Kindest Regards, Victor!
I composed a brief "apology" to the Summary of your Thesis.
Response to Summary of Pauline Conspiracy
Originally Posted by SUMMATION
It is also a given fact that the religion practiced as Christianity is Pauline Christianity and not the faith or religion of Jesus' disciples. That is the Church that Jesus ordained, not Paul's.
In essence I agree, contingent upon the conclusion that were it not for Paul carrying the message beyond the Jews of Palestine (a very significant contribution to the organization called Christianity), the fledgling Christianity as practiced by the Apostles in Palestine would have been obliterated by the Roman onslaught when the Temple was destroyed and after. In carrying the message of Jesus beyond the initial Jewish converts, the message was made available to any person in the world who cared to hear. This is crucial to understanding the growth and spread of Christianity, without which the fate of Christianity is tied directly to that of Judaism. As a lesser and recent sect of Judaism, Christianity would most likely have suffered a fate not unlike that of Qumran or Masada.
When Saul is first mentioned we know only that he was a student in the Rabbinical school of Gameleil,
Which Gamaliel? This merely notes that Paul was formally trained in the Pharisaic tradition.
But the names that resound from his inner circle are loud in the history of the Church.
John Mark, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Apollos, Silas, and Luke.
These facts are not disputed, for they are the means with which he was able to capture the future of the Christian movement. They were the means through which he managed victory over another list of names which should have been even more prominent in religious history.
Peter, James the Lord's brother, John the son of Zebedee, and the living Jesus who was called the Christ.
As "hired hands" (to be polite) of Paul, surely the works come into question with the end result that all of the New Testament is not trustworthy.
This is a slippery slope. Are we to selectively edit the New Testament, and if so, where do we draw the line and by what justification? In condemning one writer by a set of standards, do we ignore those same standards when applied to other writers?
The depth of Paul's organization made it possible for him to take his gospel into the world and thus, to dominate the very essence of the Church as it exists today.
"Paul's" domination is twofold. First, the message of Jesus was carried beyond the confines of Judaism. Second, the "firstborn" church of Christianity was laid waste by the Roman military. Seeing it in this manner, how often in the Old Testament is the younger son set above the older son? Jacob and Esau leap to mind, and Ephraim and Manasseh come to mind as well. Further, had Paul not carried the message of Jesus beyond the confines of Judaism, then it would still be requisite to be Jewish before one could be Christian.
We stipulate to these things because they are fact, but the other side of the coin is a different story. We could, as others have done, draw assumptions concerning the man and his activities. We might make conjectures about the meaning of his statements just to place Paul in the best light possible. Then we would be as guilty as those who constantly applaud him.
Is this a nice way of silencing critics? Yes, we might "draw assumptions." We might also base those "assumptions" on known history, rather than selective interpretation of texts that have long drawn criticism from scholars. We might take a bigger picture view of the affair, looking at the political climate of the region as a whole, in drawing our assessment. And we might, considering this is a subject related to the growth and promotion of a fledgling monotheistic faith in One Creator G-d, consider that that Creator G-d might have actually had some hand in the growth and promotion of said monotheistic faith. This is appeal to authority, true, but an authority without which this entire discussion is meaningless.
Paul drew from hearsay information, the myriad cult myths that abounded in his world, his Jewish education, his understanding of Hellenistic philosophies, and his consummate creative imagination.
To paraphrase Paul: "To the Romans I am a Roman, to the Greeks I am a Greek, to the Jews I am a Jew." Yes, Paul was a political and cultural chameleon. And I do wonder how much of the misgivings over his works are misunderstandings or misinterpretations cross-culturally, and politically motivated. It is impressive that he was able to translate a radically Jewish concept into Greek and Roman terms in order to present Jesus' message in a meaningful way to non-Jews. Perhaps this "poetic license" of Paul was later abused, his cultural chameleon methods are certainly the same methods historically used by the Catholic Church in its missionary spread throughout the world.
And that which he drew upon from God's Holy Scriptures, he manipulated and misquoted.
Paul brought a rather deep understanding to some OT teachings, if one can get past the fluff usually taught in a typical church today.
If Jesus' word contradicted Paul's gospel and his Hellenistic theology he would have disregarded Jesus' words at once.
We do not know this.
Luke is discredited by professional Christian theologians. They tell us that where Paul contradicts writing, such as Luke, Paul is to be taken as correct. This is to say that the Bible is something less than inspired by God. (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 9: Page 126)
Poor Luke can't catch a break, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't…"the Bible is something less than inspired by God" either way...regardless of how Luke is discounted, it further erodes the value of the Gospels and the Acts, and the New Testament by extension. Do we keep the Gospel and trash the Acts, when they are effectively the first and second halves of the same narrative?
Depending which professional Christian scholar you are speaking of, any part of the entire Bible can be brought into question. The motive and intent to undermine the faith is quite strong in some scholars, who fail to consider the ramifications of a few well placed charges destroying the faith. What purpose is served? How does this edify, console, comfort or encourage the weak, downtrodden or fearful? How does this elevate humanity?
We have shown Paul's theology, repeating it time and again. His basic concept of redemption hinges on one act. And upon the blood offering of a human sacrifice, depends salvation for the entire human race.
Considering, if Paul was a Jew of the Pharisaic tradition having learned at the feet of Gamaliel, living during the time when animal sacrifice was practiced on a factory scale by the Jews at the Temple, and blood sacrifice was practiced by virtually every surrounding culture, I fail to see why one should be shocked at this. The Jewish Temple is usually thought of by Christians today as if it were some kind of Church or Cathedral. It was not. The inner sanctuaries were reserved solely for devout Jews born into the faith, and the inner most sanctuary was reserved solely for the High Priest on one specific day of the year. The outer court, where everybody did their religious business, going about seeking absolution of sin, was a marvel of engineering for the sole purpose of slaughter and butchering and burning the sacrifices. That is why the sellers of doves and money changers were in the outermost courtyard, offering their wares in what had become a mindless ritual devoid of any meaning. The people no longer offered sacrifice out of a sense of duty, it was something you just did because it was expected of you. Hence, a portion of the motivations that lay behind the rage fueling Jesus' cleansing of the Temple courtyard.
The nature of Paul's theology is speculative. It is based on conjecture.
Is not your theology, mine, everybody's, if we really get truthful with ourselves?
Paul seems to be rationalizing his prejudices.
Don't we all?
and claims that his eyes are practically useless, which makes the first two visions highly suspicious.
Why? 14 years ago my eyes were much better than they are now, it troubles me greatly to watch as my vision deteriorates.
and he denied God's Commandments (i.e., the Law).
Are you saying a student the likes of Paul, duly trained in the Pharisaic tradition, denied the Ten Commandments? I can see a lot of wiggle room pertaining to the 613 Levitical laws, which IMHO would seem necessary in order to translate what is effectively a Jewish cultural thing into a more Greek / Roman / Pagan cultural thing. Paul still remained within the confines of the Ten Commandments and The Noahide Laws once his ministry started.
Since Christianity today insists that even the Holy Scriptures as revealed to Judaism speak of Jesus, let us openly pursue that reference in denial of Paul's Hellenistic theology.
"Then he said to them, 'These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled. '" (The New Testament: Revised Standard Version: Luke 24:44)
"Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, 'We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Not only does the evangelist of John contradict his own opening statement as to Jesus' sonship, here indicating the he is the, "...son of Joseph...", but he insists that it is the law through which Jesus comes to us. Jesus himself indicates that the law and the prophets give us a knowledge of him.
Therefore I remark that if the law gives us a knowledge and understanding of the Christ, then how can the law be denied? To deny the law is to deny Jesus. And if the Living Christ comes to us through the law, who is to be our salvation, then how can the law be corrupt? For if the law is corrupt, so is Messiah, and there is no redemption.
In truth, the way of our salvation is through the law, and in the words of scripture which men consider 'holy', those things on which we will be judged are of the law. Does not James, Jesus' brother, agree with this logic?
To answer the question, No. This is circular logic. You allude to laws speaking of Jesus yet provide no evidence. The Jewish interpretation is quite different.
In their view Jesus did not fulfill prophecy, let alone law. It is not denial of law if the law cannot be produced. This challenge has been laid before Christians here in times past, with nothing definitive ever coming from it. In short, this is a circular supposition. How can a law that doesn't exist be denied? How can one point to a law that doesn't exist as proof, and then accuse those who don't accept a blind supposition without evidence?
*continued*
