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.

[Elijah John]

I agree with the OP, and have also read "Mythmaker", and recommend it.

In spite of contributing some good passages, I think Paul did corrupt John, Jesus and James early message of love of God and love of neighbor.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 2 by Elijah John]

Not to mention blending Jewish "Christianity" with Mithraism thus making Jesus divine and his death salvific. For Jews, the rite of the Lord's Supper, as Paul called it, symbolically partaking of Jesus' flesh and blood, was outright blasphemy. As Maccoby points out, early church fathers were embarrassed by that name because it was the same name used by the mystery religions (read pagans and the cult worshipers of Mithras), and changed the name of the rite to the Eucharist, which has Jewish roots.

[ttruscott]

If you mean does Paul teach true Christianity, then I agree.

If you can make unsubstantiated claims like 'Paul was not a Roman citizen by birth as he claimed,' then I take the privilege also.

All of Paul's so called contradictions to Christ are reconcilable. Speculations about his life are moot,

peace, Ted

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

I have no doubt Paul isn't perfect but it has always been his arguments that I found persuasive.

[zeromeansnothing]

Is this what we have become? Back to Back One Liners

Elijah John:In spite of contributing some good passages, I think Paul did corrupt John, Jesus and James early message of love of God and love of neighbor.


ttruscott:All of Paul's so called contradictions to Christ are reconcilable. Speculations about his life are moot,

Wootah:I have no doubt Paul isn't perfect but it has always been his arguments that I found persuasive.


The silence is deafening here. Wootah, Danmark has me reading this Pauline stuff. What is persuasive about this . Where did he get the idea that it was all or nothing with the resurrection thing. That might have been persuasive but was it even sensible?

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."
_ Ephesians 6:12

Explain how Corinthians 15 might be regarded as either persuasive or coherent. I think if you throw in one-liners to threads then you should be 'up for it'?

[99percentatheism]

The problem with the scholarship of the OP's well, "schoalrs" is that the other Epistles that are not written or dictated by Paul, are very "Christian orthodox."

From John:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched"this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete.

- 1 John 1

James:

My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, Heres a good seat for you, but say to the poor man, You stand there or Sit on the floor by my feet, have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

- James 2

Peter:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To Gods elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

-

Jude:

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,

To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.

The Sin and Doom of Ungodly People

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to Gods holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

- Jude 1

And from Luke:

In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, Ananias!

Yes, Lord, he answered.

The Lord told him, Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.

Lord, Ananias answered, I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.

But the Lord said to Ananias, Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, Brother Saul, the Lord"Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here"has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Immediately, something like scales fell from Sauls eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

- Acts 9

Christianity is Christianity. Paul (Saul) or no Paul. But he preached the same Jesus as the rest.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 6 by zeromeansnothing]


Interesting, you edited my remarks and Ted's to turn them INTO one-liners, and personally I do not see a problem with Wootah's comment either, but that's just me.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

I have no doubt Paul isn't perfect but it has always been his arguments that I found persuasive.

He can be, and I think the letters attributed to Paul contain some fine prose. I really like his address to the Athenians as recorded in Acts 17, and his treatise on love in 1 Corinthians 13.

It is his blood theology I disagree with mainly.

And though Paul sometimes sounds like a true monotheist, his Christology is still higher than mine.

I think the OP is pretty accurate and I do find his comments and the Mythmaker book persuasive, I think they are both onto something there.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Is this what we have become? Back to Back One Liners

Elijah John:In spite of contributing some good passages, I think Paul did corrupt John, Jesus and James early message of love of God and love of neighbor.


ttruscott:All of Paul's so called contradictions to Christ are reconcilable. Speculations about his life are moot,

Wootah:I have no doubt Paul isn't perfect but it has always been his arguments that I found persuasive.


The silence is deafening here. Wootah, Danmark has me reading this Pauline stuff. What is persuasive about this . Where did he get the idea that it was all or nothing with the resurrection thing. That might have been persuasive but was it even sensible?

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."
_ Ephesians 6:12

Explain how Corinthians 15 might be regarded as either persuasive or coherent. I think if you throw in one-liners to threads then you should be 'up for it'?

I things are flying a little to thick and fast. There is no Corinthians 15.