Did you mean that the creeds integrated Paul’s writings, instead of the other way around?

It depends on what creeds we are speaking about. Paul would have had access to some form of Jesus myth, probably via mini-creeds in the form of easy to remember verses that could be passed from one individual or group to another. I don’t have my sources on my at this time (since I am in bed), but there are readily apparent examples of these in Paul’s letters. Later creeds, such as the “apostolic” and “nicene,” were of course created based on a Christianity that was much more substantial than what Paul originally had.

In any event, there has to be a point where a person can say their faith is in the person Jesus and not in some system of belief developed about Him by others

No, this is a very American-centered post-Great Awakening idea. Even the very idea that somehow it is a person’s faith in the Jesus figure that is significant is relativity new and biblically erroneous. Most theological scholars, even in conservative theology schools such as the one I attended, will point out that it is Jesus’ faith that is of any real theological importance, not ours (according to the Pauline system).The only sort of salvation message ever given by Jesus himself was for us to go the way of the kingdom of God and do his will (quite different from contemporary evangelical-style faith).

there has to be a point where a person can say their faith is in the person Jesus and not in some system of belief developed about Him by others.

Where would that point be though?

You can’t talk to Jesus personally as he’s not on earth anymore. So the info you have on him is only what was written after he was dead. That was written by either some guys who knew him for about 3 years, or by folks who didn’t know him at all.

And of course you will read those ancient records through a screen of “systems of belief developed about him by others” (e.g. whatever church you happen to be in or have grown up in).

So when you say your faith is “in the person of Jesus”, you mean that your faith is in what you think you know about some guy named Jesus (or Jeshua as the case may be) who died a long time ago, left no personal record, and is represented to you only by some writings by other people and by your church tradition.

You wrote:
Even the earliest Christian writings by Paul of Tarsus integrate various creeds that were “required” of his stream of Christianity.

Did you mean that the creeds integrated Paul’s writings, instead of the other way around? In any event, there has to be a point where a person can say their faith is in the person Jesus and not in some system of belief developed about Him by others.

TA…
When i was referring to a “system” I was talking more about the likes of the different variants of Calvinism, Arianism, Methodism, etc… sets of beliefs constructed by and often named for those men or groups of men who developed them, by which one would have to buy into the entire system of belief and thus be labeled accordingly (Calvinist, Methodist, Arian).

Yes, I am aware of what you meant by a “system,” but that seems to ignore the fact that even the most “original” of Christianities would have been a system constructed by men or groups of men of which required someone to “buy into” the entire system. Even the earliest Christian writings by Paul of Tarsus integrate various creeds that were “required” of his stream of Christianity.

If I may, on this Turkey Day, make a football analogy…

Ah, yes, the American Thanksgiving – great shopping I hear. I think the analogy is great… but football is still a game, and is hence a system. If anything it is Christianity that is the system and merely the individuals or schools of thoughts that are merely modes of participating in the system (although I still favour the idea that they are systems within systems).

THAT was funny.

Alas clarity of communication and understanding don’t always lock arms.

Still and all, thanks. I do appreciate it.

While I’m a Southern Baptist by church affiliation, and we have the Baptist Faith and Message, it is by no means a creed (although unfortunately there seems to be a move afoot within the convention to make it such). Southern Baptists affiliate more via cooperative giving to missions than by a certain set of spiritual beliefs, other than what I had mentioned in my earlier comment… but here is a more concise list… the virgin birth, sinless life, death by crucifixion, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ. These are what I believe to be the essential tenets of the faith that all who would call themselves Christian would hold. I’ll no doubt catch a lot of flack for being arrogant or something along those lines, but I mention that only to draw a distinction between formal belief “systems” and what are generally regarded as the essentials of Christian belief.

If I may, on this Turkey Day, make a football analogy… there are basics of football that everyone who calls himself a football player or coach must adhere to at all times… 10 yards to make a first down, reaching the opposing team’s end zone to score a touchdown, 6 points per touchdown, 3 points per field goal, standard dimensions of a football field, 11 men on each side of the ball, etc. Then you have your systems… West coast offense and it’s different variations, 4-3 and 3-4 defenses along with variations of defensive packages on certain down-and-yardage situations. Bill Walsh ran the West Coast offense one way… Holmgren and Shanahan have their own versions of it. Some identify with football through the essential basics of the game, others live or die by one offensive or defensive system or another.

TA…
Nope…pretty much just faith for me. Well, I could cite people like Strobel and McDowell, but I’m certain they’d be scoffed at here. But by and large, faith is more than enough for me. I understand that doesn’t work for you, but if it wasn’t for those differences, there wouldn’t be the discussion and interaction you have here at d-C.

Christians are not going to convince de-cons of anything, and while I still have not worked my way through all that is here, thus far I haven’t seen where any Christians have been talked out of their beliefs, either. So as the discussions continue, the best thing going for either side is to interact civilly with one another. I admit that I haven’t always been on top of my “nice” game, and for that I apologize, and strive to do better.

Umm, it wasn’t a statement, it was a question… for Leo

Hey TA: We are joking here.

Okay, I wasn’t following – but thanks for the clarification.

dean answers Yuehang,

So, I don’t buy into, or believe in any system, but rather my belief is in Jesus and Him crucified, dead, buried and resurrected.

You don’t believe that Jesus’ crucifixian, death, burial, and resurrection is a religious system. So why do you believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected? Many Christians contemporary with the writing of the New Testament and even at least one so-called “church father” (another system), Origen, did not believe in a bodily resurrection. So other than “faith” – is there any reason that someone should believe these events historically happened or have any of the spiritual significance you attribute to them?

Would it be fair to say that all communists are atheists, but not all atheists are communists?

Hey TA: We are joking here.

Lessee. I’m pretty conservative so there’s support for the latter. And Acts 2:44 sounds suspiciously like communism.

so I don’t think Godless atheists have a corner on profanity.

Oh *(&%$@%^)!

And I suppose Christians have been known to jaywalk, but I guess if you want to risk getting mowed down in the middle of the block like that, it’s best to know you’re going to heaven

Touché !