What Jesus believed and taught is fundamentally different from what Christianity teaches us about Jesus.
So say many. All agree on following Jesus, then all diverge on what that means. The grammaticohistorical Jesus is the real Jesus, anything else is just imagination.
Jesus believed the kingdom of God is within us. Through generosity, through mercy, through good works, we can achieve salvation. Paul teaches it's belief in Jesus that matters. Only believe.
"The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21): Yes, Jesus taught the kingdom within.
"Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Matt. 23:23): Yes, Jesus taught works.
"Thy faith hath saved thee" (Luke 7:50, 18:42): Jesus also taught faith.
"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Rom. 10:9): Yes, Paul taught faith.
"The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:17): Paul also taught the kingdom within.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12): Paul also taught works.
I guess I'm not seeing the dichotomy. There is a difficulty for those who think messages of faith and works are in contradiction, but classical theology resolved the tension between James and Paul long ago.
So all those Buddhists, all those Hindus, all those doists who are living compassionate lives, helping others, seek enlightenment, too bad. They're going to burn in hell forever because they don't believe the specific Christian doctrine that Paul is teaching.
That's not Paul, and Christians shouldn't teach it. Paul taught that they are judged innocent or guilty by the law found in their own hearts, Rom. 2:13-16, answering this exact objection in its original terms. Again, no dichotomy seen.
Jesus never said you have to believe in me specifically. He said follow the path.
Sorry, Dot: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me" (John 14:1). Nothing about following paths or ways turns up, but "I am the way" (John 14:6) and "Follow me" (18 times, including John 21:19). See, those are history texts that people accept about what he actually taught and they speak for themselves, and when you use their language to say something else it invites a question as to what is meant. On structure, I'll repeat my findings:
Jesus says have deacons, Matt. 20:26, 23:11; the Twelve appointed servants with this function, Acts 6:1-6 (while Saul was still threatening murderously). The Eleven count themselves bishops and establish the appointment of new ones, Acts 1:20; Peter also affirms Jesus as bishop, 1 Peter 2:25. Jesus built a church, Matt. 16:18, 18:17; the apostles affirmed it, Acts 2:47, etc.; and Luke calls the structure plural churches of the brothers right at the time Saul gets saved, Acts 9:31; and John and Jesus confirm this plural structure repeatedly in Rev. 1-3 and 22. Procedure is fluid but I don't see a special difference between Paul being procedural and any others; the biggest procedure appears to be the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, where Paul and many other church leaders all had equal standing. So I can be anti-institutionalism while still affirming that Jesus wanted a little free organic structure.
why does Paul get in trouble with the Jews?
Same reason Peter, John, and the rest got in trouble with "the Jews" before and after Paul's activity. Those Jews who didn't believe Jesus didn't believe any of his apostles.
Metaphorically speaking, the central message of Jesus is that wealth is wrong, business is wrong, hierarchy is wrong, organization and power structures are corruptions of spiritual truth. What matters is a direct experience of the divine spark in your own heart. Jesus explicitly rejected the idea that you need intermediaries, you don't need priests, you don't need institutions, you don't need buildings, the kingdom of God is within you, it's accessible directly.
Now you're getting to the meat! Some McDonald's locations sell sludge where the McDonalds had sold high-quality beef. And some blame could be laid on Kroc for that. But in this analogy, the blame falls much more on a long train of deviations from Jesus, historically documented in all 21 centuries since. Jesus on earth did appoint managers, he gave different offices to the apostles and also had many front men and sales workers to prepare some of his appearances. Paul says that his visions of Jesus were of the same kind and appeals to them as proof that Jesus did want him as a manager (not of an organization but of an organism, the living bride). The test of that vision is in what Paul did, and historically what he did was not problematic on the fronts you describe when compared to the Medicis, say, as the first example to come to mind.
So I've read it all but I don't see it as a difference between Jesus and the received Paul figure. I see it as a difference between Jesus and churchianity, from the popes on down. I'm all for constructive criticism of Christianity and restoration of the true historical Jesus, because it never lets me down and it explains exactly when and where I run with or against the institutional churches.
Paul also taught works There is a difficulty for those who think messages of faith and works are in contradiction, but classical theology resolved the tension between James and Paul long ago.
It wasn't only James the Just. u/Thisisnotanexit And the issue was beyond "tension". But, of course you're free to believe anything you want to believe. IMO, a large number of jews in Jerusalem wanted to kill Paul for his teachings. Which were different than Jesus's teachings. Maybe you're not seeing the dichotomy, but I do. Maybe because I'm looking at the outcome in a different way than you do. So, with that in mind allow me to look at what Paul actually teaches and how each of his "innovations" directly undermines one of these three pillars of Jewish fanaticism. First pillar, purity. Purity means absolute obedience to the law of Moses. Purity means circumcision. Purity means dietary restrictions. Purity means Sabbath observance. Purity means not associating with Gentiles. Purity means indulging only marrying within the faith. But what does Paul say? Paul says circumcision doesn't matter. You don't need to be circumcised to be part of God's people. The law of Moses doesn't matter. What matters is faith in Jesus. The external signs don't matter. What matters is the inner belief. Now, why is circumcision such a big deal? jews know why. So many Jews simply stayed separate from mainstream civic life. This maintained Jewish distinctiveness, but it also isolated Jews from the networks of power and commerce and culture. Paul says, "You don't need to be circumcised.". And if you only be circumcised, then suddenly you can participate in gymnasium culture. You can network with Greeks and Romans. You can integrate into civic life. You're no longer visibly marked as separate. So Paul's message breaks down the barrier of purity. It makes assimilation possible. It allows Jews to become Roman while still claiming to maintain their faith.
Second pillar, persecution complex. Jews believe they're persecuted because they're God's chosen people. The world hates them for their righteousness. This creates intense group solidarity, us against the world. But Paul says, you're not being persecuted because you're righteous. You're being persecuted because you're not Roman citizens. Look at me. I'm a Roman citizen. And the Romans protect me. They don't persecute me. I can preach anything I want and no one touches me. So the solution isn't to resist Rome. The solution is to become Roman, get citizenship, participate in the system, then you have legal protection. Then you can practice your religion freely. The Romans don't care what you believe as long as you don't rebel. Paul's own life story becomes proof of this argument. He was persecuted by Jews, not by Romans. Romans saved him. Romans protected him. Romans gave him safe passage to Rome to appeal to the emperor.
Third pillar, the coming of the Messiah. Jews believe the Messiah will be a warrior king who will lead a military revolt against Rome and establish God's kingdom through violent conquest. But Paul says the Messiah has already come. He was Jesus. And Jesus didn't come to lead a military revolt. Jesus came to teach a message of love and forgiveness and spiritual transformation. Jesus had nothing against the Roman Empire. Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars's.". Jesus told people to turn the other cheek. Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers.". So if the Messiah already came and his message was peace, not war, then waiting for a military messiah is foolish. That's not the plan. The plan is inner transformation, spiritual salvation, not political revolution.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, like I said you're free to believe anything you want. But, at least acknowledge this is a very radical view about Paul you haven't heard before. That he is a spy working for the Roman empire. Why don't you look at the present. Today assimilated jews are disrespected just as much as goyim, if not more. Just ask any assimilated jew. Jews still believe they're persecuted because they're God's chosen people. And if say otherwise you're an antisemite, even if you are a jew. And how about Jewish fanaticism, just look at Chabad Lubavitch. Every day they're praying for the coming of the Moshiach. And then look at things from the Roman empire & Paul perspective. If they deal with these three things, then fanaticism disappears. If purity doesn't matter, then you can assimilate. If Roman citizenship protects you, then you don't need to resist. If the Messiah already came with a message of peace, then you're not waiting for a warrior king to lead you into battle. The theological framework completely neutralizes the political threat. This is Roman propaganda designed to make you weak, to make you surrender, to make you abandon the faith. But Paul's message wasn't targeted at fanatical Jews. They were still a minority. Paul's message was targeted at diaspora Jews like himself. Jews who were stuck between two worlds. Jews who had Greek fathers and Jewish mothers. Jews who wanted to participate in Roman society but felt guilt about compromising their traditions. Jews who were tired of being outsiders who wanted to belong. For these people, Paul's message was liberating. You can be Roman and Jewish. You can participate in civic life and still worship the God of Abraham.
IMO, Paul was cleaver. And I also believe he genuinely believed in his mission. His mission was to save his people. And from his perspective, the path the fanatics were taking led to destruction. Rebelling against Rome was suicide. Rome was the most powerful military force in world history. You cannot defeat them through armed resistance. All you do is get yourselves killed. If you want to survive, if you want to preserve Jewish life and culture, you have to adapt. You have to make compromises. You have to work within the Roman system, not against it. And look, there are advantages to Roman civilization. You can become prosperous. You can be educated. You can have security and stability. Roman peace brings benefits if you're willing to participate. So Paul's mission was assimilation but not assimilation that destroys Jewish identity. Assimilation that preserves a modified version of Jewish identity that's compatible with Roman power. In his own mind, Paul was a savior. He was saving the Jewish people from their own suicidal fanaticism. The irony is that to do this, he had to radically transform what it meant to be Jewish. He had to create a new religion that kept some Jewish elements but abandoned others. He had to make Judaism acceptable to Rome. And whether Paul realized or not, whether he intended it or not, he was doing exactly what Roman imperial interests required. And Romans continued with the Paul Project long after Saul of Taurus's death. If something works why fix it?
Yes, Jesus and Paul cut against much tradition, and aligned with much other tradition, just as the NT says.
Purity: Tradition understood there was natural law for all people (the Ten Commandments, the laws of Noah) and there were Mosaic laws specifically for the tribe of Jews (e.g. circumcision and kashrut and antimiscegentation). Tradition also admittedly added to Moses with commands about not associating with Gentiles (as well as candle-lighting, keeping Purim, and other things added at this time). Jesus taught and kept Mosaic purity and taught that the disciples' righteousness should exceed that of the Pharisees (emphasizing that it cannot be done by mere human effort). Paul said very specifically how he applied these first two bodies of law (Noah and Moses) and how he didn't always follow the third body (oral tradition). "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law" (1 Cor. 9:20-21). This is standard rabbinical paradox, meaning two senses apply. He is under the law to (of) Christ and so he can operate "as" under the law; and he is also free from all human law (19) so he can operate "as" without law. This is the meaning of neither circumcision nor uncircumcision mattering, it's the teaching of Christian liberty to judge all things. When Paul defended himself before the Romans, according to Luke, he claimed not to have offended the law of Moses in the slightest (Acts 22:3, 24:14, 25:8); he also prepared for this, at the counsel of representatives of myriads of Torah-observant Messianic Jews, by paying for sacrifices to be offered, which they hoped would prove "that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law" (Acts 21:24). So it's not open-and-shut to say that, even though Paul (and the whole Jerusalem Council of Acts 15) agreed on not putting laws of Moses forcibly upon Gentiles, he thereby had anything against the law; in fact, to say so agrees with his Jewish accusers, who also persecuted all the other proto-Christians before Paul. I showed you that Paul preaching faith in Jesus was the same as Jesus preaching it. But Paul never preached to Jews not to circumcise their children to gain Greco-Roman networking power; the Hellenists did that, but Paul aligned with the Torah-observant ("many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law", 21:20). There was never a message of allowing Jews to become Roman and not Jewish, it wasn't ever a Jewish concept.
Persecution: I wouldn't describe this as a complex in the first place; it was more, unique role requires special resignation about suffering. Paul (who was tried and executed by Rome) just didn't preach a message of Romanism saving anyone, nor did he do anything to distract from Jesus's message of crossbearing, but perpetuated it. Under house arrest by Rome for two years, he didn't preach citizenship; he preached salvation of God to Jew and Gentile, the kingdom of God, and the lordship of Jesus Christ (Acts 28:28-31). I don't see evidence for your idea that he taught Hellenism. Now, Philo of Alexandria taught Hellenism, but I know of no historical linkage to Saul of Tarsus. (Greek Philo and his Hebrew name Yedidyah mean "beloved"; Latin Paulus means "small".)
Messianism: Have looked into this recently and can say, the development of messianism in the centuries before Jesus was not monolithic. Daniel, Enoch, the apocrypha, and the Mishna make clear that there were tensions among many messianic pictures floating in the culture. He might arise suddenly or be born in Israel and quietly grow up Jewish; he might be supernatural or very human; he might destroy the evil empire or he might be utterly cut off by them; he might suffer for his people or he might deliver them victoriously. There was no single notion of warrior-king "only" at this time (it was only much later that Jews pushing back against Christians played that side up and played the suffering side down). For instance, Ps. 110, quoted so often in Jesus's time, emphasized both victory, and a repose where the Messiah sits patiently at God's righthand until the time comes for him to demonstrate peace by drinking freely from the brook. It was a deliberate paradoxical teaching and the people who were honest admitted that, which is why many couldn't determine if Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus said he would bring a sword at the right time, and John saw the same, but that his immediate purpose was to build a community founded on Peter's confession of the Messiah. His clever teachings were more ambiguous about Rome than people think: render Caesar's image to Caesar, but man is God's image and cannot be rendered to Caesar; and turning another cheek to a striker publicly shames the striker for his injustice just as going the second mile shames the Roman soldier who demands the first one under color of law. Again, both Paul and Jesus preach the same Messiah, the epitome of love who will yet crush rebellion at the right time and deliver all creation in a final reconciliation.
this is a very radical view about Paul you haven't heard before. That he is a spy working for the Roman empire.
Parts I haven't heard, yes. But that's because the evidence doesn't point most people there. How far could I go with it? Perhaps Paul's citizenship led him to desire a chief gatekeeper position in the Messianic sect, but it didn't make good Roman citizens in his day because he and the other apostles led many myriads to go to martyrdom rejecting the Roman gods. Rome hated Jews and Christians equally for the same reason, as Tacitus shows. So is he just infiltrating to remove a message of gnosis that would take primitive Christianity in another direction? That appears plain from his calling it pseudognosis, but it doesn't mean his track is Roman (in fact Rom. 16 shows how big the Roman church was before he ever arrived, and it just kept getting more a thorn in Rome's side). So can we find a message of gnosis that was suppressed? A little bit, but it wasn't taught by Jesus or any apostle as such. They didn't have a problem with gnosis, they had a problem with apostasy (separatism, standing against), as John says. It's just that gnostics so often formed separatist schools; those who didn't had schools that were accepted and integrated, notably Montanus. And it was centuries before a long series of compromises allowed the Christian system to be coopted by Rome, so Paul's contributions to offer concessions to Gentiles (never to Jews) were only one of many steps in that direction.
You do offer a rationale that current political Judaism would be appealed to by a Hellenizing message. As one who's studied the current situation, I take a different approach, going back to Jesus's words that the Pharisee types should do even more than they do. They should strive for Mosaic purity so much more that they realize it can't be done except supernaturally (as Jesus and gnostics both agree). They should be willing so much more to suffer that they risk their comfort zone of associations with other Jews and begin to step out of their entire safety net, as so many Messianic Jews have done who have been disowned by family and culture alike. They should be so much more demanding of "Moshiach Now!" that they bring him into their hearts where he's always wanted to reign the most. That is their salvation within their own system much more than Hellenization could ever be. Yes, Philo's message is still a draw for many secular Jews today, but it's not real Judaism and it's not their destiny. They should become more risky and unpredictable because Jesus's followers are known for turning the world upside down, and that's a threat to the state that can never be undone. Resistance is futile: statism will be assimilated. Not by dead organization, but by a living organism.
Jews who had Greek fathers and Jewish mothers.
Paul ensured one such was circumcised, Timothy; he never preached Hellenism. It was only the Jerusalem Council en masse that continued Judaism by affirming that there was no pressure on Gentiles to be proselytized, or not to be.
I will grant that Rom. 13 preaches acceptance of the powers that be (Jewish or Gentile), insofar as conscience permits, while Peter and John made the conscience factor much more explicit in Acts 4-5. But even in Rom. 13 Paul appeals back to Jesus's statement of rendering unto Caesar, which as I pointed out creates a perfect delineation: powers have the right to claim taxes but not the right to claim your conscience, which is God's possession. Timothy Baldwin points out in detail that this passage is not a suicide pact with Rome but a recognition that peaceful civil disobedience is limited to true appeals to conscience. So even there I don't see that Paul's demarcation was different from Jesus's cagey one. You note "Jesus had nothing against the Roman Empire", but then you appear to fault Paul for having nothing against the Empire either.
So it's a very interesting case, and I'd be happy to look at any neglected aspects. I'm not seeing a historical narrative in which Paul's contribution to Christianity is the problem, or in which some other contribution was unduly silenced. The judgment against any gnostic teaching was always local over the entire gnostic period and not targeted against a gnostic position in general; and Christians accepted many texts on gnosis that were nonbelligerent, such as the wonderful Odes of Solomon, the Shepherd of Hermas, of course the Gospel of Thomas, etc. The only reason these faded is that they didn't have the staying power that Christians saw in the books that they eventually approved as canonical. I have every respect for your proposal that there is more to look at, but when it comes to your motivation narrative for Paul it sounds like you're just assuming Philo's motives onto him even though they don't appear in the Pauline corpus. Sure there were many Hellenists in the Philo school, many Alexandrians, but they were strongly quashed from 66 on, and they were only later represented by Athenians who carried the Hellenist trend in their place, i.e. Athenagoras and Clement. The Alexandrian school was always a distinct movement from the Jerusalem and Rome movements in Christianity. So I just continue not to see a fit of your narrative to the facts about Philo and Paul, even granting the best hypotheticals to you.
I have a different take on this, but I will comment in another thread. I'm sure you will not agree with me.
"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law"
This is not what Jesus said we ought to do. He taught when you do evil, evil comes into you and corrupts your soul. When you do good, good comes into you and brightens your soul and you brighten the world with it. He said the answer is the spark in you. His message was different than Paul's. When you love someone and that person loves you back, your spark glows. When you become a teacher and your students learn well, your spark glows. You try different things until you find the things that make your spark glow.
Jesus can show you the way but you have to discover truth yourself and that's why this is so hard for people to accept because people don't want to accept individual responsibility. Jesus says there's a spark inside of you. And it's your responsibility, not an obligation, but a responsibility to let it grow. If you let it grow, you'll bring happiness to the world. You'll bring happiness to yourself, and you'll be able to feast with the divine in heaven. But this is really hard. You have to take individual responsibility. You have to make mistakes. you have to suffer and grow. Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.". Show me one place where Paul teaches any of these.
I showed you that Paul preaching faith in Jesus was the same as Jesus preaching it
No you didn't. Again here we have a strong disagreement. Paul preaches faith, Jesus never does. Why is belief more important than behavior? Why would a loving God send good people to hell just because they were born in the wrong culture and never heard of Jesus? Why does there need to be a second coming if Jesus already accomplished his mission? And why do we have to worship Jesus if salvation is supposed to be about God's grace, not about our actions? And the standard Christian answer to all these questions is miracle, mystery, and magic. Don't question it, just believe it. Just embrace it. Faith is more important than reason. Have I left anything out? I see you're quoting from the Bible. Don't bother, first of all I have read it several times and secondly I have many bibles at my finger tips. All you have to do is provide the reference, I'll do the rest, if I have to. Please give me real life examples, use critical thinking, us logic and try to connect the dots. That's what I'm doing. What's the purpose of exploring Church doctrine. You're not going to convince me of anything that way. Also, I don't expect to convince you of anything either. George Orwell said "“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”. I would like to add to that quote and say: He who can understand the present, could understand the past.
They should strive for Mosaic purity so much more that they realize it can't be done except supernaturally (as Jesus and gnostics both agree).
Again I disagree. A lot of Jesus's teachings go against Jewish religious authority. You know, Jesus is living in Judea, which is a Roman province, but the day-to-day administration is run by Jewish priests. And these Jewish priests teach people to follow the law, to follow the Sabbath, meaning do not work on Saturdays, to obey the law of Moses, to keep all the customs and traditions of the Jewish faith. But according to the Bible, Jesus says, "No, what's important is not following the letter of the law, but following the spirit of God. What matters is the condition of your heart, not whether you perform the correct rituals.". And this creates a conflict because Jesus is essentially rebelling against the authority of the Jewish priests.
You note "Jesus had nothing against the Roman Empire", but then you appear to fault Paul for having nothing against the Empire either.
You misunderstood. Nothing wrong with Paul going along with the system. Otherwise it would been a failed operation, before it even started. Intelligence operations don't work that way. What I'm saying is Paul had connections to Roman power at the highest levels. His family had wealth and citizenship. He had access to military protection whenever he needed it. He had authority that no ordinary person would have. And the message he preached served Roman interests perfectly. It neutralized the most dangerous threat Rome faced. It turned potential rebels into peaceful citizens. It transformed a movement that could have ignited empire wide Jewish revolt into a religion of personal salvation that taught submission to earthly authority. Whether Paul was consciously working as an asset or whether he was unwitting tool, the result was the same.
So say many. All agree on following Jesus, then all diverge on what that means. The grammaticohistorical Jesus is the real Jesus, anything else is just imagination.
"The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21): Yes, Jesus taught the kingdom within.
"Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Matt. 23:23): Yes, Jesus taught works.
"Thy faith hath saved thee" (Luke 7:50, 18:42): Jesus also taught faith.
"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Rom. 10:9): Yes, Paul taught faith.
"The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:17): Paul also taught the kingdom within.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12): Paul also taught works.
I guess I'm not seeing the dichotomy. There is a difficulty for those who think messages of faith and works are in contradiction, but classical theology resolved the tension between James and Paul long ago.
That's not Paul, and Christians shouldn't teach it. Paul taught that they are judged innocent or guilty by the law found in their own hearts, Rom. 2:13-16, answering this exact objection in its original terms. Again, no dichotomy seen.
Sorry, Dot: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me" (John 14:1). Nothing about following paths or ways turns up, but "I am the way" (John 14:6) and "Follow me" (18 times, including John 21:19). See, those are history texts that people accept about what he actually taught and they speak for themselves, and when you use their language to say something else it invites a question as to what is meant. On structure, I'll repeat my findings:
Same reason Peter, John, and the rest got in trouble with "the Jews" before and after Paul's activity. Those Jews who didn't believe Jesus didn't believe any of his apostles.
Now you're getting to the meat! Some McDonald's locations sell sludge where the McDonalds had sold high-quality beef. And some blame could be laid on Kroc for that. But in this analogy, the blame falls much more on a long train of deviations from Jesus, historically documented in all 21 centuries since. Jesus on earth did appoint managers, he gave different offices to the apostles and also had many front men and sales workers to prepare some of his appearances. Paul says that his visions of Jesus were of the same kind and appeals to them as proof that Jesus did want him as a manager (not of an organization but of an organism, the living bride). The test of that vision is in what Paul did, and historically what he did was not problematic on the fronts you describe when compared to the Medicis, say, as the first example to come to mind.
So I've read it all but I don't see it as a difference between Jesus and the received Paul figure. I see it as a difference between Jesus and churchianity, from the popes on down. I'm all for constructive criticism of Christianity and restoration of the true historical Jesus, because it never lets me down and it explains exactly when and where I run with or against the institutional churches.
It wasn't only James the Just. u/Thisisnotanexit And the issue was beyond "tension". But, of course you're free to believe anything you want to believe. IMO, a large number of jews in Jerusalem wanted to kill Paul for his teachings. Which were different than Jesus's teachings. Maybe you're not seeing the dichotomy, but I do. Maybe because I'm looking at the outcome in a different way than you do. So, with that in mind allow me to look at what Paul actually teaches and how each of his "innovations" directly undermines one of these three pillars of Jewish fanaticism. First pillar, purity. Purity means absolute obedience to the law of Moses. Purity means circumcision. Purity means dietary restrictions. Purity means Sabbath observance. Purity means not associating with Gentiles. Purity means indulging only marrying within the faith. But what does Paul say? Paul says circumcision doesn't matter. You don't need to be circumcised to be part of God's people. The law of Moses doesn't matter. What matters is faith in Jesus. The external signs don't matter. What matters is the inner belief. Now, why is circumcision such a big deal? jews know why. So many Jews simply stayed separate from mainstream civic life. This maintained Jewish distinctiveness, but it also isolated Jews from the networks of power and commerce and culture. Paul says, "You don't need to be circumcised.". And if you only be circumcised, then suddenly you can participate in gymnasium culture. You can network with Greeks and Romans. You can integrate into civic life. You're no longer visibly marked as separate. So Paul's message breaks down the barrier of purity. It makes assimilation possible. It allows Jews to become Roman while still claiming to maintain their faith.
Second pillar, persecution complex. Jews believe they're persecuted because they're God's chosen people. The world hates them for their righteousness. This creates intense group solidarity, us against the world. But Paul says, you're not being persecuted because you're righteous. You're being persecuted because you're not Roman citizens. Look at me. I'm a Roman citizen. And the Romans protect me. They don't persecute me. I can preach anything I want and no one touches me. So the solution isn't to resist Rome. The solution is to become Roman, get citizenship, participate in the system, then you have legal protection. Then you can practice your religion freely. The Romans don't care what you believe as long as you don't rebel. Paul's own life story becomes proof of this argument. He was persecuted by Jews, not by Romans. Romans saved him. Romans protected him. Romans gave him safe passage to Rome to appeal to the emperor.
Third pillar, the coming of the Messiah. Jews believe the Messiah will be a warrior king who will lead a military revolt against Rome and establish God's kingdom through violent conquest. But Paul says the Messiah has already come. He was Jesus. And Jesus didn't come to lead a military revolt. Jesus came to teach a message of love and forgiveness and spiritual transformation. Jesus had nothing against the Roman Empire. Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars's.". Jesus told people to turn the other cheek. Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers.". So if the Messiah already came and his message was peace, not war, then waiting for a military messiah is foolish. That's not the plan. The plan is inner transformation, spiritual salvation, not political revolution.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, like I said you're free to believe anything you want. But, at least acknowledge this is a very radical view about Paul you haven't heard before. That he is a spy working for the Roman empire. Why don't you look at the present. Today assimilated jews are disrespected just as much as goyim, if not more. Just ask any assimilated jew. Jews still believe they're persecuted because they're God's chosen people. And if say otherwise you're an antisemite, even if you are a jew. And how about Jewish fanaticism, just look at Chabad Lubavitch. Every day they're praying for the coming of the Moshiach. And then look at things from the Roman empire & Paul perspective. If they deal with these three things, then fanaticism disappears. If purity doesn't matter, then you can assimilate. If Roman citizenship protects you, then you don't need to resist. If the Messiah already came with a message of peace, then you're not waiting for a warrior king to lead you into battle. The theological framework completely neutralizes the political threat. This is Roman propaganda designed to make you weak, to make you surrender, to make you abandon the faith. But Paul's message wasn't targeted at fanatical Jews. They were still a minority. Paul's message was targeted at diaspora Jews like himself. Jews who were stuck between two worlds. Jews who had Greek fathers and Jewish mothers. Jews who wanted to participate in Roman society but felt guilt about compromising their traditions. Jews who were tired of being outsiders who wanted to belong. For these people, Paul's message was liberating. You can be Roman and Jewish. You can participate in civic life and still worship the God of Abraham.
IMO, Paul was cleaver. And I also believe he genuinely believed in his mission. His mission was to save his people. And from his perspective, the path the fanatics were taking led to destruction. Rebelling against Rome was suicide. Rome was the most powerful military force in world history. You cannot defeat them through armed resistance. All you do is get yourselves killed. If you want to survive, if you want to preserve Jewish life and culture, you have to adapt. You have to make compromises. You have to work within the Roman system, not against it. And look, there are advantages to Roman civilization. You can become prosperous. You can be educated. You can have security and stability. Roman peace brings benefits if you're willing to participate. So Paul's mission was assimilation but not assimilation that destroys Jewish identity. Assimilation that preserves a modified version of Jewish identity that's compatible with Roman power. In his own mind, Paul was a savior. He was saving the Jewish people from their own suicidal fanaticism. The irony is that to do this, he had to radically transform what it meant to be Jewish. He had to create a new religion that kept some Jewish elements but abandoned others. He had to make Judaism acceptable to Rome. And whether Paul realized or not, whether he intended it or not, he was doing exactly what Roman imperial interests required. And Romans continued with the Paul Project long after Saul of Taurus's death. If something works why fix it?
Yes, Jesus and Paul cut against much tradition, and aligned with much other tradition, just as the NT says.
Purity: Tradition understood there was natural law for all people (the Ten Commandments, the laws of Noah) and there were Mosaic laws specifically for the tribe of Jews (e.g. circumcision and kashrut and antimiscegentation). Tradition also admittedly added to Moses with commands about not associating with Gentiles (as well as candle-lighting, keeping Purim, and other things added at this time). Jesus taught and kept Mosaic purity and taught that the disciples' righteousness should exceed that of the Pharisees (emphasizing that it cannot be done by mere human effort). Paul said very specifically how he applied these first two bodies of law (Noah and Moses) and how he didn't always follow the third body (oral tradition). "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law" (1 Cor. 9:20-21). This is standard rabbinical paradox, meaning two senses apply. He is under the law to (of) Christ and so he can operate "as" under the law; and he is also free from all human law (19) so he can operate "as" without law. This is the meaning of neither circumcision nor uncircumcision mattering, it's the teaching of Christian liberty to judge all things. When Paul defended himself before the Romans, according to Luke, he claimed not to have offended the law of Moses in the slightest (Acts 22:3, 24:14, 25:8); he also prepared for this, at the counsel of representatives of myriads of Torah-observant Messianic Jews, by paying for sacrifices to be offered, which they hoped would prove "that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law" (Acts 21:24). So it's not open-and-shut to say that, even though Paul (and the whole Jerusalem Council of Acts 15) agreed on not putting laws of Moses forcibly upon Gentiles, he thereby had anything against the law; in fact, to say so agrees with his Jewish accusers, who also persecuted all the other proto-Christians before Paul. I showed you that Paul preaching faith in Jesus was the same as Jesus preaching it. But Paul never preached to Jews not to circumcise their children to gain Greco-Roman networking power; the Hellenists did that, but Paul aligned with the Torah-observant ("many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law", 21:20). There was never a message of allowing Jews to become Roman and not Jewish, it wasn't ever a Jewish concept.
Persecution: I wouldn't describe this as a complex in the first place; it was more, unique role requires special resignation about suffering. Paul (who was tried and executed by Rome) just didn't preach a message of Romanism saving anyone, nor did he do anything to distract from Jesus's message of crossbearing, but perpetuated it. Under house arrest by Rome for two years, he didn't preach citizenship; he preached salvation of God to Jew and Gentile, the kingdom of God, and the lordship of Jesus Christ (Acts 28:28-31). I don't see evidence for your idea that he taught Hellenism. Now, Philo of Alexandria taught Hellenism, but I know of no historical linkage to Saul of Tarsus. (Greek Philo and his Hebrew name Yedidyah mean "beloved"; Latin Paulus means "small".)
Messianism: Have looked into this recently and can say, the development of messianism in the centuries before Jesus was not monolithic. Daniel, Enoch, the apocrypha, and the Mishna make clear that there were tensions among many messianic pictures floating in the culture. He might arise suddenly or be born in Israel and quietly grow up Jewish; he might be supernatural or very human; he might destroy the evil empire or he might be utterly cut off by them; he might suffer for his people or he might deliver them victoriously. There was no single notion of warrior-king "only" at this time (it was only much later that Jews pushing back against Christians played that side up and played the suffering side down). For instance, Ps. 110, quoted so often in Jesus's time, emphasized both victory, and a repose where the Messiah sits patiently at God's righthand until the time comes for him to demonstrate peace by drinking freely from the brook. It was a deliberate paradoxical teaching and the people who were honest admitted that, which is why many couldn't determine if Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus said he would bring a sword at the right time, and John saw the same, but that his immediate purpose was to build a community founded on Peter's confession of the Messiah. His clever teachings were more ambiguous about Rome than people think: render Caesar's image to Caesar, but man is God's image and cannot be rendered to Caesar; and turning another cheek to a striker publicly shames the striker for his injustice just as going the second mile shames the Roman soldier who demands the first one under color of law. Again, both Paul and Jesus preach the same Messiah, the epitome of love who will yet crush rebellion at the right time and deliver all creation in a final reconciliation.
Parts I haven't heard, yes. But that's because the evidence doesn't point most people there. How far could I go with it? Perhaps Paul's citizenship led him to desire a chief gatekeeper position in the Messianic sect, but it didn't make good Roman citizens in his day because he and the other apostles led many myriads to go to martyrdom rejecting the Roman gods. Rome hated Jews and Christians equally for the same reason, as Tacitus shows. So is he just infiltrating to remove a message of gnosis that would take primitive Christianity in another direction? That appears plain from his calling it pseudognosis, but it doesn't mean his track is Roman (in fact Rom. 16 shows how big the Roman church was before he ever arrived, and it just kept getting more a thorn in Rome's side). So can we find a message of gnosis that was suppressed? A little bit, but it wasn't taught by Jesus or any apostle as such. They didn't have a problem with gnosis, they had a problem with apostasy (separatism, standing against), as John says. It's just that gnostics so often formed separatist schools; those who didn't had schools that were accepted and integrated, notably Montanus. And it was centuries before a long series of compromises allowed the Christian system to be coopted by Rome, so Paul's contributions to offer concessions to Gentiles (never to Jews) were only one of many steps in that direction.
You do offer a rationale that current political Judaism would be appealed to by a Hellenizing message. As one who's studied the current situation, I take a different approach, going back to Jesus's words that the Pharisee types should do even more than they do. They should strive for Mosaic purity so much more that they realize it can't be done except supernaturally (as Jesus and gnostics both agree). They should be willing so much more to suffer that they risk their comfort zone of associations with other Jews and begin to step out of their entire safety net, as so many Messianic Jews have done who have been disowned by family and culture alike. They should be so much more demanding of "Moshiach Now!" that they bring him into their hearts where he's always wanted to reign the most. That is their salvation within their own system much more than Hellenization could ever be. Yes, Philo's message is still a draw for many secular Jews today, but it's not real Judaism and it's not their destiny. They should become more risky and unpredictable because Jesus's followers are known for turning the world upside down, and that's a threat to the state that can never be undone. Resistance is futile: statism will be assimilated. Not by dead organization, but by a living organism.
Paul ensured one such was circumcised, Timothy; he never preached Hellenism. It was only the Jerusalem Council en masse that continued Judaism by affirming that there was no pressure on Gentiles to be proselytized, or not to be.
I will grant that Rom. 13 preaches acceptance of the powers that be (Jewish or Gentile), insofar as conscience permits, while Peter and John made the conscience factor much more explicit in Acts 4-5. But even in Rom. 13 Paul appeals back to Jesus's statement of rendering unto Caesar, which as I pointed out creates a perfect delineation: powers have the right to claim taxes but not the right to claim your conscience, which is God's possession. Timothy Baldwin points out in detail that this passage is not a suicide pact with Rome but a recognition that peaceful civil disobedience is limited to true appeals to conscience. So even there I don't see that Paul's demarcation was different from Jesus's cagey one. You note "Jesus had nothing against the Roman Empire", but then you appear to fault Paul for having nothing against the Empire either.
So it's a very interesting case, and I'd be happy to look at any neglected aspects. I'm not seeing a historical narrative in which Paul's contribution to Christianity is the problem, or in which some other contribution was unduly silenced. The judgment against any gnostic teaching was always local over the entire gnostic period and not targeted against a gnostic position in general; and Christians accepted many texts on gnosis that were nonbelligerent, such as the wonderful Odes of Solomon, the Shepherd of Hermas, of course the Gospel of Thomas, etc. The only reason these faded is that they didn't have the staying power that Christians saw in the books that they eventually approved as canonical. I have every respect for your proposal that there is more to look at, but when it comes to your motivation narrative for Paul it sounds like you're just assuming Philo's motives onto him even though they don't appear in the Pauline corpus. Sure there were many Hellenists in the Philo school, many Alexandrians, but they were strongly quashed from 66 on, and they were only later represented by Athenians who carried the Hellenist trend in their place, i.e. Athenagoras and Clement. The Alexandrian school was always a distinct movement from the Jerusalem and Rome movements in Christianity. So I just continue not to see a fit of your narrative to the facts about Philo and Paul, even granting the best hypotheticals to you.
I have a different take on this, but I will comment in another thread. I'm sure you will not agree with me.
This is not what Jesus said we ought to do. He taught when you do evil, evil comes into you and corrupts your soul. When you do good, good comes into you and brightens your soul and you brighten the world with it. He said the answer is the spark in you. His message was different than Paul's. When you love someone and that person loves you back, your spark glows. When you become a teacher and your students learn well, your spark glows. You try different things until you find the things that make your spark glow. Jesus can show you the way but you have to discover truth yourself and that's why this is so hard for people to accept because people don't want to accept individual responsibility. Jesus says there's a spark inside of you. And it's your responsibility, not an obligation, but a responsibility to let it grow. If you let it grow, you'll bring happiness to the world. You'll bring happiness to yourself, and you'll be able to feast with the divine in heaven. But this is really hard. You have to take individual responsibility. You have to make mistakes. you have to suffer and grow. Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.". Show me one place where Paul teaches any of these.
No you didn't. Again here we have a strong disagreement. Paul preaches faith, Jesus never does. Why is belief more important than behavior? Why would a loving God send good people to hell just because they were born in the wrong culture and never heard of Jesus? Why does there need to be a second coming if Jesus already accomplished his mission? And why do we have to worship Jesus if salvation is supposed to be about God's grace, not about our actions? And the standard Christian answer to all these questions is miracle, mystery, and magic. Don't question it, just believe it. Just embrace it. Faith is more important than reason. Have I left anything out? I see you're quoting from the Bible. Don't bother, first of all I have read it several times and secondly I have many bibles at my finger tips. All you have to do is provide the reference, I'll do the rest, if I have to. Please give me real life examples, use critical thinking, us logic and try to connect the dots. That's what I'm doing. What's the purpose of exploring Church doctrine. You're not going to convince me of anything that way. Also, I don't expect to convince you of anything either. George Orwell said "“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”. I would like to add to that quote and say: He who can understand the present, could understand the past.
Again I disagree. A lot of Jesus's teachings go against Jewish religious authority. You know, Jesus is living in Judea, which is a Roman province, but the day-to-day administration is run by Jewish priests. And these Jewish priests teach people to follow the law, to follow the Sabbath, meaning do not work on Saturdays, to obey the law of Moses, to keep all the customs and traditions of the Jewish faith. But according to the Bible, Jesus says, "No, what's important is not following the letter of the law, but following the spirit of God. What matters is the condition of your heart, not whether you perform the correct rituals.". And this creates a conflict because Jesus is essentially rebelling against the authority of the Jewish priests.
You misunderstood. Nothing wrong with Paul going along with the system. Otherwise it would been a failed operation, before it even started. Intelligence operations don't work that way. What I'm saying is Paul had connections to Roman power at the highest levels. His family had wealth and citizenship. He had access to military protection whenever he needed it. He had authority that no ordinary person would have. And the message he preached served Roman interests perfectly. It neutralized the most dangerous threat Rome faced. It turned potential rebels into peaceful citizens. It transformed a movement that could have ignited empire wide Jewish revolt into a religion of personal salvation that taught submission to earthly authority. Whether Paul was consciously working as an asset or whether he was unwitting tool, the result was the same.