sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
You see. I led you to explain yourself. I feel better.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Paul Rub You the Wrong Way
- Thread starter sandy whitelinger
- Start date
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Ignorance is bliss.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Yet you just edumacated me. Before you were being obscure and vague. Now your just being condescending and elitist. I bet I can draw out more amusement if I try.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
You'd have to actually talk about the subject first.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Very interesting thread. I'm a big fan of Paul. Not from a theological perspective, but a historian perspective. At the core of it all, Paul simply is highly misunderstood. Partially because no one really seemed to care about him after Marcion in the second century, and until Augustus, who then interpreted Paul though his own lens. And partially because so many non-Pauline works have been added to Paul. So basically, over the centuries, the message of Paul has been muddled.
He also probably didn't add any Roman influence. He wasn't Roman. He was Hellenistic, but he also was taking the message to Gentiles, which changed the message a bit. However, he also had the blessing of the Jerusalem sect, which led the movement.
He also wasn't the only one spreading a message that could be construed as Hellenistic. He simply is the one who wrote letters so we have evidence of him. Many others would also have a large impact on the forming religion.
Without Paul, we would most likely still have as many denominations as many missionaries were already going out during the time of Paul. Paul just happens to be remembered because his writings were preserved.
Interestingly enough, Judaism, at the time of Jesus, was also quite diverse, which helped lead to Christianity becoming so diverse.
And while he didn't know Jesus, he did know the brother of Jesus, as well as the disciples of Jesus. He even consulted with them, and they gave him the go ahead. So he wasn't doing this blindly.
Christianity also didn't exist during the time of Paul. The Christian movement was still firmly within Judaism. It would really be the fall of the Jewish Temple in 70 C.E. that would really force a split between what would become Rabbinical Judaism, and Christianity (which was a Jewish sect up until that time).
Paul didn't add the Trinity. Paul did have a binitarian view of God, but that is a view he took over from his Jewish past. Paul does help lay a framework for a trinitarian view, but that framework is one that is firmly placed in Judaism. It wouldn't be until later though that the idea of the Trinity took hold.
He also probably didn't add any Roman influence. He wasn't Roman. He was Hellenistic, but he also was taking the message to Gentiles, which changed the message a bit. However, he also had the blessing of the Jerusalem sect, which led the movement.
He also wasn't the only one spreading a message that could be construed as Hellenistic. He simply is the one who wrote letters so we have evidence of him. Many others would also have a large impact on the forming religion.
The Jewish belief is monotheistic (and one can argue that there was a binitarian view within Judaism during the first century). However, the Hebrew belief changed considerably over time, from being polytheistic, to eventually monotheistic. There was no unified Hebrew belief.
Those people would be wrong, mainly because Paul didn't create the Christian church. Those people give Paul way too much credit.
I agree they have no understanding. Mainly because Paul was taking a Jewish message, and bringing it to Gentiles, based on his Jewish belief that the end of the world was near.
Paul wasn't really any of that. Paul never mentions homosexuality. He praised women, and lifted up women leaders. He wasn't obsessed with purity, which is why he spoke of it not mattering what went into ones mouth in terms of food (which was an argument he had with the more Jewish sect). Paul has been misconstrued as all that, but its by people who really don't know what Paul taught.
But it was ordained by the brother and disciples of Jesus. It was ordained by the people who were carrying the message of Jesus.
And one can argue that is what Christians also believe. All Christians did was take the binitarian view that was present in 1st century Judaism, and made it into a trinitarian view.
Probably not. Paul wasn't the only one taking the message of Jesus, which was a Jewish message for Jews, to the Gentiles. Paul was just one among many doing such. And Paul's influence would wane quite considerably in the second century.
Without Paul, we would most likely still have as many denominations as many missionaries were already going out during the time of Paul. Paul just happens to be remembered because his writings were preserved.
Interestingly enough, Judaism, at the time of Jesus, was also quite diverse, which helped lead to Christianity becoming so diverse.
He definitely disagreed with the other apostles. Paul tells us that himself, that he had a big argument with Peter, for example, in regards to communal eating.
Those others would be wrong. Paul was a Jew. He was taking a Jewish message to a Gentile audience, as he believed Judaism taught to do in the end times. His mission fits within Judaism just fine.Others say he invented a new religion and attributed it to someone he didn't even know.
Tom
And while he didn't know Jesus, he did know the brother of Jesus, as well as the disciples of Jesus. He even consulted with them, and they gave him the go ahead. So he wasn't doing this blindly.
Christianity also didn't exist during the time of Paul. The Christian movement was still firmly within Judaism. It would really be the fall of the Jewish Temple in 70 C.E. that would really force a split between what would become Rabbinical Judaism, and Christianity (which was a Jewish sect up until that time).
Mithraism was a later religion, so Paul wouldn't have had access to the ideas within it. Unless you're talking about Persian Mithraism, but there really is no evidence of that. And Jewish Christianity wasn't a different religion. It was Judaism. Paul himself was a Jew, and never disavowed that religion.
The bold is grossly false.
The Trinity, nor is the associated belief in the incarnate Son of God, are to be found in Judaism nor the Hebrew scripture. In fact the concept of the incarnate Son of God is against very fundamental beliefs of Judaism. There is no reference to the Trinity in Judaism. References often used by Christians in the Old Testament are a highly corrupted interpretations and at best vague.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
Glad you ask. I am distrustful of Paul for several reasons. His not being a disciple of Jesus should be at least approaching warning bells. He claimed revelation and being predestined from his mother's womb gave him authority to speak for someone he never met. He seems to have had conflicts with Jesus's actual disciples like Peter and James- the Nazarene's own brother that definitely knew him.
Besides that, Paul often enough shows he still has a hateful nature, and he lets it out to play through a Christian filter. His disdain for homosexuals, women, and slaves is hardly disguised. That sounds like a toned down repentant murderer to me at best. Not someone that is truly transformed by the universal love mind people like Jesus teach.
Paul is absolutely horrid about women, and his implying that slaves should serve Christian masters even harder. Doesn't that come off as mean and disdain for their suffering?
I do not see Jesus the Nazarene reflected in Paul. I do in James, if his epistle indeed reflects him. In the same chapter of James, the second, where he makes a veiled shot at seemingly Paul over the issue of works- he says the opposite of Paul's hatred and exclusion by saying he extorts the brethren not to show favoritism among one another.
Besides that, Paul often enough shows he still has a hateful nature, and he lets it out to play through a Christian filter. His disdain for homosexuals, women, and slaves is hardly disguised. That sounds like a toned down repentant murderer to me at best. Not someone that is truly transformed by the universal love mind people like Jesus teach.
Paul is absolutely horrid about women, and his implying that slaves should serve Christian masters even harder. Doesn't that come off as mean and disdain for their suffering?
I do not see Jesus the Nazarene reflected in Paul. I do in James, if his epistle indeed reflects him. In the same chapter of James, the second, where he makes a veiled shot at seemingly Paul over the issue of works- he says the opposite of Paul's hatred and exclusion by saying he extorts the brethren not to show favoritism among one another.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Its not false at all, you just misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying that Judaism had an idea of the Trinity. I'm not saying they had an idea of the incarnate Son of God. I'm saying that the framework for the Trinity was there.
Judaism, during the first century, had a binitarian view of God. All that Christians did was add a third dimension, and transformed the binitarian view into a trinitarian view by adding Jesus into the equation.
This is interesting as while Paul had conflicts with Peter and James, Paul was still blessed by them and allowed to preach his message. While there was conflict, it seems that there was more agreement than anything.
I would say it quite the opposite. Paul never mentions homosexuality. Paul does often get mistranslated to add homosexuality to a vice list, but he even there, with that poor translation, he never signals out homosexuality. Its just one vice among many. And in each case, the next thought is hey, don't judge them because you are also them.
For women, in the pseudo Pauline text, he is opposed to women. But in the authentic Pauline text, he praises women, and is all for them leading the church.
And for slaves, he was in a difficult position. He states that slaves are equal. They are just as much a brother as a free man. He encourages slaves owners to free their slaves, and treat them like brothers. He doesn't free the slave though as he couldn't.
And he wasn't a murderer.
The epistle of James is a pseudo epistles. It wasn't written by James, but someone writing in the name of James.
Paul also tells people not to show favoritism. He makes it clear that all are equal. There is no slave or master. No woman or man. All are equal.
74x12
Well-Known Member
That's from the book of Galatians. He withstood Peter not because Peter disagreed with Paul doctrinally. Peter apparently agreed with Paul at least to some degree; because at first Peter was sitting with the gentile converts. However, what bothered Paul was how Peter and the rest of the Jews stopped sitting with the gentile believers when certain men (who apparently were very strict Pharisees although they had believed in Jesus) came from James. This was hypocritical and damaging. Paul refused to dissimulate with the other Jews.
Basically, Paul thought Peter should stand up for what he really believed; rather than pretending otherwise. Because they were basically saying the gentiles were not good enough even though all were believers in Jesus. God warns us against this type of behavior in Isaiah 65:5.
So Paul rhetorically questioned Peter as to why Peter is making the gentiles become Jews (because he wouldn't sit with them) when Peter was living as gentiles do!
However, sure the apostles may have had minor disagreements but every thing they wrote in the scriptures all agree. That's the point here. What we have of their writings are not disagreeing.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Thoughtful and informed replies. Thank you.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
That's latter day Christian revisionism. Plutarch says that in 67 BC the pirates of Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras.” The capital of Celicia is Tarsus! This appears to be the contact point for the start of the spread of Mithraism in the Roman Empire, in Paul’s hometown.
Mithraism came to have a wide following among Romans, particularly among the upper classes and military. Paul, being a Roman citizen via his Herodian ancestry, was anxious to promote it among his fellow upper class Romans, and give it his own spin by combining it with Christianity (read Paulism) for his personal aggrandizement.
BTW, six hundred threescore and six (not the anachronistic Arabic numerals, 666) is Jewish Gematria for Tarsus. Revelation, at least that part of it, had to have been written by an anti-Pauline Jewish follower of Jesus. That same number is in two identical passages in the O/T, the number of talents of gold that came to Solomon in a year--IOW, great wealth. Paul, being a Roman citizen and Herodian, had to have been very wealthy, as well as a promoter of Mithras.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
No I wouldn't. Look how well I've done so far.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
You'd have to be amusing yourself because before, I thought you were interested in something more than just playing people. And if you learned from this, the only result which would keep me engaged would be for you to stop. So which is it?...though I'm pretty sure I already know.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Acts also records it, but differently. Paul is trying to justify his outburst. There is also the issue of circumcision, where there is a debate. It gets worked out in the end, but they still debated it.
And not everything they wrote agree with each other. Even in the epistles attributed to Paul, there is disagreement. Paul even disagreed with Jesus, at least to a point (on the matter of divorce). It doesn't all agree.
67 B.C.E. is a long way away from the time of Paul. I'm assuming you copied and pasted directly from Wikipedia. If you read that source, just the next sentence, it says something else: However, according to Daniels, whether any of this relates to the origins of the mysteries is unclear.[114] The unique underground temples or Mithraea appear suddenly in the archaeology in the last quarter of the 1st century CE.
So you really just quoted the part that agreed with you, while ignoring the rest. That really isn't a sound argument. There is also the issue that the Pirates of Cilicia were really suppressed in the 60s BCE anyway. So while the secret rites of Mithras may have been practiced in Asia Minor around 67 B.C.E., it was also wiped out (or at least the practitioners were) in that same decade. It also has to be mentioned that this form of Mithras worship is distinguished from Roman Mithraism.
You're also stretching with the Tarsus capital part. Cilician pirates were just a generic term for any pirate during that time. While there were strong holds in Cilicia, they were present throughout the Mediterranean. There is also a problem with chronology.
In the last 60s B.C.E., Pompey destroyed the Cilician pirates. He then subjected Tarsus to Rome, and only then did Tarsus become the capital of the Cilicia province. By then, the pirates were already wiped out. So your argument really doesn't work here.
Now, Mithraism did end up having somewhat of a following in Rome. But that was after the time of Jesus and Paul. It isn't until the late first century, after Paul, that Mithraism began to form in the Roman Empire. There is no evidence Paul could have even been introduced to the religion as the religion didn't exist.
Its also doubtful Paul was a Roman citizen. He never mentions it. He tells us he is Jewish. He never even mentions or suggests that he's Roman. Acts states that he is, but Acts also disagrees with Paul on a number of topics. More so, Paul isn't treated like a Roman citizen. He's punished as a Jew. He's treated like a Jew. So most likely, he wasn't a Roman citizen. And he certainly wasn't among the elites.
As for Revelations, no. The number, in the oldest and most reliable documents we have, is 616. The vast majority of scholars see this as an attribution to Nero. There is no suggestion that it has anything to do with Paul or Tarsus. It simply doesn't line up.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Actually I started the thread to learn and I have learned quite a bit how people approach their understanding of Paul. It seems to be based on historical arguments. What really intriques me is that no one has brought up things that Paul actually taught. If they did it was only to place it in historical context rather than contextual.You'd have to be amusing yourself because before, I thought you were interested in something more than just playing people. And if you learned from this, the only result which would keep me engaged would be for you to stop. So which is it?...though I'm pretty sure I already know.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
By the way this seems have begun when you offered up a vague reference to Romans when I asked for an deeper explanation of one of your previous statements. You proceeded from there to treat me like dunce so I played the part. I didn't want disappoint you. When people condescend, they like the other person to play along. So I did.You'd have to be amusing yourself because before, I thought you were interested in something more than just playing people. And if you learned from this, the only result which would keep me engaged would be for you to stop. So which is it?...though I'm pretty sure I already know.
@fallingblood
Yes, because telling women not to speak or have authority over a man oe that a woman is saved through childbirth isn't sexist at all. The stuff he supposedly said about homosexuality is admittedly confused by use of arcane terms that are unclear to this day but it doesn't seem positive.
And Paul does go on about purity: 27 Top Bible Verses About Purity - Encouraging Scriptures (Most of that is from Paul.)
You can be a fan all you like but don't be dishonest.
Yes, because telling women not to speak or have authority over a man oe that a woman is saved through childbirth isn't sexist at all. The stuff he supposedly said about homosexuality is admittedly confused by use of arcane terms that are unclear to this day but it doesn't seem positive.
And Paul does go on about purity: 27 Top Bible Verses About Purity - Encouraging Scriptures (Most of that is from Paul.)
You can be a fan all you like but don't be dishonest.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Not being dishonest. The verse about women not speaking or having authority over a man isn't a Pauline verse. It is pseudo Pauline. It interrupts the narrative, it bounces around in the early manuscripts, and it disagrees with much of other things Paul has stated. It is nearly universally rejected as being from Paul.
Paul instead, on a number of occasions, mentions women who are leaders in the church. Priscilla comes first to mind. If Paul didn't think women could have authority over a man, then it wouldn't make sense that he could think a woman could lead a church, and have authority over a congregation of men. And being the leader of a church also meant that they had the authority to stand up and speak.
The childbirth quote also isn't from Paul. The is from 1 Timothy, and epistle that is nearly universally rejected as being from Paul. Its pseudo Pauline, as in written in the name of Paul, but not actually being from Paul.
As for homosexuality, again, he never mentions it. Where he supposedly mentions it, it is just part of a vice list. A standard vice list, where homosexuality (or what people claim is a reference to homosexuality) isn't even singled out. Its mentioned in passing. And if you read the next verses, he flips the entire thing. Paul states, don't care about that. We all are sinners, so who are we to judge others when we are guilty ourselves. The message is actually positive if you read it all in context.
As for your list, the vast majority aren't Paul. There are a lot that are pseudo-Pauline, from letters scholars have long rejected. There are also a lot that are taken out of context. You can't read one verse in a work of Paul and think it actually means anything. Paul practiced Greek rhetoric. He builds up arguments over a series of verses, and often then switches the entire thing.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
67 BCE is when Mithraism was started in the Roman Empire, centered in Tarsus.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
What is the relationship between Paul and Mithraism.