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.

[nothead]

[Replying to post 18 by Zzyzx]

I can say the same about you, if you were significant enough for many to believe the things you say...that your writings are not authentic 600 or more years down the road...

What Jesus said about the scripture was that it cannot be broken, the thread of truth God the Author means behind the inspired writing.

Don't get hung up on the oddball jot or tittle in the TEXT as opposed to the jot and tittle MEANT and you will go further.

Of course Jesus was speaking of OT not NT...but the principle still holds, that there is a thread of true inspiration behind the writing...

...and if you actually wrote something truly from God, sir, then you too could convey this phenomenon.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[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.

Yes, it would.

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

I believe Jesus was a righteous and courageous man who put complete faith in an interactive God which he believed would reinhabit the Temple after he cleansed it of it's corrupt operators. But God is not interactive, and hasn't been (if It exists) since the Creation. His blind faith got him crucified. A deist God never entered his mind so he died feeling betrayed and confused. The pieces have since fallen into place for those that will not turn their head and look at the picture.

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.

I don't fear God, but I believe in an absolute moral code and do a pretty good job of following it if I do say so. Of course I don't have all that irrelevant add on religious clutter too. I think mostly that the only religious people who bare false witness are almost always the leaders and prophets. But the bulk of those who follow revealed religions lie to themselves, not out of some evil intent, but just to make themselves better, although they know deep down that it's a false comfort. I know, because I was there, I just didn't overreact into atheism as so many do more and more often today, as the wizard behind the curtain becomes increasingly obvious.

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.

What I just said applies to all revealed religions. And I love God and worship It via the pursuit of Truth and it's aspects: knowledge, justice, love and beauty.

[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.

Yes, it would.

Paul was completely honest about his murdering part in Stephen's death. A liar would make this sin less somehow.

And Acts tells of his story honestly also. This was not Paul who wrote.

If the bad parts are mentioned the truth so much more stands out: Paul was not a liar and Acts depicted his events and demeanor within the events truthfully.

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

I believe Jesus was a righteous and courageous man who put complete faith in an interactive God which he believed would reinhabit the Temple after he cleansed it of it's corrupt operators. But God is not interactive, and hasn't been (if It exists) since the Creation. His blind faith got him crucified. A deist God never entered his mind so he died feeling betrayed and confused. The pieces have since fallen into place for those that will not turn their head and look at the picture.

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.

All depictions of Jesus by pros as opposed to cons depict his God as orthodox YHWH Elohim. To say otherwise is to ignore every single pro.

And you obviously don't go by the cons from your first sentence. So where are you now, in La La Land?

I don't fear God, but I believe in an absolute moral code and do a pretty good job of following it if I do say so. Of course I don't have all that irrelevant add on religious clutter too. I think mostly that the only religious people who bare false witness are almost always the leaders and prophets. But the bulk of those who follow revealed religions lie to themselves, not out of some evil intent, but just to make themselves better, although they know deep down that it's a false comfort. I know, because I was there, I just didn't overreact into atheism as so many do more and more often today, as the wizard behind the curtain becomes increasingly obvious.

Compare YHWH Elohim to the Wizard of Oz? It this likely at all?

How DID the Jews end up in the Holy Land anyway? Got dropped off by spaceship?

I commend you for your greatness in morality. God will too, I hope.

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.

What I just said applies to all revealed religions. And I love God and worship It via the pursuit of Truth and it's aspects: knowledge, justice, love and beauty.

Truth is, this cosmos contains ugliness, hate and unrighteousness, in even greater evidence. You want evidence, why do you say "justice, love and beauty??"

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

In a search for truth it is prudent to NOT start with a conclusion – but rather to examine all available evidence and follow it wherever it may lead. Anything that suggests "true unless proved false" is questionable at best.

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....

Kindly cite sources to support the 99% claim.

That said, I think most scholars believe Paul's epistles are his,

Christian scholars and theologians disagree with you.

There is wide consensus, in modern New Testament scholarship, on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether the former two epistles are the letters of Paul; however, the latter four - 2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the "Pastoral Epistles" - have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship ... e_epistles

It appears as though those who actually study such matters realize that authorship is in doubt. Those who know less appear confident that they know authorship beyond doubt.

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.

There is speculation about the sources of information used by the anonymous gospel writers. Their identity and their sources of information are not known.

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.

That appears to be true

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.

In my opinion if reasoning from verifiable evidence was / is used "how fast and how far we could go" would be not very far at all regarding events, conversations and people of 2000 years ago.

[Zzyzx]

.

Don't get hung up on the oddball jot or tittle in the TEXT as opposed to the jot and tittle MEANT and you will go further.

How, exactly, does one determine what is meant by unknown writers 2000 years ago from a very different culture, writing from unknown sources of information, using a different language (variously translated), expressing their ideas about characters and events?

...and if you actually wrote something truly from God, sir, then you too could convey this phenomenon.

Has anyone been shown to write anything "from god?" How can it be determined what is "from god" and what is not? Opinion? Speculation? Dogma?

[nothead]

.

Don't get hung up on the oddball jot or tittle in the TEXT as opposed to the jot and tittle MEANT and you will go further.

How, exactly, does one determine what is meant by unknown writers 2000 years ago from a very different culture, writing from unknown sources of information, using a different language (variously translated), expressing their ideas about characters and events?

Em start out with a positive attitude which presupposes the Truth behind the text is from Great God Almighty...and you will go further.

No charge, lesson Nothead number 167. Your welcome.

...and if you actually wrote something truly from God, sir, then you too could convey this phenomenon.

Has anyone been shown to write anything "from god?" How can it be determined what is "from god" and what is not? Opinion? Speculation? Dogma?

As a wise man once said, all things are interpreted truly from a wise POV.

No charge again. I may ask a favor someday and you will be my friend.

[Zzyzx]

.

Em start out with a positive attitude which presupposes the Truth behind the text is from Great God Almighty...and you will go further.

Presupposing "from god" is the antithesis of searching for truth.

NOTHING written or spoken can be shown to be "from god."

No charge, lesson Nothead number 167. Your welcome.

The "advice" is neither appropriate or welcome.

As a wise man once said, all things are interpreted truly from a wise POV.

A "wise POV" does not assume "god" unless the god can be shown to be something more than a product of imagination.

No charge again. I may ask a favor someday and you will be my friend.

I am not indebted for unsolicited "advice" and am not your friend (but rather a debate opponent).

[nothead]

[Replying to post 27 by Zzyzx]

Okay I get it. You dislike me. So I ain't gonna last long.

Why do you call a warning FINAL if it was the first out of 324 posts ever sexual?

Any other subject I refuse to speak about with you sir. You are dangerous and too self-absorbed to realize it makes no sense to speak to you.

[zeromeansnothing]

Hi ThePainefulTruth,

at least now I am starting to see the brand-name on your stils. You make this revealing and honest statement which I liked.

Here's ThePainefulTruth;
And I love God and worship It via the pursuit of Truth and it's aspects: knowledge, justice, love and beauty.


zero: What this outlook has to do with the OP other than asserting that it is not Pauline, in nature, I do not know. Is it even Jesusy? I doubt it.

On a more serious not, I really got to get me, one of these God's. Please direct!

ps: When was Beauty high on the Jesus list of God traits? (Just curious, is it the flowers of the field thing or what?)

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hi ThePainefulTruth,

at least now I am starting to see the brand-name on your stils. You make this revealing and honest statement which I liked.

Here's ThePainefulTruth;
And I love God and worship It via the pursuit of Truth and it's aspects: knowledge, justice, love and beauty.


zero: What this outlook has to do with the OP other than asserting that it is not Pauline, in nature, I do not know. Is it even Jesusy? I doubt it.]

It was declared that I didn't love God, thus my response.

On a more serious not, I really got to get me, one of these God's. Please direct!

???

ps: When was Beauty high on the Jesus list of God traits? (Just curious, is it the flowers of the field thing or what?)

Jesus, however courageous he might have been and correct in his opposition to Temple corruption, was confused, worshiping as he did a "revealed" God--for which he paid an awful price.