Do Some Believe that Christianity was "Founded" By St. Paul?

[Coder]

As Jesus left the conclave of his Apostles, these in the name of Jesus organized the Sect of the Nazarenes and anointed Peter to work among the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) All the Gentiles converted to the Sect of the Nazarenes were converted to Judaism for all purposes according to Halacha. (Isaiah 56:1-8) The Sect of the Nazarenes was a homage paid to the memory of Jesus for being from Nazareth.

Ahh, I think I'm beginning to see what you are saying. So you are saying: They honored Jesus but didn't have beliefs about Jesus' resurrection or Jesus being the Messiah, until St. Paul taught these things? Later, the Gospels followed suit and made up stories about Jesus that fit the picture?

 

[fallingblood]

Some say that about parts of the Bible I would be interested to hear more from Dr. Price as to his "Heavenly Realm" theory - maybe I'll send him an email.

I believe he talks about the idea in this book, the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. Bart Ehrman offers a rebuttal in his book, Did Jesus Exist. The latter book may be worth your money (I threw out my copy of Price's book as I found the arguments horribly lacking).

Interesting, one of my theories is that the Roman Empire was very much "editor-in-chief" of some parts of the New Testament.

I would doubt such. Mainly because Rome didn't seem to care about this new movement. That and Christians were opposed to Rome, to the point that they characterized Rome as the beast, or in terms of Satan.

It wasn't until Constantine that there was some agreement between Christians and Rome, but by then, the New Testament was written, and had already been formed.

The far extension of that reasoning is that Jesus was a figure made up by either the Roman Empire to unify the empire under one religion (combination of Judaism and paganism) and/or some Jewish people wanted to promote Judaism by cleverly competing with Greek/Roman gods (who sometimes had god-human children) and Roman Emperors who were titled "son of god" (Divi Filius). St. Paul speaks of making Jews "jealous" of belief in Jesus but maybe some Jews were very disenchanted living in an empire where the emperor had the gall to call himself "son of god". I could see that this could motivate Jews to say "I'll show you who a real Son of God is". (The Bible shows to how the disciples often asked Jesus when He was going to deal with the Roman Empire.) I'm not saying that I myself believe that Jesus is a mythical figure but it does lead one to wonder about the essence and truth of Christianity and what we might learn if we can peel away some of the religio-political layers of that time. Scholars often agree with you that there may be much we don't know.

But it didn't really unify. Jews were still on the outside, and weren't brought in. Even Christians remained divided, and pagans and Christians also weren't unified. There were still sporadic persecutions, and the like.

For the Jews, their main problem with Rome was that they were under Roman rule, when they had been promised freedom by G-d. There were dozens of other so called messiahs at that time, all with one goal, to overthrow Rome. Jesus worked in that same idea.

 

[Akivah]

Hi, in discussions someone indicated that they believe that Christianity was more or less founded/propagated by St. Paul (or Paul for non-Christians) and that his letters preceded the Books that Christians refer to as the Gospels. I believe that the Roman Empire had a significant influence on the terminology and externals of Christian liturgy and I would like to explore and learn more about St. Paul's role in Christianity and how this understanding might help us better understand Christianity. I invite Jewish thought on the topic as I am learning much here, but welcome all posters of course.

Yes, someone definitely created the fictional god named jesus. Whether it was Paul or some Roman emperor, I'm not sure. But the entire jesus stories are just that...stories. They have no basis in fact.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

 

[metis]

Yes, someone definitely created the fictional god named jesus. Whether it was Paul or some Roman emperor, I'm not sure. But the entire jesus stories are just that...stories. They have no basis in fact.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

And that may also be true with the vast majority of religious narratives. After all, how could we go about actually finding objective evidence that Abraham and Moses existed?

 

[Coder]

But it didn't really unify.

Pre-Christian Roman religion was important (success) in the Empire. The importance of unity of belief of all citizens is evidenced by the Roman efforts to force statues of Roman gods into Jewish temples. The word "catholic" means "universal". "Roman" "Catholic" - "Universal" religion of the "Roman" Empire. Rome had conquered many diverse peoples and the new religion incorporates elements of so many beliefs/cultures: Greek, Roman pagan, and Jewish. Unity in the Scriptures: "All things to all people", at Pentecost they all understood even though different languages, "That they may be one", "There is no longer Greek or Jew".

If the Romans wanted to appeal to the common/peasant Jewish people while also turning them against their Jewish leaders, doesn't much of the Christian Scriptures fit that?

"It really didn't unify"? I think it did quite a bit and what was leftover of paganism was dismantled and the Jewish Temple had already been destroyed a century or so earlier. So, it unified in the sense that what was left over was minority groups and Judaism became a minority group in the Roman Empire for centuries following.

Now, does the fact that the unity aspect played into Roman Empirical motives, mean that Christianity was promoted/fabricated by a powerful empire with its own motives? I don't claim to answer that question except that there seems to at least be Roman influence. Was St. Paul in some cooperation with the Romans? I don't know. It does seem that if one wanted to unify an empire including Jewish people, then one may sponsor a highly educated Jewish man (Saul) who also knew Greek, to help formulate theology for all in the empire. Perhaps the initial 12 disciples were not as educated and so were not as able to do the job

 

[metis]

Pre-Christian Roman religion was important (success) in the Empire. The importance of unity of belief of all citizens is evidenced by the Roman efforts to force statues of Roman gods into Jewish temples. The word "catholic" means "universal". "Roman" "Catholic" - "Universal" religion of the "Roman" Empire. Rome had conquered many diverse peoples and the new religion incorporates elements of so many beliefs/cultures: Greek, Roman pagan, and Jewish...

That's really quite a stretch. The reality is that the gentile-dominated church was not under Jewish Law, thus statuary would be acceptable as long as they were not worshiped, and "veneration" is not the same as "worship".

BTW, this same "Roman" group was the one who selected the canon you use.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, someone definitely created the fictional god named jesus. Whether it was Paul or some Roman emperor, I'm not sure. But the entire jesus stories are just that...stories. They have no basis in fact.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

It does have basis in fact. The problem with the link you shared is that pretty much none of it is true. Or the "facts" leave out important ideas. For instance, in the talk about the mother of Jesus, Mary. It claims that Mary was an adulteress. Yet there is no evidence of that. It then continues with how virgin births were common. Not at all. There are miraculous birth stories, but not virgin birth stories. In that, Jesus is unique (Mithras may have a virgin birth story, but that story did not evolve until after the time of Jesus, when it was a Roman religion, not a Persian one).The idea of these virgin births don't exist until about the last century or so. They don't exist in the actual stories.

The one particular god they single out is Tammuz. Tammuz was a Sumerian god who later was adopted by the Babylonians. Some Hebrews may have entertained the idea of Tammuz, but worship of him had long died out by the time of Jesus. It is true he was called adonis. But the term simply means lord. As in, it translate to lord. It really means nothing. Its like me calling Tammuz a god. Doesn't mean I worship Tammuz, or really think that Tammuz exists. It means that god is a word the described the character.

The problem with Tammuz, or Dumuzi, is that very little is known about his origin. By the time that he was being worshipped in Babylonia, he was already a very old god, and much of the writing about him was gone. To claim that Tammuz was born of a virgin then simply is making things up, or relying on works that can't cite sources, as there are no real sources.

Your source goes on to say that Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene, were once one and the same, and later split into two individuals to argue that mother Mary wasn't an adulteress. This makes no sense. It argues against the virgin birth story then, as that supposedly was to solve the problem. That and Mary Magdalene is never said to be an adulteress.

Now, that is only a very small section of the source you provided, and it happened to be the place where I stopped scrolling, but in just that small area, we can see that the source is making things up, or is seriously out of touch with actual scholarship on the subject. There is no reason to assume that rest of the source is any better.

Jesus existed. That is a historical fact. What his exact nature was can be debated, but that a historical figure did in fact exist is a certainty.

Pre-Christian Roman religion was important (success) in the Empire. The importance of unity of belief of all citizens is evidenced by the Roman efforts to force statues of Roman gods into Jewish temples. The word "catholic" means "universal". "Roman" "Catholic" - "Universal" religion of the "Roman" Empire. Rome had conquered many diverse peoples and the new religion incorporates elements of so many beliefs/cultures: Greek, Roman pagan, and Jewish. Unity in the Scriptures: "All things to all people", at Pentecost they all understood even though different languages, "That they may be one", "There is no longer Greek or Jew".

There were sporadic attempts to put Roman statues (usually that represented the current Emperor, a deity himself) into the Jewish Temple. It had nothing to do with unifying the empire though. It had to do with making the Jews know who really was in control. And each time, it was met with great revolt, and often, it was an action Rome backed down from.

We can actually see that Rome didn't care if the religions were unified, as Jews were given special privileges under Roman Law, which dealt with their religious beliefs. It is also the same reason why there were competing religious thoughts in the Roman empire.

The word Catholic does mean universal, but has little to do with the Roman Empire. The term, when applied to the Christian church, wasn't used until the second century, a time in which the church was still being sporadically persecuted by the Roman empire. It was picked up by Christians as way to unify Christian thought. In effect, it set them up directly against Pagans and the Roman Empire (an empire they consistently criticized). By the time that Christianity was adopted, it had taken on a new context, one that meant orthodox. Again, it wasn't to unify, but to separate christians into either orthodox thinking, or heretics.

As for there may no longer be Greek or Jew, it continues with in Christ. That means a whole lot, as Paul isn't talking about everyone, but specifically about those who believe in Christ. It unifies Christians, or those who take on that idea, but it separates all others.

That is why Rome would sporadically persecute Christians, as well as others. It wasn't to unify people.

If the Romans wanted to appeal to the common/peasant Jewish people while also turning them against their Jewish leaders, doesn't much of the Christian Scriptures fit that?

Rome didn't take up accepting Christianity until Christianity was already quickly spreading, and becoming a major force. They took advantage of Christian popularity. Before that, there were attempts to persecute Christians.

By the time that Rome accepted Christianity, Judaism was in pretty harsh terms. Christianity definitely wasn't seen as an appeal to Jewish individuals, but more of an enemy.

"It really didn't unify"? I think it did quite a bit and what was leftover of paganism was dismantled and the Jewish Temple had already been destroyed a century or so earlier. So, it unified in the sense that what was left over was minority groups and Judaism became a minority group in the Roman Empire for centuries following.

The problem is that you aren't looking at history in its actual context. Once the Jewish Temple was destroyed, a rift happened between Jews and what would be Christianity. So no unification there. And at that time, both were minorities. Even by the time that Christianity was allowed, such as in the fourth century, Christianity remained a minority. It was just one more religion that was accepted.

Paganism wasn't being dismantled, and still, as a whole, was dominate. It wouldn't be until much later that that would change.

Now, does the fact that the unity aspect played into Roman Empirical motives, mean that Christianity was promoted/fabricated by a powerful empire with its own motives? I don't claim to answer that question except that there seems to at least be Roman influence. Was St. Paul in some cooperation with the Romans? I don't know. It does seem that if one wanted to unify an empire including Jewish people, then one may sponsor a highly educated Jewish man (Saul) who also knew Greek, to help formulate theology for all in the empire. Perhaps the initial 12 disciples were not as educated and so were not as able to do the job

Here's the problem. The fact that you're talking about, Rome finally accepting Christianity, at least to a point, to try to help unify anything, didn't even begin until the fourth century, and only then to a point. By that time, the major ideas of Christianity were already cemented. The canon was fixed, the story of Jesus had long been written. Rome couldn't fabricate anything, because the religion was already created and had been moving forward for hundreds of years.

Was Paul in cooperation with the Romans? No. In fact, he was imprisoned by the Romans. He was persecuted by the Romans. And after him, Christians were persecuted. Rome didn't give a crap about Christians, besides using them as a scapegoat, until hundreds of years later.

There was no unity, and by the time Paul died, the unity between Jews, and what would be Christians, was already extremely tense. In just a few years after Paul's death, the two would really hit a breaking point and split. From there, Christians would have major problems with not only Jews, but also Pagans, and Rome itself. There was no unity.

The problem with your theory is that you aren't looking at history in context, but are taking things that happened four hundred years later, and assuming that it has any relevance to the time of Paul, which it simply doesn't.

 

[Coder]

Was Paul in cooperation with the Romans? No.

He did write to obey the Roman Empire (government at the time) and pay taxes - addressing issues of the day it seems. He also wrote that slaves should obey their masters which isn't Christian doctrine - some level of compromise one would think. Was this written before the Gospels?

I also don't debate the persecutions of both Jews and Christians.

Still, I think towards the time of Constantine there were probably political aspects as well as religious belief involved in the early "conversion" of the Roman Empire e.g. "In this sign you shall 'conquer' " (St. Paul in Scripture writes "...we are more than conquerors".)

Your post had much good information/thoughts, thanks. (I do differ on a couple of points.)

 

[fallingblood]

He did write to obey the Roman Empire (government at the time) and pay taxes - addressing issues of the day it seems. He also wrote that slaves should obey their masters which isn't Christian doctrine - some level of compromise one would think. Was this written before the Gospels?

Jesus also said that we should pay taxes. In fact, none of these ideas aren't that radical. In 1 Peter 2:13-16, we also see the command to obey the government. But we know that Paul didn't always obey the Roman Empire, as there was a limit to that obedience. We know Paul didn't always obey because he was punished by the Roman authority on a number of occasions.

About slavery and Paul, that is a bit more tricky. First, yes, slavery was allowed to a point. With the ancient Hebrews, there were slaves, and it is written into the Bible. But looking specifically at Paul, his letter to Philemon, which the issue of slavery really comes up, is tricky. There really are three thoughts, as the letter is vague. The first thought is that Paul was asking Philemon, the slaver owner, to receive back Onesimus and forgive any of his transgressions. There is also a lot of telling Philemon that they are brothers in Christ, and the like. Two, Paul may be asking Philemon to send Onesimus back to Paul. The third is that Paul is asking Philemon to receive Onesimus back as a freed man. Either way, Paul is asking Philemon to receive Onesimus in some positive manner, and is really twisting Philemon's arm. More so, Paul is voicing his statement not just to Philemon, but to an entire church. So it is much more complicated.

Either way though, Paul recognizes his legal standings. Slavery was condoned in Rome. Paul has absolutely no right to free a slave, or keep a slave from his master. Paul can't do that. What he can do is speak to Philemon, remind him that all in Christ are brothers, and hope the Philemon will do what is best.

I also don't debate the persecutions of both Jews and Christians.

Still, I think towards the time of Constantine there were probably political aspects as well as religious belief involved in the early "conversion" of the Roman Empire e.g. "In this sign you shall 'conquer' " (St. Paul in Scripture writes "...we are more than conquerors".)

Your post had much good information/thoughts, thanks. (I do differ on a couple of points.)

This I would agree partially on. By the time of Constantine, Christianity was becoming more powerful in that so many people had converted. Constantine did adopt it for some political reason as well. So we agree there. However, by that time, Christianity was largely already defined.

After Constantine, and moving more into when Christianity really had more power, there definitely is more political aspects used within the religion. The fact that Catholicism had it's own country, and the Pope held so much sway with various nations, certainly shows that at some point Christianity and politics really merged, but again, by that time, the texts and basic doctrines were set.

 

[Coder]

Jesus also said that we should pay taxes. In fact, none of these ideas aren't that radical.

Yes. (maybe Romans influenced those scriptures a bit?)

I also think the Romans were very focused on religion, with temples, priests (including emperor as Pontifex Maximus), vestal virgins, ... That's why I think they cared about a new religious movement and wanted some control in it. At the same time, monotheists tried to keep it under control "I believe in one God", "true God from true God", "You alone are the Most High" (Creed and prayers).