather than replacing it with their own religion.
So for me, the question isn’t whether later Christians developed doctrine they certainly did. The question is whether those developments faithfully unfolded what Jesus revealed or fundamentally changed it. I don’t see evidence for the latter.
Thank you Lenny! I too was stuck for a long time in the religion about Jesus. Glad you're here and making it out!
I was skewered by some ladies when I mentioned that Paul is not my guide to the Bible or Christianity. Thank you for telling this today.
Thank you for reading! Hope all is well. Don't let them get you down.
And some of "Paul's" letters were not actually written by Paul anyway
Yup, I wrote about that here: https://jesusmovement.substack.com/p/what-paul-actually-wroteand-what
It took me years to realize that Paul was writing letters to particular groups of followers/churches, and that he might be slapping his forehead today and saying, “Hey!!! This isn’t scripture—it’s LETTERS to a particular group of people.”
You're absolutely right Cynthia!! Also, I find it odd that people try to piece together Paul's theology, claiming he had special insight, but we only have a tiny insight into what he thought...
Agreed. I believe Paul did what he could with his experience and his background as a Pharisee. I blame the later church MEN for using his writing rather than the gospels’ descriptions of Jesus to form The Church. And I came to this very late. I swallowed it all for decades.
Thanks, as always.
Thank you for sharing your journey. I don’t doubt that you’ve arrived at these conclusions honestly. The question I keep coming back to is this: if the later church fundamentally misunderstood Paul and elevated him above Jesus, why don’t we see the apostles correcting that trajectory while they were still alive? Peter doesn’t merely acknowledge Paul’s letters he places them among “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). Luke devotes much of Acts to Paul’s ministry. James, Peter, and John extend Paul “the right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). Even the disagreement at Antioch was over Peter’s conduct, not Paul’s gospel. I also think it’s worth asking whether Paul is really as different from Jesus as he’s often portrayed. Jesus preached repentance, faith, the Kingdom, His sacrificial death, the new covenant, and His resurrection. Paul preached repentance, faith, the Kingdom, Christ crucified, the new covenant, and the resurrection. Paul certainly develops those themes, but development isn’t the same as contradiction. Finally, if we set aside Paul because he interpreted Jesus through the lens of his encounter with the risen Christ, on what basis do we retain the authority of the Gospels themselves? Matthew, John, Mark (through Peter), and Luke all wrote decades after the resurrection, interpreting Jesus’ life in light of Easter. None of them are simply stenographers recording raw history; they’re theological witnesses. If theological interpretation disqualifies Paul, it becomes difficult to see why it wouldn’t also disqualify the Gospels.
It’s certainly true that Paul’s letters were written to real churches facing real issues. That’s one reason they’re so rich they’re rooted in history rather than abstract philosophy. But I don’t see why that means they cannot also be Scripture. Nearly every biblical book has an original audience and historical context. Isaiah preached to Judah, Jeremiah wrote during the exile, Amos addressed Israel, and Revelation was sent to seven specific churches. We don’t conclude those writings are “just letters” or “just sermons.” More importantly, the New Testament itself doesn’t make that distinction. Peter refers to Paul’s letters alongside “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15–16), and Paul instructed his letters to be read publicly and circulated among multiple churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Understanding the original audience helps us interpret Paul’s letters correctly. It doesn’t diminish their authority. In fact, recognizing the context is part of taking Scripture seriously.
I didn't say we shouldn't take them as scripture. But the Church fathers made Paul's letters more important than Jesus' life, his emphasis on how to live Kingdom lives by serving each other and helping those who are at the bottom. Paul's words--I believe--were elevated beyond what Paul ever intended, leaving Jesus as little more than the payment for our sins.
I appreciate the clarification. I certainly agree that some modern Christians can emphasize systematic theology while neglecting Jesus’ ethical teaching. That’s a legitimate concern. Where I hesitate is the historical claim that the Church Fathers elevated Paul above Jesus. When I read Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, or Irenaeus, I don’t see them treating Paul as correcting Jesus or replacing Him. I see them treating Paul as explaining the significance of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. I also don’t think Paul would recognize the contrast being drawn. His letters are filled with exhortations to serve, forgive, love enemies, bear one another’s burdens, care for the poor, practice hospitality, and imitate Christ’s humility. Those aren’t distractions from Jesus’ teaching they’re applications of it. Perhaps the issue isn’t Paul, but the tendency of some Christians to separate what the New Testament keeps together. Jesus didn’t only teach us how to live; He also taught who He was and why He came. Paul didn’t replace that message he proclaimed it to the Gentile world.
This is a great discussion, and you both are making excellent points!! The only thing I would add is that Thomas, you seem to be the very model of a good, thinking Christian, where most people aren't ever afforded the time or opportunity to read Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarpe—let alone know who they are. I paid $100k in student loans to get the privilege lol
Well I am older than you imagine and am a voracious reader. This is my faith. Why would I not want to understand it as fully as possible? The ruthless elimination of hurry does wonders with one's time.
If Paul distorted Jesus’ message, why didn’t Peter, John, James, or the other apostles ever publicly correct him? Instead, they recognized his ministry, extended him fellowship (Galatians 2), and Peter even refers to Paul’s writings alongside “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15–16). That historical reality is difficult to reconcile with the idea that Paul eclipsed Jesus.
Peter in 2 Peter 3:16 credits Paul but says some of his work is difficult and misconstrued. As I read looking for that verse I saw the imminent coming of Jesus emphasized also. There is a lot going on in the early church. Jesus’ return was huge until people began to die off without seeing it. I will bow out here. I find that what I know of God—not what I know about God from scripture ( which is often puzzling)—has me focused on Jesus more than any other person/prophet/epistle-writer, and Andrew’s writing seems to do the same. The back and forth, for me, is new and uplifting. Thank you.
Thank you for the thoughtful exchange. I’ve genuinely appreciated your willingness to engage respectfully. I think your last comment actually highlights where we differ most. You wrote that you’re guided by “what I know of God not what I know about God from Scripture.” For me, those two ultimately have to remain connected. If my understanding of God begins to outweigh His own self-revelation, how do I know I’m following God rather than the version of Him that feels most compelling to me? I agree that 2 Peter acknowledges Paul’s letters can be difficult. What’s striking, though, is that Peter doesn’t question Paul’s authority—he warns that people distort Paul’s writings “as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). That’s an affirmation, not a caution against Paul himself. You’re also right that the early church lived with an eager expectation of Christ’s return. But even as they wrestled with delayed expectations, the apostles didn’t distance themselves from one another’s teaching. They continued to present a unified witness to Christ. Like you, I want my focus to be Jesus. The difference is that I don’t believe I can separate Jesus from the apostles He chose to bear authoritative witness to Him. If I trust Jesus, I have good reason to trust the men He entrusted with proclaiming and explaining His gospel. Thank you again for the conversation. Even where we remain unconvinced by one another, I’ve appreciated the respectful dialogue.
Andrew, I appreciate the clarity of your thesis because it lays the disagreement on the table instead of hiding it. You argue there are two religions: The religion of Jesus. The religion about Jesus. The problem is that this distinction depends on separating Jesus from the very people He commissioned to explain Him. That separation is never demonstrated it is simply assumed. Your argument hinges on the modern “historical Jesus” project, but that project is not a settled conclusion of scholarship. It is a methodology built upon methodological naturalism. If miracles, resurrection, prophecy, and divine inspiration are excluded from the outset, then of course the resulting Jesus becomes merely an ethical Jewish teacher. The conclusion is built into the method. You write that the Gospels are “propaganda.” Every ancient biography has a point of view. That does not make it propaganda in the pejorative sense or render it historically unreliable. Luke explicitly states that he investigated eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1–4). Paul reminds the Corinthians that the risen Christ appeared to hundreds of witnesses, many of whom were still alive (1 Corinthians 15:3–8). Those are invitations to verification, not the language of myth making. The greatest difficulty, however, is your treatment of Paul. You write that Paul “totally disregards Jesus’s ethical teachings.” That simply isn’t true. Romans 12 echoes the Sermon on the Mount.“Bless those who persecute you.” “Repay no one evil for evil.” “If your enemy is hungry, feed him.” Galatians speaks of bearing one another’s burdens. Philippians commands believers to imitate Christ’s humility. Ephesians repeatedly calls Christians to forgiveness, love, and self-sacrifice. Paul’s ethical teaching is saturated with the life and teaching of Jesus. Likewise, your claim that Paul replaced obedience with mere belief creates a false dichotomy. Paul writes that “the only thing that counts is faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). He speaks of “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5). He insists that those who practice unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9–11; Galatians 5:19–21). That is hardly “say a few words and live however you like.” You also make Paul into a lone innovator. Yet Paul himself tells us he received the gospel he preached (1 Corinthians 15:3). In Galatians 2 he meets with Peter, James, and John, who extend him “the right hand of fellowship.” If Paul’s gospel truly represented a different religion, why do the apostles recognize him rather than condemn him? Your explanation that Rome later enforced Paul’s version comes centuries too late to explain first-century evidence. The earliest Christian writings we possess after the New Testament Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, and others already proclaim Christ’s divinity, resurrection, atoning death, and lordship. These men lived long before Constantine. That historical fact matters. Finally, I think you’ve created another false choice. Believe in Jesus or follow Jesus. The New Testament refuses that distinction. Jesus Himself says: “Repent and believe the gospel.”He asks not merely to be imitated but believed. He forgives sins. He claims authority over the Sabbath. He accepts worship. He identifies Himself with the divine name (“Before Abraham was, I AM”). The same Jesus who commands us to love our enemies also asks, “Who do you say that I am?” The apostles did not invent that question. They answered it. The irony is that your essay ultimately asks readers to trust a reconstructed Jesus created by twenty-first-century historical criticism over the testimony of the first-century men who lived with Him, heard Him teach, watched Him die, claimed to have seen Him alive again and died rather than deny those truths. You call that recovering “the religion of Jesus.” I would suggest it is creating a third religion altogether one that retains Jesus’ ethics while discarding His identity. The earliest Christians never saw those as separable. Neither, I think, did Jesus Himself.
As always, Thomas, I appreciate you detailed and thoughtful argument. I'd like to rebut some of them (as time limits me from replying to everything). You make a good point about ignoring those Jesus "commissioned" to explain him. But I'd argue that if our goal is to understand the historical Jesus, we are only interested in what they have to say as it likely relates to what he actually said and did. And more importantly—so much of theology we have *about* him came from someone who *wasn't* commissioned by the historical Jesus—Paul. Paul claims to have had a vision or revelation, and you are welcome to believe that. But that claim doesn't definitively link Paul's theology to the historical Jesus's, especially knowing that Paul was often at very heated odds with the very people you (rightly) point out that got the commission (the Jerusalem Conference, the incident with Peter).
Also, I'd argue that we are limiting—not excluding—our evidence. This is how many devout Christians participate in historical Jesus scholarship. We simply say that there are lines to what history can theoretically prove (allowing of course that our understanding is an evolving scale, not a binary), and that things we know to be scientifically impossible (or improbable) should be left out of the question of history and kept in the realm of faith. It doesn't say *no that never happened*, it says *we can't prove it so let's set it aside.*
I'd also argue that this doesn't reduce Jesus down to just an ethical teacher. History proves that people believed he had these powers—and that he was viewed as a spiritual teacher and healer as well. It just says, again, that history can't prove that, so the individual is left to make their own judgement... which is the point of faith, right? If we had all the proof in the world, it wouldn't require faith?
And yes, I think everything is propaganda! This essay is propaganda. Your comments are propaganda. In my book—and I am no expert—not all propaganda is bad. But let's understand what it is instead of insisting that everything is an objective report on truth. Again, glad you're here to keep this dialogue going.
Really interesting the repetitive cycles the human has had- with the directive through loving your neighbor- you love yourself.
What's old is new!
What matters to me here is the difference between a faith that protects an identity and a faith that transforms a life. The nafs loves a religion about holy words, correct labels, and guarded boundaries, because it can feel righteous without becoming merciful.
Offf Aleks - in for the win! Couldn't agree more. What's a naf?
The nafs is an Islamic term for the self or ego. It’s the part of us that can crave control, praise, certainty, and the pleasure of feeling righteous. The Qur’an speaks about the nafs in different conditions, and much of the spiritual life in Islam involves purifying and training it so that it serves God rather than ruling us.
Love that. Thank you for sharing!
A great article. The religion of Jesus reflects basic humanity. It is one that sits comfortably with my world view as a humanist, and with that of other systems that are based around doing, not believing. The corruption of the message of Jesus by the "about" faith has done immeasurable damage to the world and its people over time, and continues to do so. As you say, there are many in the "about" camp who are very nice people. It is also the "about" camp that is/was behind the slaughter, dispossession, and disenfranchisement of millions of people.
Thank you for reading!
This piece raises a necessary question: Has our faith transformed the way we live, or has it simply given us another label to wear?
For me, believing in Jesus and following Jesus were never meant to be separated. If we speak His name but ignore the hungry, reject the outsider, defend oppression, chase power, and withhold mercy, then our words have traveled farther than our walk. Jesus did not come merely to be admired—He demonstrated a life of radical love, humility, forgiveness, courage, and service.
People may disagree about Paul, history, doctrine, and theology, but the central challenge remains: the fruit reveals the tree. Faith is not only found in what we profess inside a church. It is revealed in how we treat people when there is nothing to gain, how we respond to suffering, and whether we choose compassion over control.
Truth without love can become a weapon, and love without truth can avoid accountability. Jesus carried both perfectly. I do not want only to speak about Him. I want the way I live to show that I have been walking with Him. Powerful and thought-provoking, my friend. 🤍🙏✨
You're absolutely right Aaron, and the Christians I love and respect the most carry both—the religion OF and religion ABOUT Jesus in the same hand. Peace be with you!
🙏🙏
Well stated, and from my view. it lands exactly on the problem which I have been pointing out for many years. I explains the large disconnect between those who try to follow the teachings of Jesus by showing love and compassion to all, and serving the poor and disadvantaged, against the country-club religion of those who are jest seeking the "get out of hell free" card. The mission, as Jesus taught us, was to construct the "Kingdom of God" on earth. not wait for Peter to let you past the velvet rope once you die.
Thank you, Rev. Brandner!
Excellent as always but I have one suggestion: In ¶4, S3, change "the same guy—" to "two different guys—."
Thanks, Jim
This validated my long-held feelings on Paul. Never liked the guy very much. Big Theo-Bro energy.
Well written. You’ve explained exactly what has been going on inside my brain and my flip flopping from being involved in religion versus being a Christ-follower for years. I don’t need nor want to be involved in organizations that know some specific things about Jesus that get used or quoted for hatred. I don’t even want to be involved in churches where the people engage as a way to strike their own egos. I want to be with people who walk the walk as I continue the walk.
Thanks Lucy, glad you’re here!
Why do you think that one can not believe in and follow Jesus at the same time? Because that is what Roman Catholics - me being one of them - do.
I don't think the two are incompatible—and the Christians I love and respect the most do both.
Thankyou - It seemed as if you wrote that one had to choose BETWEEN them.
Yeah i could have done a better job. Thanks for keeping me honest!
God bless you!
nice footnotes!!!
I love a good footnote lol
Yes. Thank you for this. And then is the Mystic Christ Path another stream of knowing Yeshuah? As he also came to heighten the consciousness, to teach that this "God" and awareness are one? That God as love is everywhere at once, that reincarnation lives, (Before Abraham " I AM"), that he is not the only son of God, but that the Aramaic term "son" means offspring? That all creation is the offspring of the One Source? Meaning all is equal, all is one. How would you describe this, gnostic? Or coming from the gospel of St. Thomas and the other forgotten gospels? Elaine Pagels cast here light on this. Perhaps, in truth, Yeahua did not stop teaching after the resurrection; he just found new prophets, channels, who became his scribes. ACIM, The Way of Mastery, Choose Only Love, etc, etc. Its a broad swath. There is no separation. Amen.
Hi Eliza - I'm actually not very familiar with the Mystic Christ Path, so I don't think I can answer your question. I will say that what I'm trying to do is to help illuminate the difference between the historical Jesus and the later Christian interpretation of him. The Mystic Christ Path, in the light research I've done, seems to be more of a later, more modern interpretation. From my light research, it seems to be a blend of many different philosophies. That doesn't make it bad or wrong. Sorry I can't be of more help!
Are we talking about the Paul who wrote that all that we do should be done in love? Are we talking about the Paul who raised funds to take care of the poor? Are we talking about the Paul who said that we were intended to do good works? I think that you try to create a separation between Paul and Jesus which doesn't exist.
There’s a huge separation between Jesus and Paul. There are quite a few scholars and regular people alike who don’t buy the idea that Paul proffers that any of us are not bound by Jewish law. Paul’s assertion that belief in the blood sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus is all one must proclaim in order to be a Christian is totally suspect. Since when are we not ruled by the notion of loving our neighbors as ourselves? Since when are we not ruled by the commandments if sharing our food and resources with immigrants and the marginalized? Since Paul?
Paul is a self aggrandized man whose letters were included in the later cuts of the Bible for the way they instruct on a social order that does not benefit mankind equally and benefits womankind even less.
Nope. Paul isn’t the one to be listening to, creating his own version of something he can’t even claim firsthand knowledge of.