From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:19:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <71390@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-141092195330@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> |> |culture. Meanwhile Paul gathered more forces and took control from
> |> |the disciples themselves (!).
> |> 
> |> Give some references for this, please.
> |
> |Read Acts.
> 
> I have - enlighten me - give me a chapter and hopefully a verse,
> so I can see to what you are referring.

Gladly, the following entry is let us say the story of Acts described
in four pages, I wrote it one night when I tried to figure out what 
Acts really described in forms of historical events. I know, it's biased
concerning my views of what happened, and it was an attempt to somehow
get to the real story behind the original church of Jerusalem and 
Paul, a really intriguing story, indeed. Warning, this is a long entry.

------------------

It seems that reading Acts is in many cases a very much Christian activity,
where certain passages and doctrines are far more important than the
underlying flow of history. I have tried to describe the life of Paul using
Acts and his letters as part  of the historical source - unfortunately the
Biblical sources are very much biased towards Paul and his ideas. However
by objectively reading the Acts and mapping events to a historical view one
should clearly see what was going on both in front and behind the scenes. 

This story is about the original Church, the original disciples, and a
newcomer to the play field, Paul, a former headhunter working for the
enemy, suddenly becoming the first TV-evangelist. Stay tuned for a good
story!

The Acts constitutes the definite account of the first years of early
Christianity. It is heavily biased, however, but it's more of a personal
bias than a church based one. Acts, unlike the Gospels, tries to be a form
of chronicle over a continuous and extended period of time.

The narrative in Acts begins shortly after the Crucifixion. The author of
Acts is most likely a well educated Greek who identifies himself as Luke.
It is also written specifically for a Greek audience. Although focusing
primarily on Paul, Acts also tells the story of Paul's relations with the
community in Jerusalem composed of Jesus' immediate disciples under the
leadership of James (now regarded as the early or original Church). Acts
only offers Paul's point of view - or Acts is essentially a document of
Pauline Christianity - Paul is the hero, whoever opposes him. Anyone who
opposes him, authorities or James himself, is automatically cast as
villain.

Acts first describes the organization and development of the community of
the early Church in Jerusalem and its increasing friction with the
authorities. For instance, Acts 2:44:46:
"The faithful all lived together and owned everything in common; they sold
their goods and possession and shared out the proceeds among themselves
according to what each one needed. They went as a body to the Temple every
day but met in their houses for the breaking of bread..."
If is of notice that the disciplines still followed the religion of Judaism
by regularly attending the Temple ceremonies. Later we will see that even
Paul did this.

After the death of Stephen (the first Christian martyr) Paul enters the
scene, first as Saul of Tarsus. He is said to have stood watch over the
discarded clothes of Stephen's murderers - eventually taking an even more
active role, this because in Acts 8:1 we are told that Saul entirely
approved of the killing of Stephen. Later, in Acts 9:21, Paul is accused of
engineering an attack on the early Church. In Acts 8:3 we are told that
Paul worked for the total destruction of the Church: he went from house to
house arresting both men and women and sending them to prison. We get a
picture of a very emotional and harsh man.

Acts 9 tells us suddenly of the conversion of Paul. After Stephen's death,
he embarks for Damascus or to Syria to ferret out members of the early
Church over there. Note that he is accompanied by his hit-squad bearing
arrest warrants from the high priest. En route Paul undergoes some sort of
a traumatic experience - Christians calling it a vision - which could be
interpreted anything from a sunstroke to an epileptic seizure, or a
mystical revelation. A light from heaven knocks him from the horse, issuing
from no perceptible source, demanding "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting
me?". The voice identifies himself as Jesus, the Nazorene. Furthermore, the
voice instructs him to proceed to Damascus, where he will learn what he
must do. He is also temporarily stricken blind, and a member by the early
Church will restore his sight, and also baptize Paul. This whole episode
would for a psychologist be a normal case study of a hysterical, or
psychotic reaction, or what I personally think most likely the guilty
conscience of a man who had Christian blood on this hands.

Now things will get interesting! Paul interprets this episode as a true
manifestation of Jesus, even if he didn't know personally. He becomes a
fervent promoter of teachings of the early Church. According to his letter
to Galatians (Gal 1:17-18) he remains under their tutorship for three
years. After this, Paul returns to Jerusalem to join the leaders of the
community . Not surprisingly, most of them are suspicious of this suddenly
converted former enemy. In Galatians 1:18-20 Paul states that he only saw
James and Cephas. Everyone else, including the apostles, seems to have
avoided him. He is obliged to prove himself, and only after this does he
find allies and he begins to preach. Arguments are still in the air, and
according to Acts 9:29 certain members of the Jerusalem community threatens
him. Due to this suddenly ugly situation, his allies send him off to Tarsus
(the town where he was born).  This was really equivalent to exile, because
most of the action happened really in Jerusalem. 

The wider world, such as Rome, was relevant only to the extent that it
barely expanded on the early disciples more localized reality. Anyway,
sending him out from Jerusalem would have been the same as a mafia
godfather sending an ill-disciplined and energetic recruit to collect money
from the gangs in Harlem. If Paul would succeed, fine, if he would fail, he
would not have been missed by the original church.

Anyway, Paul's adventures carries him to Antioch - some five or more years
later, Paul is teaching in Antioch when a dispute arises over the content
of his missionary work. As Act 15 describes, certain representatives of the
leadership in Jerusalem arrives in Antioch, maybe to check out Paul's
activities. They stress the strict importance of adherence to the Jewish
Law and accuses Paul of laxity. He and his companion, Barnabas, are
summarily ordered back to Jerusalem for personal consultation with the
leadership. From this point - a schism will open and widen between Paul and
James. The Acts now also becomes apologist for Paul.

Hang on, this will be even more fun! It seems that Paul is the first
Christian heretic, and later his teachings - which are the foundation of
today's Christianity - are a flagrant deviation from the original or pure
form defined by the leadership and Jesus himself. James was either Jesus'
brother, or knew him personally. So did also more of the other leaders of
the original church, including Peter. When they spoke, the did so with
first-hand authority. Paul had never spoken with Jesus - the person he
started to regard as his 'Savior'. All he had was this 'mystical'
experience in the desert and the sound of a voice. It was very hard for him
to arrogate authority to himself on the basis of this. It lead him also to
distort Jesus' teachings beyond all recognition. He started to formulate
his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then finally
legimitizing  it by *spuriously* ascribing it to Jesus.

For Jesus, who adhered rigorously to the Judaic Law, this would have been
the most extreme blasphemy to advocate worship of a moral figure, including
himself. For instance, in Gospels Jesus urges his disciples and followers
to acknowledge only God. John 10:33-5, Jesus is accused of the blasphemy of
claiming to be God. He replies, "It is not written in your law, I said, you
are Gods? so the law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God
was addressed". Thus there's no mentioning at all that his is God's son, or
that he belongs to a holy trinity.

Paul transformed the figure of Jesus to a form of an Adonis figure, or
Tammuz, or Attis, or any of the ancient dying and reviving gods who were
part of the mystery and religious cults of ancient Middle East. In order to
compete against these other gods, Jesus had to match them point for point,
miracle for miracle. There was  a need for virgin births, resurrections,
miracles and doctrines. These were essentially inventions by Paul, and
often wildly at odds with the pure Jewish doctrine defined by the early
Church. It was not surprising that James and the others were disturbed by
Paul's teachings.

This starts to sound like a political thriller. Paul knew all the long what
he achieved. He understands the tricks of religious propaganda, and he knew
how to turn a religious leader into a god. He does not pretend he knew the
historical Jesus, the individual that the leaders of the early church knew.
In 2  Corinthians 11:3-4, he states that the community in Jerusalem is
promulgating *another Jesus*.

Anyway, Paul has to return to Jerusalem, and he will meet with the
leadership of the early church. Not surprisingly, another dispute ensues.
According to the Acts, James agrees to compromise - for the sake of peace
in the small church - and promises pagans to more easily join the
congregation. He consents to relax certain aspects of the Jewish Law, and
remains adamant on others.

Paul still needs the endorsement of the church, mostly to legitimize the
communities he has founded outside Israel. He has however already decided
to go his way. He embarks on another mission of travel and preaching,
punctuated by another visit to Jerusalem. It is clear that based on his
personal letters he has become almost completely estranged from the
leadership in Jerusalem - mostly due to his non-adherence to the Law. For
instance, in Galatians he alludes to 'these people who are acknowledged
leaders - not that their importance matters to me'. He also states that
'faith in Christ rather than fidelity to the Law is what justifies us', and
that 'no one can be justified by keeping the Law'.

'Christianity', as it now evolves from Paul, has severed all connections
with its roots (Judaism), and can no longer be said to have anything to do
directly with Jesus teachings - instead of Paul's image of Jesus.

Paul is yet again back in Jerusalem, despite pleas from his supporters who
have begged him not to go (too dangerous). Again, he meets with James (this
sounds like a political campaign) and the leadership of the early Church.
They yet again express their worry that Paul preaching to Jews living
abroad, is encouraging them to forsake the law of Moses. Paul does not
answer to this. The impression is that he is keeping quiet about his plans,
and he denies the charges against him. When asked to purify himself for
seven days, he readily consents to do so...

A couple of days later Paul causes trouble again. On being seen at the
Temple, he is attacked by a crowd of the pious (remember that Christians
actually took part in Jewish temple ceremonies then). "This is the man who
preaches to everyone everywhere... against the Law" they state. There's a
riot, and Paul is dragged out of the Temple, his life in danger. He is
actually rescued by a Roman officer, who suddenly appeared with a troop
(interesting). Paul is arrested, and put in chains. The Roman leaders
suspect him of being a political rebel - style Jesus.

Now Acts gets really confusing. It seems that there has been editing done
in order to hide certain historical events. Now, Paul protests that he is a
Roman (!) and a Jew of Tarsus and asks permission to address the crowd who
earlier tried to lynch him. Paul starts to speak positive about the
Christian church, trying to get them on his side. However the crowd does
not believe him. "Rid the earth of this man, he is not fit to live" (Acts
22:22).

Romans take Paul out to their fortress (headquarters). Here they intend to
interrogate him under torture for possible terrorist information. However
it is illegal by Roman law to torture Roman citizens, so escapes torture,
but remains incarcerated. It is interesting to note that the way Paul
escaped torture and martyrdom was by him using a legal loophole. It also
showed his courage - or actually lack of it.

Meanwhile, the story continues. An angry mob of Jews meet in secret. They
vow not to eat or drink until they have killed Paul. This shows the sheer
intensity and hate concerning Paul. One didn't expect such violent and
angry behavior from ordinary Jews. Anyway, whoever these were, the would-be
assassins (according to Acts) is suddenly amazed by the sudden appearance
of Paul's so far unmentioned nephew. This would make a great TV story. This
nephew somehow (deux ex machina?") has learned about the plot. Even worse,
this nephew informs both Paul and the Romans about this. So Paul is moved
to a more secure place. Note this, he is removed with an escort of 470
troops. And this was a dangerous enemy to the Roman state?

The next stop is Caesarea, where he appears before the governor and Rome's
puppet king, Agrippa. As a Roman citizen Paul has the right to have his
case heard in Rome, and as a coward he invokes this right in order to
escape the problems in Israel. He is sent off for trial in Rome, and here
the story ends. Acts actually suddenly breaks off, as if there was more to
be told, but it has been removed by later editors. There's no mentioning
about Paul further adventures, so any possible stories about him meeting
Peter in Rome, or him speaking with Nero are most likely tales. Eventually
the writer of Acts didn't know what really happened after Paul was shipped
to Rome. Or then the writer knew, but he didn't want to write about it.

The last parts of Acts are confusing, related to the riot in the Temple.
Anyway Acts clearly describes the political battle between the hardliners
who would like to conform to the Law, and Paul and his political group who
wanted to relax the Law in order to create a religion which could convert
Gentiles. The hardliners were not that much concerned about the numbers of
converted people, while Paul is prepared to compromise with doctrinal
purity in order to grow the community. His primarily objective was to
spread his message and doctrines as widely as possible and to assemble the
largest possible church. He is even willing to compromise with the Roman
leaders in order to stay alive and continue with the work. Martyrdom was
not practical for him.

Thus, the early church is rent by a schism between Paul and the original
leaders who personally obtained instructions from Jesus. James seems to be
one of the hardliners - even if he is sometimes willing to compromise in
order to keep the small church under control. Anyway, Acts indirectly
points out a clash between Paul and James. Paul wanted to create a new
religion, a religion where Jesus is a god, is able to do miracles, and
could be matched to any other hero-gods that were present in ancient Middle
East. For James and the early church this was blasphemy. The end of Acts
shows how the rioting started due to this collision of religious ideas.

The interesting observation today is that if the mainstream of Christians
would have followed the teachings of the original church, most likely
Christianity as we know it today would not exist, only a particular species
of Judaism which would not have emerged as a strong force amongst gentiles.
However, the mainstream, especially the amongst gentile followers,
gradually coalesced during the next 300 years around Paul and his
teachings. One strong force was the doctrine of slaves and non-Romans which
would inherit the heaven, so this form of Christianity gathered followers
in the huge group of underprivileged humans in the Roman state. Thus a new
religions was born - a religion which had little to do with the original
founder, his disciples and the Jewish inheritance -  instead it relied on a
mystical vision by a Roman headhunter and politician/preacher.





-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.