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]

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.

So is Jesus' death as a human sacrifice for our sins so we don't have to try to be good (according to Paul), literal, mystical language or a spiritual metaphor? How about his divinity, resurrection, or consuming his trans-substantiated flesh and blood? How is all that not a lie in any case unless it's declared to be a metaphor, or so obviously one, like Genesis.

[kayky]

So is Jesus' death as a human sacrifice for our sins so we don't have to try to be good (according to Paul), literal, mystical language or a spiritual metaphor? How about his divinity, resurrection, or consuming his trans-substantiated flesh and blood? How is all that not a lie in any case unless it's declared to be a metaphor, or so obviously one, like Genesis.

God required no human sacrifice, and Paul didn't believe that either. Paul is saying that being transformed by love does away with the need to "try" to be good. It will become your new nature.

As a Jew, Paul would not have seen Jesus as the second person of any Trinity. He did believe that Jesus was "glorified" by God at his resurrection. This simply means that Jesus was given a high status in heaven--the highest afforded any other human being. When Paul speaks of Christ's "equality" with God, he is using mystical language to refer to our ability to experience oneness--unity--with God.

How did the earliest Christians--including Paul--view the resurrection? As the literal resuscitation of a corpse? I think not. Paul makes it very clear that his encounter with the risen Christ was the same as that of the other Apostles: a vision.

The trans-substantiation of wine and bread to bone and flesh is based on Church tradition only. Many Protestant denominations do not believe in it. It is not Biblical.

[Danmark]

So is Jesus' death as a human sacrifice for our sins so we don't have to try to be good (according to Paul), literal, mystical language or a spiritual metaphor? How about his divinity, resurrection, or consuming his trans-substantiated flesh and blood? How is all that not a lie in any case unless it's declared to be a metaphor, or so obviously one, like Genesis.

God required no human sacrifice, and Paul didn't believe that either. Paul is saying that being transformed by love does away with the need to "try" to be good. It will become your new nature.

As a Jew, Paul would not have seen Jesus as the second person of any Trinity. He did believe that Jesus was "glorified" by God at his resurrection. This simply means that Jesus was given a high status in heaven--the highest afforded any other human being. When Paul speaks of Christ's "equality" with God, he is using mystical language to refer to our ability to experience oneness--unity--with God.

That is closer to my own belief, but I am not convinced Paul did not see and preach that Jesus is God.

"And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Colossians 1:17
"Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all."
Colossians 3:11

If Paul did not preach that Jesus was God, how did this belief become fundamental to Christianity?

[ThePainefulTruth]

So is Jesus' death as a human sacrifice for our sins so we don't have to try to be good (according to Paul), literal, mystical language or a spiritual metaphor? How about his divinity, resurrection, or consuming his trans-substantiated flesh and blood? How is all that not a lie in any case unless it's declared to be a metaphor, or so obviously one, like Genesis.

God required no human sacrifice, and Paul didn't believe that either. Paul is saying that being transformed by love does away with the need to "try" to be good. It will become your new nature.

No, he said that being transformed by faith does away with the need to try. And what is the source of Christian salvation if not Jesus' death?

When Paul speaks of Christ's "equality" with God, he is using mystical language to refer to our ability to experience oneness--unity--with God.

Yes, even Paul didn't have the temerity to suggest the Trinity. Unfortunately, most Christians missed that point after holy Christian tenets and canon had be declared by committee and the Emperor's sanction.

How did the earliest Christians--including Paul--view the resurrection? As the literal resuscitation of a corpse? I think not. Paul makes it very clear that his encounter with the risen Christ was the same as that of the other Apostles: a vision.

Excellent point. I think the evidence from the Talpiot tombs suggests just that. Again, it was the theology by committee that resolved that issue in favor of a bodily resurrection. How many denominations don't believe in a bodily resurrection?

The trans-substantiation of wine and bread to bone and flesh is based on Church tradition only. Many Protestant denominations do not believe in it. It is not Biblical.

Also very true. However, even the symbolic consumption of human flesh and blood would have been blasphemy to any Jew such as Jesus, James, John the Baptist et al--than and now. I just brought up the trans-substantion issue to show how many denominations are doubly wrong. IOW, this goes back to showing that indeed mystical language can very well constitute a lie.

[ThePainefulTruth]

So is Jesus' death as a human sacrifice for our sins so we don't have to try to be good (according to Paul), literal, mystical language or a spiritual metaphor? How about his divinity, resurrection, or consuming his trans-substantiated flesh and blood? How is all that not a lie in any case unless it's declared to be a metaphor, or so obviously one, like Genesis.

God required no human sacrifice, and Paul didn't believe that either. Paul is saying that being transformed by love does away with the need to "try" to be good. It will become your new nature.

As a Jew, Paul would not have seen Jesus as the second person of any Trinity. He did believe that Jesus was "glorified" by God at his resurrection. This simply means that Jesus was given a high status in heaven--the highest afforded any other human being. When Paul speaks of Christ's "equality" with God, he is using mystical language to refer to our ability to experience oneness--unity--with God.

That is closer to my own belief, but I am not convinced Paul did not see and preach that Jesus is God.

If Paul did not preach that Jesus was God, how did this belief become fundamental to Christianity?

Plus Paul based his pagan model of Christianity on Mithraism, with Mithras as the sun god. Jesus is depicted as the sun god, Christos Helios (the Mithraic Sol Invictus) in a mosaic on the ceiling in the mid 200s AD tomb of Pope Julius I under the Vatican.

[The Quick]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Peter himself places Paul's writings on the plane of Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). If you hold to Peter's writings as having Scriptural authority, then you must do the same for Paul.

[kayky]

[Replying to Danmark]

Progressive Christian scholars will tell you that Colossians is most likely a second-century pseudo-Pauline epistle. I think that is most likely when the deification of Jesus began--but only in certain groups. I would say that as the religion became more and more a Gentile phenomenon (Gentiles with pagan backgrounds) the idea gained even more traction.

Paul, I think, would have seen the status of Jesus in heaven as having divine dimensions; but since monotheism was such a driving force within Judaism, I have strong doubts the earliest Jewish Christians had a belief in anything close to the doctrine of the Trinity as it stands today.

[kayky]

No, he said that being transformed by faith does away with the need to try. And what is the source of Christian salvation if not Jesus' death?

Actually Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that love is greater than faith. When we choose from love, we will always say or do the right thing. Faith may increase love, but in my experience this is not always the case.

There can be no doubt that in attempting to find meaning in the execution of Jesus, the Gospel writers turned to the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. Hence Jesus is "the Lamb of God." But this can only be understood metaphorically. If God literally required a human sacrifice in order to "save" us (From what? Being human?), he would be a cruel tyrant, not a loving "father." So it is not the death of Jesus that saves us. It is in walking the same path as he did: the path of death and resurrection. We too must die to self before Christ can be resurrected in us. Paul said, "I die daily."

Yes, even Paul didn't have the temerity to suggest the Trinity. Unfortunately, most Christians missed that point after holy Christian tenets and canon had be declared by committee and the Emperor's sanction.

I can't argue with that!

Excellent point. I think the evidence from the Talpiot tombs suggests just that. Again, it was the theology by committee that resolved that issue in favor of a bodily resurrection. How many denominations don't believe in a bodily resurrection?

Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. I know many Episcopalians who no longer believe in a physical resurrection. But many still do.

Also very true. However, even the symbolic consumption of human flesh and blood would have been blasphemy to any Jew such as Jesus, James, John the Baptist et al--than and now. I just brought up the trans-substantion issue to show how many denominations are doubly wrong. IOW, this goes back to showing that indeed mystical language can very well constitute a lie.

It is the misinterpretation of mystical language that turns it into a lie--not the language itself. However, I find profound meaning in the Eucharist and all Christian ritual. Ritual is the language of the soul.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

Progressive Christian scholars will tell you that Colossians is most likely a second-century pseudo-Pauline epistle. I think that is most likely when the deification of Jesus began--but only in certain groups. I would say that as the religion became more and more a Gentile phenomenon (Gentiles with pagan backgrounds) the idea gained even more traction.

Paul, I think, would have seen the status of Jesus in heaven as having divine dimensions; but since monotheism was such a driving force within Judaism, I have strong doubts the earliest Jewish Christians had a belief in anything close to the doctrine of the Trinity as it stands today.

This all makes sense to me. It is very hard to believe that Paul, a devout Jew would have created and embraced a theology that tramples so hard on Jewish beliefs.

There is a great error that many believe and quote C. S. Lewis as its champion. That error in its essence claims that genius and craziness are incompatible. Stated that way, we all know it's a silly claim. But Lewis claimed it nonetheless with his 'trilemma' that Jesus must have been telling the truth, or was a fraud, or was crazy.
The same analysis applies to Paul, but I think with more force of evidence. The evidence is clear, that Paul claims to have seen and heard things others did not, crazy things, things that would be evidence of the supernatural if true. Paul makes this claim after he had lost consciousness and had gone without food or water for a time. There is every reason to suspect that Paul was hallucinating, and that whatever it was he thought he experienced unhinged his mind in this respect so that he suddenly went from persecuting Christians, to believing a man had become God. Why should we surrender our own faculty of reason and critical thinking because one man, Paul, got it so wrong due to his psychotic break? There is nothing that prevents us from believing that Paul was both a genius and delusional.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Peter himself places Paul's writings on the plane of Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). If you hold to Peter's writings as having Scriptural authority, then you must do the same for Paul.

I don't give much stock to Peter's writings either, despite him bein' declared the first Pope and all.

I consider the Synoptics, and the letter of James, more authentic to Jesus teachings then the rest of the NT. The Didache to me is more reflective to what I understand of the real teachings of Jesus then most of the epistles or the Gospel of John.

Bein' a Christian Heretic my self, gives me that leeway.
:oldhat: