Exploring the idea that Paul was a scamming cult-leader

[ABuddhist]

I have been rather reluctant to raise this point, both because of how controversial it is, and also because it is a viewpoint that is often conflated with other speculations about Christian origins that I disagree with (mythicism; the idea that Christianity was created by Jews in order to enslave gentiles; the idea that Christianity was created by the Romans in order to enslave Jews).

But consider the following: Paul, by his own admission, faced opposition from other preachers about Christ, who alleged that his teachings were incorrect; Paul was constantly collecting money from congregations and trying to pressure them into donating money to him (allegedly to support the church in Jerusalem). The Acts of the Apostles is increasingly being recognized as a second century CE work of propaganda rather than as an accurate account of events. A good introduction is here: https://vridar.org/2013/11/22/top-ten-f ... s-seminar/ and https://vridar.org/2013/11/24/pauls-let ... ar-report/. We have examples of people falsely claiming to be closely associated with new religious movements' inner circles in order to accumulate money and prestige as authentic teachers: Robert Adams did so with Ramana Maharshi, as may be read here: https://selfreflexiveloopphotography.ph ... -of-india/. We also have examples of people attempting to create their own lineages within spiritual traditions by inventing new sources who supposedly revealed the teachings: see, for example, Paul Twitchell, who presented himself as a master of Radhasoamite wisdom by inventing a lineage of gurus whom he claimed had taught to him Radhasoamite wisdom.

The following two scenarios accordingly present themselves to me:

1. Paul, encountering a pre-existing Christ cult with its headquarters in Jerusalem, decided to make himself an apostle and falsely claimed that he had been endorsed as an apostle by the headquarters in Jerusalem in order to embezzle money from followers by claiming that he was supporting the headquarters in Jerusalem.

2. Paul, encountering a pre-existing Christ cult, decided to make himself an apostle in order to embezzle money - and inflated his credentials by claiming that he was supporting and had been authorized to preach by a non-existent headquarters in Jerusalem.

I am fully aware that the second scenario can easily be assumed to be mythicist, but this need not be so. Q, after all, is widely accepted as preserving traditions about a Jesus and his movement entirely within Galilee; within a non-mythicist model, the Christ cult would have spread from Galilee and not from Jerusalem.

[Jax]

If the passages in the letters of Paul, that address the collections of money, are authentic to Paul and not a later addition then I would agree that the likelihood that Paul is out to line his own pocket is very possible.

If they are original to Paul.

[ABuddhist]

If the passages in the letters of Paul, that address the collections of money, are authentic to Paul and not a later addition then I would agree that the likelihood that Paul is out to line his own pocket is very possible.

If they are original to Paul.

Has anyone argued that they were interpolations?

[mlinssen]

1. Paul, encountering a pre-existing Christ cult with its headquarters in Jerusalem, decided to make himself an apostle and falsely claimed that he had been endorsed as an apostle by the headquarters in Jerusalem in order to embezzle money from followers by claiming that he was supporting the headquarters in Jerusalem.

2. Paul, encountering a pre-existing Christ cult, decided to make himself an apostle in order to embezzle money - and inflated his credentials by claiming that he was supporting and had been authorized to preach by a non-existent headquarters in Jerusalem.

I am fully aware that the second scenario can easily be assumed to be mythicist, but this need not be so. Q, after all, is widely accepted as preserving traditions about a Jesus and his movement entirely within Galilee; within a non-mythicist model, the Christ cult would have spread from Galilee and not from Jerusalem.

Change 'pre-existing Christ cult' to 'pre-existing Chrest cult' and you're in. Paul does what any good infiltrator would do: pretend to be one of them.
You'll want to check

viewtopic.php?p=119387#p119387

for all kinds of place names in the NT: there is virtually none of that in Paul, whereas the Gospels and Acts are full of it.
It's safe to say that Paul, if he was doing any relocating at all, moved something from outside Palestine to inside Palestine. But it's flimsy really, especially given his usual hyperbolic rhetoric.
It would be nice to widen the search for Paul alone, but which places would you like to include?

[Giuseppe]

I think that Paul can be easily modelled according to one's own views: the pious Paul, the anti-demiurgist Paul, the usurper Paul, the loyal Paul, the rebel Paul, and so on.

With the historical Jesus, I don't see a similar freedom of choice. Basically, apart the mythical Jesus, only the seditionist Jesus is the only plausible historical Jesus who has been proposed until now.

[John2]

Paul was quite open about the help he asked for and received from his followers and distinguishes it from the money he collected for Christians in Jerusalem. I suppose he could have pocketed the latter for himself, but what evidence is there for that?


Php. 4:10-18:

Now I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this out of need, for I have learned to be content regardless of my circumstances. I know how to live humbly, and I know how to abound. I am accustomed to any and every situation—to being filled and being hungry, to having plenty and having need. I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength.

Nevertheless, you have done well to share in my affliction. And as you Philippians know, in the early days of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church but you partnered with me in the matter of giving and receiving. For even while I was in Thessalonica, you provided for my needs again and again.

Not that I am seeking a gift, but I am looking for the fruit that may be credited to your account. I have all I need and more, now that I have received your gifts from Epaphroditus. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God.

1 Cor. 9:3-10:

This is my defense to those who scrutinize me: Have we no right to food and to drink? Have we no right to take along a believing wife,a as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or are Barnabas and I the only apostles who must work for a living?

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who tends a flock and does not drink of its milk?

Do I say this from a human perspective? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Isn’t He actually speaking on our behalf? Indeed, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they should also expect to share in the harvest.

2 Cor. 9:1-13:

Now about the service to the saints, there is no need for me to write to you. For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting to the Macedonians that since last year you in Achaia were prepared to give. And your zeal has stirred most of them to do likewise.

But I am sending the brothers in order that our boasting about you in this matter should not prove empty, but that you will be prepared, just as I said. Otherwise, if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—to say nothing of you—would be ashamed of having been so confident. So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to visit you beforehand and make arrangements for the bountiful gift you had promised. This way, your gift will be prepared generously and not begrudgingly ...

For this ministry of service is not only supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanksgiving to God.

Because of the proof this ministry provides, the saints will glorify God for your obedient confession of the gospel of Christ, and for the generosity of your contribution to them and to all the others.

Rom. 15:25-28:

Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem to serve the saints there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual blessings, they are obligated to minister to them with material blessings.

So after I have completed this service and have safely delivered this bounty to them, I will set off to Spain by way of you.

[John2]

Paul, by his own admission, faced opposition from other preachers about Christ, who alleged that his teachings were incorrect

These were extremists though (the ones he calls "false brothers" in Gal. 2:4-5 and "false apostles" in 2 Cor. 11), not Jewish Christian leaders. While the latter disapproved of Paul preaching his Torah-free gospel to Jews, they never agreed to that (Gal. 2:9: "And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John ... gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised"). They only disapproved of him for overstepping this agreement (as per Gal. 2:11-13) and not for what he preached to Gentiles.

[ABuddhist]

Paul, by his own admission, faced opposition from other preachers about Christ, who alleged that his teachings were incorrect

These were extremists though (the ones he calls "false brothers" in Gal. 2:4-5 and "false apostles" in 2 Cor. 11), not Jewish Christian leaders. While the latter disapproved of Paul preaching his Torah-free gospel to Jews, they never agreed to that (Gal. 2:9: "And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John ... gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised"). They only disapproved of him for overstepping this agreement (as per Gal. 2:11-13) and not for what he preached to Gentiles.

But why trust Paul's claims? He could have been lying about having had that type of support, as my original post argues.

[John2]

Paul, by his own admission, faced opposition from other preachers about Christ, who alleged that his teachings were incorrect

These were extremists though (the ones he calls "false brothers" in Gal. 2:4-5 and "false apostles" in 2 Cor. 11), not Jewish Christian leaders. While the latter disapproved of Paul preaching his Torah-free gospel to Jews, they never agreed to that (Gal. 2:9: "And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John ... gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised"). They only disapproved of him for overstepping this agreement (as per Gal. 2:11-13) and not for what he preached to Gentiles.

But why trust Paul's claims? He could have been lying about having had that type of support, as my original post argues.

But why not take his claims at face value? What evidence is there for him lying besides other people in the world doing that?

[ABuddhist]

Paul, by his own admission, faced opposition from other preachers about Christ, who alleged that his teachings were incorrect

These were extremists though (the ones he calls "false brothers" in Gal. 2:4-5 and "false apostles" in 2 Cor. 11), not Jewish Christian leaders. While the latter disapproved of Paul preaching his Torah-free gospel to Jews, they never agreed to that (Gal. 2:9: "And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John ... gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised"). They only disapproved of him for overstepping this agreement (as per Gal. 2:11-13) and not for what he preached to Gentiles.

But why trust Paul's claims? He could have been lying about having had that type of support, as my original post argues.

But why not take his claims at face value? What evidence is there for him lying besides other people in the world doing that?

Commonness of human nature and assumptions about new religious movements of the present being like new religious movements of the past, I think.