Isn't Christianity actually Paulism

[ThePainefulTruth]

The Problems with Paul: His Roman Citizenship
The surviving version of Christianity, which was originally a Jewish sect led by Jesus' brother James, should rightly be called Paulism. Much has been discovered about his influence in the last 50, and especially the last 15, years. The most enlightening sources on the subject are The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, by Hyam Maccoby; Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity, by James D. Tabor; and James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Robert Eisenman, which is a summary and update of his earlier exhaustive work, James the Brother of Jesus, published 14 years earlier.

As implied in the title, this post focuses on one aspect of the many problems with Paul. While this is no way an apologetic for Judaism or early Jewish Christianity, it's theology being revelatory as well, the self-serving nature of Paul's overhaul of the movement founded by John the Baptizer, Jesus and James, sets Paulism apart as the biggest yet still subterranean sham in history. Could a simple tent-maker from Tarsus have had the obvious pull he displays, even in the wholly unlikely circumstance that a tent-maker became a Pharisee who studied under the storied sage, Gamaliel as Paul's acolyte, the author of Luke, has Paul claiming in Acts (22:3). Would a Pharisee be a thug enforcer, persecuting the Jewish Christians (likely responsible for the death of Stephen and possibly James) who had been defended by Gamaliel (Acts 5:34-39), at the bidding of the Roman appointed high priest? No, but a Herodian with Roman citizenship would certainly fit.

It had been my position that Paul was not a Roman citizen by birth as he claimed, but likely purchased it from funds skimmed from what he'd collected to bring to Jerusalem. The main reason to believe it was Acts (22:25), which has Paul revealing his Roman citizenship in order to avoid a flogging. Yet on previous occasions he claims he was whipped five times, beaten with rods three times (a Roman punishment), stoned once but never sought refuge in his citizenship (II Cor 11:24-25). Incredibly, on another occasion (Acts 16: 22/37-38), he was beaten by Roman authorities, yet doesn't reveal his citizenship until afterwards!

All this smacks heavily of fabrication, and poorly done at that, which means it is more likely that Paul was indeed born a Roman citizen. But Jews with Roman citizenship were almost unheard of, making the part about the authorities' surprise at his citizenship genuine. However, there was one group of quasi-Jews who did have Roman citizenship which had been awarded to "the offspring of Antipater and his son Herod for conspicuous service to Rome", namely, assisting in the Roman conquest of Palestine. Eisenman, using several sources in his book (above), and especially the historian who was Paul's contemporary, Josephus, shows that Paul almost certainly was such a Herodian (p. 189-193).

But Acts, probably written no earlier than 80 CE and possibly even into the second century, was bent on emphasizing Paul's Roman citizenship as a selling point to it's gentile audience; while Paul himself, working with gentiles and Jews in Asia Minor in the 40s & 50s would have been reluctant to proclaim that citizenship himself, wanting to exploit his Jewish connection while knowing, before the fall of Jerusalem, the prevalence of hatred by Jews for the Roman occupation of Palestine. In fact, he never mentions his Roman citizenship in any of his own writings.

In Paul's own words (Rom. 16:10-11), he sends greetings to the house of Aristobulus (King of Lesser Armenia and son of Herod of Calacis), and to "Herodion, my kinsman". Salome, the one who danced for the head of John the Baptist, was the wife of Aristobulus and was Herodion's mother.

Upcoming: Tarsus, which equals 666 in Hebrew, the center of Mithraism in the Mediterranean.

[Mugview]

We all know that "sola scriptura" means whatever part of the Bible that the specific Christian uses to interpret the other parts. Calvinists can just as well dispense with all the Bible that precedes Acts of the Apostles. My afore-said works-righteousness sects steer the opposite, paying no attention to anything after the Gospel of Luke except for James and Revelation. Pentecostals focus on some verses by Paul; Cessationists seize upon an opposite set of verses from Paul. Only the traditional and mainline denominations accept the Bible as a whole, but they're rather lukewarm about it.

No, it's not a common knowledge that "'sola scriptura' means whatever part of the Bible that the specific Christian uses to interpret the other parts."

"Sola scriptura" is a Latin phrase meaning "solely by Scripture", indicating that the teaching of the church should be based only and foremost by the Scripture/Bible.
Rooting on the Bible, the church can set up rulings that cannot contradict the Bible.

The idea that church can pick-and-choose certain books to read is not correct.
Churches commonly use reading plans to study the whole Bible throughout liturgical years, some 3 years, others more or less than that. It is covering the whole Bible (Old and New Testaments) completely.
Sermons or Homilies generally are based on these reading plans as well. A faithful attendee of church services should hear all parts of the Bible read and preached during the period of the plan. Other than that, there are also personal reading plans, encouraging individuals to read the Bible on their own, cover-to-cover.
Nothing is to be skipped.

The author of the first four verses of Luke may indeed be Luke, but the style of this prologue is so different from the rest of Luke as to suggest that the man Luke fashioned it as an eloquent cover letter to the text written by Simon, the heir-apparent to rule over the Church and who did indeed soon become Bishop of Jerusalem.

This statement is not supported by the early church fathers or most biblical scholars, which believe that Luke is the author of the gospel bearing his name and also the Acts of Apostles. There is no support that he simply wrote a cover letter to other people's writing. Therefore, the statement above is a speculation.

It's a computer metaphor. The rest has already been addressed.

Could you please provide the link to the discussion about the "destruction" that Paul allegedly caused? I'm intrigued to learn.

He co-opted of the Jewish Christian church, they just didn't call it that at the time. Paul was originally trying to combine the Jews and pagans into one religion they would both buy. He knew he'd failed at that when they tried to kill him at the Temple. Then with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, his "church" was left alone on the field; although he was probably dead by then. It would be another 300 years before it jelled into the anti-Jewish Jesus institution we've all come to know and love.

That's not true according to the history of early church.

At the time of Paul's conversion, the church was focusing only to the Jews, and Paul was a part of the church workers. Because he was causing potential issues due to his conversion, he was sent out to Tarsus, his hometown.
"Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified." (Acts 9:31)
Meanwhile, Peter received the vision and went to visit Cornelius (Acts 10). This opens a big door for non-Jews to hear the message, be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit. Initially, the disciples (all of them Jews) were confused, but after listening to Peter's story:

When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life. (Acts 11:18)

Right after, this happened:

Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only. But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord. (Acts 11:19-21)

Those men from Cyprus and Cyrene were non-Jews. They received the "good news" from Hellenistic Jews in Antioch, and became believers.
This caused the church in Jerusalem (all Jews) to react.

Then news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. When he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord (For [Barnabas] was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith). And a great many people were added to the Lord. (Acts 11:22-24)

Looking for a competent helper, Barnabas decided to enlist Paul.

Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. (Acts 11:25-26)

The members of the church in Antioch, a mixture of Jews and non Jews, were called "Christians". This term is not used for the all-Jews churches.

After a period of time, there was another task given by the Holy Spirit in Antioch:

As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. (Acts 13:2-3)

Paul and Barnabas went out to Asia Minor and established churches comprising of Jews and non Jews, and then back to Antioch.
Then, the schism started.

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. (Acts 15:1-2)

The question was discussed in the First Council of Jerusalem. It was attended by Peter to witness the opening of gospel to the Gentiles, and the decision was made under the leadership of James, the brother of Jesus Christ.

The decision was written in a letter as follows:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, You must be circumcised and keep the law "to whom we gave no such commandment" it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.(Acts 15:23-29)

It is clear that the decision, to free the non-Jews member of the church from the obligation to follow Jewish law, came from the all-Jewish church in Jerusalem, with the approval of all living apostles of Jesus Christ and the Jewish believers.
With this mandate, Barnabas and Paul can preach the gospel to all people (Jews and non Jews) without emphasizing obligation to follow Moses law.

Paul himself followed the law until his death as noted in Acts 21, although he didn't feel it as a plus (as he said in his epistles). To him, everything is according to the principle:

... the gospel of Christ... is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:16-17)

Thus, blaming Paul for the tradition of non-Jew churches is wrong.
Paul was just one worker doing so, although he was elected by Holy Spirit to explain (or translate) the teaching of Jesus Christ and His saving gospel to the "gentiles" using his epistles. Not only Paul, but also Peter, John, James, Jude, and the unknown writer of Hebrews (clearly a Jew) were writing to the churches and their epistles were placed into the Bible. The establishment of the church of Jesus Christ comprising people of all nations is a work started before Paul. Paul participated in its early development, but the universal church kept growing under leadership of the Holy Spirit, long after Paul's death.

The churches belong to Jesus Christ not Paul.

In name only. Note the transition period I refer to above. But it's all superficial anyway since God only watches, including watcing Jesus and his men cleansing the Temple in preparation for God's return, which didn't happen, because God only watches.

God works by the way of Holy Spirit. The word "Spirit" in Greek and in Hebrew can also be translated as "wind". It works like the blowing of the wind, unseen but can be felt. The church of Jesus Christ has grown beyond the power of any single organization, but they all acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Head. There is no "church of Paul", but only the "church of Jesus Christ", or generally known as "Christian churches".

[Skybringr]

Paul took the place of Judas.

There were twelve thrones reserved for the Apostles, in which Judas forsook in his betrayal of Jesus.

Paul's role is very important because he expounds on things which the others simply do not divulge.
He is considered a master edifier that, without, would have made it very difficult for us to expound upon.

[Mugview]

Paul took the place of Judas.

There were twelve thrones reserved for the Apostles, in which Judas forsook in his betrayal of Jesus.

Paul's role is very important because he expounds on things which the others simply do not divulge.
He is considered a master edifier that, without, would have made it very difficult for us to expound upon.

The first two statements don't have any evidence.

Actually the place of Judas was replaced by Matthias ("And he was numbered with the eleven apostles." Acts 1:26)

Paul didn't appear to prominence until much later, with first mention at the execution of Stephen, one of the Seven (Acts 7-8).
Paul's role is very important because he was capable to write to non Jews about the teaching of the church much better than most of the apostles at the time and more known to the churches he addressed the epistles to.
Peter, John, James and Jude also divulged things not mentioned by Paul, and important for the church.

I completely agree with the last sentence.

[ThePainefulTruth]

It's a computer metaphor. The rest has already been addressed.

Could you please provide the link to the discussion about the "destruction" that Paul allegedly caused? I'm intrigued to learn.

"Destruction" is shorthand for what Paul did to the early Jerusalem followers of Jesus, headed by James, and Judaism in general, as put forth in the OP.

He co-opted of the Jewish Christian church, they just didn't call it that at the time. Paul was originally trying to combine the Jews and pagans into one religion they would both buy. He knew he'd failed at that when they tried to kill him at the Temple. Then with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, his "church" was left alone on the field; although he was probably dead by then. It would be another 300 years before it jelled into the anti-Jewish Jesus institution we've all come to know and love.

That's not true according to the history of early church.

Well, if you choose to discount all external sources, as well as sources within the church itself, including even Paul, I'm afraid there's no framework for discussion.

At the time of Paul's conversion, the church was focusing only to the Jews, and Paul was a part of the church workers. Because he was causing potential issues due to his conversion, he was sent out to Tarsus, his hometown.
"Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified." (Acts 9:31)
Meanwhile, Peter received the vision and went to visit Cornelius (Acts 10). This opens a big door for non-Jews to hear the message, be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit. Initially, the disciples (all of them Jews) were confused, but after listening to Peter's story:

When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life. (Acts 11:18)

Right after, this happened:

Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only. But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord. (Acts 11:19-21)

Those men from Cyprus and Cyrene were non-Jews. They received the "good news" from Hellenistic Jews in Antioch, and became believers.
This caused the church in Jerusalem (all Jews) to react.

Then news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. When he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord (For [Barnabas] was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith). And a great many people were added to the Lord. (Acts 11:22-24)

Looking for a competent helper, Barnabas decided to enlist Paul.

Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. (Acts 11:25-26)

The members of the church in Antioch, a mixture of Jews and non Jews, were called "Christians". This term is not used for the all-Jews churches.

After a period of time, there was another task given by the Holy Spirit in Antioch:

As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. (Acts 13:2-3)

Paul and Barnabas went out to Asia Minor and established churches comprising of Jews and non Jews, and then back to Antioch.
Then, the schism started.

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. (Acts 15:1-2)

The question was discussed in the First Council of Jerusalem. It was attended by Peter to witness the opening of gospel to the Gentiles, and the decision was made under the leadership of James, the brother of Jesus Christ.

The decision was written in a letter as follows:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, You must be circumcised and keep the law "to whom we gave no such commandment" it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.(Acts 15:23-29)

It is clear that the decision, to free the non-Jews member of the church from the obligation to follow Jewish law, came from the all-Jewish church in Jerusalem, with the approval of all living apostles of Jesus Christ and the Jewish believers.
With this mandate, Barnabas and Paul can preach the gospel to all people (Jews and non Jews) without emphasizing obligation to follow Moses law.

Paul himself followed the law until his death as noted in Acts 21, although he didn't feel it as a plus (as he said in his epistles). To him, everything is according to the principle:

... the gospel of Christ... is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:16-17)

Thus, blaming Paul for the tradition of non-Jew churches is wrong.
Paul was just one worker doing so, although he was elected by Holy Spirit to explain (or translate) the teaching of Jesus Christ and His saving gospel to the "gentiles" using his epistles. Not only Paul, but also Peter, John, James, Jude, and the unknown writer of Hebrews (clearly a Jew) were writing to the churches and their epistles were placed into the Bible. The establishment of the church of Jesus Christ comprising people of all nations is a work started before Paul. Paul participated in its early development, but the universal church kept growing under leadership of the Holy Spirit, long after Paul's death.

The churches belong to Jesus Christ not Paul.

In name only. Note the transition period I refer to above. But it's all superficial anyway since God only watches, including watcing Jesus and his men cleansing the Temple in preparation for God's return, which didn't happen, because God only watches.

God works by the way of Holy Spirit. The word "Spirit" in Greek and in Hebrew can also be translated as "wind". It works like the blowing of the wind, unseen but can be felt. The church of Jesus Christ has grown beyond the power of any single organization, but they all acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Head. There is no "church of Paul", but only the "church of Jesus Christ", or generally known as "Christian churches".

Intransigence being what it is, my response here is mainly for others who might happen by.

The biblical quotes above are from Romans (by Paul), and Acts (by Paul's disciple Luke). There is much to be discovered by looking only there. In Acts, Paul is attacked by "the Jews" which causes him to reveal his citizenship, and after which he has no further intercourse with the Jerusalem Church.

"Paul was warned by James and the elders that he was gaining a reputation for being against the Law, "teaching all the Jews living among the gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs".[Acts 21:21] (Wikipedia)

And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.
And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.--Acts 21:30-31
_________________________________________________

The worst thought ever from Paul:

But didnt he earn his right to heaven by all the good things he did? No, for being saved is a gift; if a person could earn it by being good, then it wouldnt be free"but it is! It is given to those who do not work for it. For God declares sinners to be good in his sight if they have faith in Christ to save them from Gods wrath.--Romans 4:4

God's gift to us is our unfettered, moral free will.
__________________________________________________

I could go on, like with Paul's 1Co 11:23 where he had a vision from Jesus transforming the Last Supper into the ritual of "The Lord's Supper" (it's Mithraic name!), which symbolic cannibalism is still blasphemous to all Jews, and the pagan name was so embarrassing to the early church fathers, that it was usually called "The Eucharist". Don't you think if Jesus had instituted such a ritual, it would have been commonly known since Jesus' time, without Paul having to have a vision to institute it 30 years later?

...and on and on.

[Skybringr]

Paul took the place of Judas.

There were twelve thrones reserved for the Apostles, in which Judas forsook in his betrayal of Jesus.

Paul's role is very important because he expounds on things which the others simply do not divulge.
He is considered a master edifier that, without, would have made it very difficult for us to expound upon.

The first two statements don't have any evidence.

Actually the place of Judas was replaced by Matthias ("And he was numbered with the eleven apostles." Acts 1:26)

Paul didn't appear to prominence until much later, with first mention at the execution of Stephen, one of the Seven (Acts 7-8).
Paul's role is very important because he was capable to write to non Jews about the teaching of the church much better than most of the apostles at the time and more known to the churches he addressed the epistles to.
Peter, John, James and Jude also divulged things not mentioned by Paul, and important for the church.

I completely agree with the last sentence.

It's very debatable whether Matthias was an Apostle by the direct ordinance of God, and simply not elected by the disciples in their desire to replace Judas.

We don't hear much about Matthias after that, but we have an entire work of Paul later on.
In fact, Peter and Paul are pretty much the reigning champs of all of them (not saying they weren't all important).

[Mugview]

Paul took the place of Judas.

There were twelve thrones reserved for the Apostles, in which Judas forsook in his betrayal of Jesus.

Paul's role is very important because he expounds on things which the others simply do not divulge.
He is considered a master edifier that, without, would have made it very difficult for us to expound upon.

The first two statements don't have any evidence.

Actually the place of Judas was replaced by Matthias ("And he was numbered with the eleven apostles." Acts 1:26)

Paul didn't appear to prominence until much later, with first mention at the execution of Stephen, one of the Seven (Acts 7-8).
Paul's role is very important because he was capable to write to non Jews about the teaching of the church much better than most of the apostles at the time and more known to the churches he addressed the epistles to.
Peter, John, James and Jude also divulged things not mentioned by Paul, and important for the church.

I completely agree with the last sentence.

It's very debatable whether Matthias was an Apostle by the direct ordinance of God, and simply not elected by the disciples in their desire to replace Judas.

We don't hear much about Matthias after that, but we have an entire work of Paul later on.
In fact, Peter and Paul are pretty much the reigning champs of all of them (not saying they weren't all important).

That's true about Matthias, but also true about Bartholomeus and Thaddeus and some others among the twelve. In the records, the twelve (including Judas) had done some works before Jesus' resurrection, and then Matthias who was present since the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (Acts 1:21-22) may also have a share of work before, and surely more after the Pentecost.

Peter and Paul were recorded a lot by the writer of the book of Acts (presumably Luke), apparently because Luke got more information about those two.
Peter was the most prominent of the Twelve Disciples, and the first to baptize gentiles (non Jews), that sets as an example for Paul's missionary journeys. Paul is obviously the travel companion of Luke, and most likely the reason why Luke wrote the gospel and the Acts, that is as a defense for Paul's actions before the court of justice.

Philip, the evangelist and one of the Seven, has lots of records as well, obviously because Luke had access to him during the stay in Caesarea (where Philip lived after baptizing the eunuch from Ethiopia).

James, the brother of Jesus Christ, was also mentioned more than John, the "beloved disciple", in the book of Acts, not because he was not important (John's significance in Acts 3 and 4 is clearly recorded), but there was no direct relation to Paul's missions afterwards. On the other hand, John has many mentions in the gospel, while nothing at all about James, the brother of Jesus Christ.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 84 by ThePainefulTruth]Unfortunately nothing quoted as from me on Post *84 is actually by me. TPT picked up Mugview's clumsy Post #81 that correctly quoted me but went haywire with multiple quotations in one post. Thus I cannot further comment on these posts except to say that M failed to understand my sarcasm and my assertions related to my own idiosyncratic Thesis that the four gospels contain seven written eyewitness records of Jesus.

[Mugview]

[Replying to post 87 by Korah]

Your "idiosyncratic Thesis that the four gospels contain seven written eyewitness records of Jesus" sounds interesting. Do you have a link to the thread where you elaborated about it?

Luke was not an eyewitness as he implied in Luke 1:1-4, but he had "investigated" the case (the life of Jesus Christ), indicating that he had interviewed eyewitnesses.

As Paul is not mentioned at all in that Gospel of Luke, and that the materials in that gospel are "synoptic" to the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Mark, it doesn't support the suspicion that the Gospel of Luke favors "Paulism" (if that really existed, which is quite doubtful).

[Korah]

[Replying to post 88 by Mugview]
Yes, M,
Here's a link to my first (I think) post here that states my thesis and gives links to two other websites where I have posted more conveniently than here in DC&R.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ht=#633654 (Post #60, Feb.15th)
The link to Christian Forums gets you to a thread in which all ten posts are consecutive installments of my Thesis (that the four gospels contain seven written eyewitness records about Jesus) strangely uninterrupted by any comment by readers in spite of numerous views. (Though CF seems to be the biggest website I have posted to, it seems to have an even lower intellectual level than Theology Web.)

You seem to have the Paulism implications backwards. You assume that the man Luke associated with Paul and thus the Gospel of Luke has to be Paulist in origin, if I am making any such claim to partisanship. No, my new corollaries to my Thesis are exploring whether Luke 24 and Mark 16:9-20 represent the Jerusalem school (supposedly anti-Paulist) around James and Simon (the author of Proto-Luke) as contrasted with Matthew 28:9-20 and the "lost ending to Mark" John 21:1-17.
But all this John 21 stuff is extraneous to my original Thesis about seven written eyewitnesses to Jesus in the four gospels.

I have not particularly presented my Thesis here at DC&R because of the rancor I have encountered here. I almost walked away from here without returning to the fray once tax season was over on April 15th. I did return, but without elaborating my thesis here. If you or anyone else is really interested, I have left links back when I still naively believed that anyone here might care.

[Mugview]

[Replying to post 89 by Korah]

Very interesting and well written articles. I hope we can discuss them here.

The association of Luke with Paul was attested by church fathers (for example: Irenaeus, whose writings of AD 180 are largely preserved until today), not my assumption. Therefore, if "Paulism" exists, the Gospel of Luke must be presenting the figure of Jesus according to that teaching.
Very encouraging that you didn't find this connection to be real. The gospel of Luke is an honest record about the life of Jesus, no direct relationship to any sects, but directly to the one Church (that is the one started in Jerusalem and from there spreading all over the world).

Despite the prominence of Paul's writings in the New Testament, the church didn't rely on Paul alone for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul admitted that he was one of the workers, and he felt so small (the name "Paul" or "Paulos" means "small") compared to the early apostles of Jesus Christ, who walked with Him for years. Some modern scholars only looked at the New Testament when concluding that Paul determined Christianity, meanwhile the writings of church father attested to harmony in the basic Christian teaching of salvation through Jesus Christ. In fact, Paul only provided a bridge between Judaism understanding of Jesus as Messiah and the gentiles views of Jesus as the Savior of the world, according to their respective cultural beliefs. Using Paul's outline, nations can relate themselves to the Jewish background that God had selected as the people among whom He would incarnate. However, Paul's teachings are also supported and supporting the teaching of the Church in general, as also attested by other writers in the New Testament: Peter, John, James, Jude, Matthew and the writer of the Hebrews; all of which rooted more in the Judaism than non-Jewish culture.
Thus, the so-called "Paulism", if truly exists, is just a name for one manner to understand Christianity from non-Jewish point-of-view, but Paulism does not comprise Christianity, nor it can dictate Christianity.