THE APOSTLE PAUL FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY

by Lewis Loflin

  
Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn’t even concern the historical Jesus, but the risen Christ of Paul’s visions and dreams. Paul’s authority comes not from the mortal Jesus, but the Holy Spirit. (See beginnings of Galatians.) The Apostle Paul and his followers define what became Christianity.

Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. Influenced by Greek Hellenism and various mystery cults he turned the man Jesus into spiritual deity.

Paul (formally Saul) was a hired hit man and enforcer for the Roman appointed-controlled High Priest the traitorous Caiaphas. He was hostile to Judaism and there’s no real proof he had any knowledge of it outside the Greek Septuagint.

Jesus left his brother James in charge of the Jerusalem Church after His execution for sedition by the Romans. James tolerated Paul only because the money he could extract from wealthy gentiles supported the penniless church.

Paul had no direct connection to Jesus’ apostles other than Peter. The was illustrated in Luke (Luke never met Jesus either) claimed Peter had special visions to do away to Jewish dietary laws.

Paul broke with James and Judaism in total about 50 A.D. over circumcision. (See Galatians). With James enforcing circumcision as God dictated this meant the end of Paul’s wealthy gentile followers. 

The Jerusalem Church would be destroyed during the Jewish revolt of 70 A.D. The survivor’s of Jesus Church such as the Ebionites would be destroyed for heresy by the official Christian church later on.

Because there are no known writings from Jesus or His actual Apostles, most of what He really taught is remains controversial. Also see the disputed Gnostic Gospels.

According to Paul, Jesus’ Jewish teachings are not relevant to salvation. While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of the faith. Paul’s role in defining Christianity can’t be ignored. Roman Catholicism chose Paul over Jesus.

“Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus’ mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus’ life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time.”

The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, an alleged Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism.

His worship was that of a “Christ” totally unrelated to the Jewish Messiah, a nationalist (and human) figure that was supposed to free the nation from foreign (Roman) rule. 

Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named Marcion. See Marcion. The Church in its struggles with both Marcion and the Gnostics was forced to define itself and launch an internal war to silence opponents.

What is shown below is taken word for word from The Sierra Reference Encyclopedia. 
Copyright 1996 P. F. Collier, L. P. All rights reserved. 
PAUL, ST.

PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of Pauline Christianity. His name was originally Saul. He later claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. 

This account of Paul’s youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in Tarsus. According to Paul’s opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.

While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). 

Saul was present at the death of Stephen. Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church, entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as due to Saul’s zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees, under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).

Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his followers were under the same cloud.

The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church. This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was not under Roman rule at the time but was in fact a place of refuge for the persecuted Nazarenes. 

On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced a vision of Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the officers of King Aretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to “the Jews.”

After his vision, according to Paul’s own account (Galatians 1:17), he went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction. According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. 

These contradictory accounts reflect a change in Paul’s status: in his own view, he had received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the beginning of his development as a Christian.

Paul’s self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul’s creative role. 

The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in the Pauline book of Acts, which contrasts with Paul’s earlier and more authentic account in Galatians 2.

Paul’s originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human savior from political bondage, he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. 

This view of Jesus’ death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus. 

The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. 

The awkward insertion of eucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Church did not practice the Eucharist.

Paul’s missionary campaign began c.44 in Antioch. He journeyed to Cyprus, where he converted Sergius Paulus, the governor of the island. It was probably at this point that he changed his name from Saul to Paul, in honor of his distinguished convert. 

After journeys in Asia Minor where he made many converts, Paul returned to Antioch. His second missionary tour (51-53) took him as far as Corinth; and his third (54-58) led to a three-year stay in Ephesus. 

It was during these missionary periods that he wrote his Epistles.

Paul’s new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianity an awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. 

Paul’s new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus’ atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus’ brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50).

At the ensuing conference, agreement was reached that Paul’s Gentile converts did not need to observe the Torah. This was not a revolutionary decision, since Judaism had never insisted on full conversion to Judaism for Gentiles. But Paul on this occasion concealed his belief that the Torah was no longer valid for Jews either. 

He was thus confirmed in the role of “apostle to the Gentiles,” with full permission to enroll Gentiles in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.

It was when Peter visited him in Antioch and became aware of the full extent of Paul’s views that a serious rift began between Pauline and Jewish Christianity. 

At a second conference in Jerusalem (c.55), Paul was accused by James of teaching Jews “to turn their backs on Moses” (Acts 21:21). Again, however, Paul evaded the charge by concealing his views, and he agreed to undergo a test of his own observance of the Torah. 

His deception, however, was detected by a group of “Asian Jews” (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching. A stormy protest ensued in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whom he declared for his protection that he was a Roman citizen. This surprising announcement was the end of Paul’s association with the Jerusalem Church, to whom the Romans were the chief enemy.

The Roman commandant, Claudius Lysias, decided to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin in order to discover the cause of the disturbance. With great presence of mind, Paul appealed to the Pharisee majority to acquit him, claiming to be a Pharisee like James. Paul was rescued by the Pharisees from the high priest, like Peter before him. 

However, the high priest, resenting this escape, appointed a body of men to assassinate Paul. Learning of the plot, Paul again placed himself under the protection of the Romans, who transported him by armed guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea. The High Priest Ananias was implacable, no doubt because of Paul’s defection from his police task in Damascus, and laid a charge of anti-Roman activity against him. 

Paul appealed for a trial in Rome before Caesar, his right as a Roman citizen. The assertion of Acts that the Jewish “elders” were also implicated in the charges against Paul is unhistorical, since these same elders had just acquitted him in his Sanhedrin trial. Paul was sent to Rome, and here our information ends. Legends speak of his eventual martyrdom in Rome.

Paul’s authentic voice is found in his Epistles. Here he appears as an eloquent writer, skilled in asserting his authority over his converts as their inspired teacher. 

The view often asserted, however, that Paul writes in the style of a rabbi is incorrect. His occasional attempts to argue in rabbinical style (e.g., Romans 7:1-6) reveal his lack of knowledge of rabbinic logic. 

Paul’s letters belong to Greek literature and have affinity to Stoic and Cynic literature. His knowledge of the Scriptures is confined to their Greek translation, the Septuagint. Paul was a religious genius, who invested Greek mystery-religion with the historical sweep and authority of the Jewish Bible.

THE HERESY OF LUKE SOCIAL CONSCIENCE

Like Matthew, the gospel of Luke presents a sweeping account of the life and message of Jesus. Both describe a virgin birth, both present a genealogy, both give accounts of great teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount.

However, Luke is written for different reasons than Matthew or virtually all of the other New Testament writers – except perhaps James. It is Luke’s portrayal of the social conscience of Jesus that stands in sharpest contrast with his New Testament counterparts – from Matthew to Paul.

Background of Luke the Gospel:

Both the third gospel and the Acts of the Apostles are traditionally attributed to Luke. Taken together, these two books provide the most sweeping account of early Christianity from the genealogy and birth of Christ through to the arrest and confinement of the apostle Paul in Rome.

Two times are commonly suggested as dates for the writing of this gospel: the period from 59-63 AD versus later in the 70s or 80s. Support for earlier composition is provided by the oldest known partial fragmentary evidence of a Lukan manuscript – the Paris Papyrus (P4) dated not much later than about 66 AD.

Most (though not all) early and contemporary scholars believe that Luke was written subsequent to both Matthew and Mark. This position is buttressed by the introduction to the gospel itself, wherein the author writes:

“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you…”

From these introductory remarks, it is clearly evident that: (a) there were multiple accounts available from which Luke could draw; and (b) there is apparent concern that some earlier accounts may not have been wholly reliable.

Authorship:

Both Luke and Acts are addressed to the same person, the unknown Theophilus. The Acts of the Apostles also begins with a reference to “my former book.” Even today, most scholars believe that the same author writes both books.

Neither volume explicitly identifies Luke as the author. However, certain sections in Acts use the pronoun “we”, suggesting that the author was with Paul for many of the events being described.

Luke’s authorship is supported by testimony of early Christian writings including the Muratorian Canon, circa 170 AD and the works of Irenaeus, c. 180. Irenaeus states that: “Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by him.”

Luke is known by the title given by Paul as “the beloved physician”. To Philemon, Paul describes Luke along with Mark and two others as “my fellow workers.”

Luke may well have been a Gentile by birth, certainly well educated and versed in Greek culture. Luke accompanied Paul at various times beginning with Paul’s second missionary journey. As later indicated by Paul writing to Timothy, Luke was one of a handful who remained with Paul after others deserted.

By tradition, Luke is identified as a member of the church at Antioch. He is believed to have written his gospel in Greece – and for a Greek speaking audience. Third century theologian Origen would comment that Luke was composed after Matthew and Mark. Origen also noted that Luke “…wrote for Gentile converts the gospel praised by Paul.”

The Jesus of Social Conscience:

Matthew’s Jesus is concerned with poverty of the spiritual rather than material realm. Luke’s Jesus is attuned to earthly economics; Jesus becomes a social advocate and reformer.

At the Sermon on the Mount, it was Luke’s Jesus who proclaimed: “Blessed are you who are poor.” Matthew’s text suggests a far different meaning with Jesus saying: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

Of the four New Testament gospels, Luke stands alone in with a heightened concern for the poor and underprivileged in society. This sense of social conscience extends to others with lesser status in first century Jewish society – including women and non-Jews.

Another comparison also comes from what are known as the Beatitudes:

Luke’s version – “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.”

Matthew’s version – “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.”

Luke’s beatitudes are aimed at earthly material needs; Matthew’s version is pointed toward the spiritual.

All together, Luke’s version of the beatitudes consists of only four affirmative sayings, while Matthew comprises a total of 9 beatitudes. Then, following the positive affirmations, Luke issues four condemnations which have no counterpart in Matthew:

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.”

“Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.”

“Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.”

“Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.”

Each of these denunciations appears directly aimed at the “haves” of first century Jewish society. Luke’s Jesus condemns the rich, those who are well fed, those who laugh and the respected members of the community.

For Luke, Jesus’ sympathies lie with the poor and the social outcast. If one has the misfortune of wealth, the remedy is to sell what one has and distribute the proceeds to the have-nots.

Always the Poor?

Perhaps most telling are the contrasting accounts provided by all four gospel writers of a woman (or separate women) who anoint Jesus. In the versions provided by Matthew, Mark and John, the anointing takes place at Bethany. Onlookers complain that the ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor.

All three of these gospels record that Jesus dismissed these complaints with the comment that “you always have the poor with you.” Just to make sure no one misses the point, Jesus adds that you will “not always have me.”

Luke takes a different tack. An anointing takes place in a Pharisee’s house (at an unspecified location) by “a woman in the city, who was a sinner”. The Pharisee says to himself: “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him – that she is a sinner.”

In response, Luke’s Jesus presents a story (or parable) about two debtors, then gets to the point: “Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, forgives little.” He then says to the woman: “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

In effect, three of the gospel writers (including John) have picked an incident where the punch line is that a luxury gift for a special occasion can be a more important priority than helping the poor. In contrast, Luke selects a seemingly similar account (albeit in a different setting), but the emphasis shifts from lack of priority for the poor to concern for forgiveness.

Only Luke avoids the statement (and the resulting admission) that the poor will always be with us. This is not surprising since Jesus’ seemingly cynical acceptance of poverty would contradict Luke’s consistent emphasis on Jesus as advocate for the poor and oppressed.

Luke in Summary:

And so ends our quick tour of the “most beautiful book ever written” – the only gospel that definitively can be attributed to a non-Jew. A man of apparent professional training. Well learned but with a heart for those less fortunate.

Luke presents Jesus as the man of social conscience and action. This comes across in Jesus views regarding the importance of charity toward the poor, economy of the kingdom, outreach to women, and arguably as borderline social revolutionary.

This is a very different Jesus than is portrayed by the other three New Testament gospels. To Matthew, Mark and John, Jesus offers a message of personal hope and redemption. With Luke, the emphasis is more collective than the individual. His is the only gospel aimed toward redressing social evils – of poverty, redistribution of wealth, and improved status for women.

A Jesus of social conscience was a new idea for the early church – advanced by no gospel writer than Luke. This then serves both as Luke’s contribution to Christendom and his heresy.

Over two millennia, the benefit of Luke’s heresy has been the recognition that the good news of Christianity is not only for the next world, but for the here and now. The social activism of Luke’s Jesus has animated Christian reformers from Augustine to the liberation theologians of the last century – from the communal post-resurrection church to mainline congregations in the wake of the “God is dead” theology of the mid-20th century. Luke provides a linkage between Jesus as the radical first century reformer in an isolated land and Jesus as the hope of all peoples – including those struggling for recognition, social justice and equality at the dawn of the third millennium.

The drawback of Lukan theology has been de-emphasis of a personal relationship and individual accountability before the divine. The lost opportunity for realizing intimacy in this life with a crucified and risen Savior.

The Economics of Luke’s Jesus

Of the four gospel writers, Luke is most clearly interested in Jesus’ views regarding not only the social but also economic order. The Robin Hood tone of Luke is set early on, with Mary the mother proclaiming in her Magnificat prior to Jesus’ birth: “…he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.”

Passages found only in Luke appear to advocate a fairly radical form of re-distributionist economics. For this gospel writer, wealth and spirituality are inherently incompatible. Only Luke’s gospel records Jesus as commanding:

“Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.”

“Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again.”

“If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.”

The passion of Luke’s gospel extends well beyond sympathy for the less fortunate to a more activist role for economic redistribution. Only Luke tells the story of Zacchaeus, a man who says to the Lord: “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” This passage implies a very active role for the economic oppressor to assure restitution well above and beyond the bare minimum.

Luke is also the only gospel that recounts the powerful and well-known parable of the Good Samaritan. This parable is offered in answer to a lawyer’s question: “Who is my neighbor?” Again, the answer is that the reward goes not to those who have the means or the authority, but to those who go out of their way – to serve the outcasts of the world.

This discussion of Luke’s Heresy – Social Conscience is drawn from our 360-page, fully annotated manuscript titled the 12 Heresies of Christianity.

Credit: www.jesustheheresy.com

WAS JESUS CHRIST A CHRISTIAN?

I once heard a Jewish believer make this sobering statement: “Jews don’t need a Christian Christ. Christians need a Jewish Jesus.” Hmmm, I thought, he has a point.

Many Christians are shocked to learn that Jesus, the one they consider the founder of Christianity, was born a Jew, died a Jew, arose a Jew, is seated in Heaven a Jew and will return as a Jew on steroids – “the lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the root of David” (Rev. 5:5). But their eyes really start to cross when they learn Jesus would have never thought himself a Christian. Or called himself one.

The term “Christian” did not come into existence until decades later when unbelievers in Antioch started calling his followers that name (Acts 11:26). And as many historians believe, it was not a compliment. But a mockery.

But what’s truly rattling the stained-glass windows of Christendom these days is the discovery by more and more believers that Yeshua never started, much less converted to, the religion of Christianity. That he came, not to start a new religion, but to fulfill the types and shadows of the only religion God has ever given His people. Or ever will. Namely, the Mosaic Law. And Yeshua’s arrival signaled that even that divine religion had fulfilled its purpose. “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Messiah, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Gal. 3:24,25).

Christianity did not begin to organize into a religion until almost a hundred years after Yeshua’s ascension. It reached full religious status under Constantine, who after severing the faith from its Jewish roots, made it the chief religion of the Roman Empire. And himself, as pontifex maximus, its chief priest. In the process, the simple gospel message that we could now come boldly into God’s presence through faith in Yeshua was nullified. It was replaced by a glitzy, full-blown, ecclesiastical approach to God through a robed priesthood unsanctioned by Scripture. A religion given theological support by a handful of influential writers, rightly called “the Fathers of the Church.”

These Church scribes, unlike the Jewish writers of the NT who grew up with the Scriptures, had little knowledge of, or interest in, God’s promises to Israel. Converted from pagan backgrounds, they preferred the “wisdom” of the Greek philosophers, especially Plato. And their leavened teachings soon pushed God’s ecclesia off the bedrock of Scripture onto the shifting sand of man’s thoughts.

And that’s where we’ve been ever since – even after the Reformation! In retrospect, have we been any less blind to the gospel than the Jews in thinking Yeshua gave us a new religion called Christianity to practice?

But today is a new day. And God’s Spirit beckons. “Come, let us return to the Lord. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day that we may live before Him” (Hosea 6:1,2).

Credit: www.sullivan-county.com