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.

[Korah]

Here's my "Mulligan" substitute for my #32 this thread:

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/v ... c&start=50 at Posts #54 & #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

and see also my Posts #17 & #22 on the Easter Passion
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=10

[historia]

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.

This strikes me as a rather weak argument.

First, many of the scholars who find Tabor's claims unconvincing are Jewish or secular historians and archaeologists (including a couple who actually took part in the excavation itself). They would have no reason to defend Christian tradition.

Second, many of the others are liberal Christian scholars, some of whom do not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and so would not be bothered if someone actually did find his remains. In fact, John Dominic Crossan even appears in Cameron and Jacobovici's film The Lost Tomb of Jesus and says exactly that.

Finally, Tabor himself notes that the objections to this hypothesis have to do with the flimsy evidence not theological biases (see Results of the Princeton Symposium Regarding the Talpiot 'Jesus' Tomb).

The noted Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes, sums this up nicely:

The evidence so far advanced falls far short of proving that the Talpiot tomb is, or even could be, the tomb of the family of Jesus of Nazareth. The identification of the ossuary of Mariamne with that of Mary Magdalene of the Gospels has no support whatever and without it the case collapses . . . Apart from a handful of participants, the large majority of the assembled scholars consider the theory that the Talpiot ossuaries contained the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family as unlikely after the conference as it has been before. In my historical judgment, the matter is, and in the absence of substantial new evidence, should remain closed.

The claim, then, that these scholars are simply engaged in a "knee-jerk defense of Pauline Christianity" is wholly without merit.

[historia]

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".

Again, this claim that the scholarly community is just being "obstructively biased" is simply unfounded. This is the usual retort of conspiracy theorists, and it makes your case seem desperate.

There is no theological reason for Jewish and Christian scholars to be biased against the idea that the sectarian literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls was Christian in origin. None at all. The reason they overwhelmingly don't hold this position is because the evidence doesn't support such a conclusion.

Erik Larson, "Are the Dead Sea Scrolls Christian?" in Near Eastern Archaeology vol. 63 no. 3 (2000), 168-71, summarizes that evidence for us:

[A]ll the evidence we have concerning the Teacher of Righteousness indicates that he lived in the second century BCE and not the first century CE.

Thus, the Damascus Document states that the Teacher of Righteousness began his leadership of the Qumran group 410 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in the year 586 BCE. Even if the number 410 is a rounded approximation, as many scholars accept, it cannot be totally ignored, as Eisenman does.

A second century BCE date is also supported by the archaeological excavations at Qumran, which indicate that the settlement came into existence around the middle of that century.

Such a time frame is also supported by the palaeography of the manuscripts. Although Eisenman has tried to dispute the accuracy of the palaeographers' dating, recent carbon 14 dating tests have confirmed the accuracy of their work.

The end result of all of this is to make a first century date for the Teacher of Righteousness impossible.

Think about it for a second. Had Eisenman actually shown "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the Teacher of Righteousness was James and "the Spouter of Lies" was Paul, he would have swayed scholars. But he hasn't. The reality is that his scholarship is sloppy and unconvincing -- as virtually all reviews of his works point out.

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.

Indeed, no one doubts that Paul and James were at odds in the early Christian community.

What I take issue with is sensationalist claims that the Dead Sea Scrolls are (Jewish-) Christian documents, that Paul's theology is just a mix of gnosticism and paganism, or that we have found the tomb of Jesus. Authors like Maccoby and Eisman, in particular, advance such ideas using late, legendary materials, outdated and discredited views on Roman religion, and just plain bad scholarship.

I'm sorry to see you've been taken in by it.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 40 by Duvduv]

That was when Pauline Christianity emerged victorious over its rivals thanks to Constantine's insistence that they decide or else. And most of the evidence to the contrary was destroyed. The victors write history.

[nothead]

[Replying to post 43 by historia]

What makes you think James and Paul were at odds at all?

Faith without works is dead, as opposed to justification by faith not dead works?

This is just two perspectives of the same coin.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 43 by historia]

What makes you think James and Paul were at odds at all?

Faith without works is dead, as opposed to justification by faith not dead works?

This is just two perspectives of the same coin.

It is a difference of emphasis at the very least, and may only be the tip of the iceberg as recorded in the diplomacy of Scripture, if the historical Jesus scholars are right.

[nothead]

[Replying to post 46 by Elijah John]

This difference in perspective I believe has to do with the self-known sinner who finds
both release from his ignorance and sinful road...to the man who was always a law-abiding Jew who at the very least was not known to have participated in the murder even of a believer.

But both had only truth to shout which got recorded. A true and accurate hermeneutic will coincide these perspectives and allow for both to be true.

Faith is our justification, and this is attitude, that of love, a seeing of things not seen by the normal eye, those things of God which He wills for the seer to know and do, the love, loyalty, trust and clinging to this God in covenant. This faith was initiated by God as He drew you. But you are encouraged to do your part in growing this faith.

And as per James, this faith is with works of faith. Works of faith are not DEAD as in the dry doing of ceremonial, sabbath, festival laws, but rather has to do with as you say the first two commands, to love your God and then your neighbor.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 45 by nothead]

They were at odds about almost everything, but it was played down by Paul in his epistles, because he was still trying to lead both the Jews and the gentiles, and in Acts by Luke, who was Paul's disciple. The faith vs. works issue covered a with range of things.

Paul said, "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 God's wrath"--Romans 4:4

Modern Christians have a real hard time with this one. This even makes repentance unnecessary, which both Jesus and John the Baptist emphasized.

Paul morphed "Christianity" into pagan Mithraism by which he made Jesus divine, the son of a virgin, and converted the remembrance of Jesus when you eat and drink into the pagan rite of the Lord's Supper with it blasphemous for Jews, symbolic cannibalism.

Paul was about to be killed by Jews (probably mostly Jewish followers of Jesus) in a riot at the Temple when he saved himself by pleading his Roman Citizenship. If they didn't want to kill him before, they certainly hated him even more then. He never interacted with the Jerusalem Jews after that. Paul is the beast of Revelation, and was loosing the battle, but was probably dead and never saw the tide turn when his opposition was wiped out in 70 CE with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The closer you examine Paul, the more certain you become of who and what he really was.

[zeromeansnothing]

Hi ThePainefulTruth,


Why not just put all your cards on the table and 'reveal all?.
It is only when you are 'badgered' that you let us glimpse into your 'belief' sphere.

Paul is the Anti-Christ/fair enough. I never had much time for him.
Then we get to Jesus and you say this.

ThePainefulTruth: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.

zero:That's Jesus dealt with, a romantic theist who believed in Yahweh (a revealed God). Where does that leave you with your God of Truth and Beauty?.

Isn't it true that the truth is paineful for all here because all that you believe in is that others are wrong. Isn't it paineful because you disclose your 'stuff' in a drip drip manner and isn't it in fact paineful for all and sundry to watch you crash and burn here. ThePainefulTruth, you could sell me scholarship and then some but that adds up to zip if you cannot produce a rational sentence of intent from it all. IMHO

Are you a Christian, I doubt it.
Are you an Atheist, Apparently not.
What are you??? What are you selling???

If it's broadband, I already have it.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hi ThePainefulTruth,


Why not just put all your cards on the table and 'reveal all?.
It is only when you are 'badgered' that you let us glimpse into your 'belief' sphere.

What are you talking about. I can hardly put them down in one thread, and when did I need to be badgered to say what I think. Are you thinking of someone else?

Paul is the Anti-Christ/fair enough. I never had much time for him.
Then we get to Jesus and you say this.

ThePainefulTruth: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.

zero:That's Jesus dealt with, a romantic theist who believed in Yahweh (a revealed God). Where does that leave you with your God of Truth and Beauty?.

Isn't it true that the truth is paineful for all here because all that you believe in is that others are wrong.

No, only those who put blind faith in anything. Many evangelicals I agree with politically, and vice versa. I don't enjoy being in the middle which is why I promote pursuing the Truth and in order to see where that leads.

Isn't it paineful because you disclose your 'stuff' in a drip drip manner and isn't it in fact paineful for all and sundry to watch you crash and burn here. ThePainefulTruth, you could sell me scholarship and then some but that adds up to zip if you cannot produce a rational sentence of intent from it all. IMHO

Drip, drip? What do you want me to do, post a book that everyone will ignore? Intent? Advocating the pursuit of Truth, which is supposedly the ultimate goal of any religion or philosophy--though that obviously is rarely the case. Is that simple enough to appear rational to you, which was uncalled for if you're not going to give an example of my irrationality.

Are you a Christian, I doubt it.
Are you an Atheist, Apparently not.
What are you??? What are you selling???

If it's broadband, I already have it.

Don't know what that last means, and if you've read any of my posts elsewhere, you should pick up pretty quickly that my pursuit of the Truth, which I'm advocating for free, has led me to belief in a laissez-faire God that is hands off for a reason--not because It built a clock, wound it up and walked away. That was always the most idiotic of analogies. Why on heaven and earth would God do that?

I have brain, will travel, and discuss at length any reasonable topic you'd like. But if you've already made up your mind about me, take a hike.