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.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Christianity is Christianity. Paul (Saul) or no Paul. But he preached the same Jesus as the rest.

His writings came first and influenced the rest. while the Gnostics and the Jewish followers of Jesus were wiped out in 70 CE. 300 years later, committees canonize the books that were the "genuine" word of God, and evaporated the ones that didn't. 2000 years after that, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library surfaced. The rest is (something closer to the true) history revealed.

[zeromeansnothing]

ThePainefulTruth:Josephus, shows that Paul almost certainly was such a Herodian

''I things are flying a little to thick and fast. There is no Corinthians 15.''?????



zero reply:I am starting to get things around here. I thought this was a debate thread based on the question.Isn't Christianity actually Paulism I didn't realise the question was rhetorical and that the whole thing was a vey informative lecture. The 'no question mark' was too subtle for me. My apologies, it is an instruction thread from you and confined to your sources and your unfolding painful truth, My apologies for assuming there was a Corinthians 15, my apologies on behalf of 99percentatheism for him trying to make a good point and for his temerity in questioning the 'OP scholars' My apologies for whispering to Wootah in the back row trying 'to get the chat going' From now on I will just shut up and listen(Anyone see and exit door anywhere?..........Sorry, I should wait for the Tarsus 666 revelation, just popping out to the loo for a sec, I will almost certainly be back....Sorry! Oops! Is that your handbag Missus, Oops !Sorry!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mithrae]

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!

Interesting topic

The claims to be a Roman citizen and to have studied under Gamaliel are found only in Acts, not in anything Paul had to say for himself. If there is reason to think that those claims are suspicious, the first and most obvious question to ask is whether the author of Acts made them up for his own literary purposes. That seems quite possible: Both claims occur in the same section of the book (ch 22); one recommends Paul's credentials as a Jew, the other as a Gentile.

If there were something fishy going on in the story of Paul - which you've provided some interesting food for thought on - on first glance it seems to me the 'literary license' theory might be more plausible than the 'cousin to royalty' theory.

[Zzyzx]

.
Those concerned with possible conflicts between the teachings of Jesus and Paul/Saul might find interesting http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommend ... jesus.html

I take no definitive position on the matter, but note that there appear to be some areas of disagreement between what the two men are said to have taught.

[zeromeansnothing]

Zzyzx, Congrats on undertaking the task of moderating here.
Loose some of the Medals on the left or give them away. You will be wearing more moderate attire now. Let me tell you the one that irritates me most and there are a few.


[center]Individualist [/center]

I knew a guy who was his own person once. He was full of himself. Got on my nerves

[ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth:Josephus, shows that Paul almost certainly was such a Herodian

''I things are flying a little to thick and fast. There is no Corinthians 15.''?????



zero reply:I am starting to get things around here. I thought this was a debate thread based on the question.Isn't Christianity actually Paulism I didn't realise the question was rhetorical and that the whole thing was a vey informative lecture. The 'no question mark' was too subtle for me. My apologies, it is an instruction thread from you and confined to your sources and your unfolding painful truth, My apologies for assuming there was a Corinthians 15, my apologies on behalf of 99percentatheism for him trying to make a good point and for his temerity in questioning the 'OP scholars' My apologies for whispering to Wootah in the back row trying 'to get the chat going' From now on I will just shut up and listen(Anyone see and exit door anywhere?..........Sorry, I should wait for the Tarsus 666 revelation, just popping out to the loo for a sec, I will almost certainly be back....Sorry! Oops! Is that your handbag Missus, Oops !Sorry!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What?

The claims to be a Roman citizen and to have studied under Gamaliel are found only in Acts, not in anything Paul had to say for himself. If there is reason to think that those claims are suspicious, the first and most obvious question to ask is whether the author of Acts made them up for his own literary purposes. That seems quite possible: Both claims occur in the same section of the book (ch 22); one recommends Paul's credentials as a Jew, the other as a Gentile.

If there were something fishy going on in the story of Paul - which you've provided some interesting food for thought on - on first glance it seems to me the 'literary license' theory might be more plausible than the 'cousin to royalty' theory.

Interesting screen name, particularly given the topic. Care to elaborate?

Paul claimed to be a Pharisee in Phi 3:5, but there was no mention of Gamaliel, that was added later as an apparent embellishment by Luke. And Paul would have not wanted for it to become known among the Jews that he was a Roman Citizen. I've often thought it might be possible that they were trying to kill Paul at the Temple because they'd just found out he was a citizen. It could well be that he suffered previous beatings rather than appeal to that citizenship and thus reveal it (or more likely, they were just fabricated). When he did finally reveal it in order to keep from being murdered at the Temple, he no longer associated with non-Herodian Jews after that.

I think there's probably both literary license and cousin to royalty going on, but it's really complicated beyond the surface points we've touched on here. Robert Eisenman's book, James the Brother of Jesus (etc.), the 2012 thankfully more abbreviated version of the earlier book by that title, has some excellent new work on Paul's Herodian ancestry.

[ThePainefulTruth]

.
Those concerned with possible conflicts between the teachings of Jesus and Paul/Saul might find interesting http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommend ... jesus.html

I take no definitive position on the matter, but note that there appear to be some areas of disagreement between what the two men are said to have taught.

Thanks for that very handy and extensive compilation. I particularly liked the highly detailed section, "Jesus Says Salvation Initiates And Continues By Repentance From Sin and Obedience Besides Faith; Paul Says This is Heresy".

Hard to believe you have no definitive position.

[Zzyzx]

.

Hard to believe you have no definitive position.

I "have no horse in this race" partially because the words attributed to Jesus and to Paul/Saul cannot be shown to be actually their words. Those of Jesus were recorded by unknown people from unknown sources decades or generations after they were supposedly spoken. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the reported conversations are accurate.

Many of the writings of Paul/Saul are said by Christian theologians and scholars to have been written by other (unknown) people under his name.

It is, therefore, more than a little difficult to assess differences of opinion between people who lived thousands of years ago and whose words may not have been accurately reported.

[ThePainefulTruth]

.

Hard to believe you have no definitive position.

I "have no horse in this race" partially because the words attributed to Jesus and to Paul/Saul cannot be shown to be actually their words. Those of Jesus were recorded by unknown people from unknown sources decades or generations after they were supposedly spoken. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the reported conversations are accurate.

Many of the writings of Paul/Saul are said by Christian theologians and scholars to have been written by other (unknown) people under his name.

It is, therefore, more than a little difficult to assess differences of opinion between people who lived thousands of years ago and whose words may not have been accurately reported.

My "horse in the race" is the Truth. If the sayings and writings attributed to Jesus and Paul could both be shown to be fraudulent, that would be fine with me--though I'm sure the religions won't miss a step. It's 99% (+/-) certain that we've found Jesus' grave and ossuary, but religion is too busy maintaining its power, and followers to preoccupied to notice, so....

That said, I think most scholars believe Paul's epistles are his, and much of the words of Jesus in the gospels were probably taken from earlier written sources such as Q--not to mention other gospels recently found. It's a complex process that involves more than just writing, but it becomes very obvious that Paul has his own agenda separate from the surviving followers of Jesus. But like I said, if we could just start over using reason, instead of revelation, I do wonder how fast and how far we could go, while God (if It exists) continues to do nothing but watch.

[nothead]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

As soon as you said he is a liar, I don't want to read any more.

Your evidence may connect this to him for you, but this would make him a false prophet having broken the command to not bear false witness.

You can say Jesus is a liar and whomsoever else loves 'God' a liar. Your evidence will connect you to this for them.

I say this, no sincere Jew is a liar. Secular humanists and people who do not fear God are normally more likely to lie. This is because they see no absolute moral code in the ethers NOT TO.

And you can apply this to other religions and people of faith also. Lying is less common among people who love God as well this "God" they have in their beans.