Who are the NT epistles aimed at?

[Gordon]

OK, what does the passage mean?  If we take the whole section that starts in verse 9 (not jumping in halfway through, as you have done), there are a number of points to be considered.  This section follows immediately after a section dealing with 'public worship' and it makes sense to read this section at least partially in that context.  It is clear from both that previous section, and historical account that women's status in the early church was a great deal freer than had been the case prior to the appearance of Christianity.  The suggestion is that some women were taking advantage of that in terms of the way they dressed - which the passage implies was extravagantly.  This was because the writer was more interested in their character shining out than their appearance doing the shining.    In a way, a lot of Floo's posts actually reiterate this underlying trait - be it for men or women.

As regards the centepiece of the passage as far as you are concerned - the bit about childbirth - there are a number of explanations that have done the rounds over the centuries.  One is your very literal, word-for-word explanation (an approach that is relatively alien to Jewish thinking and therefore comes low on any list); another is that Paul was simply highlighting the fact that pain in childbirth is the result of the Fall that was recorded - even if only as a theological exercise - in Genesis (after all, is it likely that the stretching that childbirth involves could NOT be painful); another that has done the rounds is that it is through Christ that salvation comes to women - not through men.  A fourth is that, since this whole section has had an emphasis on women, the role of men in a woman's salvation is pretty minimal - and if anything, a number of other passages suggest that believing women have a very important role insofar as their belief in Christ's saving grace is imputed to their menfolk.  As I say, there are a number of explanations for that passage, and the literal one is a contextually and culturally poor one.

More fudge, vicar?

[Khatru]

Citation required, Khat

Here you go....

But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Timothy 11

[Hope]

Here you go....
1 Timothy 2: 9-15

FIFY

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Me:

Hope,

I see that yet again you've just glossed over your reliance on the negative proof fallacy, although you were asked directly whether you understood it at all even in principle, even though you seem not to grasp its undoing of your argument.

Is this to be another of your, "I've demonstrated god already only, um, I seem not to be able to locate where exactly" moments then?

You:

Tumbleweed scuttles by...there's the low moan of a rising wind across the empty prairie of silence....somewhere in the far distance, a coyote howls disconsolately at the moon...

I'll take it therefore that you've no idea what the negative proof fallacy entails, even as you stumble into it over and over again.

Oh well.

[Rhiannon]

FIFY

And Kryten corrects Rimmer once again.

Doesn't matter really, does it? Khatru was right.

[Khatru]

FIFY

I can't see how that changes anything. 

The instruction to Christians, well, Christian women, is to get pregnant if they wish to be saved from the god of the Bible burning them.

[Hope]

And Kryten corrects Rimmer once again.

Doesn't matter really, does it? Khatru was right.

Rhi, Khat originally wrote 1 Timothy 11.  There aren't 11 chapters in 1 Timothy!!

[SqueakyVoice]

And Kryten corrects Rimmer once again.

Doesn't matter really, does it? Khatru was right.

Ah, but in HopeWorld the man who can correctly format a bible reference must have his interpretation of said passage take precedence over any person who incorrectly formats the reference (or, you know the words that are actually in that bible passage).

So shut your overly ostentatious gob woman and get back to your ... not teachin the men folk. Right.

[Hope]

I can't see how that changes anything. 

The instruction to Christians, well, Christian women, is to get pregnant if they wish to be saved from the god of the Bible burning them.

Khat, as I pointed out, that is a literal reading of the passage; Jewish literature (especially religious literature) tends not to go in for literal meanings - which is why I said that that explanation comes fairly low down on the potential lists.  Again, as I said, no-one actually knows exactly what Paul was saying in the bit of the passage, but from context and culture, I'd suggest that your interpretation is doubtful.  But you're entitled to hold to it, as is anyone to hold to any view.  Just don't make out that yours is necessarily the 'real' interpretation.   

[Hope]

Ah, but in HopeWorld the man who can correctly format a bible reference must have his interpretation of said passage take precedence over any person who incorrectly formats the reference (or, you know the words that are actually in that bible passage).

So shut your overly ostentatious gob woman and get back to your ... not teachin the men folk. Right.

He didn't wrongly format anything - he gave an non-existent reference, even though the correct one had been given a couple of posts earlier!!  Furthermore, he seems to be telling us that his interpretation has to be the correct one, whilst I've pointed out that we don't know what he was trying to say.  I know which I regard as being more open-minded an understanding 

[Khatru]

Khat, as I pointed out, that is a literal reading of the passage; Jewish literature (especially religious literature) tends not to go in for literal meanings - which is why I said that that explanation comes fairly low down on the potential lists.  Again, as I said, no-one actually knows exactly what Paul was saying in the bit of the passage, but from context and culture, I'd suggest that your interpretation is doubtful.  But you're entitled to hold to it, as is anyone to hold to any view.  Just don't make out that yours is necessarily the 'real' interpretation.   

It's not my interpretation, it's what the scriptures say. 

I left out KJV from this list on account of you saying it's a bad translation.

1 Timothy 9:15

But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

New International Version

But women will be [d]preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with [e]self-restraint.

New American Standard Bible

But womankind will be saved through her childbearing if nashim remain in emunah and ahavah and kedushah with tznius [2:9].

Orthodox Jewish Bible

But women will be saved through the giving of birth to children if they keep on in faith and live loving and holy lives.

New Life Version

But she will be saved through the bearing of children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.

Lexham English Bible

But women will be saved through childbearing,[c] assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

New Living Translation


==========================

You say that despite the clear statement  that women need to have babies if they want to be saved, it's not actually the case.

Man, the cosmic mega-being sure is sloppy with his guidance.  A book choc full of contradiction and now you say that the childbirth bit in this scripture is wrong.

[Dicky Underpants]

Khat, as I pointed out, that is a literal reading of the passage; Jewish literature (especially religious literature) tends not to go in for literal meanings - which is why I said that that explanation comes fairly low down on the potential lists.  Again, as I said, no-one actually knows exactly what Paul was saying in the bit of the passage, but from context and culture, I'd suggest that your interpretation is doubtful.  But you're entitled to hold to it, as is anyone to hold to any view.  Just don't make out that yours is necessarily the 'real' interpretation.   

Well, I choose to think this scripture wasn't written by Paul at all, (and there are some pretty well-sussed biblical scholars who've thought this for a long time, about all the Pastoral Epistles). The Pastoral Epistles date from much later, and the proof is that it deals with developments in the Church which certainly did not exist while Paul was alive. Furthermore, there are many instances where Paul shows himself to be the very reverse of a misogynist (I'm sure you know them), and even the bit of griping against women in Corinthians, if genuine, seems directed against a particular community. But there are arguments that even the nasty passages in Corinthians may be spurious. Though they appear in a quite a lot of the early manuscripts, they don't appear in the same place in each, which suggests they were added by a later, particularly misogynistic redactor.
As for the actual text in Timothy - it is utterly vile, and your lame arguments for thinking it has anything instructive to say all stem from your stubborn belief in that nonsensical idea that "All scripture is inspired by God". It isn't - some of it was written by particularly loathsome individuals, whose only excuse is that they were conditioned by the patriarchal societies of their time.
St Paul may have been an infuriating customer, but I don't think misogyny was a main characteristic of his.

I suppose many of the non-believers here might say "What the hell does it matter who wrote what anyway". Well it really only does matter if you're convinced that the Bible is "The inerrant word of God", and since there are still huge numbers of such deluded people in the world, it is worthwhile to maintain a degree of critical acumen. Christianity isn't going to disappear overnight. But we can at least try to root out some of its most disgusting manifestations.

[Hope]

Well, I choose to think this scripture wasn't written by Paul at all, (and there are some pretty well-sussed biblical scholars who've thought this for a long time, about all the Pastoral Epistles).

Interestingly, I'd agree with you.  I have to accept that I have partly misled folk by referring to Paul as the author in some of my posts.

But there are arguments that even the nasty passages in Corinthians may be spurious. Though they appear in a quite a lot of the early manuscripts, they don't appear in the same place in each, which suggests they were added by a later, particularly misogynistic redactor.

The problem with this argument is that pretty well all of the 'nasty passages' are part and parcel with equally 'nasty' passages that give men pause for thought.  In fact, in most cases, the 'nasty' passages aimed at men are longer than their 'misogynistic' parallels.

As for the actual text in Timothy - it is utterly vile, and your lame arguments for thinking it has anything instructive to say all stem from your stubborn belief in that nonsensical idea that "All scripture is inspired by God". It isn't - some of it was written by particularly loathsome individuals, whose only excuse is that they were conditioned by the patriarchal societies of their time.

That is why I pointed out that we don't actually know what the writer was trying to say in this particular passage. 

St Paul may have been an infuriating customer, but I don't think misogyny was a main characteristic of his./quote]Don't let Floo know this!!

I suppose many of the non-believers here might say "What the hell does it matter who wrote what anyway". Well it really only does matter if you're convinced that the Bible is "The inerrant word of God", and since there are still huge numbers of such deluded people in the world, it is worthwhile to maintain a degree of critical acumen. Christianity isn't going to disappear overnight. But we can at least try to root out some of its most disgusting manifestations.

Oddly enough, some of its most 'disgusting' manifestations have generally been shown by scholars and academics to bear little or no relation to the literal interpretations that Floo and several others like to posit, be they believers or not.

[Dicky Underpants]

Interestingly, I'd agree with you.  I have to accept that I have partly misled folk by referring to Paul as the author in some of my posts.

Good-o. Well, nice to see the evangelical wing is prepared to accept some of the conclusions of more modern scholarship.

The problem with this argument is that pretty well all of the 'nasty passages' are part and parcel with equally 'nasty' passages that give men pause for thought.  In fact, in most cases, the 'nasty' passages aimed at men are longer than their 'misogynistic' parallels.

Don't want to make too much of this - I do sometimes think I'm intruding on private grief. However, I've had to revise my views on St Paul over the years, and I don't think he was entirely the ogre and pernicious influence on world history that I once did. 'Original sin' still doesn't get me applauding in the aisles, though.
With that in mind, I'd just like to single out the one text of 1Corinthians which is usually cited alongside that odious text in 1Timothy to illustrate St Paul's misogyny (though it is far less vicious in its phraseology than the latter):

[33]]As in all the churches of the saints,
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
[35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1Corinthians 14.

Firstly, earlier in the letter, he's just said that women are
allowed to prophecy in church, providing they wear a veil - so this would appear to be a muddle-headed contradiction. Nothing new about that in 'holy' writ - but I don't think Paul was quite such a senile amnesiac as that, despite his propensity for hot-headed assertion.

Secondly, the passage has bugger all to do with what comes right before it, and bugger all to do with what comes after it, so it reads just like a deliberate later interpolation, by someone who perhaps thought Paul was being a little to liberal in his attitude to women (and considering his recommendation of Phoebe at the end of Romans, we know that he was capable of considering women capable of the highest tasks in the emerging church).

[Ricky Spanish]

Thrud, he wrote letters to churches that he hadn't established as well as those he had done.

So which churches did he establish then?

If you read the letters, you will notice that in almost all of them, he is either writing in response to questions that a particular church had asked of him, or encouraging them to stick to the teaching that he and other people had given them when they were both first established and since that date.

You do realise that only half of his letters are considered genuine, those being First Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Second Corinthians and probably Romans. All these rest are forgeries, or if you prefer pseudepigraphical.

So in fact, Paul himself only mentions certain churches. The Church in Thessalonica 1TH. The churches of Galatia in Gal (which may or may not include other towns in the province known as Galatia itself,) but it is all a bit vague so let's consider the possibility of there being more than one church in the town of Galatia and leave it as one location. Only Corinth is mentioned in 1/2 Cor. Phil only recognises Philipp. Philemon is a personal letter so not really addressed to a church as such and last but not least Romans reads like an open letter to all Roman Christians much like the letter to the Galatians...

As far as I can ascertain these are the only churches Paul mentions in his official letters!

He is also warning them to test any new teaching to see whether it fits with existing teaching; he also advises the churches that had been established in areas where other belief systems were prominent, or where immorality was rife, how they ought to be behaving amongst themselves and therefore standing out from the crowd around them.

Yup, I call them dictates - I'm guessing you prefer to know them as something sweeter?

Furthermore, some of these churches had relatively high proportions of 'ex-pat' Jewish members, others were predominantly Gentile in composition.  So, this mix of audience, the questions he has obviously been asked to respond to, etc. all give us a clue as to what his teaching is about.

The further fact that many of the issues that Jesus and the disciples/apostles addressed (and I include Paul in this category) are still live today - humanity hasn't changed that much over the centuries (for all the technological advantages we've made) - suggest that their teachings are still relevant.

I'm sure there were quite a few Jews in these churches. Christianity hadn't been given a clear label at the time and I agree that the Jesus Movement would have been looked upon as a quaint Jewish cult back then. As more and more heathens joined the movement it diverged from its original concept of impending apocalyptic preparedness to a more Hellenised concept of an apocalyptic revenge GodMan!!

[Hope]

So which churches did he establish then?

The only church that we can be certain that he established is that at Ephesus.  However, we also know that he preached in other places that are mentioned in other documents so he may have started several others.

You do realise that only half of his letters are considered genuine, those being First Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Second Corinthians and probably Romans. All these rest are forgeries, or if you prefer pseudepigraphical.

Have you only recently discovered this?  Most Christians that I know of have know of this situtaion for 30+ years.  The points I'd argue with are 1) the 'probably' before Romans.  The probability of his writing that epistle is the same as the other 6 in the list according to most scholars, 2) scholars are divided equally over whether Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are 'official'or pseudepigraphic: there are similarites in the language and writing style that put them in with the previous 7, but also styles and language that suggest otherwise and 3) the very existence of the term 'forgery' in your post.  Even the most cynical scholar wouldn't use that term simply because pseudepigraphy was such an established system, especially within the secular world of the time.

So in fact, Paul himself only mentions certain churches. The Church in Thessalonica 1TH. The churches of Galatia in Gal (which may or may not include other towns in the province known as Galatia itself,) but it is all a bit vague so let's consider the possibility of there being more than one church in the town of Galatia and leave it as one location. Only Corinth is mentioned in 1/2 Cor. Phil only recognises Philipp. Philemon is a personal letter so not really addressed to a church as such and last but not least Romans reads like an open letter to all Roman Christians much like the letter to the Galatians...

In view of the point I made in my post - that he wrote to churches other than those that he established - what is the point you are trying to make?

Yup, I call them dictates - I'm guessing you prefer to know them as something sweeter?

OK, for a start, they are simply a repetition of Jesus'own teachings.  Furthermore, they are written to Christians and people who attended the recipient churches (even today, not all those who attend church are believers; some are people trying to discover what Christianity is all about, some are those who enjoy the fellowship but have never signed up to faith and all that that involves).  I'll accept the term 'dictates' (though I think the word you're looking for is 'dictats') if you are happy to use the same term for the laws that exist here in the UK, and elsewhere, today.

I'm sure there were a few Jews in these churches. Christianity hadn't been given a clear label at the time and I agree that the Jesus Movement would have been looked upon as a quaint Jewish cult back then.

Not sure that there would have been as much opposition to the early church in its first few decades if it bhad been ooked upon as simply a "quaint Jewish cult".

As more and more heathens joined the movement is diverged from its original concept of impending apocalyptic preparedness to a more Hellenised concept of a apocalyptic revenge GodMan!!

Do you have any definitive evidence from within the New Testament documents for this pattern of development?  Or is it just an attempt on your behalf to suggest what some of the writers might have been thinking and expreesing?  After all, the concept of a (sic) "apocalyptic revenge GodMan" is a relatively modern one.

[Ricky Spanish]

OK, now we are more or less on the same page.

Can we get back to your original question: "Who are the Epistles aimed at"?

Shall we start with the earliest one that the majority of New Testament scholars think is 1 Thessalonians?

Shall I start?

1 Thess 1 mentions other churches in northern Greece, specifically the ones in Macedonia and Achaia, but not where.

But, it also lays the foundation of Pauls doctrine. "10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead – Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath". Paul very much believed that the apocalypse was coming and to be saved from this wrath his followers needed to believe in his "Christ".

In the next chapter, he mentions his church in Philippi, (Macedonia), and about how his version of "God" understands righteousness. It also gets a bit antisemitic: "14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: you suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone". Awkward!!

Before getting back to the wrath of God and salvation.

Athens, we get to read Paul is living it up in Athens at the start of chapter 3, but he is sending Tim to allay their concerns and strengthen their faith that the Christ will save them from the encroaching apocalypse, and from the abuse from.. [other Jews]? "7 Therefore, brothers and sisters, in all our distress and persecution we were encouraged about you because of your faith."

More to follow!!

[Hope]

OK, now we are more or less on the same page.

I'm glad that you've finally caught up, Thrud.  We're only 4 pages into the thread!!   

But, it also lays the foundation of Pauls doctrine. "10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead – Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath". Paul very much believed that the apocalypse was coming and to be saved from this wrath his followers needed to believe in his "Christ".

But at no time in this or any other epistle does he state a date or time for that apocalypse. 

In the next chapter, he mentions his church in Philippi, (Macedonia), and about how his version of "God" understands righteousness. It also gets a bit antisemitic: "14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: you suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone". Awkward!!

Yes, it is rather awkward, especially as he used to be amongst those who he implicates in persecution.  As for anti-Semitism, I'm not sure that a Jew can be accused of anti-semitism, especially one as integrated into the Jewish system as Paul.  Let me give you an example.  If, during a discussion about the horrors of concentration camps, I (a Brit) mention that the first to use such camps weren't the Nazis but the British - in South Africa in the last 19th century - am I being anti-British?  Or am I simply stating a fact?  Regarding 'his version of "God"', are you making reference to his Jewish upbringing here?  How does this 'version of God' differ from that outlined by other Jewish authors of New Testament material?

Athens, we get to read Paul is living it up in Athens at the start of chapter 3,...

I suspect that he was having a rather different lifestyle than 'living it up'.  Disputing with people isn' the easiest - as I'm sure you'll agree.

... but he is sending Tim to allay their concerns and strengthen their faith that the Christ will save them from the encroaching apocalypse, and from the abuse from.. [other Jews]? "7 Therefore, brothers and sisters, in all our distress and persecution we were encouraged about you because of your faith."

And your point?

More to follow!!

May I suggest that, before you 'more to follow', you actually explain what you're trying to express in this post of yours.

[Dicky Underpants]

I'm glad that you've finally caught up, Thrud.  We're only 4 pages into the thread!!   
But at no time in this or any other epistle does he state a date or time for that apocalypse. 

Well, he certainly didn't imply that it was over 2000 years in the future! And it's quite amazing how his and Jesus' reported words have been twisted to imply that such was his meaning.

How the hell do you get an interval of two millennia out of the following? :

"[11]
Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed;

[12] the night is far gone, the day is at hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light;"

Romans 13

Let alone his words in 1Thessalonians:

"
[16] For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first;
[17] then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord."

1Thess.4

Note those words "we who are alive, who are left" - for they and the whole passage mirror the reported words of Jesus in Matthew 16*, and may even be a true memory of Jesus' actual words:

"[27] For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.
[28] Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Matt.16

*Shaker has recently quoted this passage as indicative of Jesus believing that the Apocalypse was imminent. These ideas are in fact common knowledge, but it was Schweitzer in particular who drew attention to them.

[wigginhall]

You can also relate this to John the Baptist, whose vision sounds pretty imminent.  'Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees', and so on, and Jesus starts off being linked with John.

The other point, which has probably already been made here,  is that the apocalyptic fervour cooled, and Christians had to adapt to a new situation - the parousia had not happened.   Time then to build churches, pay tithes, sit on committees, join the House of Lords, and so on.   

[Hope]

You can also relate this to John the Baptist, whose vision sounds pretty imminent.  'Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees', and so on, and Jesus starts off being linked with John.

The other point, which has probably already been made here,  is that the apocalyptic fervour cooled, and Christians had to adapt to a new situation - the parousia had not happened.   Time then to build churches, pay tithes, sit on committees, join the House of Lords, and so on.

I think the building of churches came some centuries after the apocalyptic fervour cooled.     As for your reference to the 'axe lying at the roots of the tree' could this not have equally been referring to the fact that Jesus was going to upset the Jewish apple-cart?

[Hope]

Well, he certainly didn't imply that it was over 2000 years in the future!

Do you have any evidence -  linguistic, historical, theological - to support this suggestion, DU? Jesus' words could equally be taken to imply several thousands of years ahead.

And it's quite amazing how his and Jesus' reported words have been twisted to imply that such was his meaning.

Do you have any evidence of any sort to support this suggestion?  Could it not be that those who argue as you and others do are twisting the language to suit their purposes? 
Unfortunately, there is absolutely no clear indication of any timing.  The nearest would probably be what Jesus points out to Thomas - that 'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed' (John 20).  Remember that the present tense - in English - can be used to refer to the future as well as to the present. 

How the hell do you get an interval of two millennia out of the following? :

"[11]
Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed;
[12] the night is far gone, the day is at hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light;" ... Romans 13

Dicky, if you are told that you will inherit £X000 when your uncle dies, the legacy is 'nearer to you than when you first learnt of the legacy' at a point in time a few years later (and before he dies).  Similarly, if any of us here were to learn that we had won the National Lottery, but that the awarding ceremony wouldn't be until next September we would be closer to that time a week after we learned the news, a month after, 3 months after- but we still wouldn't have received the money.  Obviously, there were those who believed that Jesus was going to return within their lifetime, if only because he hadn't put a time or date on the event. 

Note those words "we who are alive, who are left" - for they and the whole passage mirror the reported words of Jesus in Matthew 16*, and may even be a true memory of Jesus' actual words:

"[27] For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.
[28] Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Matt.16

*Shaker has recently quoted this passage as indicative of Jesus believing that the Apocalypse was imminent. These ideas are in fact common knowledge, but it was Schweitzer in particular who drew attention to them.

I'm fully aware that they are common knowledge, but then we don't actually know whether Jesus' and Paul's use of the present tense was literally 'present' or meant to refer to the future.  Remember that Jewish thought and writings use this kind of pictorial language far more often that we do in modern times.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Obviously, there were those who believed that Jesus was going to return within their lifetime, if only because he hadn't put a time or date on the event. 

eh? If he hadn't put a time or date on it, then why would they have thought that? Surely they would have thought he might be back in their lifetime or then again maybe not?

If however, he did mean he would be back in their lifetime then that would have explained why they thought that.

[wigginhall]

Further evidence comes from Paul, who actually says, it's better not to get married, because the end is quite soon. 

But also Jesus existed in apocalyptic times, by which I mean, that Jewish thought was shot through with apocalypticism.   For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls are full of this stuff, including a Messiah, in fact, two.

This doesn't prove that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but I think quite a lot of scholars are convinced about this, and that Schweitzer's thesis is basically correct.   

Of course, there are scholars who disagree, and as far as I can see, many evangelicals also disagree. 

[Jack Knave]

Going back to the OP, there is a strong them and us in the NT and the epistles, the elect etc., and so it seems correct to me that much of the epistles were aimed at educating them and keeping them true to the faith.