Why Was Paul's Teaching More Acceptable?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by A. Ben-Shema

Why was Paul so much more successful than Jesus in accumulating converts and converting people to what he called Christianity? I would say the reason was primarily that Paul's Gospel taught that all one had to do to obtain Eternal Life and Salvation was merely 'believe' in Jesus as the Lord, and 'believe' that His death was a final sacrifice which would cleanse all believers forever of all their sins. Certainly a very 'nice' and 'smug' belief system, indeed - no real effort on the part of the believer! Very suited to those who were too busy to devote themselves to Spirituality.

When one analyses this doctrine, the great appeal it offers to people who are merely 'lukewarm' about God/Truth (and are thus not really interested in dedicated discipleship), should become abundantly apparent.

One would think that the Master - Jesus - Himself would be the most successful at teaching, but Jesus only ended up with, perhaps, a few hundred disciples (in Acts 1:15 it mentions about 120). Paul, however, must have converted thousands, and we know he started many churches throughout Asia-Minor - all the way to Rome. He even collected money from his own communities to help the poor church in Jerusalem. Then just look how this new religion, as taught by Paul, simply 'took off' - an amazing success story which could never have been achieved by Jesus and His genuine revelations of Truth - which require one's total dedication - N.B. what Jesus told the 'rich young man' Mark 10:17-24. If Paul had taught such things, no doubt he wouldn't have had such a successful career, either!

Peace, Love, & Understanding

Not quite. Jesus ended up with 2.3 billion followers (and still increasing). Paul was/is a tool, a messanger, a servant doing the Master's bidding. Or in more modern day terms, Paul is a crew member carrying out his "Captain's" orders...

Ya gotta look a the big picture. Without Jesus, there is no Paul, no writings by Paul, no history of Paul. And Paul's teachings were Jesus' instructions...

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

By the time Saul came around there were enough Christians that they were considered a bona fide political threat. Does Jesus get credit for those? And doesn't Jesus at least get a cut of Paul's considering he went to the trouble to personally strike Saul blind to bring him on board?

Paul had nothing to do personally with the ascendancy of the Roman Church. That was those Church Father dudes way later. Of course they claim the Throne of Peter and all that jazz but that's mythology. And Paul is speaking of a cosmic Christ; a universal Christ very much like a Greek Logos.

If you would take a fresh look at the genuine Pauline material without the influence of the Gospels you might see that all of the innovation is Paul's, and 95% of the mythology comes from the Gospels. All of that wishy washy stuff about just believing that you're complaining about comes from the Gospels. The Gospels were written to be liturgical documents for an organized Church the like of which Paul could probably only dream. It's in the Gospels that you'll find the propaganda makin's that went along with the theological programme of the Roman Church. Not that it's the fault of the authors, of course, but of the compilers of the present cannon. It's just that these four Gospels, and most especially John, worked well in relation to the Church's needs.

I just think we should look at the Paul stuff in context. Paul says up front that he endeavors to be all things to all men. I think that one has to look for the universal message in Paul's writings. He says this and this to Jews with analogies about the Law and such, some other things to Greeks touching on the pillars of Greek philosophy at the time. I think that the question is: what's the universal theme? What is he saying that appeals to our brand of every man?

Chris

Interesting that you consider the early Christians a political threat, when politics was the last thing on their minds. Paul came around seven years after the death of Jesus (he oversaw the stoning of Stephen). If anything, the Christians were a threat to a particular ogliarchy's religious influence. And it wasn't the whole lot of Christians, but rather a couple of outstanding individuals who refused to be silent before the Sanhedrin. And what ticked off those "Christians" was the 'Do as I say, not as I do' attitude the counsel had. Remember, up to that point, Christianity was a part of the Judeac faith, a sect of Judeasm.

v/r

Q

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Interesting that you consider the early Christians a political threat ... If anything, the Christians were a threat to a particular ogliarchy's religious influence.

Yes, that's what I had in mind. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was thinking of politics in a larger, not necessarily governmental sense. Anyway, I agree.

Chris

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by bob x

Paul's letters were read in the Christian communities that Paul founded, not surprisingly.

That's not true. The Epistle to the Romans, regarded by many as the apex of the Pauline Corpus, was written to a church not founded by him.

Originally Posted by bob x

The Christians in Judea never accepted Paul's new version of the faith.

Can you back up such claims with evidence, please.

Originally Posted by bob x

but that author was a late forger, from the Pauline Christian communities, not a first-generation representative of the original disciples.

No scholar would make such a claim. The authorship of 2 Peter is questionable, as indeed the Fathers were the first to point out, but the evidence, both interal and external, is inconclusive, so it remains a matter of personal preference.

As we cannot claim with certainty who the author was, you cannot claim it was from the Pauline community, and nor can you claim it was a forgery. One has to allow for the possibility of 'pseudepigrapha' — the practice of attributing texts to the author of their inspiration, a common practice of the era ... also that the letter was written by an amanuensis.

Originally Posted by bob x

This is just rubbish.

Well as Pierre Benoit OP was a scholar with a global reputation ... I would suggest the weight of evidence and opinion is against you.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Paul had nothing to do personally with the ascendancy of the Roman Church. That was those Church Father dudes way later. Of course they claim the Throne of Peter and all that jazz but that's mythology. And Paul is speaking of a cosmic Christ; a universal Christ very much like a Greek Logos.

A couple of points:

The position of Rome seems to have been accepted from the close of the first century, as Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians indicates. Also, in disputes, it likewsie seems the bishops called on Rome to arbitrate for them.

The term 'logos' was picked up from Stoic philosophy, more Johannine than Pauline (Paul never used the term — although he encompassed the main streams of Greek philosophy), and I would say that whilst Paul is talking of a metacosmic Christ, he in no way implies a 'principle' as did the Greeks, the gnostics, and the theosophists today ... Christ for Paul was flesh and blood, lived and breathed, suffered and died ... and as he was at pains to say, if that was not the case, then the whole thing is a nonsense.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

The Gospels were written to be liturgical documents for an organized Church the like of which Paul could probably only dream.

Actually the 'organised church' was a reality in Paul's day, the structure of bishops, presbyters and deacons already in place (organised by Peter) and, as some say (and I am inclined towards) based on the ecclesial lines of the Essences, from converts to Christianity.

The Gospels were written for local communities — Matthew for Judea, Mark for Rome, Luke for a wider gentile audience and John (the last by far) produced for the community at Ephesus — the Church was unable to organise until Clementine's 'conversion' allowed safe and easy communications.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

It's in the Gospels that you'll find the propaganda makin's that went along with the theological programme of the Roman Church. Not that it's the fault of the authors, of course, but of the compilers of the present cannon. It's just that these four Gospels, and most especially John, worked well in relation to the Church's needs.

That's simply not the case, Chris.

Mark and Matthew could be argued as contemporary with Paul, Luke was a disciple of Paul. John's gospel was primarily aimed at combatting the teachings of Cerinthus that was being promulgated at Ephesus at the time, nothing to do with the wider Church.

And usually I'm defending Paul against accusations of the 'invention' of Christianity, not the Gospels!

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I just think we should look at the Paul stuff in context. Paul says up front that he endeavors to be all things to all men. I think that one has to look for the universal message in Paul's writings. He says this and this to Jews with analogies about the Law and such, some other things to Greeks touching on the pillars of Greek philosophy at the time. I think that the question is: what's the universal theme? What is he saying that appeals to our brand of every man?

Well, he says it himself:
"For both the Jews require signs: and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness." 1 Corinthians 1:22-23

Simple as that.

Thomas

[bob x]

Peace, Love, & Understanding
Not quite. Jesus ended up with 2.3 billion followers (and still increasing).

The followers of Jesus can be counted on the fingers of one hand. YOU certainly display precious little peace, love, or understanding, Q

The Epistle to the Romans, regarded by many as the apex of the Pauline Corpus, was written to a church not founded by him.

The "Romans" epistle was not originally addressed to Rome. It is a cut-and-paste of two or perhaps three letters, addressed to we don't know who (but the material is certainly from Paul, so it doesn't much matter); the text as we have it accidentally incorporates a "cover letter" (the epistle of Tertius, found in the last couple chapters) written to the Roman community (of the 2nd century: the list of names is far too long to be a 1st century community, and includes some names like "Hermas" known from other sources to be 2nd century personalities) by someone who was forwarding these Pauline texts to Rome. The earliest published text of "Romans" did not include the Tertius material, or the long interpolation about Paul's supposed plans to travel on to Spain.
According to Clement, and the other early sources, the community in Rome was founded by Paul. We see in the book of Acts that when Paul arrived in Rome, there were no Christians there for him to stay with (he had to rent a house, unlike the other places he stayed), only Jewish rabbis who are interested to hear his side of things because "all we know about this sect is that it is spoken against everywhere."

The Christians in Judea never accepted Paul's new version of the faith.
Can you back up such claims with evidence, please.

The Judean Christians, commonly known as the "Ebionites", continued for some centuries. Their leadership was always drawn from Jesus' family: after Jesus was gone, his brother James was "the Messiah" (anointed, rightful king), then their cousin Simeon, and so on; each in turn was "the king" but Jesus was "the king of kings" (supreme human, who would rule over all the kings as well as everyone else at the end times). They rejected the virgin birth story and the Pauline theology in its entirety.

but that author was a late forger, from the Pauline Christian communities, not a first-generation representative of the original disciples.
No scholar would make such a claim.

Practically EVERY scholar says so. The issue is not really debatable: there is no reason whatsoever to think of 2nd Peter as genuine, or early.

Well as Pierre Benoit OP was a scholar with a global reputation ... I would suggest the weight of evidence and opinion is against you.

I don't care who he is. What matters is what he says, not who says it. The weight of the EVIDENCE is that mythologies elaborate very quickly, often, quite opposite to what he claims.
And I find it strange that you are willing to make arguments from authority in this case, while disregarding the scholarly opinion on the pseudepigraphic epistles.

The position of Rome seems to have been accepted from the close of the first century, as Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians indicates.

Rome had some pre-eminence over the Greek communities founded by Paul; also over Italy, and Rome's supremacy was never disputed in Spain. Gaul and North Africa sometimes did and sometimes didn't follow Rome; the East never did.

Actually the 'organised church' was a reality in Paul's day, the structure of bishops, presbyters and deacons already in place

You are believing that the epistles to Timothy are genuine. There are no good grounds for any such belief.

[wil]

Originally Posted by bob x

The followers of Jesus can be counted on the fingers of one hand. YOU certainly display precious little peace, love, or understanding, Q.

tee hee, first thought, you've gotta take a picture of that hand! At a minimum we can say 12 followers, but then we can easily add more, after all you don't send 600 men to arrest the leader of a handful, unless of course we are talking Waco and the BATF. But then of course there is the story of the 5,000, but you are correct many of those were there just for the buffet, but then the 5k doesn't include women and kids, that still amounts to the potential of a guiness record appendage.

But then I contemplate the end of your statement and the implication that they were a significant number of hangers on, but very few that grocked the message and were actually followers.

But then I wondered if Paul made any difference in that regard, and if your above statement was in relation to today or the OP.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by bob x

According to Clement, and the other early sources, the community in Rome was founded by Paul.

So tradition is acceptable when it supports your argument, but not, when it doesn't?

There is often precious little clear ground to say much with absolute certainty on these matters, and scholarship generally acknowledges that. What results are theories and speculations, but rarely hard or indisputable proofs.

There is certainly not enough evidence to support the claims you are making, especially when the grounds on which they stand are far more tenuous than the grounds you reject, and that most of the data derives from the works of the Fathers anyway, viewpoints which you accept or reject out of hand according to your own agenda.

We all select, but when your argument is presented as 'proof', based on "I don't care" when a contrary (and world-recognised) view is offered, then I see no point in arguing.

Thomas

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by bob x

The followers of Jesus can be counted on the fingers of one hand. YOU certainly display precious little peace, love, or understanding, Q

You don't know me from Adam, Bob.

[bob x]

Thomas: "So tradition is acceptable when it supports your argument, but not, when it doesn't?"
All tradition is "evidence", strong or weak; but where the traditions are in conflict, traditions near to the time are stronger than late traditions (Clement was actually alive when Paul and Peter were in Rome; the editors of "Romans" as we have it now were not). I strongly agree with you that, "There is often precious little clear ground to say much with absolute certainty on these matters, and scholarship generally acknowledges that. "

Quahom: "You don't know me from Adam, Bob."
All I know of you is what you chose to show me: a willingness to do me harm, without cause, based on an irrational hatred.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by bob x

Quahom: "You don't know me from Adam, Bob."
All I know of you is what you chose to show me: a willingness to do me harm, without cause, based on an irrational hatred.

Huh? All in your own mind...

I don't hate anyone, especially you. I don't know you. I have no idea where that came from...but if you feel I hate you so much, feel free to file a complaint with the admin. In fact I insist that you do. That way we can get this issue out in the open and resolved.

v/r

Q

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Actually the 'organised church' was a reality in Paul's day, the structure of bishops, presbyters and deacons already in place (organised by Peter) and, as some say (and I am inclined towards) based on the ecclesial lines of the Essences, from converts to Christianity.

...

Mark and Matthew could be argued as contemporary with Paul, Luke was a disciple of Paul. John's gospel was primarily aimed at combatting the teachings of Cerinthus that was being promulgated at Ephesus at the time, nothing to do with the wider Church.

And usually I'm defending Paul against accusations of the 'invention' of Christianity, not the Gospels!

I haven't been able to locate any definitive, objective historical evidence which lays out a solid chronology of the Church's early development. I just don't know what actually happened. I'm inclined to think that the Gospel narratives are almost, if not entirely fictitious. Same goes for Acts. I know that Paul was a real person, and I accept the consensus of scholarship on which writings are authentically his. I try very hard to keep in mind what I actually know and what I don't. It's mostly don't! Unfortunately there is so much "political" pressure to arrange the facts to suit one's point of view that it's nearly impossible to have an honest conversation about any of it. I appreciate your constant effort to be objective, and I realize that there are common sense constraints on what you are willing to say.

Chris

[bob x]

Quahom: I have been without health insurance for years, and as a result have untreated problems that will likely shorten my life. In our only prior interaction, you wanted to keep things that way, for purported reasons so flimsy and specious that "irrational" is a polite term for it. You did little to conceal the true reason, that you are willing to say or do ANYTHING, anything at all, as long as it does injury to me and my kind.
Yes, you are a stranger to me: a stranger who wants to throw me under a bus. That is as much as I need to know about you, to know that you are not very reminiscent of Jesus.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by bob x

Quahom: I have been without health insurance for years, and as a result have untreated problems that will likely shorten my life. In our only prior interaction, you wanted to keep things that way, for purported reasons so flimsy and specious that "irrational" is a polite term for it. You did little to conceal the true reason, that you are willing to say or do ANYTHING, anything at all, as long as it does injury to me and my kind.
Yes, you are a stranger to me: a stranger who wants to throw me under a bus. That is as much as I need to know about you, to know that you are not very reminiscent of Jesus.

Care to refresh my memory as to what irrational thought I had that would keep you from having insurance? And since you are in Michigan, I would assume you are aware of State offered insurance augments?

v/r

Q

p.s. never mind, I remember now. Domestic Partner benefits...back in October. You thought the insurance companies could handle the surge of such benefits extended to those other than married couples and family and I thought they could not.

[bob x]

In Michigan, it is specifically illegal (written into the constitution, in fact) for one of us to cover another; something the "Good Christians" pushed through. Your rant about how insurance companies would be "bankrupted" was irrationally far from any reality, and the intensity of your rant exposed the intensity of your hatred.