Paul, the first heretic?

[Elijah John]

I have long wondered why the correspondence of Paul have taken on the authority of revealed, sacred Scripture.

At best, I will contend that Paul was a theologian who had some good things to say, but as Z stated in another thread, hijacked Christianity and tailored it for a Roman-Pagan audience.

Judaism+Mediterranean Paganism =Trinitarian Christianity seems to be the formula.

But the way I see it, Paul's interpretation of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, is a theological interpretation, and are his OPINIONS of the significance of the event.

But don't it beat all,* whole Churches and denominations have been founded on Paul's opinions!

And also as Z pointed out, that Paul never met Jesus in person, only in a vision. James, the brother of Jesus did not readily accept him as an apostle, according to many historical Jesus scholars.

Question for debate, did Paul hijack Christianity, making him the first or most influential heretic, or was Paul a true apostle of God and Christ?

Is it wise to found a whole religion on one man's vision, in this case from the road to Damascus?


(*Thanks to the inspiration of Joey K for the very useful phrase)

[ThePainefulTruth]

Question for debate, did Paul hijack Christianity, making him the first or most influential heretic, or was Paul a true apostle of God and Christ?

The word "Christianity" shouldn't be associated with Jesus, James or the Jerusalem church of his (movement?), which was a Jewish sect. We probably shouldn't even call it a church. All the non-Jewish tenets associated with Christianity came from Paul. Paul progressively dismissed Judaism, or worse, made it the enemy of his Christos branding of Jesus, John the Baptists and James Jewish sect. Even today's Ebionites are declaring that Paul is the beast of Revelation.

For more information on Mithraism, Paul's pagan template on which he overlaid Christianity, re: this webpage:
http://www.websitesonadime.com/ffwic/mithra.htm

I think there's a double meaning to the "number of the beast" (which isn't 666 or 616 or any other anachronistic arabic number); it's Jewish gematria for Tarsus, the center of Mithraism in the Roman Empire. And the "number" is found in (only) 2 other (OT) passages which are identical to each other, giving he number of talents of gold coming to Solomon in a year. I think it's a negative accusation against Paul with his Roman citizenship and wealth derived from his hated Herodian heritage. (That last is my conclusion.)

[Wootah]

[Replying to Danmark]

I just Google it and the answer is that Paul wrote 13-14 of the 27 books in the bible.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 21 by ThePainefulTruth]

I did not realize there were any Ebionites still around, and am very suprised to hear them use the term "Beast of Revelation" with regard to ANYONE, giving John's "vision" on Patmos any legitimacy.....at all.

But I guess if there is such a thing, Paul would best fit the bill. But even I (no fan of Paul) would not go that far.

I could be wrong, but I doubt the historical, first or second century Ebionites accepted the book of Revelation.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 21 by ThePainefulTruth]

I did not realize there were any Ebionites still around, and am very suprised to hear them use the term "Beast of Revelation" with regard to ANYONE, giving John's "vision" on Patmos any legitimacy.....at all.

First off, calling it a vision is a huge stretch. And, in part due to its variable theology, John was almost certainly a compilation of authors, for and against Paul's Christianity. The Ebionites today don't claim anything but a spiritual heritage from the original movement. They and the Essenes, Nazoreans, Nazarites and others are groups using different names for the same thing--followers of Jesus who were poor. The website I go to, http://www.ebionite.org/, has a section in the index titled 666. Go there to see what they have to say. Also their interpretation on the facade of the tomb of Jesus in Talpiot near Jerusalem, has the ring of Truth.

BTW, while I respect them for their forthrightness and the valuable information they provide, they are still proponents of a revealed religion. And the "Ebionite Manefesto" is troubling.

But I guess if there is such a thing, Paul would best fit the bill. But even I (no fan of Paul) would not go that far.

Never underestimate the enmity between Paul and the James church, which is downplayed in the gospels and Luke. Like I say, read what they've posted, it stands on its own. Nothing ever made sense about the number of the beast until this.

I could be wrong, but I doubt the historical, first or second century Ebionites accepted the book of Revelation.

Entirely possible, but irrelevant. Very little is known about the ancient Ebionites. It is mainly a name used as a rallying point today (my opinion). The original Ebionites apparently believed Jesus was the messiah, just not a god or any of the other Pauline stuff.

Did you look at the Christianity-Mithraism link? It's very, very, enlightening. We begin to see the problem of understanding and communicating the problem of Paul.

[kayky]

I suppose for an unrepentant sinner there can never be enough grace, but people who think they can continue in sin after repentance are expecting "too much grace".
Do you subscribe to "cheap grace" for Christians? Do you think God will tolerate sin forever? Have you heard the term "give a person enough rope and they will hang themselves"?

"What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."- (Paul to the Romans.)

This is a strange idea to me that any Christian would think that it is okay to commit sins. Can you give some examples of where you see this occurring in the contemporary church?

It depends on what one is liberal about.

Can you provide specific examples of how liberalism is related to sin?

The Israelite's were God's chosen people to receive the Old Covenant established by the Law. The descendant's of the Israelite's, the Jews, were the first to receive the New Covenant established by faith/belief in Christ. Most of the Jews rejected Jesus and the Gospel of Jesus was preached to the Gentiles. Now, in the fullness of time, the Jews have the opportunity to regain "chosen" status by returning to the LORD through Christ Jesus.

Jesus said to the Jews:
And other sheep (Gentiles) I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The Jews were the original "fold".

I understand all of this, but your implication is that there is a significant number of Jews suddenly converting to Christianity. I see no evidence of this. Can you justify this claim or clarify if I have misunderstood?

[kayky]

All religions are "made up." That doesn't mean they have no value.

Essentially it does. Anything founded on a lie will only putrefy as it corrupts itself from within, defending and growing the lie. Any possible good associated with it, such as charity, would be much better in a secular setting.

Mystical language and spiritual metaphor do not constitute a lie. Taking such language literally does corrupt. Religion isn't just about morality. It is about personal transformation.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

I just Google it and the answer is that Paul wrote 13-14 of the 27 books in the bible.

Thank you. I was going by actual pages; that if you set aside the Gospels and Acts, which is all about Paul) and Revelation, then there is very little left except what is attributed to Paul. You have very short letters by Jude, James, John and Peter. Particularly if Paul wrote Hebrews, it is Paul who virtually single handedly created Christianity.

[kayky]

I think you all are being way too hard on Paul. Only seven of the epistles attributed to him were actually written by him: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, and Philemon. The rest are thought to have been written in the second century and attributed to Paul (not an uncommon practice). This is according to contemporary scholarship.

Since his authentic epistles are the earliest Christian documents we have, Paul is the closest thing we have to original Christianity. There is no evidence that Paul "hijacked" Christianity since the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were written much later and represent later understandings.

The Jesus of the Gospels makes it very clear that his message was to the Jews only. The "Great Commission" does not even appear in the original version of the Gospel of Mark and represents a later view. Paul's vision was that the message of Christ was meant for all people. The only conflict he had with the Jerusalem church was that they wanted these Gentile Christians to convert to Judaism first and Paul did not think this was necessary. Paul was the first Christian theologian and a Jewish mystic. His writings have been largely misunderstood as the religion grew and spread after his death.

The separation of Christianity from Judaism was inevitable after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. In the diaspora Jewish communities clung even more tightly to their traditions in order to maintain their unique identity. They wanted nothing to do with reforms or new ideas and expelled Christians from their synagogues.

[YahDough]

The Israelite's were God's chosen people to receive the Old Covenant established by the Law. The descendant's of the Israelite's, the Jews, were the first to receive the New Covenant established by faith/belief in Christ. Most of the Jews rejected Jesus and the Gospel of Jesus was preached to the Gentiles. Now, in the fullness of time, the Jews have the opportunity to regain "chosen" status by returning to the LORD through Christ Jesus.

Jesus said to the Jews:
And other sheep (Gentiles) I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The Jews were the original "fold".

I understand all of this, but your implication is that there is a significant number of Jews suddenly converting to Christianity. I see no evidence of this. Can you justify this claim or clarify if I have misunderstood?

I suggest you google "Jewish conversion(s) to Christianity" if you are interested in the statistics.
There are many websites.

The "Jews For Jesus" movement has been around for decades.

My home town, which isn't highly populated has a Jewish Christian Church body now.

The numbers will surely rise.

[kayky]

Okay. I did a Google search and found this at Answers.com:

How many Jews have converted to Christianity?
Answer
There are no statistics available for this, because once a Jew leaves Judaism, he or she usually does not identify as a Jew any longer.

The exception is a religious denomination called Messianic Judaism, however a recent survey shows that more than 70% of the members of these religions were never Jewish in the first place.


Jewish-Christian Answer

A recent University study shows that at least 20% of the population of Spain,
say 9 million people have a mother with Christian Jewish genealogy.
that would make of Spain the country with the largest community in the world
of Christian Jews.

My daughter lives in the Mount Washington area of Baltimore, Maryland, which has the second largest Jewish population in the USA. Having gotten to know some of her neighbors, I can tell you that they are very proud of their heritage and have no interest in converting.

In my Google search, I also read that there are also Christians who are converting to Judaism! In an interfaith marriage, if one spouse decides to convert, it is more often the Christian spouse who converts to Judaism.

While I'm sure there are Jews who convert to Christianity, I think it is highly likely that you are exaggerating the signifance of the numbers in your own mind because of your belief in Biblical prophecy. I would say there are more Jews converting to atheism than to Christianity.