Refutation of The Pauline Conspiracy, take two

[juantoo3]

So the text is here: The Pauline Conspiracy Text quotes in blue.
+++
Paul was a dispersion Jew, not a Palestinian Jew as were Jesus and the disciples. It is important that we understand this, for Paul’s loyalties and practices as a Jew, were far different than the Christ and his Apostles.
Well that definitely needs explaining.

Paul was a Hellenist or Diaspora Jew...
OK. This 'Hellenist' thing needs to be dealt with. Under Alexander the Great, the whole Middle East was Hellenised. Then the Romans took over, and it was Romanised. When a Greek gymnasium was introduced into Jerusalem, it was installed by a Jewish High Priest. And other priests soon engaged in wrestling matches in the palaestra. The Septuagint is a product of Hellenism. Hellenism simply means the Jews adopted elements of Greek culture. It does not mean Jews of the Diaspora were any less orthodox or observant of the requirements of their religion. To infer a Diaspora Jew is different to a Palestinian Judaism is a suspicious claim, especially when the Hellenist influence within Jerusalem and Judea is indisputable.

OK, now that I see what you wrote, it appears we are in agreement. Greco-Roman Paganism was ubiquitous throughout the area, you couldn't throw a rock without hitting something "Hellenist," figuratively speaking, even within the boundaries of Israel. So when these complainers raise this as an objection it is curious at best and appears fundamentally prejudicial at worst. It certainly ignores the social climate that pervaded the era.

I will qualify this by saying the area around Galilee where Jesus and his compatriots hung out is historically known as a hotbed for ultra-nationalist radicals, particularly the Zealots and the Sicarii, and there was a lot of underlying resentment to the occupying Romans in that area. So it is probably accurate to say Hellenist influence would be minimized in that area, but there's no way I can see it would be completely eradicated in that era and place.

It is in this city (Jerusalem) that we first meet the chief character, and subject, of this thesis (Paul). It is a time of radical movements within the infant church, sparked by revolutionary figures of which Stephen seems to have been the most outspoken.

What about Peter? James? How is Stephen 'revolutionary'? Doesn't say ...

He (Stephen) was a Hellenist, and obviously held to a philosophy that caused great concern to the Synagogue and the leaders of the new Christian religion.
And yet it seems that Stephen outraged the Hellenists! "Now there arose some of that which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them that were of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen." (Acts 6:9). It was they, the Hellenists, who submitted a false testimony to the Sanhedrin regarding Stephens 'blasphemy' that led to his martyrdom. (cf Acts 6:9–14).

Quite what the philosophy was that so troubled 'the leaders of the new Christian religion', I have no idea, and the author does not say.

Yeah, this is bizarre...politely just bizarre. I don't see how Victor could come to this conclusion. Perhaps he brings forth evidence later, but this is nothing I've heard before, and quite a stretch to my understanding.

The Greek mind, that same Greek mind which had dared to regard its philosophy in a state as high as that of God’s word as given in the Holy Scriptures, now decried the Jewish religion and the Temple.

This is it, his thesis baldly stated.

The rest of Chapter One is effectively a sideshow, as it does not address the central issues. It's largely hyperbole and histrionics to undermine the reputation of Paul.

I've long tempered my attitude toward other faiths with the passage in Romans (paraphrased) speaking of "those without the Law do the things in the Law, and so become a Law unto themselves." The translation I've been given to understand corresponds nicely with the trite "many paths up the mountain" saying. I don't believe a Just and Loving G-d would create as much as 3/4 of the people ever born just to be kindling on an eternal fire, that any person would be damned merely by accident of birth. Christianity clearly is one way, but I am not one to say "the only way."

Caveat out of the way - a Greek mind "daring" to regard its philosophy as high as that of G-d's (W)ord to me sounds pretty discriminatory. I mean, am I to interpret that "Greek" is by default "bad/evil?" So Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, countless philosophers and "scientists" (many might disagree here, but there are roots of the modern scientific philosophy from this period) are all evil, by simple virtue of being Greek? Sounds like a pretty stiff judgment to me - in direct opposition to the Command to "judge not, that ye be not judged." Greek philosophy was here before Christianity and is with us still to this day, so longevity seems to indicate G-d is (overall, in the greater sense) OK with it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Greek philosophy was here before Christianity and is with us still to this day, so longevity seems to indicate G-d is (overall, in the greater sense) OK with it.

No .. I think the point being made is that Greek/Hellenist society is based on falsehood / idol worship.
eg. belief in a trinity of gods

The first commandment from our Creator is the Shima i.e. Your God is One God and has no partner,
which Jesus himself declares in the Gospel.
Much of what Victor says can be validated, but imo, it is difficult reading and includes unfounded accusations.

 

[juantoo3]

SUMMATION

We must note that it takes no long winded dissertation to discuss the issues Paul has brought up in his theology, unless one wishes to entangle themselves in endless debate over unresolved, philosophical trivia.
I wish the author had read his own words.

Countless books have been written on the epistles by those far more worthy than this student. The message of love, compassion, and salvation portrayed by his genius have been autobiographed, quoted, copied, and sermonized throughout the ages.
And yet he seems to have gleaned nothing from them.

This student would underline that which has already been said. In his writing, his poetic movement, and literary abilities, Paul was a genius. His command of words was overwhelming, complex yet moving.

His philosophical reasoning was exemplary, mentally he was agile and able to formulate his religious suppositions with courage. And yet, in the end, the complexity and the nature of his theological meandering was too much even for him.
Was it, or perhaps, it was too much for you?

But there is one thing in which he excelled beyond this that few have taken into consideration.
And now not only has Paul deviated from the mission of Christ, he's laid a whole network of communications which actively undermines the orthodox message and asserts his own ...

Disregarding the ad hominem, which serves nothing but self-aggrandizement, Victor here seems to point to Paul's abilities and accomplishments. He acknowledges that under Paul good things happened. I fail to see how that got twisted back on itself and pointed in the opposite direction.

What Paul did was to establish one of the most efficient and well regulated organizations known to man. And every member of his ‘personal’ staff was loyal to a fault. They were not few in number even though most are never named. And if certain pressure was necessary to bring a congregation into line, he had the organization to accomplish it.

This rest is a fantasy ...

What Paul did was save Christianity from the Roman onslaught. As I pointed to elsewhere, Christianity would have suffered the same fate as Qumran and Masada (Jesus warned as much!) and Bar Kochba if it were not for Paul. As it was, Christianity had to morph in order to survive.

Prior to Paul, one *had* to be Jewish first - with absolutely EVERYTHING that entailed. Paul carried the message beyond the Jews. That doesn't make Paul a culprit or a scapegoat, that makes him a rather thoughtful "branch manager" (to go back to my Christianity Inc. analogy) who was able to overcome and circumvent obstacles so the corporation could survive, thrive and grow. And clearly, the message was well received. Not to take away from the Jewish tradition of philanthropy, but they were very clannish and didn't share that attitude far beyond their own. Christianity opened that concept and benefit to a wider audience, until then largely confined to the wrath/fate/whims of the gods and bread & circuses. If life screwed you, you were screwed, in the Pagan world you were pretty much on your own. Christianity opened an alternative way of coping and dealing with the vagaries of the world. If life screwed you, your brothers and sisters in the faith would help you out. This was largely unheard of in the Pagan world of that time, and it helped open minds to the message. How someone can fault Paul for that boggles my mind.

I know Thomas gets his feathers ruffled when I say it, but this is the very point and reason I say the Christianity we know today is through the lens of Paul's eye. Because of Paul, we no longer have to first be Jewish in order to be Christian.

Would I agree that others later took additional liberties? Absolutely, the downside is that the precedent Paul set seems to me to have inspired others over the centuries to modify things even further. And while Thomas may once again object, this is how we end up with some, to my way of thinking, pretty strange religious combinations out there in the world. Haiti, for example, I've heard more than once referred to as 90% Catholic and 100% Voodun...for anyone quick with math it is pretty easy to see what I'm getting at. That is not an isolated instance in the Evangelical Mission of the Catholic Church specifically.

Paul Evangelized...he toured about introducing people to this new Christian philosophy. But his methods were far more benign and unassuming than those methods employed later after Constantine and particularly after Justinian, by which time the Church was backed up by the Army. By the time of Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne, conversion of unbelievers had become militant on a level I'm certain neither Paul nor Jesus would have foreseen. And then there's the Inquisition... None of this was Paul's doing, and Paul cannot truthfully or rightly be blamed for any of it.

 

[juantoo3]

No .. I think the point being made is that Greek/Hellenist society is based on falsehood / idol worship.
eg. belief in a trinity of gods

The first commandment from our Creator is the Shima i.e. Your God is One God and has no partner,
which Jesus himself declares in the Gospel.
Much of what Victor says can be validated, but imo, it is difficult reading and includes unfounded accusations.

OK, so you believe people are damned because of where they were born? I am not familiar enough with Islam to have an opinion, but this to me is in opposition to the Command not to judge, that we be not judged. Further, in the opening words of Genesis, when G-d creates the first humans, *before Adam and Eve!*, that day of creation was not just good, it was VERY good. We are not Commanded to love our brothers and sisters only, we are to love our enemies as well.

So if this is used to judge others and condemn them in our minds, we fail to see Jesus' teachings.

I have no desire to worship idols, but Paul - the very same Paul we are discussing here - argued that eating flesh offered to idols is meaningless to us as Christians because the idols are meaningless, but that if doing so causes a brother or sister to stumble in the faith, to refrain from eating it. It is not the meat that is tainted, it is the hearts of some people.

 

[RJM]

and now with Mr Garaffa no longer with us

Is he deceased?

If it was a simple matter of "attracting viewers" so to speak,

More about the Homepage presenting IO as a serious discussion forum, not one biased and propped up by tomes of unedited pages of one-sided conclusions incorrectly drawn -- and not including the other side for comparison?

I have to admit, it is a tough read, and why after the first chapter I skipped to the summary ... there is a LOT of nuance that gets skimmed over or dismissed

Reasons why I so dislike this Pauline Conspiracy thesis ...

 

[Thomas]

I will qualify this by saying the area around Galilee where Jesus and his compatriots hung out is historically known as a hotbed for ultra-nationalist radicals, particularly the Zealots and the Sicarii, and there was a lot of underlying resentment to the occupying Romans in that area. So it is probably accurate to say Hellenist influence would be minimized in that area, but there's no way I can see it would be completely eradicated in that era and place.

Agreed. It seems to me we have good reason to assume Paul was a Zealot by disposition...

Greek philosophy was here before Christianity and is with us still to this day, so longevity seems to indicate G-d is (overall, in the greater sense) OK with it.

Yup, He seems to have used it quite extensively in picking His spokespersons!

 

[Thomas]

No .. I think the point being made is that Greek/Hellenist society is based on falsehood / idol worship. eg. belief in a trinity of gods

But it would be a tough call to say Paul preached polytheism, although we can retro-read hints of the Trinity in his writings: "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you." (2 Corinthians 13:14). Certainly I think the Greeks would have said, regarding the Christian Trinity: "One God, or Three Gods, make your mind up, man!"

 

[Thomas]

What Paul did was save Christianity from the Roman onslaught.

Generally, I agree, but then again, the Jews survived, and there were Christian communities abroad before Paul.

Prior to Paul, one *had* to be Jewish first - with absolutely EVERYTHING that entailed.

There can be no doubt about that. Paul's reconciling Jew and Gentile in Christ is the core of all his work, and the reason he is so widely misunderstood.

I know Thomas gets his feathers ruffled when I say it, but this is the very point and reason I say the Christianity we know today is through the lens of Paul's eye. Because of Paul, we no longer have to first be Jewish in order to be Christian.

Does he ... (sigh) ... I suppose there was a time when he did. Now I find myself an older man and, hopefully, wiser.

I think your comment is valid. Certainly Paul's confrontation with Peter in Antioch was over just that, and Paul made the Apostles stop and think.

Would I agree that others later took additional liberties? Absolutely, the downside is that the precedent Paul set seems to me to have inspired others over the centuries to modify things even further.

There's probably a discussion point there. I might object that the modifications were true to the Revelation. The Doctrine of the Trinity, for example.

... this is how we end up with some, to my way of thinking, pretty strange religious combinations out there in the world. Haiti, for example, I've heard more than once referred to as 90% Catholic and 100% Voodun...

Oh, I think that's inescapable.

If you were to push me, I would say that while the Theological and Pontifical Doctrine and Dogma concerning the Blessed Virgin is defensible, in the minds of most Catholics in the street, as it were, she seems to have assumed the mantle of the Goddess. In fact I think the Goddess as a universal archetype is perhaps so ingrained that the faithful were going to make a goddess of her, like it or not!

And then there's the Inquisition... None of this was Paul's doing, and Paul cannot truthfully or rightly be blamed for any of it.

But that's the nature of us, isn't it? The Inquisition was not all bad, and came about for a very good reason (and a lot of good people owe their lives to it), but yes, abuses and excesses, such as the Spanish and Monty Python got up to ... well, I can imaging Our Lord having something to say, or Paul dashing off a letter, and God help anyone on the receiving end of that!

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, so you believe people are damned because of where they were born?
...
So if this is used to judge others and condemn them in our minds, we fail to see Jesus' teachings.

No, I did not say that. It has nothing to do with judging others i.e. condemning nations or tribes to be "dirty dogs" etc.
Only Almighty God can judge people. He alone knows who is sincere and who is not.

It is about civilisations and their roots/beliefs.
It is not difficult to see how belief can be tainted by social culture/norms.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Certainly I think the Greeks would have said, regarding the Christian Trinity: "One God, or Three Gods, make your mind up, man!"

 

[RJM]

Only Almighty God can judge people. He alone knows who is sincere and who is not.
It is about civilisations and their roots/beliefs.
It is not difficult to see how belief can be tainted by social culture/norms.

Surely

 

[Cino]

The first commandment from our Creator is the Shima i.e. Your God is One God and has no partner,

"Hear, O Israel..." The commandment is directed at the house of Jacob. Other peoples, such as the Greeks, are not addressed. They are not bound by this particular contract, unless they explicitly enter into it.

At least, this is how I learned it. Not sure this was the understanding of all actors back in the Hellenistic Age, but it does have a lot of historical continuity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

"Hear, O Israel..." The commandment is directed at the house of Jacob. Other peoples, such as the Greeks, are not addressed. They are not bound by this particular contract, unless they explicitly enter into it.

At least, this is how I learned it. Not sure this was the understanding of all actors back in the Hellenistic Age, but it does have a lot of historical continuity.

Well, that infers that a religion is only for a particular tribe or nation .. Christianity and Islam do not consider that God belongs to certain people.
Right is right .. and wrong is wrong..

Among the People of the Scripture there is he who, if thou trust him with a weight of treasure, will return it to thee. And among them there is he who, if thou trust him with a piece of gold, will not return it to thee unless thou keep standing over him. That is because they say: We have no duty to the Gentiles. They speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly.
- Qur'an 3:75

It is fundamental .. anybody who professes to follow Jesus should acknowledge the foundation of faith that he professed.
When it comes to details, that is another matter. We know that Jesus complained about the hypocrisy of his fellow Jews.
i.e. in matters of "the law"

 

[Cino]

Well, that infers that a religion is only for a particular tribe or nation .. Christianity and Islam do not consider that God belongs to certain people.
Right is right .. and wrong is wrong..

Sure. I was just pointing out that the particular wording of the commandment Jesus was quoting at his audience had a rather specific scope at that time and place, before the advent of Christian and Muslim theology.

 

[juantoo3]

Is he deceased?

Thomas informed me Mr Garaffa passed away when I returned last time. I do know he was up in years when we communicated.

More about the Homepage presenting IO as a serious discussion forum, not one biased and propped up by tomes of unedited pages of one-sided conclusions incorrectly drawn -- and not including the other side for comparison?

That would be why I would encourage keeping it. I've heard attacks on Paul's character a number of times over the years, but they are usually shoot and scoot. Blah blah blah like they know something, and then disappear...I'm sure you know the type. Mr Garaffa was the *only* proponent of this line of thought to stick around and discuss the matter, at least up to a point.

 

[juantoo3]

... we have good reason to assume Paul was a Zealot by disposition...

How so? Paul studied at the feet of Gamaliel, as I'm certain you are aware. Paul was a Pharisee, the guys that were in bed with the occupying Romans. That is why the Jerusalem clique were wary of him and disbelieving his conversion. He even had Roman citizenship, something I highly doubt would have been extended to a (potential) renegade. These and more made Paul's conversion and faith walk so remarkable to begin with.

 

[juantoo3]

Generally, I agree, but then again, the Jews survived, and there were Christian communities abroad before Paul.

Glastonbury in Cornwall being the oldest. The wattle and daub church preserved on the grounds of the Glastonbury Monastery until Henry VIII had his soldiers torch the place. The Vatican accorded Glastonbury special prominence due to its age.

There's probably a discussion point there. I might object that the modifications (to the faith) were true to the Revelation. The Doctrine of the Trinity, for example.

Human nature being what it is, some people get carried away. There is a fascinating history of the Chinese variant of Christianity that challenged the throne and ultimately was put down militarily. Of course, that particular variant would look quite strange to Western eyes, little at all like what we are accustomed to.

Taiping Rebellion - Wikipedia
God Worshipping Society - Wikipedia

Oh, I think that's inescapable.

If you were to push me, I would say that while the Theological and Pontifical Doctrine and Dogma concerning the Blessed Virgin is defensible, in the minds of most Catholics in the street, as it were, she seems to have assumed the mantle of the Goddess. In fact I think the Goddess as a universal archetype is perhaps so ingrained that the faithful were going to make a goddess of her, like it or not!

If Rev Alexander Hislop is to be understood in this matter (The Two Babylons), Semiramis is the archetype which transferred onto Mary (Yashua's Mother's name was Miriam). Not a point of contention I wish to enter, at least not here, but this is one of many points of contention that pushed Protestism out of the Catholic Church.

But that's the nature of us, isn't it? The Inquisition was not all bad, and came about for a very good reason (and a lot of good people owe their lives to it), but yes, abuses and excesses, such as the Spanish and Monty Python got up to ... well, I can imaging Our Lord having something to say, or Paul dashing off a letter, and God help anyone on the receiving end of that!

I think those letters already exist. Human nature to take advantage of situations in order to promote our selfish desires is a theme addressed many times. As Lord Acton observed, "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely."

 

[juantoo3]

No, I did not say that. It has nothing to do with judging others i.e. condemning nations or tribes to be "dirty dogs" etc.
Only Almighty God can judge people. He alone knows who is sincere and who is not.

It is about civilisations and their roots/beliefs.
It is not difficult to see how belief can be tainted by social culture/norms.

I agree in principle, in practice that isn't the case.

If you presume that some culture/society is "tainted," (your word), then you do indeed judge them to be "dirty dogs" (again, your words).

The parable of the Good Samaritan teaches me to take each individual on their own merits. I do not use broad brush judgment across whole peoples, because G-d created ALL of them.

In the end, I believe we are not going to be asked *what* we believe, we will be asked *what did we do* with what we believe? That is where I value the letter of James the brother of Jesus above those of Paul.

 

[juantoo3]

Well, that infers that a religion is only for a particular tribe or nation .. Christianity and Islam do not consider that God belongs to certain people.
Right is right .. and wrong is wrong..

The Old Testament Bible is a family history, from Adam through at least to Abraham, and from there through Isaac. So yes, it is a tribe or nation to which it was initially written.

That's rather the point here discussing Paul. Jesus opened the door for non-Jews, Paul took that information and ran with it.

Among the People of the Scripture there is he who, if thou trust him with a weight of treasure, will return it to thee. And among them there is he who, if thou trust him with a piece of gold, will not return it to thee unless thou keep standing over him. That is because they say: We have no duty to the Gentiles. They speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly.
- Qur'an 3:75

The New Testament has a similar parable, about the servant who buried the Talent of gold and the other servant who invested the Talent of gold for their master. An observant Jew to remove all trace of leaven from his house during Passover would arrange with a Gentile friend to hold his groceries until the fast was over. That is tradition, not scripture, but it does demonstrate cooperation between faiths, and that the Biblical strictures regarding proper observance were not incumbent on Gentiles.

Then you have the (613?) Biblical Laws an observant Jew must follow (there's a LOT more than just the 10 Commandments), but non-Jews are only obligated to the Noachide Laws, which most observe by their Human Nature anyway.

I went into this in depth in another essay here, "Master of My Fate, Captain of My Soul." (shameless plug) This also refutes your contention that there are those born into whole cultures condemned to rot in Hell. There are people the world over that simply want to raise their families in peace. That can only be done in *any* culture by mutual cooperation, and that cooperation often extends outside of the cultural boundaries. Today, cultures and societies and nations interact around the world! Back in Paul's day there were camel caravans and simple sailing ships, and that was pretty much how intercultural trade was conducted.

By the time of Mohammed, some 600 years later, things hadn't changed all that much in this regard.

It is fundamental .. anybody who professes to follow Jesus should acknowledge the foundation of faith that he professed.
When it comes to details, that is another matter. We know that Jesus complained about the hypocrisy of his fellow Jews. i.e. in matters of "the law"

Well, let's see...you've already got two strikes, missing on prejudicially judging others and implying that the Bible was always and ever meant for everybody (would that include Muslims?), so I have to take the emphasized "fundamental" here with a big grain of salt. I put the mental in fundamental,

I have acknowledged the foundation of the Christian faith, and the Jewish faith before that, and the faith whatever it may have been called long before humanity ever had the written word around here for over 15 years. So I can only guess this is some attempt at Ad Hominem, and as Thomas can attest, Ad Hominem to me is an indication of weak arguments. If you cannot discuss an alternate view knowledgably and have to resort to Ad Hominem, that is a personal psychological barrier to preserve your own precious fantasies that you cannot bear being challenged, not a worthwhile or adequate rebuttal. Even a blind pig can find a truffle now and then.

 

[juantoo3]

Sure. I was just pointing out that the particular wording of the commandment Jesus was quoting at his audience had a rather specific scope at that time and place, before the advent of Christian and Muslim theology.

Precisely.