0:40 Jacob Berman
Today I'm joined by Linwood Jackson Jr. And today we're going to be discussing the theology and also the historical Paul. So, welcome back to the podcast, Linwood.
Linwood Jackson Jr
Yeah, thank you. Last time you had me here I ended on a note where Paul was the main subject and I just wanted to touch back on that.
1:00 Jacob
Yeah, so what do you think about Paul? What is it that you think he believes about Jesus? What is he doing? What's his goals?
Linwood
I'll start from he beginning because I believe that there are multiple, well, there are multiple Pauls. Ah, there's a Paul in the book of Acts that is not the same Paul from the Galatians. And the Paul from the book of Acts and the Paul in the Galatians isn't the same Paul from the Romans, the Thessalonians
So, there's different Pauls. And I guess I'll, I'll start from, I guess, the historical sense. I'll move into doctrine. I'll move into how that breaks down; and then I'll see if I can round it out.
1:49
Because Paul's a very, uh, very complicated individual and especially factoring, I will also talk about, the two doctrines that he has.
When you factor in the two philosophies that Paul has: the philosophy that is blatant in, in the Galatians; and then the philosophy that is blatant in the Philippians, and the in the Colossians; and then the philosophy that sort of mixes the two in the Romans into the, into the Corinthians. Also the Thessalonians.
2:20
There's different Pauls. There's two different doctrines. And I'll start by just getting into the person. And all of this coming from research: research from analyzing the way that the Bible breaks down characters; and the way that the Bible breaks down, ah, words systems and processes in order to get the dialect or the frame of what that reference may be according to the context of how it is given.
So, you have Paul. Our introduction to him is an introduction that is mirroring the same introduction of the Balaam the prophet.
3:04
So, it's the same story: writer traveling to, to curse, uh, the people of God. It's thrown off, uh, sees a vision; has a revelation; comes with some clearance in himself. And it's the same story when it comes to Paul; or, how we're introduced to Paul in that same manner. And I think that's important because the Bible is making an analogy between characters and that Balaam is understood historically and within the Bible to be a false prophet: to be, uh, someone that is not reliable when it comes to trusting on the words of their, of the god of Israel.
3.46
And someone that is an actual enemy to the philosophy unto the people of Israel. And I believe the author of the book of Acts has an agenda; and that agenda, from the first chapter until the last, is to make associations in order to give this thing ‘fact’ even though it's not so clear; and even though it's hidden.
4:07
And, so the character of Paul - having the same story of Balaam written about him and written for him - I believe that the author of the book of Acts is allowing us to know that this character is synonymous with the same character or the same disposition of Balaam and that he's a false prophet.
4:26
um, And I say that because not just of what I'll get into is philosophy but the only other person that has an, a very blatant issue with the, the movement, the new religion - the new Jewish religious movement – is, is the author says Herod has the same disdain for this religious movement as does Paul.
And what's interesting about that, what's interesting about that is that Paul is supposedly, supposed to have been taught by Gamaliel. And when you hear there's not really much about this, this character, but the little snippet that we have of him - when there's a discussion about to get to get rid of this new group - what do we do about them - we need to we need to vanquish them - we can't let them live anymore -Gamaliel is actually the voice of reason. He's actually the voice that says, well, wait a minute, how about you remember what happened to this movement, and then you remember what happened to that movement.
5.30
And then we see that the outcome of that movement is the result of either God working for them or God not working for them. So, if this movement is actually for god, well, we can't get in the way of it; it cannot be stopped.
And if it is not for God, God himself will take care of it himself.
So, let's let them be. Let's leave them alone.
Now, this is the philosophy of Gamaliel. This is not the spirit that Paul has; which allows me to understand that the, the connection between the two is actually a false connection.
6:02
And, if it was, um, I don't understand how Paul could have gotten so deep into the hierarchy of the Jews with such a temperament - a logical one - when the Sanhedrin at that point in time is very meticulous and careful with what they do: whether it be their thought and feeling.
So, Paul having the same disposition of Herod; Paul having the cons, a contrary Spirit to his supposed teacher allows me to know that the author of, the author of the book of Acts knows more about Paul than they are letting on in their dialogue or their narrative.
6:46
Having the same story of Balaam, ah, the same disposition of Herod, and having the character that is contrary to his supposed teacher reading this.
This is the way that the Bible articulates narrative within narrative. And how the Bible speaks what is unspoken. And what is, what is unspoken is that Paul has, according to the author, the same disposition of Balaam: which is to betray the movement of these supposed people of God.
7:19
And I believe this to be true. I believe this to be true because of what Paul laments on.
Paul is building off of an already established framework. He's building off of, um, actually two established frameworks. And I'll say two because, one, there is a scene where Paul is, um, correcting an individual, ah, Barjesus. And this Barjesus he curses. And the curse that he puts on this Barjesus, it says that, after this curse, Barjesus arose and was blind and had to be carried off and had to, all this had to happen to him.
Well, the same thing actually happened to Paul: Paul was actually made blind.
Paul was actually, actually needed to be carried away just like that same individual had to be carried away.
8:11
So, again, the Bible is using illustration for analogy: to let us know that there is not an actual- this mysterious sighting that he had, and falling off; that's, that's not true.
8:26
what I believe to be true is that what Paul did to that individual [was] because that individual actually shares the same experience that Paul shared.
I actually believe and I think that the author of the Book of Acts is letting us know that the same putting on of the hands that Paul did for that Barjesus, this is the same putting on of the hands that that Paul had happened to him.
8:51
So, I believe that the same - because the effect is the same - it's the same experience.
8:57
But the same experience won't be relayed because the author wants us to understand the connection between characters within the scripture
Just as Matthew says, um, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus had to go to, um, Egypt and then had to come back and then it says, I have, I've given, I've rescued my son from, from Egypt: the author's making that same analogy to show that this is a very credible thing that ‘we're’ writing about because it's filling in the gap.
9:29
it's associating with what happened in the past …the Herod, um, slaying of children -which is not historically factual - that did not happen in history - but what did happen was King Alexander Janaeus, the king of the Hasmonean Dynasty, actually slaughtered 800 Pharisees; and some of those Pharisees that were slaughtered actually travelled from Jerusalem and escaped from the land of the Jews; and escaped and went into Egypt.
So, that's how that story of a fleeing during a slaughter - from the land of the Jews into Egypt - takes place.
10.00
It's a real story but the authors have fabricated it.
And they're using these things to make the connections there, so that we can, so that the reader - the ‘sincere reader’ - can understand the underlying motive behind them doing this for the exchanging of characters; for the exchanging of settings; for the
exchanging of context; for the fact of allowing the character given in that exchange to be the same.
So, no matter what we see, with Balaam and Paul is the same character because the story is the same, no matter what we see of Bajesus and Paul: it's the same character because the characters are the same; the experience is the same.
The same thing that Paul did; in that same experience that Barjesus had; Paul had the same experience happen to him. And that's why there's so much of this Ananias and, and all of this that happens to him:
10:53
Scales falling from his eyes: this is figurative language showing that his eyes - Paul lets us know in the book of Ephesians, 1 and 18, that eyes are a figurative illustration for the mind; for understanding.
He says, ‘the eyes of your understanding,’ in the book of Ephesians 1:18.
So, when it's saying that scales fell from his eyes, it's really his understandings were coming to light by an already established framework.
So, Paul was taught, contrary to what he says in the Galatians, ‘I was not taught this by man but by revelation.’ In one sense that's true - I'll talk about that - but in another sense it's false because Paul received his understanding and his enlightening from somebody putting their hands on him.
11:38
And that putting on of hands in the Bible means the exchanging of wisdom and understanding. So, Paul received his doctrine from a Damascus-based quote-unquote “Jesus movement.”
From the Damascus-based Jesus movement he also and they also received their framework from an already existing quote unquote “Jesus movement.”
Now this Jesus movement did not go to the extent that Paul went to. This Jesus movement was strictly Jewish. This Jesus movement did not see a man as a deity; did not see the man as being conceived by a virgin.
This Jesus movement - those books prior to Matthew and above, Malachi, they're missing. The Maccabees: they tell of a theology of resurrection by the Creator at an appointed time.
So the Jews already have an established mythology and theology concerning what is to take place for resurrection and what does is to take place for them personally.
12:48
But the way that this movement saw that, saw their character - their Jesus character -they cut off at the resurrection because they saw that the resurrection was a symbol of what is supposed to take place inwardly: ‘I created me a clean heart and renew a right Spirit within me,’ says the psalmist in Psalm 51.
These people maintain that philosophy. And they saw that the, they believed he was a resurrected individual; but they saw that he was resurrected and taken to God for the same purpose that Enoch was taken; for the same purpose that Elijah was taken; for the same purpose that Moses was not found, his body; for the same purpose that Elijah's, Elisha's bones continue to heal after he had died.
They didn't see the man as a deity but they clashed him, with this same category of legendary heroes.