The New Testament leaves no doubt that the Apostles were really not sure Who Jesus was or what His real mission entailed. "So when they met together, they asked him, 'Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?'" [Act 1:6]
However, Jesus made His mission very clear: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Mat 15:24]
Paul believed otherwise (because Matthew's Gospel wasn't written yet). He was convinced that gospels were intended for the Gentiles.
In fact, Paul had his own mission: to preach his 'own gospel' [Rom 2:16, 16:25], and 'our gospel' [2 Corinthians 4:3], declaring that he proclaimed fully the gospel of Christ [Rom 15:19] (wouldn't that make the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John superfluous?!), admitting that it was always his ambition [Romans 15:20], yet more than half of his life he either knew nothing of Christ or persecuated His followers with impunity! I guess it depends what you mean by 'always.'
When it comes to Jesus, Paul considers Him the "Son of God," but not the same as God. That is clear from numerous verses, some of which are selected here:
Paul also emphatically maintains that God [sic] raised Jesus.*
*This is later completely rejected by the Church as the Nicene Creed (325 AD) states "he suffered, and the third day he rose [not God raised Him!] [sic] again (was there more than one resurrection?!!!)"
This is echoed in equally numerous examples throughout Acts (and in 1 Peter), not surprisingly, but never in the Gospels:
Other non-trinitarian statemens incluse these examples:
The Church clearly distinguishes between the co-essential co-equality of Hypostases, being divine and eternal One simple, individisible God, and God's Hypostatic revelation to mankind in the Divine Economy of our salvation.
Neither Paul nor any other Apostle mentions anything even close. Rather, one of the Gospels suggests that even Christ believed He was inferior to the Father: "for the Father is greater than I." [John 14:28].
And when it comes to knowing, the Father stands supreme: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." [Mat 24:36]
If anything, one can see why Doceticts and Gnostics had a field day reading the New Testament.
Yes, and the behavior of many of them during Jesus' ministry backs this up.
However, Jesus made His mission very clear: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Mat 15:24] Paul believed otherwise (because Matthew's Gospel wasn't written yet). He was convinced that gospels were intended for the Gentiles.
Paul didn't believe otherwise at all. Who are the lost sheep of Israel? Paul tells us:
Rom 9:6-8 : 6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel . 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
If one is correct in interpreting Jesus to mean that He only came to save one biological race, then we are wasting our time being Christian. Did Jesus change His mind? Did Paul convince Him that He was wrong? But, if Paul is correct that "Israel" includes those from all races, then we are included. Plus, can you show me where Paul says that the Gospel should not be preached to the Jews? Paul recognized that his own calling was to the Gentiles, but I'm not aware that he had anything against the Jews being taught. He WAS a Jew.
In fact, Paul had his own mission: to preach his 'own gospel' [Rom 2:16, 16:25], and 'our gospel' [2 Corinthians 4:3], declaring that he proclaimed fully the gospel of Christ [Rom 15:19] (wouldn't that make the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John superfluous?!), ...
Superfluous? No, by that standard the individual Gospels would make each other mostly superfluous. You know the cross-references. Paul preached fully the Gospel of Christ because it was given to him directly BY Christ.
[continuing] ... admitting that it was always his ambition [Romans 15:20], yet more than half of his life he either knew nothing of Christ or persecuted His followers with impunity!
I know you know the story of how Paul came into his knowledge of Christ. He was converted on the most personal level possible. His old life was gone, a new life had come.
When it comes to Jesus, Paul considers Him the "Son of God," but not the same as God. That is clear from numerous verses ...
Nice try, but no sale. :) Your verses do not show that Paul didn't recognize Jesus as God. Here are some examples:
Col 2:9-10 : 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
Phil 2:5-11 : 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father.
Heb 1:8 : But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
I think Paul got it alright. He had a pretty good teacher.
Paul also emphatically maintains that God [sic] raised Jesus*.
God the single essence did raise Jesus, who else would have? As I have shown, Paul did recognize Christ as God. He calls Christ "Lord" a hundred times or more. (The first meaning for "kurios" is "God". I doubt Paul would use the term so often if he always meant a second or third meaning.) Therefore, he knew that as the lifeless body lay in the tomb, the divine Christ was no longer there (Father into your hands, etc.). Don't you even say that during this time, He left to go into Hades? So, Paul knew that God (the Godhead) as a whole raised the body of Jesus.
*This is later completely rejected by the Church as the Nicene Creed (325 AD) states "he suffered, and the third day he rose [not God raised Him!] [sic] again (was there more than one resurrection?!!!)"
He rose because God raised the body. Divine Christ was in on the whole thing. I don't see any controversy in any of this.
Rather, one of the Gospels suggests that even Christ believed He was inferior to the Father: "for the Father is greater than I." [John 14:28].
So is this verse wrong and not God-breathed? Wouldn't we both just say that it needs to be taken in context and needs a simple interpretation? This one, at least, isn't difficult.
If anything, one can see why Doceticts and Gnostics had a field day reading the New Testament.
I'm not sure if you are saying that Paul was flat out wrong, and so we should rely on the Church "instead" of his writings, OR, do you mean that Paul was right, but he wrote so poorly that only through the Church can his cryptic teachings be gleaned? Or, something else.