How Christian thinking was corrupted by Paul's clever explanations

by Terry 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Terry
    Terry

    When modern writers, thinkers, believers in christianity talk about their Religion they are almost always depending on Saul of Tarsus (Paul) rather than

    Jesus.

    There is a good reason for this.

    Paul wrote letters. Jesus did not.

    Paul explains, explains, explains.

    He is the Professor, scientist, theologian and hard-nosed scold. He leaves no room for arguments.

    On the other hand, Jesus is vague and mysterious.

    But, Houston, we have a problem!

    Paul never met Jesus and could not have read his non-existent writings.

    The Apostles and disciples, at least, spent lots of time with Jesus one-on-one without really grasping specifically the "meaning" of his teachings!

    Paul can explain it all, no problem!

    Well, that's isn't quite the right way to say it, you see, because there IS A PROBLEM!

    Aside from never having met Jesus or having interrogated him or studied under him, Paul laid the foundation of intellectual understanding

    which christianity was built on!!

    We have to accept him (Paul) at his word that he is qualified.

    Paul tells his story of conversion and goes on to report miracles as corroborations.

    Basically, that's it. That's all you get. Take it or leave it!

    But, Paul pulls a fast one!

    Paul doesn't base his arguments and persuasions on Jesus. Paul uses Jewish theology!

    Paul uses a Greek way of thinking, too.

    Paul uses eisogesis (reading INTO the text) to make his doctrinal points. Quoting Jesus? Not necessary!

    Paul was sent by the High Priest to end the sect of Jesus followers and he does this by co-opting their message and meaning. How? He convinces the Jesus splinter group that Jesus is the End Point of Judaism itself. By bringing both groups together there is no longer an "enemy". The pagan goyim steeped in Greek mythology (Thanks to Roman patronage) can accept Judaism with its demi-god, Jesus! Everybody can get along! Right? Wrong.

    Then--history stepped in and destroyed MAINSTREAM JUDAISM...leaving only the "blended" messianic Jesus group!

    Rome destroyed the center of Judaism and its performance rituals in 70 c.e.

    If you were a practising Jew---you had to stop practising!

    Two choices remained:

    1.Disperse (Diaspora) and hide and go without ritual forgiveness procedures.

    2.Embrace a Messiah who is dead (but it was all an elaborate scheme to Return!)

    Not much of a choice, huh?

    Yes. It stunk.

    The friends and relatives of Jesus had not understood to any depth an actual REASON or LOGIC for Jesus (IF he were authentically Messiah) dying.

    The were befuddled, stunned and baffled. Ideas were kicked around. Maybe this....maybe that...maybe....how about....?

    Until....

    Paul comes along like a millionaire constitutional lawyer and explains everything with astonishing details and clarity!!

    But, Paul (and the majority of Jews) had been absorbed into a Greek ethos. Paul used GREEK logic. He used GREEK mythos and reasoning.

    Paul mashed mythology, Hebrew religion and philosophy together so that there was something familiar and "reasonable" for everybody. (Almost).

    To be religious is to invent your own capacity to realize "blessings" by redefining the everyday occurances in miraculous ways.

    Case in point:


    The individual Jew under the Law had no need to risk his life and his family fortune by "whoring" after other gods unless he became convinced by day to day living in the real world that there was no Jehovah taking care of him ......


    or providing any substantial benefit for all the sacrifices and prayer being offered on that god's behalf.


    At that point...It was a PRACTICAL MATTER to at least TRY another god on for size.


    Think of it this way...


    A person with incurable cancer will finally turn to quack doctors when the legitimate ones offer no hope.

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    PAUL DISTORTS UNDERSTANDING OF HEBREW RELIGION


    Let us NOT confuse the Law of Moses with Paul's description of it or his interpretations.


    The two aren't the same!


    So, first off we need to separate these two things to clarify our thinking.


    1.The Law of Moses
    2.Paul's interpretation of the "meaning" of the Law of Moses.


    So, let us talk about #1 and not #2 for a moment, shall we?

    Okay....

    The Law of Moses was a law that required PHYSICAL compliance in order for PHYSICAL enforcement to follow.

    Circumcision was physical. Stoning was physical. Slaughtering an ox was physical. Ritual cleansing was physical.

    Can we all agree on that? (Try not to superimpose your Pauline bias for the moment.)


    The very concept of "sin" is concerned with BEHAVIOR.

    BEHAVIOR IS PHYSICAL. The consequences are practical and everyday. (Hand's on... not theoretical.)

    Now, contrast Hebrew tribal religious thinking (practical) with Greek thinking (mystical philosophy of Plato):


    Please note that it is Greek thinking (such as Plato) to mix the "ideal" into the physical realm and regard the physical as a mere shadowy manifestation of the divine world.

    Alexander the Great carried Greek thought (i.e. philosophy) into the Middle East. It had a shattering impact on Judaism. Their theology was never the same.

    Imagine Alexander the Great as a gigantic hypodermic needle injecting a VIRUS of Platonic mysticsm into Jewish religion.

    Jesus came AFTER the influence of Greek Philosophy when Greek language had swallowed up Judaism. Few Jews could speak Hebrew when Jesus and Paul were on the scene! Even the scriptures (Hebrew!) were now Greek (Septuigent).

    Consequently, we cannot view THE LAW OF MOSES backward through the lens of Roman/Greek thinking and not color how we see and define the reality of what it was.


    This is exactly what Saul of Tarsus did, however, he interpreted using Greek thought and philosophy and confused actual Hebrew tribal thought with mystical Platonic philosophy.
    Christianity, as a result, relied heavily on Paul's explanations for it's OWN doctrinal understanding.


    This is why "christianity" was different things to different groups: Jesus was god. Jesus wasn't god. Jesus was both god and man. Etc. etc.

    The book we call Bible merely reflects the destruction of Judaism into little sects of "christian" pagan-hebrew-greek ideas.

    To call Israel a NATION is a misnomer of divided tribes until we see the people united under the concept of a BINDING LAW.

    For a law to be binding it must carry enforcement.

    How a law is administered (penalty) determines how strong the law actually is.


    Example:  Why would anybody agree to obey a law without penalty?  The authority behind law enforcement is the power of penalty and reward.

    Citizens don't drive 55 m.p.h. because it is morally superior behavior to do so. Citizens drive 55 m.p.h. because the posted speed limit is enforced by fines and insurance rate hikes!

    So too in Israel.

    The "authority" behind the Law of Moses was the STORY of how SPECIAL they all were as a carefully selected and groomed ethnic people of promise!


    The enforcement of these laws was the physical penalty of punishment which could consist of having your head bashed in with a rock by your neighbors, or your parents!   That was the incentive to obey the law.


    LAW was PRACTICAL (or it became worthless)


    The STORY of Judaism was handed down orally. There were many tribes with different versions of it. Jehovah was connected to some of the stories and Adonai (Elohim) with others. The Priests had a version, the Jews returning from Babylon had a version and the Jews who remained behind had a version.

    When combined and written down these stories over-lapped, self-contradicted and layered themselves into place.


    Why do you think Israel was always being enticed into worshipping idols instead of engaging in ritual sacrifices at the Temple of Jehovah?

    The blessings didn't happen!! It was all smoke and mirrors! The promises were lies! Even a dullard would figure it couldn't hurt to at least try one of the local deities instead. What did they have to lose? Jehovah's wasn't giving them anything.

    When Alexander the Great brought Platonic thought into the Middle East it was the psychological end of Judaism.


    A series of re-thinks was constantly applied to the entire "meaning" of what it meant to be a Jew.

    Jews and Judaism became......RATIONAL!! (At least a few of their great thinkers did.)

    Jews realized that the Messianic aspect was the ONLY aspect that could bring blessings and results.

    Do you understand what it is I am saying?

    ONLY THROUGH AN ACTUAL PERSON (Messiah, king, military leader who actually does something) would the Jews be able to acquire blessings of freedom and prosperity.

    THE IDEAL was always that God would do it miraculously and it never happened. This only left the last resort of MAKING BLESSINGS HAPPEN through human agency and calling it a miracle.

    To be religious is to invent your own capacity to realize "blessings" by redefining the everyday occurances in miraculous ways.
    That is the real meaning of the Messianic hope


    Jesus was only one of many such hopes that died by various ends.

    It was the Greek interpretation of what a Messiah was in Paul's speeches and writings that created an alternate way of dealing with all those centuries of failure that appealed to the Jews and Gentiles alike.

    Paul "spiritualized" the promises and made them look like a great long-term solution rather than an abject failure.

    The downtrodden who needed hope and miracles bought Paul's hokum.

    And guess what? It has been re-re-interpreted over and over again by sects and branches of Christianity again and again. But, the kicker is this: WE DON'T GET ANY BLESSINGS!!

    Why?

    BECAUSE THE REWARDS ARE ALWAYS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
    The gimmick is the return of Jesus the Messiah. For the Jews it had been the "coming of the Messiah" and for Christians it is the "return of the Messiah".

    Nothing ever happens!

    Get it?

    It is carrot and stick and nothing more.

    The Jehovah's Witness brand of carrot and stick merely makes the reward (and possible punishment) seem amazingly NEAR!
    End Times is a big market. A very big market.
    But, you have to keep it alive with vitality of promises and prophecies.

    When those promises and prophecies don't happen (1884, 1914, 1925, 1975) you just start all over again.

    Now do you get it? PAUL allowed everybody a way of INTERPRETING BLESSINGS through a miracle or mystical interpretation so they could

    cling to hope.

    To be religious is to invent your own capacity to realize "blessings" by redefining the everyday occurances in miraculous ways.

    Terry

  • I Want to Believe
    I Want to Believe

    Nice write-up. I enjoy how you break things down and reason instead of just putting out huge blocks of text. Paul's takeover of Christianity was one of the first things I noticed when I started reading and reasoning on my own.

  • Terry
    Terry

    We can't ever know for certain what Jesus said or taught. We only have what was eventually put down in writing (after many oral re-tellings).

    Paul's letters CAME FIRST.

    Paul's writing just about destroyed the Old Testament Jehovah by replacing Him with a newer and better version of god: Jesus.

    Not everybody agreed on the same ideas, however.

    It is important to note that arguments over the NATURE of Jesus cannot ever be PROVED by scripture for the simple reason

    the bible reflects CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS which we look back on as though those opinions are factual unified teachings from on high.

    The bible is like sifting sand at the beach. All sorts of things come together in a heap. Trying to impose ONE AUTONOMOUS VIEW is silly and unprofitable to reasoned discourse.

    That is christianity: a pile of opinions and disagreements from the very start....largely thanks to Paul.

  • glenster
  • kepler
    kepler

    Terry,

    Hope this topic runs a while. As a proposition, there's a lot to think about and not be quickly dismissed.

    For many, I am sure, there has been introduction to the idea of Paul as an interpreter of Christianity - whatever one might think Jesus specifically had in mind - or whether Jesus was always nodding his head in assent from on high to what Paul might have preached or wrote. But additionally, when I was confronted by assertions from people who were instructing me on JW beliefs ( another story) based on Biblical text, I had to ask myself what the compilers of both the Old Testament and New were thinking - or, to be brief, what did the OT mean to Jews when it was published or compiled.

    "Published or compiled" might sound like splitting hairs - save for the fact that in reading what you are saying, there seems a straw man of Jewish belief. It is a shame that Old Generation Dude has thrown in the towel on such panel discussions. For whatever I have to say is as a quick study and not from present-day Jewish perspective - I'm not Jewish and never was. But the sense I got from "70 CE" is that Jewish faith did not face the two alternatives that you describe. Synagogue groups came into ascendency and a whole lot of theological reasoning became more like an accident panel review of the whole basis for belief. What do you do when the Temple in Jerusalem is destroyed twice? What do you take away from a covenant agreement when the your people do not occupy and control all the territory between the Nile and Tigris Euphrates? Yet you still believe in monotheism, right? What do you do in this situation? . You review everything you've been doing and come up with new procedures and perspectives. Since Paul does not know the outcome on this, we need not elaborate. But it is even remarked by observant Jews that had Moses turned up in some of those sessions in the centuries subsequent to 70 CE, he would have either been confused or would have been asked to sit down and listen.

    This did not happen simply after 70 CE when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. It obviously happened before because the OT repeatedly integrates several sources into new narratives. And that's the way the book is built from Genesis chapter one. To the modern eye, there are loose threads showing in chapter two, etc. And as you describe above. Even in as much as Paul quotes from it, what after all is Deuteronomy? King Josiah and court say, "Look what we just found in the (first) Temple... I didn't know that was there!" Uh-huh....

    In fact, beside looking at Jewish thought over centuries and in response to historical events, there also exists evidence in Jewish writing that there were many different sects co-existing within its community prior and in Paul's time. Josephus describing the difference between Pharisees and Sadducees for an outside audience is illustrative. These two groups could not agree on the nature or existence of afterlife, for one thing. Early writers of the Bible evidently thought that longevity was God's reward. Some Jewish scholars have come to think that the illustration of long reigning King Manesseh and then the inclusion of Job in the Bible were cases in point confounding early chroniclers' beliefs. How come bad things happened to good people or the good people died early? Chronicles claimed that Manesseh repented of evil deeds in Assyrian captivity. Kings had forgot to mention this temporary absence. Did it happen or did it resolve a religious issue?

    As to Paul's reasoning or motives, there are other jury panels that I would feel more at ease on. The premise that he was on a mission to disarm the Christian movement - sounds interesting - but considering all the other social divisions and the fact that Christians were not even on Josephus's horizon...? That's going pretty deep undercover for a relatively small faction.

    A little farther afield. I had noticed in the JW literature some interesting extrapolations from Paul. Like Jesus and Paul, Adam and the serpent never exchanged a word. It's Paul that identifies a fall in the Garden. But when Paul speaks of it, he describes it as a failure of Adam in the sight of God - and therefore a redemption is required. I interpret this as a result as an issue between man and God. The JW re-telling of this sounds more like a hostage issue between God and Satan: the ransom. This is very dualistic. Instead of a question of man's unworthiness, Christ's passion becomes a drop off of "ransom" at Satan's door. Another earlier topic, but related to this one.

    For what it's worth...?

    K.

  • transhuman68
    transhuman68

    Great thread as always, Terry! ...Just this part of it puzzles me:

    Paul was sent by the High Priest to end the sect of Jesus followers and he does this by co-opting their message and meaning.

    Is this a 1st century conspiracy theory...?

    I have never been sure where Paul got his theological ideas from; as some of them seem to have been pre-existing...?

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    How some ex-JW's thinking was corrupted by Terry's clever explanations.

  • Joe Grundy
    Joe Grundy

    My previous post disappeared into the ether, so apologies if it turns up later and this is a duplicate.

    In a simplistic way, I have always tended to compare Paul with Joseph Smith. Both claimed 'vsions and revelations', both started new religions incorporating previous religions, their 'facts' and 'experiences' were uncheckable and unverifiable.

    Both new religions, aided by time, distance and space (and obscuration of origins) have become - to one degree or another - 'acceptable, even 'mainstream' to many.

    I have always been intrigued by 'Paul' and there are all sorts of theories. Was he the 'wicked deceiver' mentioned in the Dead Sea writings? Who knows. I lived in Cyprus for five years until recently and visited (probably) the spot where he met with Roman governor Sergius Paulinus (that's where he changed his name to Paul) and the curious incident where he blinded the son of Jesus (see Acts). All very strange, but to me it was just a place on my morning walk by the sea to have a beer in the harbour. (may not have been THE 'Jesus' of course).

    What does seem to be beyond doubt is that Saul/Paul went off on his travels, spreading his religion. The guys back in Jerusalem, the remnants of the 'Jesus' group, felt compelled to send out their own envoys after him to correct his teachings, brought him back, where he apologised and said he wouldn't do it again.

    And - this should never be understated - to understand what was happening, look at the context, what was happening at the time (NT is very sketchy on this).

    Always remember, history is written by the victors.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Great thread as always, Terry! ...Just this part of it puzzles me:

    Paul was sent by the High Priest to end the sect of Jesus followers and he does this by co-opting their message and meaning.

    Is this a 1st century conspiracy theory...?

    I have never been sure where Paul got his theological ideas from; as some of them seem to have been pre-existing...?

    No conspiracy.

    I think conspiracy theories are half-witted.

    I'm speaking ironically. Paul inadvertently warped whatever "message" there was (if any) inside the neo-christian message.

    But, he gave a strong and logical (in the Greek sense) STORYLINE that Jesus could fit into. It brought Jesus INTO the Judaism which thought him apostate.

    If Jesus truly were the fulfillment of the expectations of the Jews and Jesus sought that role--he certainly was clueless how to approach the subject without offending every authority figure in sight.

    Paul's writings had such a strong appeal to Marcion and the Gnostics that the movement almost over-ran what would later become THE CHURCH (i.e. Catholicism).

    Judaism had splintered after Greek culture had swallowed up their world.

    Many ideas abounded.

    Paul's writings just happened to come at the right moment to absorb what was left of the movers and shakers willing to die

    for an idea.

  • Terry
    Terry

    As to Paul's reasoning or motives, there are other jury panels that I would feel more at ease on. The premise that he was on a mission to disarm the Christian movement - sounds interesting - but considering all the other social divisions and the fact that Christians were not even on Josephus's horizon...? That's going pretty deep undercover for a relatively small faction.

    I could have made myself a lot more clear on this.

    Paul's intentions are practically irrelevent. It is what he caused that is most interesting and impactful.

    Paul said he was on a mission to snuff out the apostate Jesus-is-Messiah groups when he was blinded by a light and voices in his head CHANGED his mission.

    All very dramatic and, of course, convenient.

    Who would believe a story like this today?

    Only very superstitious unhinged people I'd reckon.

    Be that as it may (or may not) have been--Paul DROWNED OUT competing theologies rather successfully. With his stories of earthquakes, miraculous divine interventions, etc. the simpler folk were persuaded.

    None of his letters were INSPIRED are even thought to be at the time.

    Like bubblegum packs with baseball cards of famous players, only many years later did Paul's writings gradually ACQUIRE a status of "inspired".

    None of them were preserved, of course, because they weren't holy. They were merely copied and re-copied and gradually wore out and were destroyed.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit