Did Paul Invent Christianity?

by smmcroberts 49 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Phizzy

  Who by ? I see the Bible as the work of many writers, some forming perhaps a committee to write some of the Gospels say. Each writer or contributor reflects the mores and concerns of his day, the political and religious situation he finds himself in being the the main influence on his writing.

  Hence we see a difference between 1st and 2nd Isaiah for example, though they are contained in the same book, but from a different hand.

  I do agree that the writings attributed to Paul should be approached with a different attitude than the others, but all of the books need a careful examination of what lies behind the writing to understand were they are coming from.
• 

  Phizzy

  Sorry, Fat Finger double post.
• 

  Leolaia

  I would say, yes and no. It would depend on where you draw the line. I think a really good analogy can be found in JW history. Who started the JW religion? Was it Charles Russell or was it J. F. Rutherford? Most JWs think it was Russell. He started the original Bible Student movement, he founded the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, he is the charismatic personality associated with such core teachings as the 1914 doctrine. But Rutherford (and those who came after him) really was responsible for the most of what JWs believe, he was the one who actually named the group "Jehovah's Witnesses", and the many Bible Student groups more faithful to Russell's teachings are regarded as "apostates" for not following the lead of the organization that was helmed by Rutherford. At the same time, Russell himself was part of a broader Adventist movement, and much of what he taught was not invented by him but was already found in earlier Adventist groups which all originated ultimately in the movement that William Miller founded back in the 1840s. And Miller, in turn, was influenced by earlier American Protestant movements.

  Rutherford was analogous to Paul. There was already a Jesus movement when he came on the scene, but he developed his own elaborate theology and founded many churches that followed his gospel. The Jewish Christians who came before him tended to be Torah-observant (such as James the Just), and there was a good deal of friction between Paul and others over such issues as circumcision, table fellowship, etc. The bulk of Paul's gospel was about the cross and the legal implications of Jesus' death (from a Pharisaical point of view), whereas the early Jesus followers focused more on the teachings of Jesus (such as what is found in the synoptic gospels). Afterward, the more conservative Jewish-Christian groups were regarded as heretical by the largely Gentile church that followed Paul's teachings. (One small difference here is that orthodox Christianity did not just draw on Paul but also other early apostles who contributed to the conceptual character of the Church). The early Jesus movement, meanwhile, was situated in a larger Judaism; the NT shows that it drew on an earlier movement started by John the Baptist, who himself seems to have been situated in Essene thought.
• 

  Joe Grundy

  One of the things that got me thinking, many years ago, was the portrayal in the NT of life under Roman occupation. It was presented as a hazy, not very nice but not so bad time.

  As a general rule in life, it's important to know the context in which something is said or written - and to remember that history is written by the victors. (Increasingly nowadays archaeology is unearthing (no pun intended) accounts left behind by the losers).

  A little research reveals that the reality of occupied Palestine was very different. Life was harsh and there were fairly constant undercurrents and eruptions of revolt, particularly by those 'zealous for the law' of their god. They believed that the land, the people and everything that it produced belonged to their god and that it was their holy duty to resist unbelievers (see any paralells today?).

  Jesus (whoever he was) was one of thousands executed by the Romans for rebellion. (Don't forget that Romans practiced 'decimation' - i.e. killing 1 in 10 of their own soldiers - if there was a threat of rebellion in the ranks. They did not believe in 'group hugs' and sitting down to talk out the issues.) They probably had a point - he had been involved in a major public disturbance in the temple precincts (the 'money changers' tables') and when he was arrested they sent a 'cohort' (perhaps about 600 soldiers). All was not as 'fluffy' as often portrayed.)

  By the time the gospels and Acts were written there had been years of increasing armed revolt, guerilla warfare, Qumran, Masada and finally in 70AD the sack of Jerusalem and forced dispersal.

  It was not a good time to be promoting a new religion (which seems to have been Paul's motivation, not dissimilar to Russell or Joseph Smith) whose main figure had been executed and that's probably why the gospels put the blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews (with the inevitable consequences).

  It is interesting to note that as Paul was going round on his journeys, James was sending others after him to correct his teachings (if we are to believe what we read).

  I lived in Paphos, Cyprus, from 2005 to 2010. My morning walk took me past the ancient burial tombs, the house of the Roman governor of Cyprus (probably) - the mosaic floors are still there - and an ancient Jewish subterranean place of worship. Oh, and past the alleged 'St Paul's Pillar', where he was supposed to have been tied and whipped.

  I was always intrigued by the story of Paul in Paphos. It was there he changed his name from Saul, after meeting and allegedly converting the Roman governor Sergius Paulinus. That's where he is supposed to have met the Jewish guy 'Bar-Jesus' and blinded him in a trial of faiths. I have no idea of the truth of that story (I think its in Acts 9 or thereabouts) and I doubt that it will ever be known. Seems a bit allegorical to me.

  To repeat myself - context is everything. The more we know about what was actually going on in Palestine (and the rest of the Roman empire) the more (probably) we will understand the truth behind the NT.

  Just my opinion.
• 

  mP

  @Phizzy

  How it differed from other strands of Christian belief is not easy to establish, with a number of those strands, called "Heretics" by the dominant christians of the time, we only know what they apparently believed and taught from writings that oppose them, such writings dealing only with the points of difference.

  mP -> Phizzy

  You might want to check your scholarly sources, there is no proof of any xianity in the first century. Mystical Jewish groups there were plenty, proof of the apostles or jesus there is none. If you read what groups like the Gnostics actually believed you would realise they were not xian, but something very different. Not only did they have multiple Messiahs they had very strange solar worship ceremonies and more.
• 

  Joe Grundy

  " (One small difference here is that orthodox Christianity did not just draw on Paul but also other early apostles who contributed to the conceptual character of the Church). "

  My knowledge of Christianity was always that favoured by the western churches - i.e. the RCs and the protestant bits that flowed from that.

  One day in Cyprus I picked up an orthodox bible and read the foreword, which explained the differences and the history of the great schism in about 1000AD (?). Interesting, because most of us in western cultures take the RC based religion as 'christianity' we don't understand the differences. In fact, putting it in context, the eastern orthodox version (being geographically much closer to its roots) is probably closer to the origins.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  Google 'Did Paul Invent Christianity?' and read the article by Ben Witherington III, for example.
• 

  Phizzy

  mP, how do you view the writings of Paul ?

  I should not have said he "invented his own brand of Christianity", what I meant was, based on what he believed about the Christ, he created his own following, as per Leo's answer.

  But it seems from what he writes, in the 1st Century, that he was advocating something other than Judaism, he ,it seems , wanted what the later writers did, to extend the worship of the One he considered God beyond what he probably saw as aredundant and moribund jewish religion.

  I have to admit that I have not made a proper study of the writings attributed to him, but I am aware that redaction and later additions have gone on, so, as with most stuff from this time, what the historical person believed or taught is somewhat obfuscated

  Any of the over 2000 sects of Christendom today that you care to look at believe and teach quite late ideas, far removed from the time of Jesus.
• 

  mP

  Constantine Flavius had the idea of cannonizing the Bible in the 300s.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_great

  Constantine the Great ( Latin : Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus ; [3] c. 27 February 272 [2] – 22 May 337), also known as Constantine I or Saint Constantine , [4] was Roman Emperor from 306 to 337. Well known for being the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity , [notes 4] Constantine and co-Emperor Licinius issued the Edict of Milan in 313, which proclaimed tolerance of all religions throughout the empire.

  The second pope was a cousin of Caesar Vespaniann a Flavian.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Rome

  Pope Clement I (fl. 96), [1] also known as Saint Clement of Rome (in Latin, Clemens Romanus), is listed from an early date as a Bishop of Rome. [1] He was the first Apostolic Father of the Church. [2]

  Few details are known about Clement's life. According to Tertullian, Clement was consecrated by Saint Peter, [2] and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century. Early church lists place him as the second or third [1] [3] bishop of Rome after Saint Peter.

  Lets ask Josephus...many xians believeand cite his text as proof that Jesus existed. So lets see what he says about who was the Messiah.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_claimants

  • Jesus of Nazareth (c. 5 BCE – 30 CE), leader of a small Jewish sect who was crucified; Jews who believed him to be the Messiah were the first Christians, also known as Jewish Christians. Christians and Messianic Jews believe him to be the real Messiah.
  • Simon of Peraea (c. 4 BCE), a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled and was killed by the Romans. [3]
  • Athronges (c. 3 CE), [4] a shepherd turned rebel leader.
  • Menahem ben Judah (?), allegedly son of Judas of Galilee, partook in a revolt against Agrippa II before being slain by a rival Zealot leader.
  • Vespasian, c. 70, according to Josephus [5]
  • Simon bar Kokhba (died c. 135), founded a short-lived Jewish state before being defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian

  While in Egypt he visited the Temple of Serapis , where reportedly he experienced a vision . Later he was confronted by two labourers who were convinced that he possessed a divine power that could work miracles .

  ...

  Væ, puto deus fio , "Oh! I think I'm becoming a god !". [35]

  Lots of the early church saints were all Flavians. What are the odds of so many blood relatives brothers, sisters in law of Caesar being xians ?

  search wiki for >flavian saints< and you will FIND a LOTTT. Why are there so many saints from one family who were also Caesar ?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Flavius_Clemens_(consul)

  Titus Flavius Clemens was a great-nephew of the Roman Emperor Vespasian . He was the son of Titus Flavius Sabinus (consul 69) , brother to Titus Flavius Sabinus (consul 82) and a second cousin to Roman Emperors to Titus and Domitian .

  Flavius Clemens is a saint in the Catholic Church [3] and in the Greek Orthodox Church and his feast day is 22 June. His wife Flavia Domitilla was banished to the island Pandataria. Clemens' servant Stephanus avenged his master's death by assassinating Domitian with the help of the members of the Senate.

  In the early Christian romance or novel known as the Clementine literature, Titus Flavius Clemens is identified with Pope Clement I - fourth Bishop of Rome, saint and martyr - an identification which has no extant basis in historical fact. However, the Pope may have been a freedman of the consul.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Clement

  Flavius Clement (died 96 AD) was an early Christian martyr . He was the brother of Roman emperor Vespasian and uncle of emperors Titus and Domitian . He was the husband of Saint Flavia Domitilla . He held the post of consul to Domitian in 95 AD, but was executed by Domitian for being a Christian. [1]

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Latinus_of_Brescia

  Flavius Latinus (died 115) was a Christian martyr of the persecutions of Trajan.

  He is said to be the third bishop of Brescia, successor to Saint Viator. [1] This tradition is, however, questioned. Viator of Bergamo is a much later figure, and the reference to his earlier being a bishop of Brescia is doubted. [2] The historical list of bishops of Brescia is not established so far back as the early persecutions in the 2nd century. [3]

  He is a Catholic and Orthodox saint, [4] feast day March 24.

  Guess who destroyed those unknown villages in Gallilee and destroyed the temple and Jersualem within the lifetimes of the followers of Jesus ?

  TItus flavous the Son of the God Vespasian. Roman Caesars believed they were gods or divine, after all they controlled the world and were in effect a god on earth.

  Funnily enough the story of Paul going to Rome also matches Josephus journey to rome on more than 10 points..

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

  William Whiston , who created perhaps the most famous of the English translations of Josephus, claimed that certain works by Josephus had a similar style to the Epistles of St Paul (Saul). [26]

  http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/the-shipwrecks-of-josephus-and-paul-part-3/

  Robert Gnuse listed 12 coincidences of content between the two. His article is “Vita Apologetica: The Lives of Josephus and Paul in Apologetic Historiography” [JSP 13.2 (2002) 151-169]. The main difference is that Josephus is travelling to Rome on behalf of god-fearing priests who have been unjustly accused and forced to plead their case before Caesar.

  1. A Roman procurator, Felix, is involved in both accounts (cf Acts 24.1-27)
  2. Jewish religious leaders are involved in both accounts (priests in Vita and Paul in Acts)
  3. Felix causes Jewish religious leaders to be imprisoned (cf Acts 24.1-27)
  4. Felix’s actions result in prisoners going to Rome (cf Acts 25.10-11)
  5. The Jewish religious leaders are unjustly accused (cf Acts 24-26)
  6. Journey to Rome is by ship (cf Acts 27.1-44)
  7. The sea journey to Rome seeks to effect justice at the imperial level to undo injustice done at the provincial level (cf Acts 24-27)
  8. The ship not only sinks (cf Acts 27.41-44)
  9. But chooses to sink in the Adriatic Sea (cf Acts 27.27)
  10. The heroes, Josephus or Paul, act with courage and provide leadership (cf Acts 27.31-38)
  11. All passengers survive (presumably in Josephus’s account) (cf Acts 27.44)
  12. Both heroes pass through Puteoli (cf Acts 28.13-14)
• 

  mP

  So why are there so man Flavians mixed up with Xians ?

  WHy is Jesus telling his followers to be good slaves and pay their taxes ?

  Who is the SOn of Man who literally forfilled jesus porphecies in the lifetime of the apostles ?

  Read the history of Titus campaign, follow the path of his campaign and match that against Jesus own ministry.

  Follow the money!