God of the OT vs NT

monosharp

So lads.

Are they one in the same ? Why do Christians follow the NT rules but not the OT rules ?

From having read the Bible the way I understand it is that the god in the OT is very different from the god in the NT. Is that just my own view or do christians feel this way too ?

I'm just curious why some Christians feel the OT is 100% literal truth yet pick and choose which parts to follow, at least it seems to me that its pick and choose.

Why for example do christians not require circumcision ? Why are they allowed to eat shellfish ?

Thanks all.

kumate_champ07

wasnt pork also banned? food from an animal that lives in dirt and has 2 toes/hoofs on each foot, or something like that

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

So lads.

Are they one in the same ? Why do Christians follow the NT rules but not the OT rules ?

From having read the Bible the way I understand it is that the god in the OT is very different from the god in the NT. Is that just my own view or do christians feel this way too ?

I'm just curious why some Christians feel the OT is 100% literal truth yet pick and choose which parts to follow, at least it seems to me that its pick and choose.

Why for example do christians not require circumcision ? Why are they allowed to eat shellfish ?

Thanks all.

Yeah I give this thread about 5 minutes before it is locked. :pac:

monosharp is you are genuinely interested in what Christians believe you should probably leave the assumptions like "yet pick and choose which parts to follow" at the door.

Christians believe that the New Testament has given them guidelines about which part of the Old Testament is to be applied to them, based on the fulfilment of the Old Covenant and the start of the New Covenant. They don't feel they pick and choose. They feel they follow the New Testament which extends upon the Old Testament.

By all means disagree with them, I certainly do, but if you start a thread making claims that no Christian would think they do the thread is just going to be locked.

It would be like a Christian coming to the A&A forum saying Why do atheists reject the existence of God but are happy to believe Satan exists. The response is obviously We don't think Satan exists

Zombrex

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

wasnt pork also banned? food from an animal that lives in dirt and has 2 toes/hoofs on each foot, or something like that

And then unbanned in the New Testament when God said do not be afraid to eat any animal that I have placed before you.

philologos

God is the same. He has a different relationship with us as Christians than He had with the Israelites as Jews. To reflect the circumstances of Christ's saving salvation we are under the New Covenant, meaning that much of the Torah laws have been fulfilled such as animal sacrifice, kosher eating, and punishment by death for sins.

The moral law remains for all Christian men however.

kumate_champ07

Jakkass wrote: »

God is the same. He has a different relationship with us as Christians than He had with the Israelites as Jews. To reflect the circumstances of Christ's saving salvation we are under the New Covenant, meaning that much of the Torah laws have been fulfilled such as animal sacrifice, kosher eating, and punishment by death for sins.

The moral law remains for all Christian men however.

arent all men created equally?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah I give this thread about 5 minutes before it is locked. :pac:

monosharp is you are genuinely interested in what Christians believe you should probably leave the assumptions like "yet pick and choose which parts to follow" at the door.

We will see how this thread develops. From a private discussion, it seems that Monosharp has some genuine questions.

But you are nevertheless correct, WN. Let's see if we can leave the assumptions at the door. You may collect them on the way out.

philologos

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

arent all men created equally?

They are. The difference between the Old and New Covenant is not who is involved, but rather the time and the circumstances.

Jews and Gentiles are all equal, they all have a chance of mercy under the New Covenant.

The moral laws remain the same, the laws referring to rites, ceremonies, and punishments differ.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

So lads.

Are they one in the same ? Why do Christians follow the NT rules but not the OT rules ?

What New Testament rules? The New Testament teaches that the rules given in the Old Testament were impossible to adhere to even by the most devout and upright of men. God could not reckon righteousness to anyone in the Old Testament based on their performance under the law. That is why it was taken out of the way in the work of Christ. In the New Testament as well a the Old God takes people based on their faith - read Hebrews 11. And faith is simply trust. In order to trust some body you must believe that they exist but once you are convinced of that truth then it is pretty straight forward after that. Christianity is a relationship with a person, it is not a set of rules. As soon as you try to be a Christian by trying to be by check boxing a list of rules you have lost the faith connection and are back under bondage to the Old Testament law. Christ came to redeem us from this impossible standard so that He could take us on a different basis - the basis of faith. What most people will be condemned for in the last day is not their performance based on the law, but rather their lack of faith in the One who came and provided a way out from underneath the curse of the law. This is what Christianity is and Jesus is the same today as He was when He came and He never changes. As soon as we depart form this Gospel (Good News) we become heretics.

monosharp wrote: »

From having read the Bible the way I understand it is that the god in the OT is very different from the god in the NT. Is that just my own view or do christians feel this way too ?

Well no, He is the same God, except in the Old Testament He was primarily dealing with one specific people - the Israelites. His attention was on them and nobody else. It was through them that the One who was to bless the whole world would come. When He did come, His own people rejected Him. God sent His apostles to the other nations preaching the message that was first preached to them. These nations heard this news gladly and lived by it becoming the Christian nations we see today even though the actuall good news message of the Gospel is hardly ever preached by the church at large now. What you usually get (and this goes for 99% of Christian denominations) is a message of condemnation for your sins and that you must keep the law (or parts of it) in order to be acceptable to God. HELLO??? Talk about getting off the track.

monosharp wrote: »

I'm just curious why some Christians feel the OT is 100% literal truth yet pick and choose which parts to follow, at least it seems to me that its pick and choose.

The same principles are present in both the Old Testament and the New, that by faith God will reckon you righteous in His sight. If some Christians want to live by the Old Testament standard as revealed in the law then they are free to do so but to preach that as a means for God accepting you is to throw out all that Christ did for us by His death.

monosharp wrote: »

Why for example do christians not require circumcision ?

There was a big hullabaloo about this in the New Testament between Paul and other Christians. Paul said that after receiving Christ as your Lord and Master you do not need to be circumcised. And for a Christian to be circumcised after this fact would mean that Christ was to profit you nothing. Circumcision was part of the Old impossible covenant. So to get yourself circumcised after becoming a Christian is like saying that you need more than Christ in order to be saved. What these people have done is cut themselves off from Christ by trusting in their own performance under the law. That is why Christian don't get circumcised.

PDN

The reason why Christians treat the Old Testament the way we do is for one simple reason - we are Christians, not 'Xians' or Jews.

The Christian position is that Jesus Christ is Himself the Word of God and the fullest revelation of God that we possess. Therefore the teachings of Christ Himself, and the writings of His close companions and followers, inform us how to approach and understand the Old Testament.

This view is summed up succintly in the opening verses of the Book of Hebrews:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. (Henrews 1:1-3)

Once you understand this basic principle, that the New Testament is our primary source of revelation for understanding God, then the answers to monosharp's questions become very simple, logical, and consistent.

monosharp wrote:

Why for example do christians not require circumcision?

Because the New Testament says so.

monosharp wrote:

Why are they allowed to eat shellfish?

Because the New Testament says so.

And the same goes for other questions implied in this thread.

Q: Do Christians belive the Old testament to be 100% true.
A: Yes, because the New Testament says so. We believe the Old Testament accurately records the history, songs, poetry and parables of the Jewish people. We also believe it gives us a record of the ritual and ceremonial rules that the Jews had to obey.

Q: Why are those ritual and ceremonial rules not observed by Christians?
A: Because the New Testament tells us that such rules were preparing the way for the coming of Christ, and that after Christ's death and resurrection they are no longer applicable. It would be like a doctor telling a pregnant woman to take it easy, and then expecting her to continue to take it easy years after the baby has been born.

Q: So are there 2 gods - an Old Testament God and a New Testament God?
A: No, not at all. The New Testament tells us that there is only one God, and that He dealt with people differently before the coming of Christ, but that Christ's death and resurrection is the pivotal point of history that changed everything.

Q: So do Christians pick and choose what to obey?
A: No. Christian should be guided completely by the New Testament's teaching as to our morality.

The non-Christians that visit this forum might not like it - but the Christian position is entirely consistent and logical. It is also pre-eminently Christian.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Q: Do Christians belive the Old testament to be 100% true.
A: Yes, because the New Testament says so. We believe the Old Testament accurately records the history, songs, poetry and parables of the Jewish people. We also believe it gives us a record of the ritual and ceremonial rules that the Jews had to obey.

Literally true or metaphorically true ?

Q: Why are those ritual and ceremonial rules not observed by Christians?
A: Because the New Testament tells us that such rules were preparing the way for the coming of Christ, and that after Christ's death and resurrection they are no longer applicable. It would be like a doctor telling a pregnant woman to take it easy, and then expecting her to continue to take it easy years after the baby has been born.

PDN, what about groups like "Jews for Jesus" ?

Also why for example do some christians adhere to the OT opinion of homosexuality then ?

Q: So are there 2 gods - an Old Testament God and a New Testament God?
A: No, not at all. The New Testament tells us that there is only one God, and that He dealt with people differently before the coming of Christ, but that Christ's death and resurrection is the pivotal point of history that changed everything.

In your opinion, is it possible to be Christian and completely reject the OT ?

Q: So do Christians pick and choose what to obey?
A: No. Christian should be guided completely by the New Testament's teaching as to our morality.

But again what about those who follow some of the OT's rules for their morality ? (Homosexuality etc)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The non-Christians that visit this forum might not like it - but the Christian position is entirely consistent and logical.

If the christian position were purely logical, based upon a single text, then only one interpretation would be possible.

That there are -- by some counts -- something upwards of thirty-thousand christian denominations, each one with beliefs which differ from each other to a greater or lesser degree, suggests that logic and consistency are not as commonplace as some, however sincerely, believe.

.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Literally true or metaphorically true ?

That depends on whether it was written as metaphor or as historical narrative - just as with any text.

For example, I read the following in a history book: "The Germans suffered heavy losses at the Battle of Stalingrad and, from then on, the Russian bear advanced on Berlin." Now, I (and virtually anyone else) interpret the bit about heavy losses as being literal and I interpret the bit about the Russian bear as being metaphorical. Why? Because my interpretation is based on my understanding of the intent of the author. It is pretty clear that he intended to convey that the Germans did literally suffer losses at Stalingrad, and it is equally clear that he did not intend to convey that a literal bear was strolling towards Berlin.

Now, the further we are removed from a text (culturally, linguistically, and chronologically) it gets a bit harder to get inside the author's head and determine his intent, but the principle is the same. We should interpret literally that which was intended to be understood literally, and we should interpret metaphorically that which was intended to be understood as metaphor.

In a way it's sad that I've had to preface a simple answer with all that, but sadly we get lots of muppets visiting this board who happily mix metaphor with literal speech in everyday life, but seem to get confused when the same principles are applied to the Bible.

So, a passage that tells us that the Israelites slaughtered all the people in a town is intended to be understood literally since every principle of literary understanding and criticism identifies it as hostorical narrative.

Equally, prophecies that speak of the trees clapping their hands, or deserts rejoicing, are understood as poetry and metaphor.

PDN, what about groups like "Jews for Jesus" ?

Jews for Jesus is a group that exists in order to convert Jews to Christianity. Their members are ethnically Jewish (just as you can be a Jewish atheist) and as part of their culture adhere to Jewish dietary laws, but they stress that is not a means of obtaining salvation and they don't see Gentile Christians like me (who happily guzzle black pudding) as being any less Christian than them.

The philosophy behind Jews for Jesus is, once again, entirely consistent with the teaching of the New Testament. The apostle Paul stated that when he was among Jews he lived like a Jew so as to be able to win them for Christ. So, groups like Jews for jesus actually confirm my argument about the primacy of the New Testament in interpreting the Old.

Also why for example do some christians adhere to the OT opinion of homosexuality then ?

You always get a few fringe or cultic groups with distorted ideas - this applies to any ideology, not just Christianity.

However, may I say that in 28 years as a Christian I have never met anyone who adhered to the Old Testament on homosexuality. All Christians I know have formed their opinion of that subject based on the New Testament.

That's not to say that a few nutcases may exist (probably in Mississippi or Alabama) that do so, but the only people I have ever heard saying that Christians oppose homosexuality because of the Old Testament are atheists in a forum like this trying to build a strawman.

In your opinion, is it possible to be Christian and completely reject the OT ?

It's possible. Someone could be a woefully misinformed and defective Christian and completely reject the Old Testament.

But again what about those who follow some of the OT's rules for their morality ? (Homosexuality etc)

But again, they don't. Most real Christians (as opposed to the stereotypes who live in atheists' imaginations) follow the NT's standards for their morality (homosexuality etc).

robindch wrote:

If the christian position were purely logical, based upon a single text, then only one interpretation would be possible.

No. The Christian position as to how the Old Testament should be interpreted (in the light of the New Testament) is entirely logical.

However, every individual in the world, including every Christian (& that includes me) makes mistakes in how we interpret stuff. Good heavens, just look at the way you have often misinterpreted people's posts in this forum!

So, the Christian position regarding the Old and New Testaments is entirely logical and consistent, but all of us mess up sometimes in the application of it.

That there are -- by some counts -- something upwards of thirty-thousand christian denominations, each one with beliefs which differ from each other to a greater or lesser degree, suggests that logic and consistency are not as commonplace as some, however sincerely, believe.

Actually the differences between many of those denominations are to do with how they govern their churches etc. rather than about doctrine. And, where significant differences do occur, that in no way argues against the basic principle of the relation between the OT & the NT as being logical and consistent.

For example, I believe that the scientific method is a logical and consistent way to obtain knowledge. Yet those who employ the scientific method often come to wildly different and contradictory conclusions. However, only a buffoon would argue that somehow makes the scientific method to be inconsistent or illogical. Most of us are reasonable and sensible and understand that human beings are subjective and capable of makking mistakes even when applying a method or principle that is in itself logical and consistent.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

If the christian position were purely logical, based upon a single text, then only one interpretation would be possible.

That there are -- by some counts -- something upwards of thirty-thousand christian denominations, each one with beliefs which differ from each other to a greater or lesser degree, suggests that logic and consistency are not as commonplace as some, however sincerely, believe.

.

If you can show me any belief system with ~2 billion adherents that is immune to the selfish caprices and desires of its followers, misunderstandings that arise over millennia between those billions of people, historical events that shape peoples views and any number of other factors then maybe we can draw some conclusions.

It seems to me that atheism is based upon a proposition that is about as simple as it gets. Yet this doesn't stop atheists coming in all manner of different and sometimes unusual flavours.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

That depends on whether it was written as metaphor or as historical narrative - just as with any text.

For example, I read the following in a history book: "The Germans suffered heavy losses at the Battle of Stalingrad and, from then on, the Russian bear advanced on Berlin." ..............

Thanks, I think thats the first time I've heard a decent answer to that question.

You always get a few fringe or cultic groups with distorted ideas - this applies to any ideology, not just Christianity.

What about Messianic Judaism ?

However, may I say that in 28 years as a Christian I have never met anyone who adhered to the Old Testament on homosexuality. All Christians I know have formed their opinion of that subject based on the New Testament.

Don't those godhateseveryone people base theirs on the OT ? I thought they quoted the OT, not the NT about homosexuality ... or both ?

That's not to say that a few nutcases may exist (probably in Mississippi or Alabama) that do so, but the only people I have ever heard saying that Christians oppose homosexuality because of the Old Testament are atheists in a forum like this trying to build a strawman.

Twas an honest question, not a strawman. I'll accept its a minority view.

It's possible. Someone could be a woefully misinformed and defective Christian and completely reject the Old Testament.

But would they still be christian ? Would they still pass the 'holy' test when they die ?

However, every individual in the world, including every Christian (& that includes me) makes mistakes in how we interpret stuff. Good heavens, just look at the way you have often misinterpreted people's posts in this forum!

I know, I've been the victim manys a time :P

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems to me that atheism is based upon a proposition that is about as simple as it gets. Yet this doesn't stop atheists coming in all manner of different and sometimes unusual flavours.

But we don't claim to be the same, nor follow the same docterine nor follow a written book which is supposedly bug-free.

Its like saying the same of Buddhists. You cannot compare because Buddhists don't have one big book to take their beliefs from.

And just for the record I only call myself atheist to make my position more clear here. I don't appreciate any label at all.

Faith = something
Atheism = nothing

I have nothing where you have something, I don't see why it should be used as a label to group people similar to me togeather and claim that we are representative of eachother like we're some kind of religion.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Thanks, I think thats the first time I've heard a decent answer to that question.

We aim to please.

What about Messianic Judaism ?

Messianic Jews believe that the coming of Christ, and the revelation of the New Testament, makes them 'completed Jews'. This view, which rather understandably infuriates normal Jews, is based on the same principle that the Old Testament is to be understood in the light of the New.

Messianic Jews also recognise Gentiles like myself to be perfectly valid Christians.

I do have my issues with Messianic Judaism, but that is probably a subject for another thread if anyone wishes to discuss it, because it has nothing to do with the relation of the Old Testament to the New.

Don't those godhateseveryone people base theirs on the OT ? I thought they quoted the OT, not the NT about homosexuality ... or both ?

No, sadly that tiny group of unChristian nuts are as adept at twisting texts from the New Testament as they are at quoting the Old Testament out of context.

Twas an honest question, not a strawman. I'll accept its a minority view.

I was not referring to you with the strawman comment. I was thinking of the depressingly stupid halfwits who periodically visit this forum and, in the mistaken idea that they are being either witty or original, cut and paste a letter that was originally written to a Jewish newspaper columnist and compares eating shellfish to homosexuality. Somehow these boneheads seem to think this has some relevance to Christianity.

But would they still be christian ? Would they still pass the 'holy' test when they die ?

If they are trusting in Christ for their salvation then they pass the 'faith' test. That makes them Christian. Depressingly silly Christians, but nevertheless still Christians.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

In your opinion, is it possible to be Christian and completely reject the OT ?

I believe so. See Marcian of Sinope. Although wrong in rejecting the OT he was right in that he recognized that Paul's teaching were to be given top billing. He just took it too far by rejecting all other scripture, but he still might have made it in, we cannot judge his heart.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you can show me any belief system with ~2 billion adherents that is immune to the selfish caprices and desires of its followers, misunderstandings that arise over millennia between those billions of people, historical events that shape peoples views and any number of other factors then maybe we can draw some conclusions.

That's rather my point -- which was simply to respond to PDN's assertion that christianity is "entirely consistent and logical". If it really were, then the main strands (quite apart from the fringes) would agree on pretty much everything. They obviously don't, and therefore the claim that it's consistent and logical must be questioned.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems to me that atheism is based upon a proposition that is about as simple as it gets. Yet this doesn't stop atheists coming in all manner of different and sometimes unusual flavours.

Well, as monosharp pointed out, atheists don't have a holybook, so the analogy doesn't fit quite right. Atheism is simply a broad term which describes a number of intellectual positions with respect to the existence of one or more deities.

For example, somebody who's a hindu fundamentalist will probably adopt an atheistic position with respect to the existence of the christian deity, and a christian fundamentalist will no doubt adopt a similar position with respect to the existence of the hindu gods. In many instances, atheism is as much a metaview, as a view per se.

Atheism -- if the simile were apt -- is a surprisingly broad church.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Messianic Jews believe that the coming of Christ, and the revelation of the New Testament, makes them 'completed Jews'. This view, which rather understandably infuriates normal Jews, is based on the same principle that the Old Testament is to be understood in the light of the New.

But they do follow Torah laws don't they ? And they do believe one must follow them ?

Messianic Jews also recognise Gentiles like myself to be perfectly valid Christians.

It was my understanding (perhaps incorrectly) that they believed you must follow torah laws.

No, sadly that tiny group of unChristian nuts are as adept at twisting texts from the New Testament as they are at quoting the Old Testament out of context.

Granted. Out of curiousity, its ok to call them nuts and you don't consider them christians even though 'technically' they fall under the christian umbrella ?

If they are trusting in Christ for their salvation then they pass the 'faith' test. That makes them Christian. Depressingly silly Christians, but nevertheless still Christians.

I never understood and I doubt I ever will understand why Christians put so much faith in paulism and not some of the other guys around the same time.

Húrin

Fanny, do you mean to say that each of the major Christian denominational outlooks are consistent and logical?

robindch wrote: »

For example, somebody who's a hindu fundamentalist will probably adopt an atheistic position with respect to the existence of the christian deity, and a christian fundamentalist will no doubt adopt a similar position with respect to the existence of the hindu gods. In many instances, atheism is as much a metaview, as a view per se.

Atheists believe in no Gods, so you could never describe a Hindu or a Christian as atheists, no matter what qualification you put after it.

Turtwig

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists believe in no Gods, so you could never describe a Hindu or a Christian as atheists, no matter what qualification you put after it.

Beg to Differ

Hindu Atheism

Christian Atheism

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

That's rather my point -- which was simply to respond to PDN's assertion that christianity is "entirely consistent and logical". If it really were, then the main strands (quite apart from the fringes) would agree on pretty much everything. They obviously don't, and therefore the claim that it's consistent and logical must be questioned.

Yes, and PDN provided a good response and analogy to your point. I contend that the main strands have more in common with each other than against.

robindch wrote: »

Well, as monosharp pointed out, atheists don't have a holybook, so the analogy doesn't fit quite right. Atheism is simply a broad term which describes a number of intellectual positions with respect to the existence of one or more deities.

So what if you don't have a book! And what analogy fits exactly? I would have thought that the point made was obvious enough.

You only have to reject the existence of all deities (I'm not sure what other intellectual positions one can attempt to squeeze under that definition). But even with a single proposition there is a divergence over certain matters. Indeed, you chaps can even have a fudge between atheism and something approaching a new age version of "spirituality".

I do think it rather odd that you use divergence to criticise Christianity. If you took a moment to look over your shoulder - instead of leading the charge - you will note that atheism is similarly heterogeneous in nature. And, as a side note, I've seen enough pig-ignorance on this forum alone to be quite sure that not all these positions you speak of that fly under the banner of atheism can be confused with intellectual positions.

As has already been explained, though you seemed to have missed PDN's analogy, simply because there is difference of opinion over X doesn't mean that X is inherently illogical, incoherent or inconsistent.

OK, I've gone off topic again (This is your last warning, Fanny). If you want to discuss matters further, I suggest another thread would be the place. This thread has apparently been rather useful.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So what if you don't have a book! And what analogy fits exactly? I would have thought that the point made was obvious enough.

Because Christians claim there is no inconsistency in the Bible.

I do think it rather odd that you use divergence to criticise Christianity. If you took a moment to look over your shoulder - instead of leading the charge - you will note that atheism is similarly heterogeneous in nature.

And now your missing the point. We don't claim to be a 'group', we don't claim to be a 'we' at all. I know my views are different from other people who don't believe in a deity. I don't claim otherwise and it doesn't matter to me because mine is not a faith, it is not a religion.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

And now your missing the point. We don't claim to be a 'group', we don't claim to be a 'we' at all. I know my views are different from other people who don't believe in a deity. I don't claim otherwise and it doesn't matter to me because mine is not a faith, it is not a religion.

What are you on about? Did I ever claim that atheism was a religion? I'm guessing that you must be reading someone else's post and mistaking it for my own. Still, I suggest that you actually familiarise yourself with the definition of a group before you next pop over to discuss matters in the A&A forum.

Now, can we please get back on topic?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

But they do follow Torah laws don't they ? And they do believe one must follow them ?

It was my understanding (perhaps incorrectly) that they believed you must follow torah laws.

No. Messianic Jews believe that it is right for them to follow Torah laws as a 'completed Jew'. They believe that I, as a Gentile, am a perfectly valid Christian with no requirement upon me to become a Jew or to start living like a Jew.

Granted. Out of curiousity, its ok to call them nuts and you don't consider them christians even though 'technically' they fall under the christian umbrella ?

That depends whose 'technically' you are talking about. I believe that Christians should be defined as those who are trusting in, and are sincerely trying to follow the teachings of, Jesus Christ.

Fred Phelps and his crew, in my view, make no effort to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. They quite deliberately violate New Testament teachings about love, compassion and forgiveness. Therefore, just like some of the very people they condemn, their actions put them outside of Christianity.

Of course you can find others who define 'Christian' differently - often to suit themselves - so that even Richard Dawkins refers to himself as a 'cultural christian'.

I never understood and I doubt I ever will understand why Christians put so much faith in paulism and not some of the other guys around the same time.

Because the earliest followers of Christ recognised that Paul's teachings, rather than being something separate as 'paulism', were in fact more consistent with the teachings of Jesus than some of the other guys who were around at the same time.

The teaching of salvation by faith (which is not just believing Jesus but trusting in Him) did not originate with Paul. It was taught by Jesus Himself.

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." (John 5:24)

Apologies for the long delay in responding to your post. My hosts in this city put me in a swanky hotel where I was unwilling to pay the stupid prices necessary for internet access.

It's something they seem to do in American hotels. Cheaper hotels give you free internet access, free breakfast & everything else. Expensive hotels give you a room (albeit a very luxurious room) but then make you pay through the nose for everything else. Stupid Americans.