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.

[dianaiad]

[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.

Moderator Warning


This post not only violates the rules against responding to moderator actions in public, it is also very uncivil and insulting. Do not make personal remarks about other posters. If you disagree with moderator actions, send a PM. Do not respond in public. Scatological and foul language on this forum are very big violations of the rules, and you have been given warnings before--and for the use of scatological language.




Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Korah]

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.

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.

Neither you nor Thomas Paine would come up with the Christian theist God I do, but your dislike of St. Paul might find encouragement in my own (admittedly revelation-based though it may be) seven-written-eyewitnesses-to-Jesus Thesis that focuses on the four canonical gospels and ignores Paul. Examine my work here and elsewhere:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?
t=24700&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50&ch_passwd=1 at Post #60.

More recently and more to your liking, I presume, would be my corollary to the thesis that finds that John 21:1-17 may be the original ending of Mark that got lost after Mark 16:8. I speculate that Luke 24 in its entirety (except the interpolated 24:12) was the work of the Jerusalem school of James, whose brother Simon wrote Proto-Luke. This Luke 24 as well as the soon-substituted Mark 16:9-20 would be the non-Pauline literature you (Paine) should like. It is all free even of Peter or any other Galilee reference. Note that even Acts (the continuation of Luke) is free of reference to Galilee.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=25492

[ThePainefulTruth]

[quote="

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?
t=24700&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50&ch_passwd=1 at Post #60.

Link doesn't work. [quote]More recen ... s_tomb.htm

I've not heard any attribution of any part of the Bible to Jesus' brother, Simon, before, though I'm open to the idea. The most likely contribution from the early Jerusalem Church (besides the book of James, which addressed arguments against Paul), I feel would be in parts of Revelation, especially the number of the beast, . That same Ebionite site has the most likely interpretation of the number of the beast, 666, which was again tied to Paul via "Tarsus". The number should actually be rendered six hundred threescore and six, since they didn't use arabic numerals yet then, and 666 wasn't in the original Greek anyway. It makes a huge difference.

[historia]

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.

These are some painfully terrible books, Paineful.

Maccoby's work has been near universally rejected by scholars, and panned for its dependence on unreliable sources and outdated and long-ago rejected views on ancient Roman religion.

Consider this review by J Louis Martyn, "A Review of The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity," in Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (2005), pgs. 73-74

Mr Maccoby's case against Paul rests on two main pillars, neither of which is able to bear the weight he places upon it.

First, there is the argument from comparitive religion. Paul is said to have drawn the core of his theology from gnosticism, a religion characterized by Mr Maccoby as inherently anti-Semitic. Nowhere, however, does Mr Maccoby identify gnostic sources that can be dated as early as Paul's letters. Moreover, again and again, where Mr Maccoby turns to gnosticism to explain a Pauline motiff, the data in Paul's letters themselves call instead for comparison with Jewish apocalyptic writings, notably the type of apocalyptic we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

. . .

The second major pillar of Mr Maccoby's case is what he calls 'the evidence of the Ebionites.' ... It is widely known that the least reliable of [the Ebionite sources] is the brief paragraph in Epiphanius. From this paragraph, clearly a mixture of fable and slander, Mr Maccoby draws the major dimensions of his portrait of Paul, using it to correct Paul's own letters and Luke's account.

Or this withering critique from John Gager, "Maccoby's the Mythmaker," The Jewish Quarterly Review vol. 79 nos. 2-3 (October, 1988-January, 1989), pgs. 248-250.

This book, I fear, moves us backward in virtually every area. Maccoby's treatment reads like a (surely unintentional) summary of nineteenth century polemical-apologetic "scholarship" of a liberal Christian variety: Jesus against Paul; Paul as the second (and real) founder of Christianity; Paul the opponent and falsifier of Judaism; the predominance of influence from Hellenistic mystery cults on Pauline thought.

. . .

In the final analysis, The Mythmaker is best understood as an extended apology on behalf of the Pharisees, couched in a polemic against Paul. As such it is but the mirror image of traditional Christian apologetic treatments of Paul, couched in a polemic against the Pharisees. Both are unacceptable as good history. Thus I must conclude that Maccoby's book is not good history, not even history at all. Whether it is good fiction is another matter.

Eisenman's sensationalist hypothesis that the Dead Sea Scrolls are actually Christian writings is likewise rejected by scholars the world over. Consider this review in The New York Times (April 27, 1997) by Anthony Saldarini:

For 15 years, in several books, Robert Eisenman has argued that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written by various groups of Jews from about 150 B.C. to A.D. 66, really derive from first-century Jewish Christians.

. . .

He will not persuade many, because his conclusions are improbable, his arguments incoherent and his prose impossible. Many chapters read like rough notes taken from a file drawer. Diverse themes are thrown together, topics are repeated without reason or cross-reference and arguments are left half-finished. The publisher's lack of editorial supervision is scandalous.

. . .

In arguing this bizarre thesis, Mr. Eisenman ignores the normal canons of historical argument and of literary analysis. He treats later Christian sources, which contain legendary material, as historically reliable . . . Mr. Eisenman's interpretations are frequently inaccurate and biased . . . Mr. Eisenman's (innocent, presumably) dedication of his book to such a person is consistent with his irresponsible misrepresentation of the important and interesting history of the Jews and Christians of antiquity. They and we deserve better.

Tabor is a more careful scholar and probably the most respected of the bunch. Unfortunately, his popular level books are all written in a sensationalist style that tend to undermine his main theses. Few accept his assertions to having found the family tomb of Jesus or that the James ossuary is genuine.

You're reading books at a level only slightly better than The Davinci Code. May I suggest that more scholarly works will give you a better understanding of Paul and early Christianity.

[nothead]

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.

The very fact that Paul was an ovowed enemy of the faith, a MURDERER of the faithful, reinstated to the apostolic status of the top dogs...proves he was neither a liar or a false prophet.

OTHERS who recognized this in the Spirit of the Living God put him there. Amen.

You are defeated by a single principle. HAVE TO Theology. For him to be put among the bosses of the bosses who serve Jesus Christ HAS TO mean he was recognized in Spirit to be chosen by God.

Acts9

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Response to Historia's post 34:

Of the three, Tabor (with Jacobovici) has been the most vociferously opposed by the mainstream scholarly community in their knee-jerk defense of Pauline Christianity. And you can see why. His findings at Talpiot can't be allowed to stand if the religion of The Church is to survive. Showing that Jesus' remains have likely been found would completely undermine Pauline theology. And true to form, the opposition has been embarrassingly weak. Their main argument about how common the names at Talpiot are, while at first was at least something to seriously consider, even that of late has faded to irrelevance. And now it seems that the missing ossuary is the James ossuary which would dismiss any serious arguments along that line.

While Maccoby does refer to Gnosticism's influence on Paul, his reliance is much more on Paul's paganism. Basing scholarly opposition on that is, well, the first I've heard of it.

And Eisenman was the point of the spear in finally breaking the "scholarly" deadlock on the Dead Sea Scrolls, having stalled their publication for 40 years. The opposition to him and Tabor is an indictment against a large part of the scholarly community for being obstructively biased. And while the age of the DDS started well back into the BCE era, he's shown beyond a reasonable doubt that there are references to James as "The Righteous Teacher", and Paul, "the Spouter of Lies". And also, I believe he's still in the camp of those who believe the DDS were put there by the Essenes or at least those who inhabited Qumran at the time of the Roman conquest and destruction of Judea.

In any case, the evidence against Paul's enmity with James and the early Jerusalem Church is overwhelming, starting as it does with his own epistles.

[nothead]

[Replying to post 36 by ThePainefulTruth]

In any case, the evidence against Paul's enmity with James and the early Jerusalem Church is overwhelming, starting as it does with his own epistles.

Biased.

Gal 1

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;

22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

24 And they glorified God in me.

Paul's own testimony obviating your statement. His word against yours. I chose his.

And guess what, he already pre-saw people like you who would call him a liar. As the Jewish formulae goes:

20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

Before the Living God, whom all with any amount of wisdom fear, he who knows these things proclaimed his 'yes' here to be a yes, and his 'no' here to be a no.
And you sir who call him a false prophet are not to be given creedence amen.

[Duvduv]

The problem for people in addressing this type of issue is that they rely almost exclusively on the claims of the official church dogma on Christian history.
The fact is there is not a shred of corroborating evidence that a sect of "Jewish Christians" in Judea ever existed. Not in a single traditional Jewish source, where one would expect to see some references on this matter.

There is not a shred of external evidence of any kind that someone named Paul existed, that he wrote any epistles, that there were any Christian communities in the recipient communities names, or that anyone ever received such epistles in the 1st century.

So with this as a starting point, it still remains to explain when Christianity emerged, when the texts (AS A SET) were promulgated and by whom.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to Duvduv]

Both James and Paul (Saulus) are referenced in Josephus, an essentially independent source. But what really brings them to life, or reality as it were, is their enmity, which is evident though underplayed in Paul's and James' own writings--even though later redaction tried to smooth it over.

And if it's hard to show that Paul existed, it's equally or more so to show that Jesus existed. But both are validated through their association with James, the most historical of the three.

[Duvduv]

[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]
Yes, that is true. One would expect ancient traditional Jewish sources to make some mention of the NT Jesus or Paul, but neither are mentioned anywhere. The only Yeshu mentioned is Ben Pandera whose time was in the 1st century BCE and was not a messianic figure.
There is no other evidence of any kind attesting to their existence or to the points I made. What is known as Christianity emerged in the 4th century. There is no evidence of its existence prior to that.