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.

[Zzyzx]

.

We had enough of that over on Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board and on EarlyChristianWritings.org (which banned you).

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any negative comments about other posters.

What happens in other websites is of no concern here.

Debate issues, not personalities.

Please review the Rules.

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'm sorry, I thought I'd responded to this post.

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).

This is 6 years old. Much has happened since then including the robotic exploration of the Garden Tomb near the "Jesus Tomb" revealing the decorated ossuary that is likely Joseph of Arimathea's. This link is to an excellent compilation of the current state of affairs for the area at Talpiot, including answers to 20 of the most common objections including the Miramene ossuary and the strong patina evidence that the James ossuary came from the Jesus Tomb, which for me is the virtual clincher.
http://jamestabor.com/2014/04/02/the-ta ... -fictions/

Things have changed drastically in 6 years, which is also how old that Vermes quote from Bar is.

[ThePainefulTruth]

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.

I believe Mark ended emphatically at 16:8. I'm unfamiliar with anything concerning theories about a missing ending turning up in John. And Luke was written well after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, Luke being a disciple of Paul--about as far removed from the "Jerusalem school of James" as philosophically possible.

[ThePainefulTruth]

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".

Yeah, at lest this branch of thought appears to be winding down. There are other branches (Mithraism in Tarsus for example) but it would be a waste to introduce them here, now. Better to start with a new thread.

[Strider324]

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

We could ask the same about Jesus.

[Duvduv]

[Replying to Korah]


It isn't correct to label my position my personal "hobby horse." The facts speak for themselves. You and I BOTH know that there is not a shred of external corroborative evidence for the existence of either Jesus or Paul, nor for the writing of the epistles or the existence of any communities to which the letters were written. What is so complicated about discussing that??
And WHO had the means, motive and opportunity to impose a new religion and drafting of writings to represent that religion over a wide area?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 66 by Duvduv]
Yes, Duvduv,
The Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. did destroy so many records that the best insight we have into 20's and 30's Palestine is from the New Testament in which Christian records had already spread around the Mediterranean Sea.

We both know you're leading us back to Leucius Charinus here and his refusal to admit that any Christian writings preceded the Council of Nicaea in 325 A. D. Soon you'll be telling us here that Eusebius invented Christianity. Don't expect that to fly any better here than anywhere else Pete the Mountainman from Outback Australia has been spreading his (anti-) "gospel". That's ironically just another diversion from the Substance you claim to want discussed.

I would tell you to start your own and not derail this one, but then you might just do that, G-d forbid.

[Duvduv]

[Replying to Korah]

Asoh! So now allegations are "proven" by the unsubstantiated argument that records "proving" the early origin of Christianity were "destroyed."
I don't care about Eusebius per se or not. Deal first with the original substantive issues: that there is not a shred of collaborative evidence anywhere that the Church dogma that someone named "Paul" actually existed and wrote letters to alleged Christian communities in the first century. Including no evidence anywhere in traditional Jewish sources of the period. Same goes for the existence of Jewish Christians, and last but not least...........for Jesus of the NT!!

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to Korah]

Asoh! So now allegations are "proven" by the unsubstantiated argument that records "proving" the early origin of Christianity were "destroyed."
I don't care about Eusebius per se or not. Deal first with the original substantive issues: that there is not a shred of collaborative evidence anywhere that the Church dogma that someone named "Paul" actually existed and wrote letters to alleged Christian communities in the first century. Including no evidence anywhere in traditional Jewish sources of the period. Same goes for the existence of Jewish Christians, and last but not least...........for Jesus of the NT!!

So, you would exclude Jesus' brother James as a Jewish "Christian" source, who even Josephus mentions?

[zeromeansnothing]

Strider 324?
Duvduv wrote: Can it be called Paulism if there is no evidence outside the Church dogma that someone named Paul the apostle even existed??


Strider 324:We could ask the same about Jesus.


People dispute the past for their own agenda's all the time.
Where did the Parable of the Prodigal Son come from?

If you search for grunge you will find Cobain.
If you search for impressionism you will find Monet.
If you search for idealism you will find the teachings of Jesus in a 1st Century sewer.

If you do not want to find it, you will not, you will find something that fits your purpose instead.

Strider 324 , where did the parable come from? Simple question.


ps: A press release by Hamas in April 2000 decried "the so-called Holocaust, which is an alleged and invented story with no basis". In August 2009, Hamas refused to allow Palestinian children to learn about the Holocaust, which it called "a lie invented by the Zionists" and referred to Holocaust education as a "war crime".