From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Paul and the Church
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:43:53 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <53196@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
>     Also, Paul in Acts 24:14, affirms that he worships the God of his fathers,
> believing all that is written in the law and prophets.
> 
>     To argue the authority of Paul, I would plead that the disciples which
> were with Jesus (mainly Peter) would have corrected Paul, if he was wrong.
> What you actually find is Paul correcting Peter for Peter lived under grace 
> and not the law, when other Jews weren't around, and he lived under the law,
> when other Jews were around (Gal 2) - thus being hypocritical.  Peter 
> recognized Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:14-16.)
> 
>     WHY did Peter submit, IF Paul did not have this authority?  WHY did Peter
> give the status of Scripture to Paul's writings, IF Paul did not have 
> this authority?

..and so on. Well, Paul had a fight agains the original fathers, and Paul
is really one of the key figures in order to figure out how Christianity was
founded. Anyway, I've created a nice document, every time someone asks me
to show that my personal opinions about Paul being the master mind behind
Christianity is valid, I will send them this nice document using private email!
Also, I'm tired of comments such that I personally have not read the Bible,
or that my opinions don't have a firm ground, or that people in general should
not think about Paul in the overall big picture concerning Christianity. This
document is 90% based on the Acts and Paul letters. In general, this is the 
story of a young persecutor, who whose conscience told him to stop killing 
Christians, and how he suddenly became the chief propagandist of the young
Jewish sect.

If this would not have happened, 'Christians' would still attend the synagogue 
on Saturdays, and pork would not be profitable to raise in USA :-);.

Onwards! Kent (sorry, this is a longer form of a posting...)
###########################################################################




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 requite to collect 
money from the gangs in Harlem. If Paul would succeed, fine, if he would 
fail, he would have not 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 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.



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc