Paul in Scripture, was he a real hsitorical person and a converted Jew

by designs 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  designs

  Critique on a scholarly level began around the 1700s by F.C. Baur a theologian in Germany followed by Deissman and Reitzenstein. Some felt he was really a Gnostic, others felt that he may have been the writer Luke, or a Plato schooled Mystic. Thomas Jefferson felt he destroyed the teachings of Jesus.

  Books ascribed to him are different in philosophy and the perspective on Judaism and the new Jesus movement. Clement of Rome though acknowledges him as a real person and speaks of his death.

  How different would Christianity have turned out without 'Paul'. Did he set in motion the powerful Bishop/Deacon system. Are his views on women and slavery to be isolated within their social construct or wholly dismissed as his personal misogyny and cultural biases.
• 

  ProdigalSon

  Of the 13 epistles attributed to "Paul", only 4 are agreed upon by most scholars. There is no doubt that "Paul" was used by later church fathers to pervert Christianity over to a priesthood/government-friendly version. Whether he actually existed is as much in question as whether or not Jesus did. I believe they did exist but their message was changed, as Paul was indeed a Gnostic and Jesus was most likely an Essene. According to the Gnostic gospels of the Nag Hammadi Library, Jesus taught that God was within and was both male and female, and that uniting these two was the key to ascension.

  The truth is likely that which was attacked and destroyed by the Roman church. The preservation of the Gnostic gospels and their discovery in 1945 is proof enough for me that there is a God who never fails to bring to light what is carefully concealed.

  PS
• 

  Leolaia

  Of the 13 epistles attributed to "Paul", only 4 are agreed upon by most scholars.

  Only 4? Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians make up four, but there are also 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, and usually Philemon. The ones that are usually doubted are 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, and of course the three Pastorals.

  How different would Christianity have turned out without 'Paul'. Did he set in motion the powerful Bishop/Deacon system.

  That's from the Pastorals, which also probably didn't set in motion these structures (they refer to them as if they already exist). Plus they were probably more primitive and less "powerful" than the system that developed after the first century.

  Are his views on women and slavery to be isolated within their social construct or wholly dismissed as his personal misogyny and cultural biases.

  I think they have to be considered within their cultural context, as slavery was a big part of Roman society and early Christianity drew heavily from the enslaved; so the Pauline message was probably attractive to many of them, particularly the emphasis on equality within the brotherhood. Here is one big difference between the synoptic Jesus and Paul: the former cared a lot about social justice but not Paul so much.

  Maybe the situation with women is similar, although one must be careful not to mix up the statements in the Pastorals with Paul's own views (as he recognized and credited his female co-laborers and did not exclude women from teaching). The early proto-gnostic opinion of women, as found in post-Pauline works, was deeply misogynistic and yet it created social spaces for women to achieve social roles unavailable to them in the traditional system of betrothal/marriage. What I find interesting is that here essentialism was used to defuse the underlying misogyny (i.e. the evil, corrupt female body is not the real person but the inner divine soul is, which is equal to any male), whereas in our culture essentialism is used to reinforce and legitimize misogyny.
• 

  PSacramento

  To just add a few minor point to what Leo put out in her usual excellent way:

  Paul's MAJOR points are about LOVE, HOPE and FAITH, they view that we are justified before God because of our FAITH and not works ( doing good to get into God's good graces). These are NOT bad things.

  Paul's writings are full of love, compassion and tenderness, yes many times his views can seem cruel, nearsighted, even bigot like at times.

  Paul was writing to specific places/people answering specififc questions and we need to take that into account, we can't use a reply to a specififc case to justify a doctrine for ALL, liek some choose to do.

  Like any writer, one needs to take Paul as a WHOLE and focus on the core and key views, his main arguments, not the specific points made to specific questions that we don't really know the details of.

  The fact that Paul "accepts" slavery must be taken in light that he viewed ALL as slaves anyways and that he saw no difference between master and slave and told the masters that neither shoudl they, but he was also aware of what preaching open rebelion would mean and preaching against slavery was just that, Paul was not an idiot, he understood the times and knew that changes to NOT come over night.

  Paul's views on women get messed up because he Mentions Phoebe as a deacon so he approves of a woman as a minister and holding a high place so that needs to be take into account when reading passages that may SEEM to indicate that he viewed them as "second class" citizens.

  As for the deacon/bishop thing, I think that it was the apostolic fathers that really nutrode that sucker !
• 

  JWoods

  Paul's writings are full of love, compassion and tenderness, yes many times his views can seem cruel, nearsighted, even bigot like at times.

  I have to say that much of it comes off to me now as the rantings of a very angry gay activist.
• 

  keyser soze

  I have to say that much of it comes off to me now as the rantings of a very angry gay activist.

  So he was the first century's version of Rosie O'Donnell?
• 

  JWoods

  Jerry Springer, Keyser.
• 

  PSacramento

  I have to say that much of it comes off to me now as the rantings of a very angry gay activist.

  Dude, honestly, have you read ALL his letters?

  And that is the ONLY thing you get from them?

  Look at this passage:

  1 Corinthians 13

  Love

  1 If I speak in the tongues [a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, [b] but have not love, I gain nothing.

  4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

  8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

  13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
• 

  NowAndThen

  Paul is lovely. Paul is what I wish I could be: bold, choleric, humourous, serious, down to earth, assertive. Paul is what makes the NT believable. He gives the NT a very human face. Who is this man who turned from killing believers to believing, and not only did but confessed? Who is this man who wore his garb of Judaism when he needed to (women should learn in silence and if they have questions, ask their hubbies) but was bold enough to proclaim that in Christ there is neither male or female, freeborn or slave, Jew or Gentile?

  Without Paul, there would either have been no Christianity or one of a different and paler shade.

  That said, we all know (don't we?) that he did not write "the Letter to the Hebrews".

  But I do love Paul, in all his glorious contradictions.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Several interesting studies have been released in recent times.

  The classic would probably be: "St Paul versus St Peter: A Tale of Two Missions", by Michael Goulder.

  Others include:

  "How Jesus Became Christian: The Early Christians and the Transformation of a Jewish Teacher into the Son of God" by Barrie Wilson, and

  "Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth", Burton Mack.

  Doug