If Jesus, then why Paul?

[Unknown Soldier]

Although Jesus is the main figure in the New Testament, Paul is arguably a fairly close second. Both men preached the new religion, had followers, performed miracles, uttered apocalyptic prophecies, were at odds with the Jews, and were reputedly martyred for their expressed beliefs. I'd like to focus this discussion on the role of both men as preachers and prophets. 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 earlier. If Jesus had come to preach the Gospel, then why was Paul needed to complete that job? Wasn't Jesus able to preach everything the early Christians needed to know? Jesus had three years, or so we are told, and I think that would have been more than enough time to say everything Paul said.

Based on these facts, it looks like Paul was an opportunist who convinced or tried to convince people that he was an additional apostle of Christ who was miraculously converted by Jesus himself. By doing so, he gained prominence in the new faith claiming to be divinely led to let the world including gentiles know about Jesus.

 

[Jarhyn]

Although Jesus is the main figure in the New Testament, Paul is arguably a fairly close second. Both men preached the new religion, had followers, performed miracles, uttered apocalyptic prophecies, were at odds with the Jews, and were reputedly martyred for their expressed beliefs. I'd like to focus this discussion on the role of both men as preachers and prophets. 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 earlier. If Jesus had come to preach the Gospel, then why was Paul needed to complete that job? Wasn't Jesus able to preach everything the early Christians needed to know? Jesus had three years, or so we are told, and I think that would have been more than enough time to say everything Paul said.

Based on these facts, it looks like Paul was an opportunist who convinced or tried to convince people that he was an additional apostle of Christ who was miraculously converted by Jesus himself. By doing so, he gained prominence in the new faith claiming to be divinely led to let the world including gentiles know about Jesus.

I have thought this, communicated this, and reasoned over it so many times, and yet still I fail to find a solid chink into which to lodge the chisel of my doubt.

 

[Bronzeage]

The Gospels contained in the New Testament were written after Paul. The teachings of Jesus were based on oral tradition. If Paul was an opportunist, it's difficult to see what he gained by preaching the word of Jesus, as he lived poor and certainly died poor.

 

[DBT]

He had found a purpose in life? A cause to promote? A sense of satisfaction, leadership, a sense of being at the head of a new movement, a place in history? The promise of eternal life, blessed by God......?

 

[steve_bank]

There is a reference to Paul trasporting money between communities. His role may have given food food.

The early believers were Jews using Jewish scripture. Rome considered them heretic Jews. In the stories Paul is on the run from Jews out to get his head, and he takes safety behind his Roman citizenship.

Paul makes reference to others teaching Jesus who he claims are not authentic.

 

[DBT]

He had some sort of conflict with Peter over the issue of gentiles.

If Peter knew Jesus personally, having spent some time with him, he should have had the better understanding, you would think.

 

[steve_bank]

Paul made Judaism plalatable to gentiles. No dietary requirements. Circumcision.

The question should be whether or not Paul authentically reflects Jesus.

 

[DBT]

Paul made Judaism plalatable to gentiles. No dietary requirements. Circumcision.

The question should be whether or not Paul authentically reflects Jesus.

Wouldn't Peter have known more about Jesus, having spent time with him, while Paul had never seen him in person?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Although Jesus is the main figure in the New Testament, Paul is arguably a fairly close second. Both men preached the new religion, had followers, performed miracles, uttered apocalyptic prophecies, were at odds with the Jews, and were reputedly martyred for their expressed beliefs. I'd like to focus this discussion on the role of both men as preachers and prophets. 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 earlier. If Jesus had come to preach the Gospel, then why was Paul needed to complete that job? Wasn't Jesus able to preach everything the early Christians needed to know? Jesus had three years, or so we are told, and I think that would have been more than enough time to say everything Paul said.

Based on these facts, it looks like Paul was an opportunist who convinced or tried to convince people that he was an additional apostle of Christ who was miraculously converted by Jesus himself. By doing so, he gained prominence in the new faith claiming to be divinely led to let the world including gentiles know about Jesus.

I have thought this, communicated this, and reasoned over it so many times, and yet still I fail to find a solid chink into which to lodge the chisel of my doubt.

What do you doubt? Personally, I have a lot of doubts about the figure of Paul. If by Paul we mean the writer of Romans and some other epistles in the canon of the New Testament, then Paul obviously did exist. However, the Paul in Acts seems to be problematical from a historical perspective because it is unlikely that he really persecuted the church that way. Even the Paul of the epistles is hard to reconcile with the Paul of Acts because their stories are in conflict.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The Gospels contained in the New Testament were written after Paul. The teachings of Jesus were based on oral tradition.

That's what most Bible scholars might say.

If Paul was an opportunist, it's difficult to see what he gained by preaching the word of Jesus, as he lived poor and certainly died poor.

We really don't know how Paul lived or died. Even if he was poor, then it doesn't necessarily follow that he was not an opportunist. Poor people can be opportunists, and opportunists aren't necessarily out for money. People start religions for many different reasons, and my guess is that Paul wanted to feel special acting like Moses leading his people out of bondage and into a promised land.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

He had found a purpose in life? A cause to promote? A sense of satisfaction, leadership, a sense of being at the head of a new movement, a place in history? The promise of eternal life, blessed by God......?

Sure. As I have also explained, there are many reasons people may take an opportunity to become religious leaders. Among the Jews were legends of several men who acted according to the mythic-hero archetype saving the Jewish people from their enemies and other dangers. Examples include Moses, Elijah, King David, and Jesus, of course. Paul was surely aware of these figures and their stories and wanted to act like they did.

 

[Jarhyn]

Although Jesus is the main figure in the New Testament, Paul is arguably a fairly close second. Both men preached the new religion, had followers, performed miracles, uttered apocalyptic prophecies, were at odds with the Jews, and were reputedly martyred for their expressed beliefs. I'd like to focus this discussion on the role of both men as preachers and prophets. 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 earlier. If Jesus had come to preach the Gospel, then why was Paul needed to complete that job? Wasn't Jesus able to preach everything the early Christians needed to know? Jesus had three years, or so we are told, and I think that would have been more than enough time to say everything Paul said.

Based on these facts, it looks like Paul was an opportunist who convinced or tried to convince people that he was an additional apostle of Christ who was miraculously converted by Jesus himself. By doing so, he gained prominence in the new faith claiming to be divinely led to let the world including gentiles know about Jesus.

I have thought this, communicated this, and reasoned over it so many times, and yet still I fail to find a solid chink into which to lodge the chisel of my doubt.

What do you doubt? Personally, I have a lot of doubts about the figure of Paul. If by Paul we mean the writer of Romans and some other epistles in the canon of the New Testament, then Paul obviously did exist. However, the Paul in Acts seems to be problematical from a historical perspective because it is unlikely that he really persecuted the church that way. Even the Paul of the epistles is hard to reconcile with the Paul of Acts because their stories are in conflict.

Well, I doubt literally everything except that I exist here, levelling doubt.

I am discussing that I have not been able to find any active cause to doubt that Paul was a Johnny-come-lately huckster who just had to add his 2¢, no matter how I may search for a way to see him in a less shitty light.

Perhaps there were more than one such "Pauline" authors, as well?

My doubt has whittled the claims of the church of those books down to the hypothesis you present here, and I find their value in any kind of philosophical sense suspect, to say the very least.

It's like a shitty CliffsNotes written by an ancient version of L. Ron Hubbard after reading Stranger in a Strange Land.

 

[steve_bank]

I read it was common to write uder the name of a more well known person above you in a hierarchy.

 

[steve_bank]

Paul made Judaism plalatable to gentiles. No dietary requirements. Circumcision.

The question should be whether or not Paul authentically reflects Jesus.

Wouldn't Peter have known more about Jesus, having spent time with him, while Paul had never seen him in person?

As to Peter vs Paul I think there is a quote where Peter pushes back and says something like 'Hey dude, I was there!'.

I think the latter day Christian misogyny and sexual uptightedness comes from Paul. Be celibate and offer it up to god.

 

[Bronzeage]

The Gospels contained in the New Testament were written after Paul. The teachings of Jesus were based on oral tradition.

That's what most Bible scholars might say.

If Paul was an opportunist, it's difficult to see what he gained by preaching the word of Jesus, as he lived poor and certainly died poor.

We really don't know how Paul lived or died. Even if he was poor, then it doesn't necessarily follow that he was not an opportunist. Poor people can be opportunists, and opportunists aren't necessarily out for money. People start religions for many different reasons, and my guess is that Paul wanted to feel special acting like Moses leading his people out of bondage and into a promised land.

That's a bold guess, if you don't know how he lived or died. I don't know of any Bible scholars who believe Paul and the Gospels of the New Testament are contemporaneous. If Jesus's teachings were recorded in the Gospels, after Paul's mission came to an end. it dissolves the suppositions in your opening post.

In Paul's words, as we have them today, "Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked. Once I spent a whole night and a day adrift at sea," which is how he lived, but apparently just barely.

 

[steve_bank]

The quote sounds like a 19th century American western 'tall tale'. Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill. The American mythologies. Personal embellishment.

Pecos Bill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Unknown Soldier]

We really don't know how Paul lived or died. Even if he was poor, then it doesn't necessarily follow that he was not an opportunist. Poor people can be opportunists, and opportunists aren't necessarily out for money. People start religions for many different reasons, and my guess is that Paul wanted to feel special acting like Moses leading his people out of bondage and into a promised land.

That's a bold guess, if you don't know how he lived or died.

While I'm not sure how Paul lived or died, I do know that many people like to feel special most notably in the context of their religious beliefs. Paul in particular obviously believed he was leading to heaven those who accepted his role as God's spokesman. The parallels between Paul and Moses are too strong to be mere coincidence considering that Paul was familiar with the story of Moses.

I don't know of any Bible scholars who believe Paul and the Gospels of the New Testament are contemporaneous.

Paul wrote his epistles about twenty years before the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written.

If Jesus's teachings were recorded in the Gospels, after Paul's mission came to an end. it dissolves the suppositions in your opening post.

What suppositions are you referring to? I assume you are referring to my hypothesis that Paul came after Jesus moving in on the doctrine that Jesus had already preached. Your objection to my idea appears to be based in the assumption that Paul could have only known about Jesus via the written Gospels. If so, then your assumption is clearly wrong because Paul could have and probably did become acquainted with Christian beliefs about Jesus by listening to what the Christians of that time were saying about Jesus.

In Paul's words, as we have them today, "Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked. Once I spent a whole night and a day adrift at sea," which is how he lived, but apparently just barely.

How does this relate to what we're discussing?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The quote sounds like a 19th century American western 'tall tale'. Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill. The American mythologies. Personal embellishment.

It is very common in fiction to have a hero who endures much hardship to conquer evil. In that respect Paul's story fits the "mythic-hero archetype" that was popular in mythology at that time most notably among the Greeks.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

 

[Bronzeage]

We really don't know how Paul lived or died. Even if he was poor, then it doesn't necessarily follow that he was not an opportunist. Poor people can be opportunists, and opportunists aren't necessarily out for money. People start religions for many different reasons, and my guess is that Paul wanted to feel special acting like Moses leading his people out of bondage and into a promised land.

That's a bold guess, if you don't know how he lived or died.

While I'm not sure how Paul lived or died, I do know that many people like to feel special most notably in the context of their religious beliefs. Paul in particular obviously believed he was leading to heaven those who accepted his role as God's spokesman. The parallels between Paul and Moses are too strong to be mere coincidence considering that Paul was familiar with the story of Moses.

I don't know of any Bible scholars who believe Paul and the Gospels of the New Testament are contemporaneous.

Paul wrote his epistles about twenty years before the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written.

If Jesus's teachings were recorded in the Gospels, after Paul's mission came to an end. it dissolves the suppositions in your opening post.

What suppositions are you referring to? I assume you are referring to my hypothesis that Paul came after Jesus moving in on the doctrine that Jesus had already preached. Your objection to my idea appears to be based in the assumption that Paul could have only known about Jesus via the written Gospels. If so, then your assumption is clearly wrong because Paul could have and probably did become acquainted with Christian beliefs about Jesus by listening to what the Christians of that time were saying about Jesus.

In Paul's words, as we have them today, "Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked. Once I spent a whole night and a day adrift at sea," which is how he lived, but apparently just barely.

How does this relate to what we're discussing?

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

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. If not for Paul, the Christian church today would likely be a small sect of Judaism, if any Christians survived the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70CE.