Isn't Christianity actually Paulism

ThePainefulTruth · Post by **ThePainefulTruth** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:30 pm

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.

zeromeansnothing · Post by **zeromeansnothing** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:42 am

ThePainefulTruth:I have brain, will travel, and discuss at length any reasonable topic you'd like

You pursue your noble quest on your noble steed but it all bears the poignancy of a Don Quixote wood block print. You are looking for windmill blades to impale. I love the little manservant that follows this noble knight' grail quest. Have you aspirations towards discipleship, ThePainefulTruth? Let me be blunt here.

If you pursue truth in an honest way you will meet it in the mahogany of your sitting room door. It is in the grain. Are you a Romantic sickly Keats fading into the leafy shades of nightingale song ,where.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty.
That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know.

Sorry, but truth in life does not afford space for this aesthetic nonsense.

ThePainefulTruth:.....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 get it God=Truth, a God who does not use a clock, is laissez-faire, and not touch feely and if you believe otherwise ( ie Armageddon) you are an idiot. I get it. Here is some painful advice for you for free, TPT

Improve your questioning skills.

Isn't Christianity actually Paulism.
Isn't Christmas, all about the kids.
Wouldn't you just die without Mahler (probably not)

Why on heaven and earth would God do that?
Why on heaven and earth would God, not do that?

ThePainefulTruth · Post by **ThePainefulTruth** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:43 am

zeromeansnothing wrote: ThePainefulTruth:I have brain, will travel, and discuss at length any reasonable topic you'd like

You pursue your noble quest on your noble steed but it all bears the poignancy of a Don Quixote wood block print. You are looking for windmill blades to impale. I love the little manservant that follows this noble knight' grail quest. Have you aspirations towards discipleship, ThePainefulTruth? Let me be blunt here.

To dream the impossible dream, yeah, but mine is based in reality, not monsters in the shape of windmills, but symbolically the fair Dulcinea in far off Toboso. And I don't see myself as a leader, neither was Don Quixote. Sancho was his squire, but in today's world, all we need is genuine companionship--still a rare commodity.

If you pursue truth in an honest way you will meet it in the mahogany of your sitting room door.

What, Nevermore?

It is in the grain. Are you a Romantic sickly Keats fading into the leafy shades of nightingale song ,where.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty.
That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know.

On other boards I've labeled myself a romantic cynic. Keats was right (in part) about beauty being Truth, but that most definitely is not all we need to know. It's a sneaky way of dismissing anything even partly objective, like love.

Sorry, but truth in life does not afford space for this aesthetic nonsense.

You're choking me on those words you're cramming in my mouth. (mfph.)

I get it God=Truth, a God who does not use a clock, is laissez-faire, and not touch feely and if you believe otherwise ( ie Armageddon) you are an idiot. I get it. Here is some painful advice for you for free, TPT

Improve your questioning skills

Isn't Christianity actually Paulism.
Isn't Christmas, all about the kids.
Wouldn't you just die without Mahler (probably not)

Why on heaven and earth would God do that?
Why on heaven and earth would God, not do that?

it appears that you are only interested in exercising your keyboard on sarcasm. So take a look around, I'm sure there's a trail-head around there somewhere.

Duvduv · Post by **Duvduv** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:43 am

Can we get to some substantive discussion about the subject matter introduced by this thread??

zeromeansnothing · Post by **zeromeansnothing** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:55 am

ThePainefulTruth:...On other boards I've labelled myself a romantic cynic

And that just beats Banagher, a romantic cynic, an Edwardian.

Isn't it more accurate to state that you extract illusion from metaphor.

Why would Paul be the anti-Christ, why would Jesus be the Son of God and why would you come up with another God altogether. Point to this unrevealed God's truth or are you still deciphering the clues? Will we be going up the Congo with Joseph Conrad?

ps duvduv; I always thought that ''Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma'' was the place where guys ate their chips on papyrus parchment. I have mine on yesterday's Sun.

ThePainefulTruth · Post by **ThePainefulTruth** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:42 pm

Duvduv wrote: Can we get to some substantive discussion about the subject matter introduced by this thread??

Certainly, what's on your mind?

Duvduv · Post by **Duvduv** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:22 pm

[Replying to post 55 by ThePainefulTruth]

Well, I was replying to the opening posting on the thread, and the subject matter has gone nowhere.......how about relating back to that? What is this forum for? To discuss and debate or to meander around feel-good issues?

Korah · Post by **Korah** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:39 pm

[Replying to post 56 by Duvduv]

How about my "Mulligan" Post #41? If you don't want to debate it here, kindly click on any of my three links and we can resurrect the thread of your choice.
Or you can go to yet more distant links I gave therein to other threads here and on other websites.

Strider324 · Post by **Strider324** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:40 pm

Duvduv wrote: Can we get to some substantive discussion about the subject matter introduced by this thread??

For several years I have expressed to my theist friends that it would certainly be more honest and accurate for them to refer to themselves as Paulians. The contradictions between what Jesus and Paul taught have been detailed in this thread. Certainly mainstream christianity is all about the Paul, although sadly very few of them even realize it. If it's in the NT, it must be from Jesus.

So for me at least, I see nothing further to discuss on the OP. My simple answer to it is "Yes".

Duvduv · Post by **Duvduv** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:59 pm

Can it be called Paulism if there is no evidence outside the Church dogma that someone named Paul the apostle even existed??

Korah · Post by **Korah** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:21 pm

[Replying to post 59 by Duvduv]
I thought you were the one who wanted "substantive discussion"?
Then you dredge up your personal hobby-horse that nothing ever existed before the Talmud except the Torah. We had enough of that over on Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board and on EarlyChristianWritings.org (which banned you).
If you really want substance I brought substance up for you in my Post #41.