katnip79 said
This is my first post on this blog. I’m a new member to this forum. Recently, after 30 years, I have left the Christian faith based on a variety of reasons. Prof. Ehrman is somewhat responsible for this (thanks…a lot!). One of the thoughts that started my unraveling, before I even looked up Prof. Ehrman and read counter-arguments to Christianity, was the trouble I had with Christianity’s focus on the Apostle Paul and his writings.As I understand it, at the time the New Testament was being formed, Paul was unique in that he experienced a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus which was the cause of his conversion. My questions are these:
I’m not sure why this is so difficult that so few in this thread are able to discern the major difference between Paul’s influence on Christianity, on the one hand, and Mohammad’s influence on Islam and Joseph Smith’s influence on Mormanism, on the other:
Paul was not creating a new religious movement. Full stop.
Christianity, in some form, preexisted Paul. We can debate what Christianity might have looked like without Paul. But Paul’s “divine revelations,” as opposed to his missionary work, have a far, far, far smaller impact on Christianity than the divine revelations of Mohammad had on Islam and the divine revelations of Joseph Smith had on Mormanism.
Indeed, Islam and Mormanism are wholly dependent on divine revelation of Mohammad and Joseph Smith, respectively.
Christianity is not dependent on the divine revelations of Paul. Indeed, Paul already had a career persecuting Christians before his “divine revelation” and “conversion.”
What’s more, Paul made clear in his writings to the churches he established that he was not the ultimate authority in Christianity, and that fundamental belief systems of the movement had been given to him by the Church leaders in place: namely Peter and James.
This is starkly, and fundamentally, in contrast with Joseph Smith and what we know about Mohammad.
Paul did not create Christianity, and Christianity is certainly not predicated on the “divine revelations” of Paul.
One can literally discount every single thing that Paul wrote in terms of divine revelation or even inspiration, and you’d still have Christianity. Now …. maybe it wouldn’t have spread. But that’s a different issue. We should not conflate the missionary influence of Paul with the influence of the “divine revelation” of Paul. Christianity is not based on Paul’s conversion; it’s based more broadly on the creed set forth in 1 Corinthians 15.
vergari said
. .
Christianity is not dependent on the divine revelations of Paul. . .
One can literally discount every single thing that Paul wrote in terms of divine revelation or even inspiration, and you’d still have Christianity. . . .. Christianity is not based on Paul’s conversion; it’s based more broadly on the creed set forth in 1 Corinthians 15.
I am not sure about that
Where in Jesus words recorded in the SYNOPTIC Gospels do you see parallels to Pauls teachings in 1 Corinthians 15?
most of us, who appreciate Dr Ehrman’s expertise, dont consider Jesus’ words recorded in John’s Gospel to be authentic, but even in John’s gospel, I am not sure the theology exactly parallels 1 Cor 15. . .
And if you dont see parallels to Jesus words then it came as a revelation form either Paul or a different apostle, i guess.
tompicard said
I am not sure about that
Where in Jesus words recorded in the SYNOPTIC Gospels do you see parallels to Pauls teachings in 1 Corinthians 15?
most of us, who appreciate Dr Ehrman’s expertise, dont consider Jesus’ words recorded in John’s Gospel to be authentic, but even in John’s gospel, I am not sure the theology exactly parallels 1 Cor 15. . .
And if you dont see parallels to Jesus words then it came as a revelation form either Paul or a different apostle, i guess.
A lot of problems in what you write here.
First, the belief system of a religion has never predicated on a later culture’s belief in the historical authenticity of the words of that religion’s deity figure. It’s utterly irrelevant to First and Second Century Christians what 21st Century Westerns would believe about the authenticity of John’s Gospel. That they believed John at the time is all that is important.
Secondly, the credal foundation of Christianity is naturally inferable from each of the three Synoptics independently. Starting from Mark, you have Peter’s proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah in Chapter 8. You also have the resurrection and discussion of Kingdom of Heaven in each text. And the main reason the Synoptics are not more explicit on Jesus’s eternal divinity is it was already taken for granted by Christians encountering the Gospels. See Point Three.
Thirdly, my whole point about the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is that Paul didn’t write it. He got that from the existing Christian communities, probably starting in Syria, whom he persecuted. Mohammad and Joseph Smith were annunciating credal liturgy they claimed to receive uniquely from God. 1 Corinthians 15 is an annunciation of creedal liturgy Paul received earlier from other Christians.
See the difference?
i regret my comment was so problematic
i understand and agree that the core of islam comes from the book known as quran which came from mind or revelation to Mohammed. same i suppose for Mormon
i was just curious if you saw any parallels between words of Paul in 1st Cor 15 (regardless if they were from him or someone in syria) and the words of Jesus.
as an aside not at all related to christian, mormon, or muslim scripture
as i read it Paul in this chapter of this letter is NOT explicit in describing Jesus as eternally divine, in fact he compares him twice to Adam once calling Jesus a ‘man’ and once a ‘human being’. Now possibly, as you conjecture, it was taken for granted that jesus was a hybrid God/man i dont know , but I would need to see some evidence for that.
tompicard said
i regret my comment was so problematici understand and agree that the core of islam comes from the book known as quran which came from mind or revelation to Mohammed. same i suppose for Mormon
i was just curious if you saw any parallels between words of Paul in 1st Cor 15 (regardless if they were from him or someone in syria) and the words of Jesus.
Ah, I see. Yes, I do think there is a parallel — with limits — in 1 Corthinians 15, in that it is the earliest extant text setting forth the fundamental creed of the faith.
tompicard said
as i read it Paul in this chapter of this letter is NOT explicit in describing Jesus as eternally divine, in fact he compares him twice to Adam once calling Jesus a ‘man’ and once a ‘human being’. Now possibly, as you conjecture, it was taken for granted that jesus was a hybrid God/man i dont know , but I would need to see some evidence for that.
Fair point. The past eternal divinity of Jesus is not really addressed in 1 Corinthian 15. And while we have a good idea on Paul’s thoughts about the future eternal divinity of Jesus from passages like Galatians 6:8, as well as the eternal life of humans in the path of Jesus and the Holy Spirit (mirroring John) in passages such as Romans 6:23, for a statement about the past eternal divinity of Jesus, such as we see in John 1 and other Johannine literature, you’d really need to go to the disputed Pauline epistles, such as Colossians and 1 & 2 Timothy.
But this kind of makes the point about the limits of Pauline Christianity. Paul just didn’t have the influence over Christian theology in anywhere near the same way of Muhammad influence on Islamic theology or Joseph Smith’s influence on Mormon theology.
But this kind of makes the point about the limits of Pauline Christianity. Paul just didn’t have the influence over Christian theology in anywhere near the same way of Muhammad influence on Islamic theology or Joseph Smith’s influence on Mormon theology.
Weeellll…while it’s true that Paul didn’t invent Christianity he was the filter through which it spread and developed. Pauline and pseudo-Pauline Christianity dominates the New Testament. It is a little different in the east but in the west all the major theological movements looked back at Paul from Marcion to Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to the Reformation.
The first century Jewish Jesus movement died out relatively quickly after the first revolt. Pauline Christianity spread all over the Empire.
Stephen said
But this kind of makes the point about the limits of Pauline Christianity. Paul just didn’t have the influence over Christian theology in anywhere near the same way of Muhammad influence on Islamic theology or Joseph Smith’s influence on Mormon theology.Weeellll…while it’s true that Paul didn’t invent Christianity he was the filter through which it spread and developed. Pauline and pseudo-Pauline Christianity dominates the New Testament. It is a little different in the east but in the west all the major theological movements looked back at Paul from Marcion to Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to the Reformation.
The first century Jewish Jesus movement died out relatively quickly after the first revolt. Pauline Christianity spread all over the Empire.
What is the best evidence that Mark, Matthew and John are the products of Pauline Christianity?
Mark and Matthew, and even Luke to some extent, are littered with transliterations from Aramaic and Hebrew. How likely is it that Pauline theology somehow found its way into Aramaic and Hebrew words, which were then re-translated back into Greek? This would be yet another violation of Occam’s razor.
As to Johannine theology, there have been quite a few books written distinguishing it from Pauline Christianity.
Again, I am not suggesting that Paul’s missionary work was not absolutely vital in the development of Christian theology. However, Pauline theology, as reflected in his Epistles, and more specifically in his claimed divine revelations, is not nearly as critical, and certainly nothing in the magnitude of the influence of Muhammad’s and Joseph Smith’s divine revelations.
What is the best evidence that Mark, Matthew and John are the products of Pauline Christianity?
That’s not my claim. What I’m saying is that because of Paul’s influence subsequent interpretation of these works were filtered through a Pauline lens. So much so that many Christians have a hard time detecting the areas where Paul and these writers disagree. (For example, Matthew’s clear admonition that Christians must keep the Law.)
Given the development of Christian thought, especially in the West, it would be extraordinary to argue otherwise.
john76 said
Hi Katnip79,I think you are right to distrust Paul. Joseph Smith lied about finding golden plates from heaven, and there is no reason to think Paul was honest either.
Paul had the tar beaten out of him numerous times. As a dishonest phony who made up his vision nonsense, why do you think he stuck with the lies he told?
Bernard said
“A person can be honestly mistaken rather than be a liar. If I repeat a false statement thinking that it’s true I’m not telling a lie. Telling lies requires intent to deceive, which is exactly the one factor we don’t have with these ancient writers. Knowledge of their intent.”A discussion in which the goal is to nail down the intent of an ancient writer seems to me the kind of winter talk over a samovar that one might encounter in a novel by Gogol – diverting, but ultimately to no purpose other than to pass the time.
john76 said
Hi Katnip79,I think you are right to distrust Paul. Joseph Smith lied about finding golden plates from heaven, and there is no reason to think Paul was honest either.
Paul had the tar beaten out of him numerous times. As a dishonest phony who made up his vision nonsense, why do you think he stuck with the lies he told?
Bernard said
“A person can be honestly mistaken rather than be a liar. If I repeat a false statement thinking that it’s true I’m not telling a lie. Telling lies requires intent to deceive, which is exactly the one factor we don’t have with these ancient writers. Knowledge of their intent.”A discussion in which the goal is to nail down the intent of an ancient writer seems to me the kind of winter talk over a samovar that one might encounter in a novel by Gogol – diverting, but ultimately to no purpose other than to pass the time.
Let me see if I get this. Saul watched approvingly as Steve, a rather outspoken reborner, was pelted with rocks that shattered his skull, pierced arteries and veins as blood gushed out of him. Then, he took a stroll to Damascus when God, Jesus Christ, caught his attention. As a result, he becomes a devout reborner proclaiming Christ rose from the dead wherever he went. In reality, Paul made up this story and eventually believed it himself because he repeated it so often. He endures various forms of severe torture for preaching Jesus Christ, sacrificing everything to reach everyone willing to listen to him, all due to a lie he believed was true even though he created it. Are you pretty sure?
Stephen said
What is the best evidence that Mark, Matthew and John are the products of Pauline Christianity?That’s not my claim. What I’m saying is that because of Paul’s influence subsequent interpretation of these works were filtered through a Pauline lens. So much so that many Christians have a hard time detecting the areas where Paul and these writers disagree. (For example, Matthew’s clear admonition that Christians must keep the Law.)
Given the development of Christian thought, especially in the West, it would be extraordinary to argue otherwise.
There is absolutely no doubt Pauline thought/teachings during his ministry had a tremendous impact on the development of the Church.
But that is quite different than comparing the impact of Pauline revelations to those of Mohammad and Joseph Smith, as the original post(er) in this thread discussed. When it comes to Mohammad, for example, while his revelations are central Islam, Mohammad played virtually no role in spreading Islam through ministry. Indeed, according to orthodox biography of Mohammad, he was dead by the time Islam truly began to spread. Islam was spread through figures like Abū Bakr, Muawiyah and Abd al-Malik.
john76 said
Hi Katnip79,I think you are right to distrust Paul. Joseph Smith lied about finding golden plates from heaven, and there is no reason to think Paul was honest either.
Regarding Paul’s conversion story, Dr. Barrie Wilson, Author of “How Jesus Became Christian,” argues “Paul’s story is clearly made up, to give himself credibility. What people don’t realize is that, if true, it would undermine the whole point of Jesus’ mission. If all it took was a vision, why waste time with a 3-yr mentoring process?”
And the narrative of the conversion in Acts is hardly history. Dr. Price comments:
As the great Tübingen critics already saw, the story of Paul’s visionary encounter with the risen Jesus not only has no real basis in the Pauline epistles but has been derived by Luke more or less directly from 2 Maccabees 3’s story of Heliodorus. In it one Benjaminite named Simon (3:4) tells Apollonius of Tarsus, governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia (3:5), that the Jerusalem Temple houses unimaginable wealth that the Seleucid king might want to appropriate for himself. Once the king learns of this, he sends his agent Heliodorus to confiscate the loot. The prospect of such a violation of the Temple causes universal wailing and praying among the Jews. But Heliodorus is miraculously turned back when a shining warrior angel appears on horseback. The stallion’s hooves knock Heliodorus to the ground, where two more angels lash him with whips (25-26). He is blinded and is unable to help himself, carried to safety on a stretcher. Pious Jews pray for his recovery, lest the people be held responsible for his condition. The angels reappear to Heliodorus, in answer to these prayers, and they announce God’s grace to him: Heliodorus will live and must henceforth proclaim the majesty of the true God. Heliodorus offers sacrifice to his Saviour (3:35) and departs again for Syria, where he reports all this to the king. In Acts the plunder of the Temple has become the persecution of the church by Saul (also called Paulus, an abbreviated form of Apollonius), a Benjaminite from Tarsus. Heliodorus’ appointed journey to Jerusalem from Syria has become Saul’s journey from Jerusalem to Syria. Saul is stopped in his tracks by a heavenly visitant, goes blind and must be taken into the city, where the prayers of his former enemies avail to raise him up. Just as Heliodorus offers sacrifice, Saul undergoes baptism. Then he is told henceforth to proclaim the risen Christ, which he does.
Luke has again added details from Euripides. In The Bacchae, in a sequence Luke has elsewhere rewritten into the story of Paul in Philippi (Portefaix, pp. 170), Dionysus has appeared in Thebes as an apparently mortal missionary for his own sect. He runs afoul of his cousin, King Pentheus who wants the licentious cult (as he views it) to be driven out of the country. He arrests and threatens Dionysus, only to find him freed from prison by an earthquake. Dionysus determines revenge against the proud and foolish king by magically compelling Pentheus to undergo conversion to faith in him (“Though hostile formerly, he now declares a truce and goes with us. You see what you could not when you were blind,” 922-924) and sending Pentheus, in woman’s guise, to spy upon the Maenads, his female revelers. He does so, is discovered, and is torn limb from limb by the women, led by his own mother. As the hapless Pentheus leaves, unwittingly, to meet his doom, Dionysus comments, “Punish this man. But first distract his wits; bewilder him with madness… After those threats with which he was so fierce, I want him made the laughingstock of Thebes” (850-851, 854-855). “He shall come to know Dionysus, son of Zeus, consummate god, most terrible, and yet most gentle, to mankind” (859-861). Pentheus must be made an example, as must poor Saul, despite himself. His conversion is a punishment, meting out to the persecutor his own medicine. Do we not detect a hint of ironic malice in Christ’s words to Ananias about Saul? “I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name” (Acts 9:16).
If you are interested in the argument that the members of the original Jesus movement were liars, I did a couple of blog posts and reader comments on it here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Happy Spelunking!
This is very similar to the fictionalized American Revolution, which keeps making its way into history textbooks, despite it clearly being a fabrication.
The story of the American Revolution has no real basis in contemporary texts, but was derived by later purported historians more or less directly from the works of G. E. Lessing detailing the Seven Years War. In those works, a senior military officer, Major von Tellheim, faced with multiple defeats on the battlefield, and on the brink of collapse, mounts a cunning surprise attack on the eve of a national holiday. Tellheim’s servant is named Paul Werner, clearly the source for the name “Washington.” The Seven Years War was fought over land in North America, between British colonists and German troops, with the Britain and France Empires the major powers behind the conflict. Sound familiar? The War lasts for nearly a decade, with thousands of English, Scottish, French and German troops dying on North American soil. The decisive battle of the War follows on a siege of a surrounded army and is led by a charismatic young general who would go on to become the head of state for his government in the decades to come. The War is then formally ended by the Treaty of Paris.
The material clearly formed the grist for the “American Revolution,” fought among colonists and German troops on North American soil, largely bankrolled by the British and French Empires. The charismatic, young general of the “American Revolution’ (“George Washington”) likewise goes on to become his country’s head of state. The “War” is similarly resolved by the “Treaty of Paris.”
“What makes Paul’s proclaimed vision any more significant than the countless other individuals who claim to have been visited by Jesus Christ since the time the New Testament canon was closed?”
When did he proclaim he had a vision?
Have you had a chance to read his letters?
Have you noticed what Luke says about him?
Who says his vision was any more significant than the visions of others?
I agree with catnip79’s observation that there is little difference between Paul’s vision of Jesus, and Joseph Smith’s vision of Jesus. In both cases, people chose to believe the claims of these men if those claims reinforced their own chosen belief system, and rejected those claims that did not. Both Smith and Paul relied on their “visions” as their Justification for starting a new religion. Both of these new religions were based on the original Jewish teachings of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth.
For the purpose of this discussion, I would like to make a distinction between the original followers of Jesus and the later followers of Paul.
The followers of Jesus were known as Jewish Christians (Nazarenes). They formed a Jewish sect that believed Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (King of the Jews). His mission was to prepare the Jews for the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God.
The followers of Paul were know as Pauline Christians (Marcionites). They formed a mostly non-Jewish (Gentile) world religion that believed Jesus was God incarnate.
The Nazarenes were mostly killed or scattered after the destruction of Jerusalem during the first Jewish-Roman war. This marked the end of the Jewish sect started by Jesus.
The Marcionites, however, survived outside of Israel, and went on to become what we call the Christian religion today. This religion has separated from the Jewish religion.
The bottom line is this: Jesus did not include the Gentiles among his followers unless they became Jews. Also, it is highly unlikely that he would have supported Paul’s efforts had he lived to see them. In other words, the “Christian” religion people practice today is not the religion of Jesus Christ.
With that in mind, does it really matter all that much whether Paul:
1. Persecuted Christians?
2. Had a vision of Christ?
3. Was sincere about his ministry?
4. Was an honest fanatic?
Unless, of course, you are a follower of Pauline Christianity. If so, then you probably don’t question these claims about Paul.
caljack said
I agree with catnip79’s observation that there is little difference between Paul’s vision of Jesus, and Joseph Smith’s vision of Jesus. In both cases, people chose to believe the claims of these men if those claims reinforced their own chosen belief system, and rejected those claims that did not. Both Smith and Paul relied on their “visions” as their Justification for starting a new religion. Both of these new religions were based on the original Jewish teachings of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth.
For the purpose of this discussion, I would like to make a distinction between the original followers of Jesus and the later followers of Paul.
The followers of Jesus were known as Jewish Christians (Nazarenes). They formed a Jewish sect that believed Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (King of the Jews). His mission was to prepare the Jews for the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God.
The followers of Paul were know as Pauline Christians (Marcionites). They formed a mostly non-Jewish (Gentile) world religion that believed Jesus was God incarnate.
The Nazarenes were mostly killed or scattered after the destruction of Jerusalem during the first Jewish-Roman war. This marked the end of the Jewish sect started by Jesus.
The Marcionites, however, survived outside of Israel, and went on to become what we call the Christian religion today. This religion has separated from the Jewish religion.
Um …. you sure about these terms and definitions?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)