Has Saint Paul hijacked Christianity?

[Estro Felino]

What I think is that mainstream Christianity has been totally and inexorably influenced by Saint Paul's philosophical speculation which doesn't match with the most important principles of the evangelical message (the Gospels) To sum them up, it is sufficient to say that the Gospels clearly speak of the Kingdom of God, which is attainable only through men's efforts, so therefore Heaven is reached only through free will, that is, the choice of Good and the rejection of sin.
On the contrary, Paul speaks of a mankind that can't do but sin, and only through the faith in Jesus' blood it can be redeemed. So..according to this Anatolian philosopher, it is sufficient to believe that Christ was crucified to save us from sin, and that all our sins are forgiven through this simple act of faith.

I would like to ask rationalists here :...do you think there's something logical in this? I think there's nothing more twisted, anti-Christian and illogical than this theological principle.
This contradict all Jesus' parables, which clearly say that only the choice of good and altruism is the key to both worldly and otherworldly happiness.

You don't need to be a psychologist to understand the reason why Paul invented this concept.
Paul had been a wicked person who persecuted Christians (among whom St Stephen) and probably executed some of them. Suddenly and miraculously, he was enlightened by God and found out he was doing evil. Once he saw the light, he surely was ashamed of himself. And this shame was accentuated by the fact that there were so many Jews and Pagans, whose behavior was irreproachable: Jews whose life was very spiritual and Christian-like, and Pagans (especially after the Pagan renewing movement) who had never hurt anybody, but practiced abstinence and chastity.
The only way to feel better than these people was to create a concept that excluded Non-Christians from salvation.That is, inventing the concept of salvation by faith alone, making us believe that all sins are equal and redemption is earned by faith, regardless of personal merits.
Saul said to himself: "How can I feel a better person than those people? Simple: I rely on the story that Jesus's blood redeems people and erases sin. So, no matter how good and sinless Jews and Pagans are, I will always be better than them, because I believe that Jesus' blood has saved me."


I don't want to deny that there are lots of Christian-like concepts in Paul's epistles. Nevertheless, reading his works as a whole, it is clear that his personality was very tormented, surely devoured by a grave inner conflict.

I know that some Christians will "massacre" me...that's why I would really use the help and support of @wizanda and @Kelly of the Phoenix

 

[EtuMalku]

I have always thought that Paul invented Christianity . . . Judaism was difficult to join and follow, so Paul invented a Judaic Apocalyptic Cult 20 years after the alleged death of Yeshua in order to fill a demand. Simple as that.

 

[wizanda]

Christian

The term Christian was first applied in Antioch to Paul's, and Simon the stone's (peter's) ministry....

The people who followed Yeshua were called 'Followers of the way' or in my opinion Ebionites; which is who Paul was persecuting at the start of Acts.

 

[2ndpillar]

Before starting this thread, I just wanted to kindly invite Christians to follow these rules:

• to use reason and logic as the only instruments to demonstrate their thesis. Circular reasoning is not appreciated here, with all due respect. Example of circular reasoning: “St. Paul says the truth because he was chosen by God to teach Christianity. Therefore, he says the truth”
• not to quote entire passages. It is sufficient to indicate the numbers of the chapter and the paragraph.

Let's start. What I think is that mainstream Christianity has been totally and inexorably influenced by Saint Paul's philosophical speculation and this last doesn't match with the most important principles of the evangelical message (the Gospels) To sum them up, it is sufficient to say that the Gospels clearly speak of the Kingdom of God, which is attainable only through men's efforts, so therefore Heaven is reached only through free will, that is, the choice of Good and the rejection of sin.
On the contrary, Paul speaks of a mankind that can't do but sin, and only through the faith in Jesus' blood it can be redeemed. So..according to this Anatolian philosopher, it is sufficient to believe that Christ was crucified to save us from sin, and that all our sins are forgiven through this simple act of faith.

I would like to ask rationalists here :...do you think there's something logical in this? I think there's nothing more twisted, anti-Christian and illogical than this theological principle.
This contradict all Jesus' parables, which clearly say that only the choice of good and altruism is the key to both terrestrial and eternal happiness.

You don't need to be a psychologist to understand the reason why Paul invented this concept.
Paul had been a wicked person who persecuted Christians (among whom St Stephen) and probably executed some of them. Suddenly and miraculously, he was enlightened by God and found out he was doing evil. Once he saw the light, he surely was ashamed of himself. And this shame was accentuated by the fact that there were so many Jews and Pagans, whose behavior was irreproachable: Jews whose life was very spiritual and Christian-like, and Pagans (especially after the Pagan renewing movement) who had never hurt anybody, but practiced abstinence and chastity.
The only way to feel better than these people was to create a concept that excluded Non-Christians from salvation.That is, inventing the concept of salvation by faith alone, making us believe that all sins are equal and redemption is earned by faith, regardless of personal merits.
Saul said to himself: "How can I feel a better person than those people? Simple: I rely on the story that Jesus's blood redeems people and erases sin. So, no matter how good and sinless Jews and Pagans are, I will always be better than them, because I believe that Jesus' blood has saved me."


I don't want to deny that there are lots of Christian-like concept in Paul's epistles. Nevertheless, reading his works as a whole, it is clear that this person's personality was very tormented, surely devoured by a grave inner conflict.

I know that some Christians will "massacre" me...that's why I would really use the help and support of @wizanda and @Kelly of the Phoenix

Dear l85,
The foundation of "Christianity" was laid out in Zechariah 11:7, whereas "I pastured the flock doomed to slaughter", which was pastured by the two "shepherds". "Favor"/Paul (Zech 11:10), and the "worthless shepherd"/Peter (Zech 11:16-17), who wouldn't care, feed, or shepherd the sheep. It is further laid out in Hosea 3, whereas the "adulteress" was bought for the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver, "for many days", until "the sons of Israel will return" (Hosea 3:5). The "many days" according to Hosea 6:2, was 2 days/2000 years, and then the "Lord" "will revive us". Until then, "Ephraim", and the "house of Judah" would be "crushed in judgment". (Hosea 5:11-15).

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I have my doubts Paul "saw the light" for anything other than a Hellenized realization that if you can't win the battle, be the Trojan Horse and doom them from within. I consider him a virus.

 

[Lyndon]

I think Paul was the antichrist Jesus predicted, not the only one, but the first.. I see him as basically evil, no different than when he was massacring Christians, I think his conversion was a fake, he made up the whole thing, no one else saw any vision of Jesus, he is everything that Jesus is not. The worst thing to happen to Jesus' simple message.

 

[Muffled]

I believe I don't see Paul as using philosophy but as speaking with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Muffled]

I have always thought that Paul invented Christianity . . . Judaism was difficult to join and follow, so Paul invented a Judaic Apocalyptic Cult 20 years after the alleged death of Yeshua in order to fill a demand. Simple as that.

I believe that is a total mis-judgement of Paul.

 

[Muffled]

The term Christian was first applied in Antioch to Paul's, and Simon the stone's (peter's) ministry....

The people who followed Yeshua were called 'Followers of the way' or in my opinion Ebionites; which is who Paul was persecuting at the start of Acts.

I believe we prefer a name we call ourselves to one given to us by others but the name Christian has become ingrained and we have to live with it.

 

[Knight of Albion]

Jesus taught Christ Consciousness. Paul's teachings - and actions - were anything but.

Paul led a schism against True Christianity.

Ironically, there is more Paul - who never even met Jesus* - in the Bible New Testament than there is Jesus!
Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine is centred on Pauline philosophy. [Hence I refer to it as Churchianity, rather than Christianity ....]

Some of the Pauline Epistles, the Pastorals for example, weren't even written by Paul. The others suffered interpolation. [Even the Catholic Encyclopaedia concedes that "even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated".]

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Before starting this thread, I just wanted to kindly invite Christians to follow these rules:

• to use reason and logic as the only instruments to demonstrate their thesis. Circular reasoning is not appreciated here, with all due respect. Example of circular reasoning: “St. Paul says the truth because he was chosen by God to teach Christianity. Therefore, he says the truth”
• not to quote entire passages. Just indicate the numbers of the chapter and the paragraph.

Let's start. What I think is that mainstream Christianity has been totally and inexorably influenced by Saint Paul's philosophical speculation which doesn't match with the most important principles of the evangelical message (the Gospels) To sum them up, it is sufficient to say that the Gospels clearly speak of the Kingdom of God, which is attainable only through men's efforts, so therefore Heaven is reached only through free will, that is, the choice of Good and the rejection of sin.
On the contrary, Paul speaks of a mankind that can't do but sin, and only through the faith in Jesus' blood it can be redeemed. So..according to this Anatolian philosopher, it is sufficient to believe that Christ was crucified to save us from sin, and that all our sins are forgiven through this simple act of faith.

I would like to ask rationalists here :...do you think there's something logical in this? I think there's nothing more twisted, anti-Christian and illogical than this theological principle.
This contradict all Jesus' parables, which clearly say that only the choice of good and altruism is the key to both worldly and otherworldly happiness.

You don't need to be a psychologist to understand the reason why Paul invented this concept.
Paul had been a wicked person who persecuted Christians (among whom St Stephen) and probably executed some of them. Suddenly and miraculously, he was enlightened by God and found out he was doing evil. Once he saw the light, he surely was ashamed of himself. And this shame was accentuated by the fact that there were so many Jews and Pagans, whose behavior was irreproachable: Jews whose life was very spiritual and Christian-like, and Pagans (especially after the Pagan renewing movement) who had never hurt anybody, but practiced abstinence and chastity.
The only way to feel better than these people was to create a concept that excluded Non-Christians from salvation.That is, inventing the concept of salvation by faith alone, making us believe that all sins are equal and redemption is earned by faith, regardless of personal merits.
Saul said to himself: "How can I feel a better person than those people? Simple: I rely on the story that Jesus's blood redeems people and erases sin. So, no matter how good and sinless Jews and Pagans are, I will always be better than them, because I believe that Jesus' blood has saved me."


I don't want to deny that there are lots of Christian-like concepts in Paul's epistles. Nevertheless, reading his works as a whole, it is clear that his personality was very tormented, surely devoured by a grave inner conflict.

I know that some Christians will "massacre" me...that's why I would really use the help and support of @wizanda and @Kelly of the Phoenix

Paul tried to advise what is "false prophecy oh wait".. But all the surrounding area came in with Mithras and other Gods and wise tales from Judea or supposedly none stop. So the fullness of all the other philosophies and prophets. Hint the thorn in my side. Jesus who knew, there is a prophecy regarding it and it has it's last. Coming to the understanding of Jesus Christ it skipped me. The paul stuff I understand that paul likely guided through philosophies but didn't stop them from returning also heading himself but under Christ. Made no or slow sense....lol hmmm for Someone's agenda anyone one can "be paul" and Somehow prophecies seemed to gleam have you ever read some the horrible Apocrypha books written; pauls doctrines despise not prophecies, would paul like to find that they actually put that out as church doctrine?!? Would he like to find that these same people connived and drived people to martyrdom. That they covered their heads to but denyed Christ. I wonder if that lines up with his doctrine. Maybe they are the ones pissed at paul. Don't know. With paul and somethings I can understand that he didn't and just people from philosophies to ancient beliefs so how could he? What wool over people eyes what horrible prophecy despise not prophecy? These books were like a head dress of really weird stuff cruel even fake!!. If certain doctrines crept in unawares they just made it a f*** blood bath. I did have some talks with people but still stands it was none the less truth that when I first believed I didn't get an influence from paul even through people and they say paul covered everything that he's the biggest gift for prosylization of who "others come to know Christ" it was likely timothy but a smidge just enough for me or something and gets shut down. Actually barely.. This is the truth from my experience even though its not everyone? I didn't come to belief through that stuff. It did flow in some of the writings it seem to meet up with other confrontations.... Corinthian church was the weirdest. Never saw such a strange one. DID NOT flow in my veins.
Maybe he ran into witchcraft or the druids because they were around that area 54 BC 54 AD, Which he had to have at some point and converted some. He didn't do anything to them he just preached I guess told them that he told them. Good for you paul but I had real skip on paul from actual setting of believing in the first place. I find that ironic. Also they made sure we got 66 books when we left which Catholics have what 72 ugh which have some parts and cut outs and supposedly that revelation was written in 66 or 95 AD. Weird. I don't have any angels of ups over under me, they have no evidence of that. lol. And I am more less neither of such, I'm really actually worried about people.

 

[George-ananda]

I am no fan of Paul either. I think he is responsible for a lot of the dogma in Christianity that seems to offend modern common sense and logic. The unfortunate thing is that the compilers of the New Testament emphasized his writings. I will give Paul the benefit of the doubt and not claim any bad intentions.

 

[columbus]

I believe that is a total mis-judgement of Paul.

Why?
I believe Paul invented a cult based on the parts of Jesus's Message that the Apostles were willing to share with a known agent of the Romans.
That would hardly be the antiRoman parts, because that would likely get the Apostles crucified like it did Jesus.

I think that part of the reason that the Gospels got written was to tell the Jesus story and point out that the "apostle" Paul wasn't there and never met Jesus.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

You don't need to be a psychologist to understand the reason why Paul invented this concept.
Paul had been a wicked person who persecuted Christians (among whom St Stephen) and probably executed some of them. Suddenly and miraculously, he was enlightened by God and found out he was doing evil. Once he saw the light, he surely was ashamed of himself. And this shame was accentuated by the fact that there were so many Jews and Pagans, whose behavior was irreproachable: Jews whose life was very spiritual and Christian-like, and Pagans (especially after the Pagan renewing movement) who had never hurt anybody, but practiced abstinence and chastity.
The only way to feel better than these people was to create a concept that excluded Non-Christians from salvation.That is, inventing the concept of salvation by faith alone, making us believe that all sins are equal and redemption is earned by faith, regardless of personal merits.
Saul said to himself: "How can I feel a better person than those people? Simple: I rely on the story that Jesus's blood redeems people and erases sin. So, no matter how good and sinless Jews and Pagans are, I will always be better than them, because I believe that Jesus' blood has saved me."

Why is there always an assumption that religious figures acted mendaciously with self-serving aims? This is likely an anachronism where people presume a 21st century mindset on people from ancient times.

The era was full of prophets and apocalyptic visions. He most likely believed what he taught, had met Jesus' brother and thought himself inspired by God. Arguably, both Christianity and Islam started off as eschatological movements and so had to adapt when they outlived their founders.

No doubt he shaped Christianity to a significant degree, but there is no reason to believe that it was out of deviousness or insincerity.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Dear l85,
The foundation of "Christianity" was laid out in Zechariah 11:7, whereas "I pastured the flock doomed to slaughter", which was pastured by the two "shepherds". "Favor"/Paul (Zech 11:10), and the "worthless shepherd"/Peter (Zech 11:16-17), who wouldn't care, feed, or shepherd the sheep. It is further laid out in Hosea 3, whereas the "adulteress" was bought for the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver, "for many days", until "the sons of Israel will return" (Hosea 3:5). The "many days" according to Hosea 6:2, was 2 days/2000 years, and then the "Lord" "will revive us". Until then, "Ephraim", and the "house of Judah" would be "crushed in judgment". (Hosea 5:11-15).

nice one didn't ever hear that.

 

[Acim]

Before starting this thread, I just wanted to kindly invite Christians to follow these rules:

• to use reason and logic as the only instruments to demonstrate their thesis. Circular reasoning is not appreciated here, with all due respect. Example of circular reasoning: “St. Paul says the truth because he was chosen by God to teach Christianity. Therefore, he says the truth”
• not to quote entire passages. Just indicate the numbers of the chapter and the paragraph.

Since we are in debate section of forum, I'm (first) curious why this is in Scriptural debates? I'm thinking it is because the author of one part of scripture doesn't align with what you feel the rest of the scripture is conveying. But is that truly scriptural disagreement or something else, like general religious debate? Given your second rule, is there any part of your OP that references numbers of chapters and the paragraph? If not, then again, why is this in scriptural debates?

With all that said, and understanding the rules as if you are really you trying to dictate terms to those who oppose your position, I would just say I do agree that Paul (I can't bring myself to reference him as 'saint') hijacked Christianity. But I don't see it as plausible to suggest he did this on his own. Meaning, it would take establishment of physical church and invoking idea of 'holy father' here on earth for at least some people to give into the hijacking as if God Himself was speaking through Paul.

Let's start. What I think is that mainstream Christianity has been totally and inexorably influenced by Saint Paul's philosophical speculation which doesn't match with the most important principles of the evangelical message (the Gospels)

'Totally and inexorably' strike me as superlative/hyperbole. I think neither is accurate. I think ancient gnostic Christians and modern day counterparts (like myself) never would frame such influence in that way. And because he is speaking both from different perspective and with emphasis on different principles than those found in the gospels, I think discerning Christians would realize this. That historically that hasn't been the case exactly, is a bit sad, but if not Paul, I see others doing this, for otherwise NT would really just be one book with 4 different versions of telling that story. Though as we all know today, there are more than just those 4 versions (i.e. other gospels, quoting Jesus).

To sum them up, it is sufficient to say that the Gospels clearly speak of the Kingdom of God, which is attainable only through men's efforts, so therefore Heaven is reached only through free will, that is, the choice of Good and the rejection of sin.
On the contrary, Paul speaks of a mankind that can't do but sin, and only through the faith in Jesus' blood it can be redeemed. So..according to this Anatolian philosopher, it is sufficient to believe that Christ was crucified to save us from sin, and that all our sins are forgiven through this simple act of faith.

I would like to ask rationalists here :...do you think there's something logical in this? I think there's nothing more twisted, anti-Christian and illogical than this theological principle.
This contradict all Jesus' parables, which clearly say that only the choice of good and altruism is the key to both worldly and otherworldly happiness.

I think for scriptural debate, this is where citations of verses would plausibly help in reasonable discussion. I'm not feeling up to that in the moment, nor do I think that's what this debate is about, but without it, it seems like an unfair debate to what a lot of (orthodox) Christianity believes that Christianity is about. Also seems unfair to suggest that only the 4 gospels be what is referenced in the larger point that I see being made in this thread. Therefore, not entirely rational in scope nor in specific framing that suggests 'Gospels clearly speak of Kingdom attainable only through men's efforts.' I personally see Christianity as based on fundamental faith in own self and whether believer understands that to be of God or of this world.

You don't need to be a psychologist to understand the reason why Paul invented this concept.
Paul had been a wicked person who persecuted Christians (among whom St Stephen) and probably executed some of them. Suddenly and miraculously, he was enlightened by God and found out he was doing evil. Once he saw the light, he surely was ashamed of himself. And this shame was accentuated by the fact that there were so many Jews and Pagans, whose behavior was irreproachable: Jews whose life was very spiritual and Christian-like, and Pagans (especially after the Pagan renewing movement) who had never hurt anybody, but practiced abstinence and chastity.
The only way to feel better than these people was to create a concept that excluded Non-Christians from salvation.That is, inventing the concept of salvation by faith alone, making us believe that all sins are equal and redemption is earned by faith, regardless of personal merits.
Saul said to himself: "How can I feel a better person than those people? Simple: I rely on the story that Jesus's blood redeems people and erases sin. So, no matter how good and sinless Jews and Pagans are, I will always be better than them, because I believe that Jesus' blood has saved me."

Interesting. I don't think I actually disagree, though it strikes me as a bit of circular reasoning. Your essentially just restating your first rule, but making it an assertion, yet basing it on what you think he must have been up to, and calling that most viable explanation. It would be (even more) interesting if you could back up the "Saul said to himself" part with references to (really anything, but especially) scripture.

I don't want to deny that there are lots of Christian-like concepts in Paul's epistles. Nevertheless, reading his works as a whole, it is clear that his personality was very tormented, surely devoured by a grave inner conflict.

I know that some Christians will "massacre" me...that's why I would really use the help and support of @wizanda and @Kelly of the Phoenix

Also interesting, but hard to follow the rationale that 'it is clear his personality was tormented, surely devoured by a grave inner conflict.' I think he likely had a spiritual awakening, tried to reconcile it with other believers of the time, and saw a gap to be filled for who now carries on the Jesus role of earthly advocacy now that Jesus is no longer around. And since discernment was arguably lacking at the time (arguably still is), some to many followers of The Way thought it best to place faith in an earthly leader than see that (leader/teacher) as within themselves. Thus calling another 'holy father' on earth made sense to many for a long while. I think we are in a time (and have for a few hundred years now) where that no longer makes as much sense as it once did.

 

[idav]

Despite Pauls flaws and bigotries, he did manage to get passed the jewish elitism Jesus showed by not wanting to spread the word to gentiles. At least Jesus was more open-minded but you can see that Jews are thought as special more deserving as being a chosen people, especially in reference to Jesus referring to a non-jewish woman as a dog but deserving of scraps from the masters table.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Despite Pauls flaws and bigotries, he did manage to get passed the jewish elitism Jesus showed by not wanting to spread the word to gentiles. At least Jesus was more open-minded but you can see that Jews are thought as special more deserving as being a chosen people, especially in reference to Jesus referring to a non-jewish woman as a dog but deserving of scraps from the masters table.

paul expressed that he was a jewish elite and turned to his roman certifications to escape things supposedly not mad about that and then also in regards to the women Jesus just questioned showing publicly since everything else could have been available to "heal" her daughter and any temple would have tried but there was none, just Jesus.

 

[Estro Felino]

I believe I don't see Paul as using philosophy but as speaking with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Only Jesus is infallible. Paul, as any other apostle is a fallible person, because he used his free will and his mind. When he said "women are not allowed to speak in assemblies", it wasn't surely the Holy Spirit speaking for him.
Although, this doesn't demolish all his great merits and all those passages which are inspired by the Gospels, ( the last chapters of the Epistle to the Romans are full of them).
Besides, there's a passage in Romans that I really consider anti-Christian. (Romans 7:21). In this passage he denies the power of human free will, and describes himself as a person who is totally incapable of choosing good.
But the most shameful sentence is when he says that he's a slave of sin, and that only Jesus can rescue him from this condition. In other words, he says that humans are incapable of free will, and that they need an act of grace by Jesus.

Despite Pauls flaws and bigotries, he did manage to get passed the jewish elitism Jesus showed by not wanting to spread the word to gentiles. At least Jesus was more open-minded but you can see that Jews are thought as special more deserving as being a chosen people, especially in reference to Jesus referring to a non-jewish woman as a dog but deserving of scraps from the masters table.

If you read Romans, Paul clearly contradicts himself, when he speaks about Israel. Firstly he says that Jews won't be saved because they believe that the Torah will save them, without believing in Jesus Christ. Secondly, he says that God will have mercy on them, because they're His people.

Since we are in debate section of forum, I'm (first) curious why this is in Scriptural debates? I'm thinking it is because the author of one part of scripture doesn't align with what you feel the rest of the scripture is conveying. But is that truly scriptural disagreement or something else, like general religious debate? Given your second rule, is there any part of your OP that references numbers of chapters and the paragraph? If not, then again, why is this in scriptural debates?

It's in Scriptural debates because I've nothing against Paul as a person. I don't doubt his holiness and his merits, but I strongly criticize some aspects of his theology, because it contradicts the Gospels. So therefore, I've chosen the Scriptural debates section.

With all that said, and understanding the rules as if you are really you trying to dictate terms to those who oppose your position, I would just say I do agree that Paul (I can't bring myself to reference him as 'saint') hijacked Christianity. But I don't see it as plausible to suggest he did this on his own. Meaning, it would take establishment of physical church and invoking idea of 'holy father' here on earth for at least some people to give into the hijacking as if God Himself was speaking through Paul.

Mine was not an affirmation. It was a simple question. I am not sure whether he hijacked Christianity or not. What I am sure about is that lots of his passages sound anti-Christian and most of them contradict themselves (in Romans, especially). Besides, they contradict the message of most parables.

Interesting. I don't think I actually disagree, though it strikes me as a bit of circular reasoning. Your essentially just restating your first rule, but making it an assertion, yet basing it on what you think he must have been up to, and calling that most viable explanation. It would be (even more) interesting if you could back up the "Saul said to himself" part with references to (really anything, but especially) scripture.

It's just a supposition. But if you read Romans, it seems that he almost "envies" those Jews and Gentiles that are able to use their free will to be faithful to their principles. When Paul says "I would like to do good , but actually I do evil", he's basically denying he possesses free will.
Besides, my supposition is understandable, given that firstly, he praises good and sinless Jews and Gentiles, and then he implicitly says that their efforts are useless, as we are all sinners and only faith in Jesus' sacrifice saves us.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Why is there always an assumption that religious figures acted mendaciously with self-serving aims? This is likely an anachronism where people presume a 21st century mindset on people from ancient times.

When an Egyptian pharaoh tried to introduce monotheism, was it because of a divine epiphany or because he was tired of the priests at all the various temples getting more money than the palace?

When Samuel griped about the country wanting a king, was he doing so because of loyalty to God or because at the moment he had the most political power?

When it was "agreed" that sacrifices could only happen in the Temple at Jerusalem, was it because ... ok, really ... it was about monopolizing a money-making thing, wasn't it?

I mean, God is omnipresent. Even if you don't believe that, you can technically pray to Him from anywhere. There is no rational reason why it has to be occur in a particular building. Self-serving notions are not modern.