How Paul changed the course of Christianity

[Ebionite]

Paul upheld the teachings of Jesus.

One of the differences was their attitudes towards Roman rule, while Jesus treated as being different to the rule of the divine.


Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Romans 13:1-2

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
When they had heard [these words], they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
Matthew 22:15-22

 

[YoursTrue]

One of the differences was their attitudes towards Roman rule, while Jesus treated as being different to the rule of the divine.


Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Romans 13:1-2

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
When they had heard [these words], they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
Matthew 22:15-22

First of all, Jesus was speaking to those professing to be believers in the same God that Jesus believed in. So he could rightly call them hypocrites. Second of all, it is relative subjection. Jesus did not fight when he was being arrested. He did not curse Pilate either.

 

[Coder]

Important topic I think.

I seek information that may help determine whether Paul changed the course of Christianity or helped propagate Christianity as a Roman invention.

"The Romans looked for common ground between their major gods and those of the Greeks..."
...their policy in general was to absorb the deities and cults of other peoples rather than try to eradicate them,...

Religion in ancient Rome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If one considers common ground in Judaism and polytheism, Christianity appears to be a logical result. Take a step back, and think about it objectively. How would you mix the two groups beliefs and practices? How would you accommodate Jewish people in the new religion?

 

[YoursTrue]

Important topic I think.

I seek information that may help determine whether Paul changed the course of Christianity or helped propagate Christianity as a Roman invention.

"The Romans looked for common ground between their major gods and those of the Greeks..."
...their policy in general was to absorb the deities and cults of other peoples rather than try to eradicate them,...

Religion in ancient Rome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If one considers common ground in Judaism and polytheism, Christianity appears to be a logical result. Take a step back, and think about it objectively. How would you mix the two groups beliefs and practices? How would you accommodate Jewish people in the new religion?

Paul had a vision. This vision changed his life. He became a zealous advocate for Jesus instead of a persecutor of those who then believed Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. Acts 9:9-19 explains some of Paul's experience in detail and also mentions that he will suffer. Paul did not resist.

 

[Coder]

Paul had a vision.

That is from a book that was written in the context of a highly religion-based Roman empire.

Religion in ancient Rome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The augurs read the ...will of the gods..., thus sanctioning Roman expansionism and foreign wars as a matter of divine destiny.

What was an augur? An augur was a priest who was generally also a Roman official. Send soldiers out to conquer on a mission from the gods.

I think no vision, I think Paul selected as an employee for the job because he was Jewish but also a highly Greek-educated elite as was the Roman senate. Therefore, he was qualified to help bridge Judaism and Greco-Roman religion.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is from a book that was written in the context of a highly religion-based Roman empire. I think no vision, I think Paul selected as an employee for the job because he was Jewish but also a highly Greek-educated elite as was the Roman senate. Therefore, he was qualified to help bridge Judaism and Greco-Roman religion. Let us not be naive about the realities of politics as we see continuing today where politicians are careful to say what will get people to go along with them. Talk only went so far, then next level, destroyed Jewish temple.

...will of the gods and supervised the marking of boundaries as a reflection of universal order, thus sanctioning Roman expansionism and foreign wars as a matter of divine destiny.

I have come to the conclusion that Paul, as written in the Bible, was recounting truthfully his feelings and experiences.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think no vision, I think Paul selected as an employee for the job because he was Jewish but also a highly Greek-educated elite as was the Roman senate. Therefore, he was qualified to help bridge Judaism and Greco-Roman religion.

I believe he had a vision, but he did seek to present Christianity in a way that the Greek and Romans could relate to:

10:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
(King James Bible, 1 Corinthians)

Later in Christianity the things he said to bridge the gap came back to lead the Christians astray. His words later on were given the same status as what Jesus said, which was a mistake.

 

[Coder]

Hi,

Thank you for conversation.

I believe:

...not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

Yes, but see the environment in which he spoke. Paul was subtle because he wanted to appear to present the required message but also give the actual message.
"...that they may be saved." ==> "that they may be spared what the Romans are going to do if they don't cooperate" ;-)

Later in Christianity the things he said to bridge the gap came back to lead the Christians astray. His words later on were given the same status as what Jesus said, which was a mistake.

How do we know that the teachings (which I see give light and agree are profound) are from a rabbi named Jesus? Even scholars debate the existence of a real person. I would typically say that the weight of evidence indicates a real person and movement in Judaism. However, I question possible bias in some scholars, so I'm still open to discussion and evidence about that. Probably the most reliable evidence is that Jewish scholars generally seem to say that a rabbi/teacher was involved in a Jewish movement. I think that the Romans destroyed most clues. However, I think some good people in the church (even today) allow the known clues about the truth and give the clues. They have to be careful to not shock current literalist church members, so subtlety is important.

People know that I often speak about the Roman empire. I do that because we have forgotten about, and underestimate their involvement as a dominant and aggressive group and the impetus of what became Christianity. Christianity (morality, not theology [what they call the "faith" part] of "faith and morals") has gradually tamed this domination which was still quite present in early Roman church with destruction/conversion of Greco-Roman temples and punishments of "heretics". Some Church leaders themselves didn't like this but they knew were in an environment where you didn't want problems with Roman government.

If you really look at the history, the Bible, the Roman Church today, the Protestant rejection of eating the "body" (see my posts about sacrifice), the clues are available. Because although they must be subtle (as was Paul), their intentions are good and not like early Roman empire.

 

[CG Didymus]

Later in Christianity the things he said to bridge the gap came back to lead the Christians astray. His words later on were given the same status as what Jesus said, which was a mistake.

The very little I remember being taught about Paul and his letters and the gospels is that his letters came first and the gospels came later. And the story in Acts has Paul being an enemy of the Christian movement, and then had a vision of Jesus and converted. Looking back at all those things I was taught about Christianity, it sure seems like a lot of important Christian doctrines and beliefs came from Roman, Corinthians and other letters of Paul.

Then the Gospels got written. But do we know who wrote them, and do we know when they were written? If they weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then who wrote them. And were they even eyewitnesses to what Jesus said? If not, then how can we be sure of anything about what Jesus really said? And even if they were eyewitnesses, how could they possibly remember exactly what Jesus said?

 

[Coder]

Looking back at all those things I was taught about Christianity, it sure seems like a lot of important Christian doctrines and beliefs came from Roman, Corinthians and other letters of Paul.

Then the Gospels got written. But do we know who wrote them, and do we know when they were written? If they weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then who wrote them. And were they even eyewitnesses to what Jesus said? If not, then how can we be sure of anything about what Jesus really said? And even if they were eyewitnesses, how could they possibly remember exactly what Jesus said?

Yes sir! It's not disrespect to Christians whose morality I often admire. It's respect for the truth, which we are taught to respect.

I would have given your post 100 likes and trophies, if I could.

 

[Truthseeker]

The very little I remember being taught about Paul and his letters and the gospels is that his letters came first and the gospels came later. And the story in Acts has Paul being an enemy of the Christian movement, and then had a vision of Jesus and converted. Looking back at all those things I was taught about Christianity, it sure seems like a lot of important Christian doctrines and beliefs came from Roman, Corinthians and other letters of Paul.

Then the Gospels got written. But do we know who wrote them, and do we know when they were written? If they weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then who wrote them. And were they even eyewitnesses to what Jesus said? If not, then how can we be sure of anything about what Jesus really said? And even if they were eyewitnesses, how could they possibly remember exactly what Jesus said?

That's pretty much on the mark. The didn't remember exactly what Jesus said. The people that wrote these Gospels were not the original witnesses, it seems The original witnesses wouldn't remember exactly what Jesus said, then it was passed down probably orally. The Letters by Paul were written first in time.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would have given your post 100 likes and trophies, if I could.

So would I.

 

[Coder]

That's pretty much on the mark. The didn't remember exactly what Jesus said.

I certainly don't want to give the impression that I ignore the profound teachings that can be seen in the Christian Scriptures. Some of the teachings clearly have no angle. E.g. teachings about God as one and consideration for others.

Some of the ones I keep in mind:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
If want mercy, give mercy
As you judge so shall you be judged
Be more clever than serpents
Don't cast pearls before swine (good advice for general social media )
spirit of the law, not letter
The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath (wow!)

Clearly these are from someone gifted by God IMO, and no reason to doubt well-raised in Judaism.

This is why it's a difficult situation, because few can discern these without getting caught up in the "all things to all people" parts, and running around waving their Bibles. The real "truth for all people" is passages such as the above, in my strong belief.