Why Was Paul's Teaching More Acceptable?

[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

 

[pattimax]

Why was Paul so much more successful than Jesus

Paul had the resurrection of Jesus to talk about.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Why was Paul so much more successful than Jesus in accumulating converts and converting people to what he called Christianity?

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

 

[bob x]

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?

Jesus had nothing to do with Saul having his neurological conditions.

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

False Apostle & Inventor of Christianity

Jesus had nothing to do with Saul having his neurological conditions.

Quite so.

Saul/Paul was considered a false apostle by the Jewish followers of the Way.

In my book ("Church of God? or the Temples of Satan") I devote a whole section to the proofs of Paul's psychosis and false teachings.

PLU

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Jesus had nothing to do with Saul having his neurological conditions.

Well, we don't that for sure. Acts is kind of a prequel to the gospels while masquerading as prologue. It basically invents the apostolic tradition while tying in the mythology of the Gospels with the Pauline lore. We don't actually have enough independent evidence to know who or what Jesus may have been. We know who Paul was. What we don't know is how many people he actually had a hand in converting, and whether it was more or less than Jesus- presuming of course that he was an actual person.

Chris

 

[Thomas]

Why was Paul so much more successful than Jesus in accumulating converts and converting people to what he called Christianity?

If I may say so I think that's a rather an assumption? By what measure more successful?

The Church was established and spreading fast before Saul came on the scene, he was going to Damascus to hunt down Christians there, after all. Who founded that community? The church also spread in areas where Paul had no direct input.

In Damascus, Paul was instructed and baptised into the Christian Mysteries by Ananias (Acts 9:10). Some have suggested a period of some 14 years between his epiphany and the beginnings of his public ministry.

We know of Paul because his letters were regarded as orthodox and indeed inspired as the Christian community understood it — they were read out at Christian gatherings, St Peter endorsed them, so we can assume that what St Paul believed and preached was the same message as the Apsotles, and indeed was the faith of the Church, not the other way round.

Had Paul's preaching been perceived as 'off message' then the communities would be quick to complain, as they were when such was the case.

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.

I woud suggest that the idea of 'merely' believing anything is a misreading of Scripture. Christ — and indeed Paul — were quite adamant that 'lip service' was not enough.

It does strike me as curious that you should take this line. It is a somewhat singular interpretation, if I may say so, and you'll be ploughing a lonely furrow (all credit to you there) bearing in mind that the general concensus of anti-Pauline thought is that he was too doctrinaire ... or put another way, a large body of scholarly opinion states exactly the opposite of your position.

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.

I do believe a personal agenda is showing its skirts here. Is this a line of scholarly enquiry, or your own opinion?

The writer and Platonist philosopher Iris Murdoch, in treating of "unselfing" as a prerequisite to directing the moral agent's consciousness towards what she, following Simone Weil, would call loving attention. "Attending with Love" enables one to counter the powerful and natural egocentric mechanism, to purify and direct its energy towards choosing rightly when occasions arise. She acknowledges as real and contemporary the Pauline challenge: "The good that I would do I do not, but the evil which I would not that I do." (Romans 7:19)

If you can, get hold of a Platonic commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, for example, I think you might find it illuminating.

I might also add that spiritual masters from a variety of traditions, Buddhist, Sufi and Vedic, to name but three, readily acknowledge the call to asceticism and spiritual discipline that underlines all the Pauline kerygma, but I will acknolwdge that Paul does not require one to be a 'spiritual superman' — his message is addressed to all, not to an elite, perhaps therein lies the root of your issue with the texts?

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.

I suggest the method of analysis you have followed leaves a lot to be desired — it is not so much that people are lukewarm, as fallible.

Paul's tirades, if I might call them that (Corinthians, for example) were, in the words of one Catholic commentator, written 'in the white heat of anger', so hardly 'lukewarm' at all, but there were founded on love, hope, and charity, and this assuages the hard edge of his words.

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.

I think one has to ask is it the messenger, or the message? I would think the latter, bearing in mind the spread of the church before Paul. Certainly when they came under pressure, it was Christ they looked to in faith, not Paul.

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!

And yet it was Jesus's message that took off, was it not?

In my book ("Church of God? or the Temples of Satan") I devote a whole section to the proofs of Paul's psychosis and false teachings.

Ah. Is this a book-promotion thread?

Thomas

 

[pattimax]

- no real effort on the part of the believer! Very suited to those who were too busy to devote themselves to Spirituality.

What do you consider effort? Buying your book?

 

[juantoo3]

Re: False Apostle & Inventor of Christianity

Kindest Regards, A. Ben-Shema, and welcome to CR!

Quite so.

Saul/Paul was considered a false apostle by the Jewish followers of the Way.

In my book ("Church of God? or the Temples of Satan") I devote a whole section to the proofs of Paul's psychosis and false teachings.

PLU

Perhaps it may be of interest to you Mr. V. Garaffa's work available here entitled the Pauline Conspiracy:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy/

Others too, have left detractions of Pauline teachings. Of course, whenever they were pushed to describe what Christianity should rightly appear minus Paul's work, all of them to a man (including Mr. Garaffa) had no more to say.

Here you will find my refutation of the summary of Mr. Garaffa's Pauline Conspiracy essay, initiated by an excerpt of a conversation between Mr. Garaffa and myself:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/refutation-of-pauline-controversy-5750.html

A search through the achives would reveal other discussions to this subject, but I feel most of those who broached the subject were not truly familiar with the historical details. I do not claim to be intimately familiar with those details, but I do have a cursory familiarity with the historical events surrounding that period in that part of the world.

Enjoy the discussion. Good luck with the book. I do think you will find some though that may not fully agree with your findings.

 

[wil]

Ah. Is this a book-promotion thread?

Namaste A Ben-Shema,

You could buy some google ads, that is the way that one is supposed to advertise their wares on this site.

FYI, discussion, not self promotion is what this forum is created for.

I read that Paul's letters were put in order of length rather than chronological order, and that if one reads them in chronological order, as he wrote them, you get a different view of the evolution of Paul's thinking as he aged and grew closer to Christ.

Any thoughts on that?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Wil.

Burton L. Mack is the author of The Lost Gospel, but he also has written a book titled Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth, which includes an excellent examination of the evolution of Paul's thought.

Also, for an in depth look at Pauline detraction I'd recommend Hyam Maccoby's The Myth Maker. It hits all major points.

The main problem I have with Paul's detractors is that they assume the Gospel Jesus to be the genuine article against which to compare Paul's theology. There are any number of valid criticism one can lay against Paul, but one should also apply the same level of critical historical and textual analysis to the balance of the NT material. I don't mind anyone grinding an axe for Paul so long as they turn the same beam of critical light on the Gospels- both canonical and gnostic. But what I see all of the time is that people want the Gospel Jesus, but they want him sanitized of anything that detracts from turning him into whatever it is that makes their point for them. So the rhetoric and critique is always self serving and unequally applied.

Chris

 

[Thomas]

Hi Chris —

Not to get involved in argument, but Pierre Benoit, in his rebuttal of Bultmann's idea of Christian mythology (that the Church turned a Jewish prophet into a Greek deity), argues quite succinctly that a myth of such richness and complexity could no have evolved so quickly from such a disparate and amorphous group ... in fact he argues that it would require a greater miracle for such a myth to evolve than for the man called Jesus to be the Son of God.

Least of all, the entire Christian community would have to be implicit in the mythmaking ... hundreds would have to have invented and agreed the myth almost overnight, in quite considerable detail, for the Church to have spread as far and as fast as it did, a myth that would infuriate Jew and gentile alike, and cost many of the major players their lives ...

As you know, I argue from the perspective that the community shapes its texts — the community produced the Canonical gospels, the gospels did not shape the community, which was why it was relatively easy to dismiss the non-Canonical texts, because the message was different to that which the community believed.

It's a very complex discussion...

In short, I believe for anyone to 'invent' Christianity, it's gospels, its scriptures and its traditions, and for that invention to be 'bulletproof' against the best the Jews and the gentiles could throw at it ... a philosophy that accords with and surpasses the best of Greek theosophic thought ... a text that is still being mined for spiritual nourishment 2,000 years later ... a tradition that produced mystics like Bonaventure and philosophers like Aquinas, that inspired some of the greatest works of art in every sphere that Europe has to show, from Dionysius to Dovstoyesky ... and to be held in the highest regard by every major spiritual tradition on the planet ...

That's mythmaking, and then some ...

Thomas

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Thomas.

I agree that it's all very complex, and I can never think of a way to adequately represent all the layers. I am happy to consider all angles even though I usually write from the minimalist point of view because no one else takes that angle and because it seems the most neutral position from which to ask non-rhetorical questions. That probably sounds funny to you!

I like Paul. I think that what Paul wrote and what has been made of what Paul wrote are two different things. I've been thinking about Paul and his desire to effect a genuine mimisis of Christ. He gets into this in Phillipians. Paul doesn't just want to imitate Christ, he wants to have the "mind" of Christ. He wishes to be an example of the "pattern" or logos of Christ- to have that Christ pattern imprinted in himself so that he can himself experience the revelation and resurrection.

Chris

 

[Thomas]

We've been looking at the Letter to the Hebrews recently.

We now 'know' (the evidence is significant) that Paul was not its author, although who it was, we do not know.

What we do know is a Jew, possibly an Alexandrian, certainly well-schooled in Middle Platonism. There are many correspondences between the author's terminology and Philo of Alexandria, but we know it's not Philo ... he 'crossed over' into the Hellenic world, the author of Hebrews remains thoroughly Christian.

We can date the text as post 63AD by internal evidence, and generally it's placed between 65-90. This makes it roughly contemporary with the Synoptics (post Mark) and the Pauline corpus. There's no reference to the fall of the temple (70AD), and even though this would seem to endorse the point the author was aiming at, it is not in itself conclusive proof of a date prior to that catastrophe.

Its theological vision is, within the Christian kerygma as a whole, unique, and in therological circles it is granted the distinction of being 'original' in that it rests on no other work ... as such it would have to be read as a contributory strand to the Christian mythologia.

Thomas

 

[bob x]

We know of Paul because his letters were regarded as orthodox and indeed inspired as the Christian community understood it — they were read out at Christian gatherings, St Peter endorsed them, so we can assume that what St Paul believed and preached was the same message as the Apsotles, and indeed was the faith of the Church, not the other way round.

Paul's letters were read in the Christian communities that Paul founded, not surprisingly. The Christians in Judea never accepted Paul's new version of the faith. And when you say that "Peter" endorsed Paul's letters, you mean that the author of the book called "2nd Peter" did: but that author was a late forger, from the Pauline Christian communities, not a first-generation representative of the original disciples.

Pierre Benoit, in his rebuttal of Bultmann's idea of Christian mythology (that the Church turned a Jewish prophet into a Greek deity), argues quite succinctly that a myth of such richness and complexity could no have evolved so quickly

This is just rubbish. People elaborate complex religious systems relatively often (David Koresh's vision of the world was mind-numbingly complex); typically these invented myths lack sufficient insight and psychological resonance with ordinary people to attract much of a following (the various Gnostic texts that lay out multi-layered cosmologies filled with numerous "emanations" with profound names all represent small sects that sprang up quickly, and usually died out quickly), but of course sometimes mythologies do strike a chord with a lot of people-- the mythologies which do have psychological and spiritual relevance take no longer to arise than any others.

 

[Quahom1]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Can you back up such claims with evidence, please.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!

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