If Jesus, then why Paul?

[Bronzeage]

Paul was selling or promoting himself. In today's politics it is called 'meet and greet'. Part of that would be telling personal stories.

I drifted for days alone i a boat, I was shipwrecked 3 times, I was beaten. Woe is me ladies and gentlemen. But Jesus saved me! And now we pass the hat. Please be generous. God loves you.

Human nature has not changed much.

And then they cut my head off, which is certainly ultimate self promotion.

 

[steve_bank]

Both men preached the new religion,

That is not true. Jesus never renounced Judaism. He quoted Jewish law and prophets. He was a Jew preaching to Jews, as I see it about the looming destruction of Judeah and the temple by Rome.

Rome initially considered the Jesus followers heretic Jews. Over time gentile converts adopted Jewish scripture as their own and rejected Judaism and Jews. Christian antisemitism was born.

The OP suggests that there was an organized new religion, which was not the case. Paul sounds very much like an opportunist. Maybe he did have a 'come to Jesus' moment and became a zealot.

In some ways Paul was a conservative Jew of his day. Women are second class and subservient.

Christianity should be called Paulism. In the NT there is few words attrinuted to Jesus, and cetainly no consistent philosophy, theology, or morality. He was a Jew preaching Jewish theolgy and scrupture, he woud not have needed to invent something new.

The alleged writings of a single person named Paul have an order and consistency.

The RCC bases its legitimacy and authority from the phrase 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church'. An alleged continuous line back to Peter.

There were no organized decisions, it grew as paople manipulated it. Paul claimed authenticy over oters preaching Jesus.

it was a number of opportunists, some faded a few were passed on. Ar the root region is always abot personal power and money. No different hen as today.

So it is not if Jesus why Paul, it is about Paul as one of several who preached his own version.

 

[Politesse]

The alleged writings of a single person named Paul have an order and consistency.

Only if you restrict your analysis to the works of Paul now considered genuine. If you're trying to synthesize works like Hebrews (not even written in the same dialect as the others) or the "Pastoral Epistles" (oviously written well after Paul's lifetime), synchrony is impossible to conclude for anyone not already assuming the conclusion.

 

[steve_bank]

The alleged writings of a single person named Paul have an order and consistency.

Only if you restrict your analysis to the works of Paul now considered genuine. If you're trying to synthesize works like Hebrews (not even written in the same dialect as the others) or the "Pastoral Epistles" (oviously written well after Paul's lifetime), synchrony is impossible to conclude for anyone not already assuming the conclusion.

Ok. ImwNT relative to the gospels which are a collection of unconnected Jesus 'sound bites'.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

As I said above, this is how Paul lived, which you claim we don't really know.

How do you know how Paul lived?

Opportunists rarely seek opportunities to be beaten and left for dead, as well as the other hazards Paul faced and the bodily trauma he suffered.

Who said Paul sought opportunities to be beaten and left for dead? In his drive to attain religious power, Paul may have been beaten and left for dead as a consequence of his ambition to become the most prominent Christian of his day. Or more likely, Paul or his followers made up stories about him to impress people with his supposed fortitude.

The preaching of Jesus is recorded in the four Gospels, and Paul's preaching is recorded in Acts and in his epistles. Paul seems to fill the role of a Johnny-come-lately or even an interloper of sorts who added his 2¢ to what Jesus had preached about twenty years.

Paul can't be a Johnny come lately, if his mission predates the four Gospels.

Uh--again--the Christian story does not begin when the Gospels were written. If we can trust scholars, Jesus was crucified around 33 CE, almost four decades before any of the Gospels were recorded. So although Paul started preaching before the Gospels, Paul did so about twenty years after Jesus allowing Paul to be that Johnny-come-lately.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

And then they cut my head off, which is certainly ultimate self promotion.

No, but Paul's self promotion may have caused other people to behead him. In any case, the story of Paul's death is probably mere legend.

 

[steve_bank]

Paul allegedly did a lot traveling and preaching. An evangelical, the original Christian missionary. He coud not fo that without money. Like today he may haveneen aggressive and in the face denouncing non Christians. Given the idea of freedom of speech and religion was over 2000 yeras away loosng his head is not out of the question.

Up through the 90s the Saudis were beheading people for apostasy.

David Sache who played Hercule Poirot on the BBC show had a Christian conversion experience. He did a show on PBS tracing the path of Paul. In his alleged home town he is a sort of a hero according to people he talked to.


I know it i a wiki reference. Chritianity was mult-=yjreaded right from the start which goes my my long past conclusion that there is no sch thing as Chrtiianity beyond some kind of belief in god, Jesus, and the resurrection. Al of them jockying for power.

If the link has some validty Paul had an early Chritians as good versus the evil everybody else view. That would undoubtedly have infuriated the Jews.

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Roots of mdern Christianity in Paul, in a nutshell. It is all thee.

Influence​

Statue of St. Paul (1606) by Gregorio Fernández

Paul's influence on Christian thinking arguably has been more significant than any other New Testament author.[8] Paul declared that "Christ is the end of the law",[336] exalted the Christian church as the body of Christ, and depicted the world outside the Church as under judgment.[36] Paul's writings include the earliest reference to the "Lord's Supper",[337] a rite traditionally identified as the Christian communion or Eucharist. In the East, church fathers attributed the element of election in Romans 9[338] to divine foreknowledge.[36] The themes of predestination found in Western Christianity do not appear in Eastern theology.

Pauline Christianity​

Main article: Pauline Christianity

Paul had a strong influence on early Christianity. Hurtado notes that Paul regarded his own Christological views and those of his predecessors and that of the Jerusalem Church as essentially similar. According to Hurtado, this "work against the claims by some scholars that Pauline Christianity represents a sharp departure from the religiousness of Judean 'Jesus movements'."[339]

Marcion​

Main articles: Marcion and Marcionites

Marcionism, regarded as heresy by contemporary mainstream Christianity, was an Early Christian dualist belief system that originated in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144.[note 14] Marcion asserted that Paul was the only apostle who had rightly understood the new message of salvation as delivered by Christ.[340]

Marcion believed Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

World to come​

See also: Christian eschatology, Second Coming, and World to come

According to Bart Ehrman, Paul believed that Jesus would return within his lifetime.[293] Paul expected that Christians who had died in the meantime would be resurrected to share in God's kingdom, and he believed that the saved would be transformed, assuming heavenly, imperishable bodies.[294]

Paul's teaching about the end of the world is expressed most clearly in his first and second letters to the Christian community of Thessalonica. He assures them that the dead will rise first and be followed by those left alive.[295] This suggests an imminent end but he is unspecific about times and seasons and encourages his hearers to expect a delay.[296] The form of the end will be a battle between Jesus and the man of lawlessness[297] whose conclusion is the triumph of Christ.

Before his conversion he believed God's messiah would put an end to the old age of evil, and initiate a new age of righteousness; after his conversion, he believed this would happen in stages that had begun with the resurrection of Jesus, but the old age would continue until Jesus returns.[298][241]

women, the typial modern Christian free roaming interpretation of scripture..

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness

Views on homosexuality​

See also: Homosexuality in the New Testament

Most Christian traditions[328][329][330] say Paul clearly portrays homosexuality as sinful in two specific locations: Romans 1:26–27,[331] and 1 Corinthians.[332] Another passage addresses the topic more obliquely: 1 Timothy 8-11.[333] Since the nineteenth century, however, most scholars have concluded that 1 Timothy (along with 2 Timothy and Titus) is not original to Paul, but rather an unknown Christian writing in Paul's name some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century.[334][335]

 

[skepticalbip]

There is a rumor that L. Ron Hubbard made a bar bet that he could start a religion and Scientology is the result. I wonder if bar bets were a popular thing in Paul's time.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

There is a rumor that L. Ron Hubbard made a bar bet that he could start a religion and Scientology is the result. I wonder if bar bets were a popular thing in Paul's time.

I can see Paul drinking large amounts of wine with Cephas and James, and as the night progresses, Paul comes up with a plan:

"We need a Jesus, you know, like one of those 'Jesuses' who keep running into trouble with the Romans and getting themselves crucified for rebellion. A lot of the Jews just love 'em! It's easy because we don't even need a real one. And you, Pete--you'll be his right-hand man. And James--we'll tell people that you're Jesus' brother, and your title will be 'brother of the Lord' making some people think that Jesus is a real guy because he has a real brother! We'll tell people that Jesus was crucified, and they'll say: 'Well, Jesus must have been crucified because nobody would make that up.' But the real kicker is to say that God raised Jesus from the dead showing that even death can't stop Jesus."

Cephas and James, with gleams in their eyes, toast the plan and say in unison: "Sounds like a plan, Boss!"

 

[Bronzeage]

As I said above, this is how Paul lived, which you claim we don't really know.

How do you know how Paul lived?

Opportunists rarely seek opportunities to be beaten and left for dead, as well as the other hazards Paul faced and the bodily trauma he suffered.

Who said Paul sought opportunities to be beaten and left for dead? In his drive to attain religious power, Paul may have been beaten and left for dead as a consequence of his ambition to become the most prominent Christian of his day. Or more likely, Paul or his followers made up stories about him to impress people with his supposed fortitude.

The preaching of Jesus is recorded in the four Gospels, and Paul's preaching is recorded in Acts and in his epistles. Paul seems to fill the role of a Johnny-come-lately or even an interloper of sorts who added his 2¢ to what Jesus had preached about twenty years.

Paul can't be a Johnny come lately, if his mission predates the four Gospels.

Uh--again--the Christian story does not begin when the Gospels were written. If we can trust scholars, Jesus was crucified around 33 CE, almost four decades before any of the Gospels were recorded. So although Paul started preaching before the Gospels, Paul did so about twenty years after Jesus allowing Paul to be that Johnny-come-lately.

By your definition, every theologian and apologist for every religion which lasted more than one generation is a Johnny come lately. Maybe we could call him Johnny on the Spot, for showing up when he did. If not for Paul, why would anyone have written the Gospels we have today?

 

[Bronzeage]

As I said above, this is how Paul lived, which you claim we don't really know.

How do you know how Paul lived?

Opportunists rarely seek opportunities to be beaten and left for dead, as well as the other hazards Paul faced and the bodily trauma he suffered.

Who said Paul sought opportunities to be beaten and left for dead? In his drive to attain religious power, Paul may have been beaten and left for dead as a consequence of his ambition to become the most prominent Christian of his day. Or more likely, Paul or his followers made up stories about him to impress people with his supposed fortitude.

The preaching of Jesus is recorded in the four Gospels, and Paul's preaching is recorded in Acts and in his epistles. Paul seems to fill the role of a Johnny-come-lately or even an interloper of sorts who added his 2¢ to what Jesus had preached about twenty years.

Paul can't be a Johnny come lately, if his mission predates the four Gospels.

Uh--again--the Christian story does not begin when the Gospels were written. If we can trust scholars, Jesus was crucified around 33 CE, almost four decades before any of the Gospels were recorded. So although Paul started preaching before the Gospels, Paul did so about twenty years after Jesus allowing Paul to be that Johnny-come-lately.

By your definition, every theologian and apologist for every religion which lasted more than one generation is a Johnny come lately. Maybe we could call him Johnny on the Spot, for showing up when he did. If not for Paul, why would anyone have written the Gospels we have today?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

By your definition, every theologian and apologist for every religion which lasted more than one generation is a Johnny come lately.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but by my referring to Paul as a "Johnny-come-lately" I meant that according to his story he came along as an apostle of Christ and as a writer and figure of the New Testament about twenty years later than when the original twelve apostles joined the sect. Yes, other characters in the New Testament according to Acts joined the sect even later than Paul did, but none of them claimed the status within the sect that would have them rival apostles like Peter the way Paul rivalled them. Heck, a good argument can be made that in some ways Paul surpassed Jesus himself in prominence.

Maybe we could call him Johnny on the Spot, for showing up when he did.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you clarify?

If not for Paul, why would anyone have written the Gospels we have today?

My guess is that the Gospels were meant to literally bring Jesus down to earth. Paul's version of Jesus may have been too aloof and insubstantial for all the purposes of the emerging sect. So in that way the Gospels were written in response to Paul's epistles, but it seems likely to me that they would have been written anyway Paul or no Paul.

 

[Bronzeage]

By your definition, every theologian and apologist for every religion which lasted more than one generation is a Johnny come lately.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but by my referring to Paul as a "Johnny-come-lately" I meant that according to his story he came along as an apostle of Christ and as a writer and figure of the New Testament about twenty years later than when the original twelve apostles joined the sect. Yes, other characters in the New Testament according to Acts joined the sect even later than Paul did, but none of them claimed the status within the sect that would have them rival apostles like Peter the way Paul rivalled them. Heck, a good argument can be made that in some ways Paul surpassed Jesus himself in prominence.

Maybe we could call him Johnny on the Spot, for showing up when he did.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you clarify?

If not for Paul, why would anyone have written the Gospels we have today?

My guess is that the Gospels were meant to literally bring Jesus down to earth. Paul's version of Jesus may have been too aloof and insubstantial for all the purposes of the emerging sect. So in that way the Gospels were written in response to Paul's epistles, but it seems likely to me that they would have been written anyway Paul or no Paul.

Another guess based on tenuous information. The Gospels were written the Greek dialect which dominated the eastern Mediterranean. The intended audience was Greek speaking people. Without Paul's ministry, it's doubtful there would have been anyone to write these Gospels and very unlikely anyone interested in reading them.

"Johnny on the spot is a person" who shows up at a critical time with the necessary skills and knowledge to address the problem.

 

[Politesse]

Another guess based on tenuous information. The Gospels were written the Greek dialect which dominated the eastern Mediterranean. The intended audience was Greek speaking people. Without Paul's ministry, it's doubtful there would have been anyone to write these Gospels and very unlikely anyone interested in reading them.

Was he the only missionary in his time, htough, or just the only one whose special brand of Christianity survived the tussle? His letters themselves seem to indicate that he knew of quite a few other preachers and even whole communities, now known only through those references but seemingly influential at the time.

 

[steve_bank]

Religious Darwinism and evolution.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

My guess is that the Gospels were meant to literally bring Jesus down to earth. Paul's version of Jesus may have been too aloof and insubstantial for all the purposes of the emerging sect. So in that way the Gospels were written in response to Paul's epistles, but it seems likely to me that they would have been written anyway Paul or no Paul.

Another guess based on tenuous information.

Yes, the information we have about the early church is quite tenuous. Christians really ought to do something about that.

The Gospels were written the Greek dialect which dominated the eastern Mediterranean.

I know. I've studied New Testament Greek.

The intended audience was Greek speaking people.

By "audience" do you mean people who could read Greek or just speak Greek? If the Gospel writers intended their message only for those who spoke Greek, then doing so would exclude the very people who appear in the Gospel story including Jesus. Most of them spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

Without Paul's ministry, it's doubtful there would have been anyone to write these Gospels and very unlikely anyone interested in reading them.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Why was Paul so necessary for people to write the Gospels or care what the Gospels say?

"Johnny on the spot is a person" who shows up at a critical time with the necessary skills and knowledge to address the problem.

I know what a Johnny-on-the spot is. What was so critical about the timing of Paul's ministry, and what problem did Paul address?

 

[steve_bank]

The best description of the GosPels I have heard is embellished promotional material for gentile converts. Gospel means 'ggod news'. Hey broter have yiu heard the good news Jesus arose from the dead. You can here that today.

 

[Politesse]

Euangelion = "Good message-having-been-brought"

In secular(ish) use, usually in reference to public proclamations made with the expectation of further good to come of the event they are proclaiming: the birth of a god-king, a military victory, etc. Announcements of this kind were very much a common project of the Augustan propaganda machine, and its co-option by the early Christians was likely an interntional subversion or at least language-borrowing from such "official" statements of political and religious dominion.

 

[Bronzeage]

Another guess based on tenuous information. The Gospels were written the Greek dialect which dominated the eastern Mediterranean. The intended audience was Greek speaking people. Without Paul's ministry, it's doubtful there would have been anyone to write these Gospels and very unlikely anyone interested in reading them.

Was he the only missionary in his time, htough, or just the only one whose special brand of Christianity survived the tussle? His letters themselves seem to indicate that he knew of quite a few other preachers and even whole communities, now known only through those references but seemingly influential at the time.

There were certainly other missionaries. Paul was the first to go to Jewish communities in the Greek cities and from there preach to the Gentiles.

 

[Bronzeage]

My guess is that the Gospels were meant to literally bring Jesus down to earth. Paul's version of Jesus may have been too aloof and insubstantial for all the purposes of the emerging sect. So in that way the Gospels were written in response to Paul's epistles, but it seems likely to me that they would have been written anyway Paul or no Paul.

Another guess based on tenuous information.

Yes, the information we have about the early church is quite tenuous. Christians really ought to do something about that.

The Gospels were written the Greek dialect which dominated the eastern Mediterranean.

I know. I've studied New Testament Greek.

The intended audience was Greek speaking people.

By "audience" do you mean people who could read Greek or just speak Greek? If the Gospel writers intended their message only for those who spoke Greek, then doing so would exclude the very people who appear in the Gospel story including Jesus. Most of them spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

Without Paul's ministry, it's doubtful there would have been anyone to write these Gospels and very unlikely anyone interested in reading them.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Why was Paul so necessary for people to write the Gospels or care what the Gospels say?

"Johnny on the spot is a person" who shows up at a critical time with the necessary skills and knowledge to address the problem.

I know what a Johnny-on-the spot is. What was so critical about the timing of Paul's ministry, and what problem did Paul address?

I plan to untenuate the information problem as soon as my time machine is ready. I'll go back to the 1st century and put the Jesus challenge on TicToc.

This discussion started out as silly and had become tedious, as you demand evidence which you know no longer exists and ignore all evidence that is known.