The True Founder of Christianity

[mobkem]

Did Jesus or his Apostles follow a religion called Christianity? Who were the first 'Christians' ? Who founded Christianity and do the teachings of Christianity conform to the teachings of Jesus?





The mission of Jesus.

In 721 B.C.E the Jewish kingdom of Israel faced defeat at the hands of the Assyrians. Scattered abroad with their Temple destroyed, the Jews turned their focus onto the Law. Monotheism was once again lost, but this time in an ever increasing maze of elaborate rites and rituals.

It was this situation that was present in the world when Jesus received his calling from God. Upon beginning his ministry at the approximate age of 30, Jesus made it clear that his mission from God was to get the Jews back on track:

"For the son of man is come to save that which was lost." (Matthew 18:11)

"For I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.� (Matthew 15:24)

Jesus also made it clear just what God wanted him to do :
"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak" (John 12:49)

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17)

A careful study of Jesus' words will show that, contrary to what Christians may think, Jesus had no intention of starting a new religion; he only came to reiterate the message that God had given to all prophets before him: man was to obey God's Laws and worship Him alone.

At no time during his ministry did Jesus claim to be anything more than a human being, inspired by God. Indeed, he referred to himself as the son of man, and made it clear, in a number of verses throughout the Gospel, that he was merely a Messenger of God


Was Jesus' Mission a success?

"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One, that is God." (Mark 10:18)

"...whosoever receives me, receives not me, but Him who sent me." (Mark 9:37)

"And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou has sent." (John 17:3)

"Now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard from God." (John 8:40)

"I ascend unto my Father and your Father, my God and your God." (John 20:17)

Despite all his efforts--wonderful words backed up with some pretty nifty miracles--Jesus was soundly rejected, especially by his own people.

Three years after he began his ministry, he was arrested and charged with sedition and blasphemy. Success had eluded him, at the end of his life on earth; he left behind only a mere handful of followers, not more than 500 at most.


The True Founder of Christianity

Approximately five years after Jesus' ascension into heaven, A twenty-five-year old zealot was on his way to Damascus to pick up a group of Nazarenes (The followers of Jesus called themselves as Nazarenes) for return to Jerusalem when he had a vision in which he claimed Jesus appeared, asking why Saul was persecuting him. Saul changed his name to Paul and went off into the deserts of Arabia in order to think about just how he was going to go about carrying out what he believed to be a command from Jesus to go out and preach.

Exactly WHAT to do was quite a dilemma for him, however; since the Jews had rejected Jesus and his message, Paul didn't think he stood much of chance of getting through to them, either. He made up his mind that it would be best to simply dismiss them off and target the Gentiles (non-Jews) instead.

The Romans and the Greeks, who made up the Gentile population of Paul's world, were pagans who worshiped a plethora of gods and goddesses. Temples and statues of their deities abounded in the land, and Roman law had it that all people, with the exception of the Jews, must pay homage to the gods.

Paul knew that people with such deep-reaching pagan beliefs were not going to accept the idea that grace and salvation could come from a person who was only considered to be a most upright and righteous human being. If Paul wanted quick results in his ministry, he knew that he would have to "modulate" things a bit, taking into account the culture of the Gentiles.

Paul Maier, in his book "First Christians", tells us that thirteen years elapsed between the time Paul "received his calling" and the time that he began preaching. During that thirteen years, Paul's creative mind put in a lot of overtime; when he finally returned to Damascus, he came back armed with the knowledge that the Gentiles would demand a tangible god within their new religion, and he was prepared to give this to them.

Paul was wildly successful in his subsequent missionary efforts, what with the accommodations he ended up making for the Gentiles. Although the religion of Christianity takes its name from Jesus Christ, Paul of Tarsus must be considered as its true founder, as he is the one who conceived all of its doctrines, and set up its churches throughout the world of his time. Christians don't deny this, either: "No figure in Christian history stands so tall or has had such a tremendous influence as has Saul of Tarsus..."

In his book "The 100: A Ranking of the most Influential Persons In History", author Michael Hart concurs in saying:

"No other man played so large a role in the propagation of Christianity."

There is one big problem with this picture, however: The teachings of Paul, the true founder of Christianity, cannot be found anywhere in the teachings of Jesus or in those of prophets before him.

The following are some of the innovations that Paul introduced into "his" religion of Christianity.

1. The divinity of Jesus
2. The trinity
3. Atonement
4. Salvation by faith


Using these doctrines Paul achieved phenomenal success in his ministry. The Jews may have brushed Jesus aside, but the Gentiles flocked to Paul's side, as he gave them just what they wanted in their new religion. The term for the earlier followers of Jesus –Nazarenes was dropped in favor of a new, more 'appropriate' name: Christians, or followers of Jesus Christ.

This new religion of Christianity "...was abundantly interwoven with mythological content drawn heavily from pagan sources..." along with having a theology "...which was produced as the need arose to suit the mentality of the times..."

Later Church leaders thought to neatly end the confusion by saying that Jesus was God-incarnate--an eternal being who "chose" to become a man in the womb of Mary. Jesus had, in other words, two natures--divine and human-- which were united in one single person. While they probably meant well, making a statement such as this only led to more confusion.

The Jews did brush Jesus aside; in a way, however, the religion of Christianity as conceived by Paul has also brushed Jesus aside. Despite what a Christian might say, one will find no evidence wherein Jesus himself puts forth any of the afore--mentioned doctrines within the Gospels. Since Jesus had no plans to start a new religion, it goes without saying that he also did not formulate any doctrines for such.

All Christian doctrines are the work of Paul, based on his desire to gain favor--and new converts--among the non Jews of his time. By incorporating pagan beliefs into the teachings of Jesus, Paul achieved phenomenal success in his ministry, but at the price of tearing down everything that true monotheism stands for. In so doing, Paul abrogated all teachings of Jesus and gave mankind a set of beliefs that have plagued his sense of reason ever since. It is here --the true nature and role of Jesus, as opposed to the Christian view of such -- where we find the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity.

http://islam.thetruecall.com/modules.ph ... =0&thold=0

[Goat]

Invalid analogy. 'Not being under the law' means 'NOT JEWISH'. If he converted to Judaism, or was brought up Jewish, he would be under the law.

It's certainly not a direct analogy. Nor is it intended to be. And its relation to "The Law" is not at issue. You said Paul was a liar for "mimicking." I went to some trouble to set up those hypotheticals to explore that a little, and you dismissed them out of hand.

That hurts my feelings, which is something you'll have to deal with your own conscience about now.

Zzyzx did much better.

I disagree – and do NOT trust a person who is willing to mascurade as someone they are not in order to achieve personal objectives (no matter how “noble� they may think them to be). Each person with whom we interact, in my opinion, deserves the respect of being told the truth about who we are and what we represent.

Do you disagree?

Lord, yes. And for the same reason I disagree with Goat about Paul being a liar.

Life is a dance. Let's live it fully. Let's have fun.

It's not untruthful to present different aspects of our personality in different situations. In many cases, authenticity --not to mention decorum -- demands it. It's not a masquerade to try to connect with people where they live -- if you're not doing so in order to deceive them.

Goat thinks that Paul is a liar and a deceiver.

I think he's one of the most brilliant men who ever lived; who, though a Jew, genuinely tried to enter into the lives of the Gentiles in order to bring them the blessed news of Jesus Christ and Salvation.

The extent to which he succeeded in that endeavor is self-evident.

His being a Jew is debatable . There are other reasons aside from the passage I pointed out to suspect he was not Jewish. If you read the thread about Paul, there are a number mentioned there.

[Zzyzx]

.

I disagree – and do NOT trust a person who is willing to masquerade as someone they are not in order to achieve personal objectives (no matter how “noble� they may think them to be). Each person with whom we interact, in my opinion, deserves the respect of being told the truth about who we are and what we represent.

Do you disagree?

Lord, yes. And for the same reason I disagree with Goat about Paul being a liar.

Are you saying that those with whom we interact are NOT due the respect of being told the truth about who we are and what we represent?

Are you saying that you trust a person who pretends to be who they are not in order to achieve personal objectives?

Life is a dance. Let's live it fully. Let's have fun.

Life can be pleasant, enjoyable and rewarding WITHOUT being a fake or fraud – without deception to achieve one’s aims or objectives. I live that way and know others who do likewise (at least to the best of our ability and intent).

It's not untruthful to present different aspects of our personality in different situations.

We are not talking about displaying different aspects of personality. We are talking about pretending to be what one is not or what one once was but is no longer.

In many cases, authenticity --not to mention decorum -- demands it.

I disagree. Authentic is defined as: “worthy of acceptance or belief by reason of conformity to fact and reality: not contradicted by evidence�.

“Decorum� (“propriety and good taste especially in conduct, manners, or appearance�) does NOT trump truth, honesty, authenticity in my value system. Does it in yours?

Is it acceptable to misrepresent one’s self in order to achieve one’s personal objectives? Is it okay to deceive people (pretend to be who one is not) in order to convince them to do what you think best?

It's not a masquerade to try to connect with people where they live -- if you're not doing so in order to deceive them.

If one pretends to be what one is not, they ARE deceiving people – and if done to convince people to do as one wishes or suggests, that is fraud in my book.

I think he's one of the most brilliant men who ever lived

On what evidence do you base this conclusion?

who, though a Jew, genuinely tried to enter into the lives of the Gentiles in order to bring them the blessed news of Jesus Christ and Salvation.

There is no assurance that Christianity is “blessed news� or that Jesus Christ represents “salvation�. Those are religious dogma – not factual – evidence has not been presented to verify such claims.

Many religions CLAIM wonderful things for those who worship according to dogma, but none of them can provide evidence that suggested religious worship or rituals will result in “eternal bliss� or seventy-seven virgins or reincarnation as a sacred cow – or whatever else they may promise.

The extent to which he succeeded in that endeavor is self-evident.

If a business “succeeds� and grows by fraud and misrepresentation, has it (in your opinion) actually succeeded – or did it “cheat to win�?


I am continually amazed when people who claim to be religious (or who debate as Christians) endorse or enact dishonesty to “promote the faith� (or however they characterize what they do). In these debates I often see dishonesty and dishonor employed – and “justification� of dishonesty (such as, “It is okay if Paul misrepresented himself because he ‘saved souls’ or gained converts to the religion�).

Save me from those who deceive me “for my own good�. Do you endorse that business plan for a commercial enterprise or for a religion?

[JoeyKnothead]

.

I disagree – and do NOT trust a person who is willing to masquerade as someone they are not in order to achieve personal objectives (no matter how “noble� they may think them to be). Each person with whom we interact, in my opinion, deserves the respect of being told the truth about who we are and what we represent.

Do you disagree?

Lord, yes. And for the same reason I disagree with Goat about Paul being a liar.

Are you saying that those with whom we interact are NOT due the respect of being told the truth about who we are and what we represent?

Are you saying that you trust a person who pretends to be who they are not in order to achieve personal objectives?

Life is a dance. Let's live it fully. Let's have fun.

Life can be pleasant, enjoyable and rewarding WITHOUT being a fake or fraud – without deception to achieve one’s aims or objectives. I live that way and know others who do likewise (at least to the best of our ability and intent).

It's not untruthful to present different aspects of our personality in different situations.

We are not talking about displaying different aspects of personality. We are talking about pretending to be what one is not or what one once was but is no longer.

In many cases, authenticity --not to mention decorum -- demands it.

I disagree. Authentic is defined as: “worthy of acceptance or belief by reason of conformity to fact and reality: not contradicted by evidence�.

“Decorum� (“propriety and good taste especially in conduct, manners, or appearance�) does NOT trump truth, honesty, authenticity in my value system. Does it in yours?

Is it acceptable to misrepresent one’s self in order to achieve one’s personal objectives? Is it okay to deceive people (pretend to be who one is not) in order to convince them to do what you think best?

It's not a masquerade to try to connect with people where they live -- if you're not doing so in order to deceive them.

If one pretends to be what one is not, they ARE deceiving people – and if done to convince people to do as one wishes or suggests, that is fraud in my book.

I think he's one of the most brilliant men who ever lived

On what evidence do you base this conclusion?

who, though a Jew, genuinely tried to enter into the lives of the Gentiles in order to bring them the blessed news of Jesus Christ and Salvation.

There is no assurance that Christianity is “blessed news� or that Jesus Christ represents “salvation�. Those are religious dogma – not factual – evidence has not been presented to verify such claims.

Many religions CLAIM wonderful things for those who worship according to dogma, but none of them can provide evidence that suggested religious worship or rituals will result in “eternal bliss� or seventy-seven virgins or reincarnation as a sacred cow – or whatever else they may promise.

The extent to which he succeeded in that endeavor is self-evident.

If a business “succeeds� and grows by fraud and misrepresentation, has it (in your opinion) actually succeeded – or did it “cheat to win�?


I am continually amazed when people who claim to be religious (or who debate as Christians) endorse or enact dishonesty to “promote the faith� (or however they characterize what they do). In these debates I often see dishonesty and dishonor employed – and “justification� of dishonesty (such as, “It is okay if Paul misrepresented himself because he ‘saved souls’ or gained converts to the religion�).

Save me from those who deceive me “for my own good�. Do you endorse that business plan for a commercial enterprise or for a religion?

!
+1
Superlative

It is simultaneously amusing and sad to know folks would use deception in order to gain converts to a belief system that values "Truth(tm)".

[Volbrigade]

.

I disagree – and do NOT trust a person who is willing to masquerade as someone they are not in order to achieve personal objectives (no matter how “noble� they may think them to be). Each person with whom we interact, in my opinion, deserves the respect of being told the truth about who we are and what we represent.

Do you disagree?

Lord, yes. And for the same reason I disagree with Goat about Paul being a liar.

Are you saying that those with whom we interact are NOT due the respect of being told the truth about who we are and what we represent?

Are you saying that you trust a person who pretends to be who they are not in order to achieve personal objectives?

Life is a dance. Let's live it fully. Let's have fun.

Life can be pleasant, enjoyable and rewarding WITHOUT being a fake or fraud – without deception to achieve one’s aims or objectives. I live that way and know others who do likewise (at least to the best of our ability and intent).

It's not untruthful to present different aspects of our personality in different situations.

We are not talking about displaying different aspects of personality. We are talking about pretending to be what one is not or what one once was but is no longer.

In many cases, authenticity --not to mention decorum -- demands it.

I disagree. Authentic is defined as: “worthy of acceptance or belief by reason of conformity to fact and reality: not contradicted by evidence�.

“Decorum� (“propriety and good taste especially in conduct, manners, or appearance�) does NOT trump truth, honesty, authenticity in my value system. Does it in yours?

Is it acceptable to misrepresent one’s self in order to achieve one’s personal objectives? Is it okay to deceive people (pretend to be who one is not) in order to convince them to do what you think best?

It's not a masquerade to try to connect with people where they live -- if you're not doing so in order to deceive them.

If one pretends to be what one is not, they ARE deceiving people – and if done to convince people to do as one wishes or suggests, that is fraud in my book.

I think he's one of the most brilliant men who ever lived

On what evidence do you base this conclusion?

who, though a Jew, genuinely tried to enter into the lives of the Gentiles in order to bring them the blessed news of Jesus Christ and Salvation.

There is no assurance that Christianity is “blessed news� or that Jesus Christ represents “salvation�. Those are religious dogma – not factual – evidence has not been presented to verify such claims.

Many religions CLAIM wonderful things for those who worship according to dogma, but none of them can provide evidence that suggested religious worship or rituals will result in “eternal bliss� or seventy-seven virgins or reincarnation as a sacred cow – or whatever else they may promise.

The extent to which he succeeded in that endeavor is self-evident.

If a business “succeeds� and grows by fraud and misrepresentation, has it (in your opinion) actually succeeded – or did it “cheat to win�?


I am continually amazed when people who claim to be religious (or who debate as Christians) endorse or enact dishonesty to “promote the faith� (or however they characterize what they do). In these debates I often see dishonesty and dishonor employed – and “justification� of dishonesty (such as, “It is okay if Paul misrepresented himself because he ‘saved souls’ or gained converts to the religion�).

Save me from those who deceive me “for my own good�. Do you endorse that business plan for a commercial enterprise or for a religion?

!
+1
Superlative

It is simultaneously amusing and sad to know folks would use deception in order to gain converts to a belief system that values "Truth(tm)".

It is wonderful to know that there are individuals who attain to the elevated and admirable level of integrity in regard to their personal presentation of themselves to others that you two do.

Especially in this materialistic and relativistic age, it is reassuring that there are still some who maintain such high standards -- arbitrary though they may be.

There is, of course, a danger in regard to self-pronouncements, even of such commendable virtue, which are not limited to at least the appearance of sanctimony.

Another danger is drifting afield of the topic at hand, which I believe has happened here. As a means of getting back on track, perhaps a quick review might be helpful.

Briefly:

The OP asserts that Christianity is a fabrication of Paul's.

If true, this assertion certainly means that someone is lying. I suggested it made a liar of Paul; it was suggested that no, it was Luke (which, if true, would make Paul a dupe) -- in any event, my contention is that if Christianity is a fabrication and a conspiracy (I certainly don't believe it is, but if), then it is a magnificent one: beautiful and deeply interwoven within its Hebrew context, a self-affirming collection of ideas gathered over 1600 years and incorporating over 40 authors from widely divergent walks of life, that provides an explanation and meaning for this existence, as well as both a practical and a metaphysical guide for living in it.

And that's at a minimum.

I suggested that Christianity -- fabricated conspiracy or not -- therefore deserves consideration as a model for living one's life in the absence of a demonstrably superior religious system; and given that the most credible alternative -- Materialism -- offers no rational guide at all in regard to an ethical or moral path through life.

It was at this point that it was suggested that I was mistaken in regard to my admiration for the beauty and interwoven-ness of Paul's construction; that instead it was rather ham-handed (sorry) and crude, and betrayed a lack of understanding of Judaism that indicated that Paul was not in fact a Jew.

Another charge that Paul was a liar.

Goat provided a scripture from I Corinthians, when requested, that he believes indicates that Paul is a self-professed liar.

In exploring this charge, I asked Goat to consider a couple of hypotheticals in that regard. He abruptly, and wisely, deferred -- preferring to stick to his erroneous assertion that since Paul claimed that he was "in Christ" he was no longer under The Law, that meant that he wasn't, nor could ever have been, a Jew.

Which brings us to the current state of the debate.

Zzyzx claims that Paul's assertions in I Cor. 9: 19-23 describe false representations of himself.

I maintain that this is a curious accusation. I believe it is instead a profound advancement of the maxim "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." It is Paul's description of the use -- for the first time in the experience of man -- of his perfect freedom in Christ Jesus to live among any men, any where, and share in their experience of life in order to bring them the Good News of their salvation and sharing in the life eternal.

This is not deception. This is courage and devotion and self-sacrifice of a kind to be honored and celebrated throughout the ages.

Which, thanks be to God, it has been.

[Goat]

Goat provided a scripture from I Corinthians, when requested, that he believes indicates that Paul is a self-professed liar.

In exploring this charge, I asked Goat to consider a couple of hypotheticals in that regard. He abruptly, and wisely, deferred -- preferring to stick to his erroneous assertion that since Paul claimed that he was "in Christ" he was no longer under The Law, that meant that he wasn't, nor could ever have been, a Jew.

Where do I say that since Paul claimed he was 'In Christ' he was no longer under the law.?? This is a straw man, since you are putting words in my mouth that were never said. You are making things up. Your 'hypotheticals' were also irrelevant.

"Not under the law' means not Jewish. That is the only claim I made. I also pointed you to the 'Letters of Paul' thread that there was a discussion about other evidence that put doubt into Paul being Jewish.

I find it not quite reasonable to you to misrepresent what I said like that.

On edit.. I will post some of the excellet points from Cnorman about why there is reason to doubt the Paul was Jewish above and beyond 1 Cor>


The LXX, or Septuagint, was not highly regarded by the Jews of Jesus's day. Many, if not most, rabbis and sages of that time and later regarded it as an abomination. The only proper language for reading and studying Torah was, and is today, thought to be the Hebrew in which it was originally written. The only Jews who ever used it extensively were the Jews of the Greek Diaspora whose culture produced it.
--------------
One of the points which makes Paul's purported Jewishness suspect, is, as it happens, the fact that all of his quotations from the OT come from the LXX and not from the Hebrew Bible. It is hard not to conclude that Paul was unable to read Hebrew. This in itself does not indicate that Paul could not have been Jewish, but it is a problem if one wishes to show that Paul's Judaism was typical or normative of the Jews of his day.

A far greater problem is Paul's general attitude toward the Law; he clearly regards it as a burden and a trial, whereas the attitude of Jews throughout the ages has been to see it as a delight, a lamp to one's feet, sweet as honey, and so on. Pick a Psalm. Paul's attitude is nothing if not atypical.

It's clear that Paul was much more a product of the overwhelmingly Greek-dominated culture of Tarsus, a backwater of the Jewish world that was much more oriented toward Athens than toward Jerusalem, than of the Jewish culture he claims. It is even suspect that Paul claims to know he is of the tribe of Benjamin; even in Jesus's day, few Jews other than Levites still knew their tribal affiliation, though there were (and still are) exceptions. This would be particularly unlikely in Tarsus, which, as noted, was far from being a center of Jewish culture.

Paul claims to have been a student of the great rabbi Gamaliel, but his writings and thought show no evidence of this influence whatever.

As for the virgin birth; if this was such an important and central doctrine of Christianity, it seems odd that Paul was apparently unaware of it, or alternatively, did not regard it as worth talking about. He mentions it nowhere.



(2) Paul of Tarsus clearly knew relatively little about Jewish teachings. He may not even have been Jewish.

Paul apparently could not read Hebrew. All his OT translations are from the LXX (the Septuagint, a Greek translation). This would be extremely unusual for a supposedly learned Jew of the time; the LXX was considered suspect by Hebrew-speaking Jews, and many rabbis of the time considered it an abomination..

Paul claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin; while that is possible, it is very unlikely indeed. Even by the time of Jesus, most Jews had long since lost or forgotten their tribal affiliations. Then and now--though there are exceptions--virtually the only Jews who know from what tribe they are descended are Levites, or of the subgroup of Levi called the Cohens, the priestly tribe descended from Aaron, Moses's older brother (both Moses and Aaron were Levites).

Knowing one's tribal affiliation would be even more peculiar for a Jew from Tarsus, because that was not a Jewish city nor a center of Jewish culture; it was emphatically Greek. Finding a Jew in that backwater of the Jewish world who knew his tribe would be like finding a hillbilly in the Ozarks who could trace his ancestry back to 12th-century England.

Most importantly of all, Paul's attitude toward the Law--that it is a burden and a torment--was and is practically unheard of among Jews. Pick a Psalm: the Law is invariably regarded as a a joy, a light, a precious gift, the greatest of all God's blessings. It is difficult to express how peculiar Paul's attitude here is. It's analogous to a Christian regarding the Gospel as the "Bad News."

However great a figure Paul may be among Christians, he was no authority on Judaism.

[Volbrigade]

Goat provided a scripture from I Corinthians, when requested, that he believes indicates that Paul is a self-professed liar.

In exploring this charge, I asked Goat to consider a couple of hypotheticals in that regard. He abruptly, and wisely, deferred -- preferring to stick to his erroneous assertion that since Paul claimed that he was "in Christ" he was no longer under The Law, that meant that he wasn't, nor could ever have been, a Jew.

Where do I say that since Paul claimed he was 'In Christ' he was no longer under the law.?? This is a straw man, since you are putting words in my mouth that were never said. You are making things up. Your 'hypotheticals' were also irrelevant.

Ah, but they were said. Not by you, but by Paul. That is one of his central tenants of faith in Christ -- The Law condemns us; Jesus frees us from condemnation. I assumed, based on your knowledge and interest in the topic, that you were aware of that.

We'll never know the relevancy of my hypotheticals, as you chose to ignore them -- as you are, of course, free to do.

"Not under the law' means not Jewish. That is the only claim I made. I also pointed you to the 'Letters of Paul' thread that there was a discussion about other evidence that put doubt into Paul being Jewish.

I understand that is your contention. It is in error, however. Even today, a Messianic Jew (a Jewish convert to Christianity) is, as was Paul, no longer under The Law. He cannot change being Jewish.

I find it not quite reasonable to you to misrepresent what I said like that.

My pardon. It was not my intention to "misrepresent" you. In the future, I will no longer assume your awareness of some of the fundamentals of the faith that you seem to seek to impugn.

On edit.. I will post some of the excellet points from Cnorman about why there is reason to doubt the Paul was Jewish above and beyond 1 Cor>

These were presented earlier in the thread, and responded to. It is my pleasure to do so again, as error must repeatedly be addressed.

The LXX, or Septuagint, was not highly regarded by the Jews of Jesus's day. Many, if not most, rabbis and sages of that time and later regarded it as an abomination. The only proper language for reading and studying Torah was, and is today, thought to be the Hebrew in which it was originally written. The only Jews who ever used it extensively were the Jews of the Greek Diaspora whose culture produced it.
--------------
One of the points which makes Paul's purported Jewishness suspect, is, as it happens, the fact that all of his quotations from the OT come from the LXX and not from the Hebrew Bible. It is hard not to conclude that Paul was unable to read Hebrew. This in itself does not indicate that Paul could not have been Jewish, but it is a problem if one wishes to show that Paul's Judaism was typical or normative of the Jews of his day.

Of course Paul used the Septuagint. He was addressing the Gentiles. It would be, at the very least, counterproductive to refer to the Hebrew texts when there were texts written in Greek, the "global" language of its day. It's not surprising that the Pharisees considered the Septuagint "an abomination." They felt the same way about Jesus.

A far greater problem is Paul's general attitude toward the Law; he clearly regards it as a burden and a trial, whereas the attitude of Jews throughout the ages has been to see it as a delight, a lamp to one's feet, sweet as honey, and so on. Pick a Psalm. Paul's attitude is nothing if not atypical.

This is just illogical. Of course his attitude was "atypical." He had seen the Risen Christ. He understood the meaning of Divine forgiveness and salvation. He understood The Cross. Moreover, it was obedience to The Law that was "a delight, a lamp to one's feet, sweet as honey, and so on." Disobedience to it revealed it to be hard as nails, and necessitated the atoning sacrifices. Jesus is the perfect sacrifice, "once for all." Paul is the first Jew to truly, fully understand the nature of The Law.

It's clear that Paul was much more a product of the overwhelmingly Greek-dominated culture of Tarsus, a backwater of the Jewish world that was much more oriented toward Athens than toward Jerusalem, than of the Jewish culture he claims. It is even suspect that Paul claims to know he is of the tribe of Benjamin; even in Jesus's day, few Jews other than Levites still knew their tribal affiliation, though there were (and still are) exceptions. This would be particularly unlikely in Tarsus, which, as noted, was far from being a center of Jewish culture.

Paul was obviously an exception. So? Next.

Paul claims to have been a student of the great rabbi Gamaliel, but his writings and thought show no evidence of this influence whatever.

Yawn. Let's see: Rabbi Gamaliel -- a footnote to seminary students.

Paul: Perhaps the most widely read, influential writer and thinker who ever lived. Did Gamaliel see the risen Christ? Did he establish missionary churches? Paul so outstrips Gamaliel as to make him irrelevant. Does anybody remember Isaac Newton's math teacher?

As for the virgin birth; if this was such an important and central doctrine of Christianity, it seems odd that Paul was apparently unaware of it, or alternatively, did not regard it as worth talking about. He mentions it nowhere.

Did he not mention the Virgin Birth? In several places he refers to Christ as being "without sin"; which, if not true, would be a heretically singular statement. Abraham was not "without sin." Moses was not "without sin." David was not "without sin." And, most importantly, Adam was not "without sin."

In Galatians 4, he writes that He was "born of a woman", without sin. There is no mention of Joseph, which would indeed be highly unusual within a Jewish paradigm. Oh, that's right. He had no knowledge of Hebrew traditions.

Or did he?

"Without sin", "Son of God," "Father, Son, Holy Spirit", "born of a woman" -- you do the math.

However great a figure Paul may be among Christians, he was no authority on Judaism.

He wasn't writing about Judaism. He was writing about Christianity.

That's like saying "however great a figure Einstein may be in Quantum Physics, he is no authority on Algebra."

[Goat]

Goat provided a scripture from I Corinthians, when requested, that he believes indicates that Paul is a self-professed liar.

In exploring this charge, I asked Goat to consider a couple of hypotheticals in that regard. He abruptly, and wisely, deferred -- preferring to stick to his erroneous assertion that since Paul claimed that he was "in Christ" he was no longer under The Law, that meant that he wasn't, nor could ever have been, a Jew.

Where do I say that since Paul claimed he was 'In Christ' he was no longer under the law.?? This is a straw man, since you are putting words in my mouth that were never said. You are making things up. Your 'hypotheticals' were also irrelevant.

Ah, but they were said. Not by you, but by Paul. That is one of his central tenants of faith in Christ -- The Law condemns us; Jesus frees us from condemnation. I assumed, based on your knowledge and interest in the topic, that you were aware of that.

We'll never know the relevancy of my hypotheticals, as you chose to ignore them -- as you are, of course, free to do.

"Not under the law' means not Jewish. That is the only claim I made. I also pointed you to the 'Letters of Paul' thread that there was a discussion about other evidence that put doubt into Paul being Jewish.

I understand that is your contention. It is in error, however. Even today, a Messianic Jew (a Jewish convert to Christianity) is, as was Paul, no longer under The Law. He cannot change being Jewish.

I find it not quite reasonable to you to misrepresent what I said like that.

My pardon. It was not my intention to "misrepresent" you. In the future, I will no longer assume your awareness of some of the fundamentals of the faith that you seem to seek to impugn.

On edit.. I will post some of the excellet points from Cnorman about why there is reason to doubt the Paul was Jewish above and beyond 1 Cor>

These were presented earlier in the thread, and responded to. It is my pleasure to do so again, as error must repeatedly be addressed.

The LXX, or Septuagint, was not highly regarded by the Jews of Jesus's day. Many, if not most, rabbis and sages of that time and later regarded it as an abomination. The only proper language for reading and studying Torah was, and is today, thought to be the Hebrew in which it was originally written. The only Jews who ever used it extensively were the Jews of the Greek Diaspora whose culture produced it.
--------------
One of the points which makes Paul's purported Jewishness suspect, is, as it happens, the fact that all of his quotations from the OT come from the LXX and not from the Hebrew Bible. It is hard not to conclude that Paul was unable to read Hebrew. This in itself does not indicate that Paul could not have been Jewish, but it is a problem if one wishes to show that Paul's Judaism was typical or normative of the Jews of his day.

Of course Paul used the Septuagint. He was addressing the Gentiles. It would be, at the very least, counterproductive to refer to the Hebrew texts when there were texts written in Greek, the "global" language of its day. It's not surprising that the Pharisees considered the Septuagint "an abomination." They felt the same way about Jesus.

A far greater problem is Paul's general attitude toward the Law; he clearly regards it as a burden and a trial, whereas the attitude of Jews throughout the ages has been to see it as a delight, a lamp to one's feet, sweet as honey, and so on. Pick a Psalm. Paul's attitude is nothing if not atypical.

This is just illogical. Of course his attitude was "atypical." He had seen the Risen Christ. He understood the meaning of Divine forgiveness and salvation. He understood The Cross. Moreover, it was obedience to The Law that was "a delight, a lamp to one's feet, sweet as honey, and so on." Disobedience to it revealed it to be hard as nails, and necessitated the atoning sacrifices. Jesus is the perfect sacrifice, "once for all." Paul is the first Jew to truly, fully understand the nature of The Law.

It's clear that Paul was much more a product of the overwhelmingly Greek-dominated culture of Tarsus, a backwater of the Jewish world that was much more oriented toward Athens than toward Jerusalem, than of the Jewish culture he claims. It is even suspect that Paul claims to know he is of the tribe of Benjamin; even in Jesus's day, few Jews other than Levites still knew their tribal affiliation, though there were (and still are) exceptions. This would be particularly unlikely in Tarsus, which, as noted, was far from being a center of Jewish culture.

Paul was obviously an exception. So? Next.

Paul claims to have been a student of the great rabbi Gamaliel, but his writings and thought show no evidence of this influence whatever.

Yawn. Let's see: Rabbi Gamaliel -- a footnote to seminary students.

Paul: Perhaps the most widely read, influential writer and thinker who ever lived. Did Gamaliel see the risen Christ? Did he establish missionary churches? Paul so outstrips Gamaliel as to make him irrelevant. Does anybody remember Isaac Newton's math teacher?

As for the virgin birth; if this was such an important and central doctrine of Christianity, it seems odd that Paul was apparently unaware of it, or alternatively, did not regard it as worth talking about. He mentions it nowhere.

Did he not mention the Virgin Birth? In several places he refers to Christ as being "without sin"; which, if not true, would be a heretically singular statement. Abraham was not "without sin." Moses was not "without sin." David was not "without sin." And, most importantly, Adam was not "without sin."

In Galatians 4, he writes that He was "born of a woman", without sin. There is no mention of Joseph, which would indeed be highly unusual within a Jewish paradigm. Oh, that's right. He had no knowledge of Hebrew traditions.

Or did he?

"Without sin", "Son of God," "Father, Son, Holy Spirit", "born of a woman" -- you do the math.

However great a figure Paul may be among Christians, he was no authority on Judaism.

He wasn't writing about Judaism. He was writing about Christianity.

That's like saying "however great a figure Einstein may be in Quantum Physics, he is no authority on Algebra."

I think you are taking a lot of Paul's writings, and retrofitting them with theology that developed long after he was dead.

Paul had the Septaguant to work with, but mere superficial reading of the text does not mean he had any kind of working knowledge of Judaism beyond a high level acquaintance with it. As was pointed out, although he claimed to have been a student of Gamaliel, he showed no knowledge of any kind of ideas that Gamaliel taught.

He knew some terms, and misapplied them, he had no idea what 'holy spirit' meant in Judaism, he had no idea what the idiom 'son of god' referred to and misapplied it. Etc etc etc.

[Volbrigade]

I think you are taking a lot of Paul's writings, and retrofitting them with theology that developed long after he was dead.

I think that there is a revisionist movement that draws its conclusions from looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The "theology that developed long after (Paul) was dead" were amplifications based on analysis of the Epistles and Gospels. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, supplied the foundation. And it is sure. Later theology drifts into error wherever it departs from it.

Paul had the Septaguant to work with, but mere superficial reading of the text does not mean he had any kind of working knowledge of Judaism beyond a high level acquaintance with it. As was pointed out, although he claimed to have been a student of Gamaliel, he showed no knowledge of any kind of ideas that Gamaliel taught.

This is a non-starter, and does nothing to advance assertions in regard to Paul's "non-Jewishness." Why would a man who has encountered the Risen Christ, and who is positing the Gospel message and the new paradigm of relationship between God and man, quite literally a "New Covenant", waste space in his God-breathed message for all men in all times dissertating on the now obsolete ideas of what amounts to his old college professor?

He knew some terms, and misapplied them, he had no idea what 'holy spirit' meant in Judaism, he had no idea what the idiom 'son of god' referred to and misapplied it. Etc etc etc.

According to who? Gamaliel?

I would argue that until it was revealed to Paul and the rest of the Apostles, no one (with the arguable exception of the Prophets -- certainly not the clerics, then or [in all too many cases] now) knew fully what "Holy Spirit" meant, or who it referred to. And certainly no one prior to circa 33 A.D. knew who the true "Son of God" is.

[Goat]

I think you are taking a lot of Paul's writings, and retrofitting them with theology that developed long after he was dead.

I think that there is a revisionist movement that draws its conclusions from looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The "theology that developed long after (Paul) was dead" were amplifications based on analysis of the Epistles and Gospels. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, supplied the foundation. And it is sure. Later theology drifts into error wherever it departs from it.

Paul had the Septaguant to work with, but mere superficial reading of the text does not mean he had any kind of working knowledge of Judaism beyond a high level acquaintance with it. As was pointed out, although he claimed to have been a student of Gamaliel, he showed no knowledge of any kind of ideas that Gamaliel taught.

This is a non-starter, and does nothing to advance assertions in regard to Paul's "non-Jewishness." Why would a man who has encountered the Risen Christ, and who is positing the Gospel message and the new paradigm of relationship between God and man, quite literally a "New Covenant", waste space in his God-breathed message for all men in all times dissertating on the now obsolete ideas of what amounts to his old college professor?

He knew some terms, and misapplied them, he had no idea what 'holy spirit' meant in Judaism, he had no idea what the idiom 'son of god' referred to and misapplied it. Etc etc etc.

According to who? Gamaliel?

I would argue that until it was revealed to Paul and the rest of the Apostles, no one (with the arguable exception of the Prophets -- certainly not the clerics, then or [in all too many cases] now) knew fully what "Holy Spirit" meant, or who it referred to. And certainly no one prior to circa 33 A.D. knew who the true "Son of God" is.

According to the context of the Jewish culture, Jewish tradition, and the Jewish religion. And, you see, the 'true Son of God' is not a Jewish concept. It was an idiom that meant someone exalted by God (such as King David).

As for the 'holy spirit', in the Jewish tradition, the Holy spirit is merely God, usually in a 'creative mode'. Paul used it in a different way, not a Jewish way.

I would argue that the preponderance of evidence shows Paul was not familiar with Jewish religious thought or had an understanding of the basics of Jewish theology. This is reinforced by him claiming not to be 'under the law'. You have to
take Paul out of context, and attribute theology that wasn't developed till decades out of his era to try to negate that thought.

[Volbrigade]

I think you are taking a lot of Paul's writings, and retrofitting them with theology that developed long after he was dead.

I think that there is a revisionist movement that draws its conclusions from looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The "theology that developed long after (Paul) was dead" were amplifications based on analysis of the Epistles and Gospels. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, supplied the foundation. And it is sure. Later theology drifts into error wherever it departs from it.

Paul had the Septaguant to work with, but mere superficial reading of the text does not mean he had any kind of working knowledge of Judaism beyond a high level acquaintance with it. As was pointed out, although he claimed to have been a student of Gamaliel, he showed no knowledge of any kind of ideas that Gamaliel taught.

This is a non-starter, and does nothing to advance assertions in regard to Paul's "non-Jewishness." Why would a man who has encountered the Risen Christ, and who is positing the Gospel message and the new paradigm of relationship between God and man, quite literally a "New Covenant", waste space in his God-breathed message for all men in all times dissertating on the now obsolete ideas of what amounts to his old college professor?

He knew some terms, and misapplied them, he had no idea what 'holy spirit' meant in Judaism, he had no idea what the idiom 'son of god' referred to and misapplied it. Etc etc etc.

According to who? Gamaliel?

I would argue that until it was revealed to Paul and the rest of the Apostles, no one (with the arguable exception of the Prophets -- certainly not the clerics, then or [in all too many cases] now) knew fully what "Holy Spirit" meant, or who it referred to. And certainly no one prior to circa 33 A.D. knew who the true "Son of God" is.

According to the context of the Jewish culture, Jewish tradition, and the Jewish religion. And, you see, the 'true Son of God' is not a Jewish concept. It was an idiom that meant someone exalted by God (such as King David).

As for the 'holy spirit', in the Jewish tradition, the Holy spirit is merely God, usually in a 'creative mode'. Paul used it in a different way, not a Jewish way.

I would argue that the preponderance of evidence shows Paul was not familiar with Jewish religious thought or had an understanding of the basics of Jewish theology. This is reinforced by him claiming not to be 'under the law'. You have to
take Paul out of context, and attribute theology that wasn't developed till decades out of his era to try to negate that thought.

It appears we are beginning to go over the same ground here. I will respond by reiterating that the grounds for challenging Paul's statements in regard to being a Jew and a Pharisee -- for calling him a liar -- are dubious at best.

If Paul were expressing the tenets of Judaism in a way that didn't fit Jewish tradition, then the charges may have some merit.

But that was expressly NOT what he was doing. He was expressing a new paradigm. Something new had entered the world, which was the fulfillment of the prophecies, The Law, and all the Jewish hopes.

How could that be adequately expressed by staying within the confines of Jewish tradition?

Mathematics is true. But Quantum Physics both contains, and transcends it. "E=mc2" is a mathematical formula, but it expresses concepts which go far beyond mere mathematics.

This is a perfect analogy for Judaism/Christianity. Judaism is "math" -- both true, and essential, for understanding the transcending formula of the "quantum physics" of Christianity.