THE PAULINE CONSPIRACY

[juantoo3]

Very well, it will allow me some minor spelling corrections...

 

[RJM]

Very well, it will allow me some minor spelling corrections...

OK, I did find it, but take your time and get it how you want it to look, then either PM or email it to me?
And thank you for helping with the Homepage @juantoo3

 

[juantoo3]

“I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.”
- by William Henley,
excerpt from “INVICTUS”​

As I open with these infamous words, let me say I am well aware of the implications and still vivid connections. In fact, I drew upon these very words precisely because of their raw implications and notorious connections. To so many, these words can seem almost heretical, almost blasphemous. And yet, in their proper context, these words ring true even for those who would hold Henley in contempt. Even if we choose to guide our lives by following the moral example of a great religious teacher or Higher Spiritual Power, it is still our choice that leads us to do so. So, we are a master of our fate, even if in our minds we believe there is a Higher Master. We choose how we will direct our lives, for good or bad, for morality or immorality, for skillful or unskillful actions, for righteousness or evil. And the God’s honest truth is; all of us do a little of both depending on our inclinations at any given time. We have a tendency to be naughty from time to time, and enjoy ourselves immensely while doing so.

On the grand scale, what seems evil to one culture may be perfectly acceptable in another. A society would of necessity have to be homogenous in order become anything close to resembling a genuinely moral society. Simply put, everyone would have to believe and agree on everything. Of course, the global reality is so much different. Given the subjective nature of morality across cultures, it really is no wonder the conflict that arises when different cultures meet, which is by definition “culture clash.” Politics further compounds the issue by providing a spectrum across which to divide people further within any given culture. In ancient times it might be said that the prevailing politics was that of the strong man who led that society, and the opposite end of the spectrum could only come from a challenge to the “throne.” The modern societies which define the world in which we live now are complicated in that, at least in democratic countries and increasingly in non-democratic countries, the whole spectrum of politics is made available to the masses. From radical liberals to reactionary conservatives, some form of voice is allowed a degree of expression throughout, even if considered illegal. Admittedly, that expression is allowed in greater and lesser degrees depending on which society is being considered, but moderation is not a predisposition humans are naturally inclined to. It suggests compromise, a challenge to authority paternal societies in general are not well equipped to handle mentally; and in the overt extreme compromise can dilute a culture, leading to the demise of maternal societies (Native American and European Celtic tribes, for example). In the world we have before us, with huge societies made of so many cultures and sub-cultures, and compounded by the spectrum of politics, it is no wonder morality becomes an issue that divides rather than unites. I think we all agree that we all need a morality to live by; we each individually disagree over just what that morality should be.

On a lesser scale, it is not only likely but highly probable that we ourselves participate from time to time in actions we otherwise deem sinful, bad, immoral, unskilled or wrong. Some, in Christian terms, have a tendency towards being quick to point out that all humans are created in sin, to sin; but when it comes down to it, these same people overlook these tendencies in themselves. While the statement was made in Christian terms, the concept is not foreign to other religions, faiths and philosophies. If humanity were wholly without guilt and shame, there would be no need for morality teachings, philosophy or religion. The psychological implications are enormous, likely having some basis in self-preservation, but the end result is that we often believe ourselves to be infallible, especially when we are not. Even those who uphold the very best of intent in conducting their daily lives are still subject to errors in judgment. We all make mistakes; we just have a hard time admitting this to ourselves in any more than the most philosophical, remote and distant manner. So Henley is again correct, we are the captain of our souls, even if we answer to a Superior Officer. We direct how we conduct our lives, guiding ourselves along the path lit before us.

Some of us seek additional guidance, choosing to light our path with the experience and wisdom of tradition and spirit. Some of us choose to light our path with our own means and intellect. A lot of us do a bit of both in an attempt to balance our innate desire for outside guidance against our doubting nature that is painfully aware not only of our own intellectual shortcomings, but those of the collective world around us. Add in the deliberate confusion brought about from mass communications and marketing, designed to instill and encourage an either/or attitude, and we remain pitted against each other in an “us or them” frame of mind. “How can they possibly be moral and righteous and good, when it is we who really are!” Such a false dichotomy entrenches intolerance, making it more and more difficult to live peaceably with our neighbors. Yet the greatest likelihood is that both sides are equally moral, at least in their own eyes if not the eyes of God, for whom none of us is worthy to presume. And where that morality differs, in the long run, is meaningless and insignificant.

Here is the natural overlap of the grand and lesser scales: for many of us, what we believe works for us must work for any and all others. Not as an invitation, but a demand. Since “my” morality and tradition and religion is obviously superior to yours, -we think-, then “you” should adopt my ways, methods and culture. Of course, the person on the “other” side of the equation thinks the same thing. In the best of circumstances this leads to disagreements. In the worst it leads to all of the horrors of war. While this continuum is a natural extension of our inherent tendencies, if we are to “get along” together in anything that even resembles peace, we must find a way to agree to disagree in a respectful manner. This requires effort, it is not a natural tendency, but it can be done.

So much for the implications of Henley’s Invictus. Now for the connections. Perhaps less well remembered is the person who issued these very words in his final written statement before his execution: Timothy McVeigh. In the grand scheme of world terrorism, McVeigh is probably a footnote; an afterthought, if a thought at all. So much has happened since then that his heinous act pales in comparison. That, and that he willingly allowed himself to be executed for his crime with minimal legal interference, allowed for a form of closure. At least for those of us who did not lose a loved one in that disaster, a sense of justice has been achieved. For an individual who was duly tried and found guilty of the pre-meditated murder of 168 innocent civilians, a great many of whom were pre-school age children, even the death penalty opponents were hard pressed to find support. I was not in attendance, but I doubt McVeigh had many mourners at his funeral. I doubt that there are many that genuinely lament his passing.

Yet McVeigh also serves as a metaphor for our inherent tendency towards intolerance. His actions show just what can happen when we carry our prejudices to extreme. McVeigh’s disagreements with society, whether spiritual or philosophical or corporeal, led to the very real act of war declared by an individual upon society. There is no discussion, there is no compromise, and there is no common ground. There is no peace. What McVeigh’s ulterior motives may have been at the time he committed his crime now can only be guessed at, but the very real fact is that 169 people died for his rigid and narrow-minded view, including McVeigh.

The Biblical scriptures tell us a number of times that God tries His gold in the fire, and separates His silver from the dross. Timothy McVeigh, and others like him, have caused me to re-define, (or refine), my point of view. At some deep level, I can sympathize with these men, in a way I am only too hesitant to admit. I too, was certain I knew the truth at one time, at least as much as I needed to. I knew God has a sacred name and how it is pronounced, I knew Jesus’ Hebrew name, I knew the sacred texts had been corrupted by the Romish church and politics, I knew pagan traditions had been merged with the original faith, I knew the system was as corrupt as the system it replaced. I knew it all! And by God, if you didn’t know it too, you were damned. And I wasn’t far from helping you along to your damnation!

According to the book of Revelation, there is going to be a time of tribulation, I knew the rapture is a hoax. I was preparing myself for the inevitable conflagration; be it nuclear, biological, chemical or natural. I learned about wild edibles and wilderness food preparation and storage, so I could eat. I was learning about herbalism, native healing arts and combat medicine so I could doctor myself. I had military survival, ordinance and demolition manuals, for obvious reasons. I was convinced I was one of the chosen, I wasn’t going to let God down, and I was going to survive. I was making damn sure I was prepared.

Then the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City occurred. Around the same time I was reading in Revelations, a verse dealing specifically with the time of Jacob’s troubles, and it said, “He who leads away into captivity must be led into captivity, He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword, Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” These verses could not have cut me any deeper, reaching into the marrow of my soul. As the story of Timothy McVeigh unfolded, I realized the path I had set myself upon. As that realization gelled and set, I began to consider what path I should take to correct my view.

When I looked at the matter with fresh eyes, I came to the realization that my zeal for my faith had led me to a place of intolerance, and that intolerance held the potential for my undoing. I was, and still am, zealous for my faith. I trust my eternal soul to no one but my Heavenly Father. I also realized that my intolerance was not the direction to follow.

Tolerance too, seemed to have its difficulties. I mean, there are all kinds of people doing all kinds of crazy things that I completely disagree with, and I have to be accepting of all of that? Some things people do are just so against what I believe, there is just no way I can justify to myself acceptance and still keep my sanity. Yet, the path of intolerance is even worse.

Then it occurred to me, tolerance is not acceptance. I have to allow others to make their own choices, to make their own mistakes, to learn their own lessons, to deal with God on their own terms. Just like myself. Now, I realize this is a philosophical ideal, and real world application is not always so straightforward, not always so “easy.” There are all kinds of people, and we are commanded to love them, even if we are not commanded to like what they do.

Sometimes we must deal with people who wish to force their views upon us. What do we do with them? My answer lay in the realization that we all must answer to God for ourselves, we cannot answer for any other, and no other can answer for us. I am not held accountable for the sins of my fathers, any more than my fathers are held accountable for my sins. If one wishes to force his views upon me, he will meet with stiff resistance. So it is, that tolerance is not acceptance. I must tolerate, I am not required to accept. Likewise, all of this works in reverse as well, I cannot force my views on anybody. Yet Christians are called to evangelize, to witness, to spread the Word. Yes, we are, but we are to do so in a loving, gentle manner, convincing and persuading, not forcing. When we find our words falling on deaf ears, there is no sense in further wasting our breath. Once we have planted a seed, we cannot make it grow, that is up to God and the individual involved. The greatest witness a Christian could possibly present to anybody, is the example of his life. People do watch, looking for the first little slip up, to justify to themselves how frivolous and senseless Christianity can sometimes be. Christianity is a way of life, 24 / 7 / 365. Most Christians I have ever known, are only Christian when it is convenient. At other times, they do as they damn well please, figuring they can say a prayer of repentance and stick a couple of bucks in an offering plate and are absolved of the matter, at least until the next time. Non-Christians watch in disbelieving amazement, and shake their heads in dismay. And Christians wonder why there is such animosity against their faith…

 

[RJM]

“I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.”
- by William Henley,
excerpt from “INVICTUS”​

As I open with these infamous words, let me say I am well aware of the implications and still vivid connections. In fact, I drew upon these very words precisely because of their raw implications and notorious connections. To so many, these words can seem almost heretical, almost blasphemous. And yet, in their proper context, these words ring true even for those who would hold Henley in contempt. Even if we choose to guide our lives by following the moral example of a great religious teacher or Higher Spiritual Power, it is still our choice that leads us to do so. So, we are a master of our fate, even if in our minds we believe there is a Higher Master. We choose how we will direct our lives, for good or bad, for morality or immorality, for skillful or unskillful actions, for righteousness or evil. And the God’s honest truth is; all of us do a little of both depending on our inclinations at any given time. We have a tendency to be naughty from time to time, and enjoy ourselves immensely while doing so.

On the grand scale, what seems evil to one culture may be perfectly acceptable in another. A society would of necessity have to be homogenous in order become anything close to resembling a genuinely moral society. Simply put, everyone would have to believe and agree on everything. Of course, the global reality is so much different. Given the subjective nature of morality across cultures, it really is no wonder the conflict that arises when different cultures meet, which is by definition “culture clash.” Politics further compounds the issue by providing a spectrum across which to divide people further within any given culture. In ancient times it might be said that the prevailing politics was that of the strong man who led that society, and the opposite end of the spectrum could only come from a challenge to the “throne.” The modern societies which define the world in which we live now are complicated in that, at least in democratic countries and increasingly in non-democratic countries, the whole spectrum of politics is made available to the masses. From radical liberals to reactionary conservatives, some form of voice is allowed a degree of expression throughout, even if considered illegal. Admittedly, that expression is allowed in greater and lesser degrees depending on which society is being considered, but moderation is not a predisposition humans are naturally inclined to. It suggests compromise, a challenge to authority paternal societies in general are not well equipped to handle mentally; and in the overt extreme compromise can dilute a culture, leading to the demise of maternal societies (Native American and European Celtic tribes, for example). In the world we have before us, with huge societies made of so many cultures and sub-cultures, and compounded by the spectrum of politics, it is no wonder morality becomes an issue that divides rather than unites. I think we all agree that we all need a morality to live by; we each individually disagree over just what that morality should be.

On a lesser scale, it is not only likely but highly probable that we ourselves participate from time to time in actions we otherwise deem sinful, bad, immoral, unskilled or wrong. Some, in Christian terms, have a tendency towards being quick to point out that all humans are created in sin, to sin; but when it comes down to it, these same people overlook these tendencies in themselves. While the statement was made in Christian terms, the concept is not foreign to other religions, faiths and philosophies. If humanity were wholly without guilt and shame, there would be no need for morality teachings, philosophy or religion. The psychological implications are enormous, likely having some basis in self-preservation, but the end result is that we often believe ourselves to be infallible, especially when we are not. Even those who uphold the very best of intent in conducting their daily lives are still subject to errors in judgment. We all make mistakes; we just have a hard time admitting this to ourselves in any more than the most philosophical, remote and distant manner. So Henley is again correct, we are the captain of our souls, even if we answer to a Superior Officer. We direct how we conduct our lives, guiding ourselves along the path lit before us.

Some of us seek additional guidance, choosing to light our path with the experience and wisdom of tradition and spirit. Some of us choose to light our path with our own means and intellect. A lot of us do a bit of both in an attempt to balance our innate desire for outside guidance against our doubting nature that is painfully aware not only of our own intellectual shortcomings, but those of the collective world around us. Add in the deliberate confusion brought about from mass communications and marketing, designed to instill and encourage an either/or attitude, and we remain pitted against each other in an “us or them” frame of mind. “How can they possibly be moral and righteous and good, when it is we who really are!” Such a false dichotomy entrenches intolerance, making it more and more difficult to live peaceably with our neighbors. Yet the greatest likelihood is that both sides are equally moral, at least in their own eyes if not the eyes of God, for whom none of us is worthy to presume. And where that morality differs, in the long run, is meaningless and insignificant.

Here is the natural overlap of the grand and lesser scales: for many of us, what we believe works for us must work for any and all others. Not as an invitation, but a demand. Since “my” morality and tradition and religion is obviously superior to yours, -we think-, then “you” should adopt my ways, methods and culture. Of course, the person on the “other” side of the equation thinks the same thing. In the best of circumstances this leads to disagreements. In the worst it leads to all of the horrors of war. While this continuum is a natural extension of our inherent tendencies, if we are to “get along” together in anything that even resembles peace, we must find a way to agree to disagree in a respectful manner. This requires effort, it is not a natural tendency, but it can be done.

So much for the implications of Henley’s Invictus. Now for the connections. Perhaps less well remembered is the person who issued these very words in his final written statement before his execution: Timothy McVeigh. In the grand scheme of world terrorism, McVeigh is probably a footnote; an afterthought, if a thought at all. So much has happened since then that his heinous act pales in comparison. That, and that he willingly allowed himself to be executed for his crime with minimal legal interference, allowed for a form of closure. At least for those of us who did not lose a loved one in that disaster, a sense of justice has been achieved. For an individual who was duly tried and found guilty of the pre-meditated murder of 168 innocent civilians, a great many of whom were pre-school age children, even the death penalty opponents were hard pressed to find support. I was not in attendance, but I doubt McVeigh had many mourners at his funeral. I doubt that there are many that genuinely lament his passing.

Yet McVeigh also serves as a metaphor for our inherent tendency towards intolerance. His actions show just what can happen when we carry our prejudices to extreme. McVeigh’s disagreements with society, whether spiritual or philosophical or corporeal, led to the very real act of war declared by an individual upon society. There is no discussion, there is no compromise, and there is no common ground. There is no peace. What McVeigh’s ulterior motives may have been at the time he committed his crime now can only be guessed at, but the very real fact is that 169 people died for his rigid and narrow-minded view, including McVeigh.

The Biblical scriptures tell us a number of times that God tries His gold in the fire, and separates His silver from the dross. Timothy McVeigh, and others like him, have caused me to re-define, (or refine), my point of view. At some deep level, I can sympathize with these men, in a way I am only too hesitant to admit. I too, was certain I knew the truth at one time, at least as much as I needed to. I knew God has a sacred name and how it is pronounced, I knew Jesus’ Hebrew name, I knew the sacred texts had been corrupted by the Romish church and politics, I knew pagan traditions had been merged with the original faith, I knew the system was as corrupt as the system it replaced. I knew it all! And by God, if you didn’t know it too, you were damned. And I wasn’t far from helping you along to your damnation!

According to the book of Revelation, there is going to be a time of tribulation, I knew the rapture is a hoax. I was preparing myself for the inevitable conflagration; be it nuclear, biological, chemical or natural. I learned about wild edibles and wilderness food preparation and storage, so I could eat. I was learning about herbalism, native healing arts and combat medicine so I could doctor myself. I had military survival, ordinance and demolition manuals, for obvious reasons. I was convinced I was one of the chosen, I wasn’t going to let God down, and I was going to survive. I was making damn sure I was prepared.

Then the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City occurred. Around the same time I was reading in Revelations, a verse dealing specifically with the time of Jacob’s troubles, and it said, “He who leads away into captivity must be led into captivity, He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword, Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” These verses could not have cut me any deeper, reaching into the marrow of my soul. As the story of Timothy McVeigh unfolded, I realized the path I had set myself upon. As that realization gelled and set, I began to consider what path I should take to correct my view.

When I looked at the matter with fresh eyes, I came to the realization that my zeal for my faith had led me to a place of intolerance, and that intolerance held the potential for my undoing. I was, and still am, zealous for my faith. I trust my eternal soul to no one but my Heavenly Father. I also realized that my intolerance was not the direction to follow.

Tolerance too, seemed to have its difficulties. I mean, there are all kinds of people doing all kinds of crazy things that I completely disagree with, and I have to be accepting of all of that? Some things people do are just so against what I believe, there is just no way I can justify to myself acceptance and still keep my sanity. Yet, the path of intolerance is even worse.

Then it occurred to me, tolerance is not acceptance. I have to allow others to make their own choices, to make their own mistakes, to learn their own lessons, to deal with God on their own terms. Just like myself. Now, I realize this is a philosophical ideal, and real world application is not always so straightforward, not always so “easy.” There are all kinds of people, and we are commanded to love them, even if we are not commanded to like what they do.

Sometimes we must deal with people who wish to force their views upon us. What do we do with them? My answer lay in the realization that we all must answer to God for ourselves, we cannot answer for any other, and no other can answer for us. I am not held accountable for the sins of my fathers, any more than my fathers are held accountable for my sins. If one wishes to force his views upon me, he will meet with stiff resistance. So it is, that tolerance is not acceptance. I must tolerate, I am not required to accept. Likewise, all of this works in reverse as well, I cannot force my views on anybody. Yet Christians are called to evangelize, to witness, to spread the Word. Yes, we are, but we are to do so in a loving, gentle manner, convincing and persuading, not forcing. When we find our words falling on deaf ears, there is no sense in further wasting our breath. Once we have planted a seed, we cannot make it grow, that is up to God and the individual involved. The greatest witness a Christian could possibly present to anybody, is the example of his life. People do watch, looking for the first little slip up, to justify to themselves how frivolous and senseless Christianity can sometimes be. Christianity is a way of life, 24 / 7 / 365. Most Christians I have ever known, are only Christian when it is convenient. At other times, they do as they damn well please, figuring they can say a prayer of repentance and stick a couple of bucks in an offering plate and are absolved of the matter, at least until the next time. Non-Christians watch in disbelieving amazement, and shake their heads in dismay. And Christians wonder why there is such animosity against their faith…

Published on the Homepage here:
https://www.interfaith.org/articles/the-master-of-my-fate/

Thank you

 

[Thomas]

That was my invitation to Thomas.

Thank you ...

I have learned from him, I hope I have returned the favor. He is the only one here I would trust to add his insight.

Ooh, that's a compliment! I am honoured. and yes, I have learned from you ... and continue to do so.

Were Bananabrain or Dauer available I would extend the same offer to one of them.

I miss him, too! And BobX always had a viewpoint that was educational.

So I will look at your posts above and where useful, comment ... I am looking at some materials by Erwin R Goodenough on 'Early Christianity' which I'm finding food for thought, especially his treatment of Paul and John, and will post a precis shortly, so I don't want to circumvent that, but it may well prove fruitful territory, and I was going to ask that you take a look at that, when it's done.

 

[RJM]

Kindest Regards, Victor!

I composed a brief "apology" to the Summary of your Thesis.

Response to Summary of Pauline Conspiracy


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.


Which Gamaliel? This merely notes that Paul was formally trained in the Pharisaic tradition.


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?


"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.


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.


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.


Paul brought a rather deep understanding to some OT teachings, if one can get past the fluff usually taught in a typical church today.


We do not know this.


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?


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.


Is not your theology, mine, everybody's, if we really get truthful with ourselves?


Don't we all?


Why? 14 years ago my eyes were much better than they are now, it troubles me greatly to watch as my vision deteriorates.


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.


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*

OK, which law? Paul did not teach against Noahide Law. Paul did not teach against the Ten Commandments. That leaves the Levitical Law. So, if no part of the 613 Levitical Laws (not a jot or tittle!) passes, then how come Christians often eat pork? How come Christians are often uncircumcised? My suggestion would be because they never were bound by Levitical Law to begin with, coming from the Pagan backgrounds that they did. Of course, others are welcome to guide their Christian faith-walk by a different set of parameters if they wish, but if one carries this line of reasoning to its natural conclusions; circumcision is a must, no unclean meats may be eaten, linsey/woolsey must be observed, the Jewish Holy Days must be observed in propriety…in effect, one must be a Jew in all aspects who also happens to believe Jesus is Messiah. This is a monumental undertaking, especially since one is not likely to gain much sympathy or assistance from the Jewish community, who view Jesus at worst as a traitor to the faith, and at best as a misguided rabbi.


This is after having rebuked Paul for disregarding the Law? What is contemptible about saying that something as sacrosanct as Communion to a Christian should be done in the reverent and contrite (read that: correct) attitude it was intended? Indeed, considering the direct connotation between Jesus' sacrifice (of which Communion is the symbol) and the blood sacrifice of the Jewish Temple, and what was brought to light earlier about how the sacrifice had become a mindless habit, Paul was forewarning against the same mindless disrespect following onto the Christian symbol of remembrance. Bear in mind this same mindlessness was a contributing factor to the only time written that Jesus actually showed righteous indignation.


I don't know that I would use the term "false." That one sees an alternate path does not inherently presume that G-d has chosen only one path back to Him. (Let alone, that one is specifically on that singular correct path)


I do not speak for the church, any church, but as a humble student finding his way along the path home to my Father. On this issue we will simply have to agree to disagree. I do not take my value of Communion from Paul, but from Jesus in the role of Christ. Perhaps one must see and understand the value of the Jewish Holy Days, specifically the High Holy Day of Passover, and the timing of Jesus' sacrifice (when He "gave up the ghost") in order to fully appreciate the symbolic meaning and the reverence with which it should be rendered, if it is to be rendered properly in my view. Better not to partake of Communion or the Passover meal at all, than to do so improperly.


This presumes people think for themselves! How few really do? The rest, as the famous atheist Neitzsche reminds us, are "cattle." Wherein lies the fault, on the cattle, or the Shepherds?

It also presumes Shepherds are willing feed their flocks more than just the milk of babes. (Just put your indulgence money in the coffers, and all will be forgiven……can't blame that on Paul)



Paul's activities are *not* the singular cause of the disappearance of the Jerusalem church. If we must seek one singular cause, then it is the Roman army and the Roman government. From the sack of Jerusalem, the Diaspora brought on by the Bar Kochba revolt, at least 4 "great" persecutions of the Christians in the interim leading up to Emperor Constantine, and under Constantine the consolidation by the first great Council at Nicea. This is not relying on circular reasoning, or questionable interpretation; this is historically known and accepted by any reputable scholar of history of the time.


If this is so, then we are back to denuding the New Testament. In effect, the end result is that none of the material is reliable, ergo, trash it all. Why be a Christian? Just be a Jew and be done with it. Or a Deist, if one still prefers to eat ham and pork chops.


Seems a lot to lay at the feet of Paul. I can understand "blaming" Paul for things he did directly, and how one may not agree with his methods and style. But it hardly seems fair, or accurate, to lay blame upon him for things that transpire hundreds of years after the man has been laid to rest!



Caesar, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with any of this…?


"Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought, But if it be of G-d, ye cannot overthrow it: lest haply ye be found even to fight against G-d." -Acts 5:38-39

Of course, I suppose one could claim that since Luke was a dupe of Paul, that Paul had Luke write that just to cover his hiney…


I have no argument with this comment. It does not require undermining Paul to achieve it. Just remember, Jesus was a Jew. To properly follow this specific path will require becoming observant of the Levitical Laws, while simultaneously being ostracized by Judaism proper. Tough task. A noble aspiration. Best of wishes.

These full text of these two posts has now been added at the bottom of Mr Garaffa's Pauline Conspiracy page, and with a link to the thread they come from. Hopefully this will provide adequate balance to Mr Garaffa's thesis for new readers unfamiliar with the complexity of the subject.
https://www.interfaith.org/articles/pauline-conspiracy/

Thank you, Juan