Paul's Letters, Taken at Face Value, Reveal that He was not a Typical Early Christian!

[ABuddhist]

With all due respect, you seem to be conflating original and typical. What is original may not be typical in later times, especially with religion. Just consider Mormonism.

I'm not sure how to define typical exactly, would non-typical just mean something new?

Non-typical means not average - in this context a belief held by a minority.

[VinnyJH]

I'd suggest what he introduced was the atonement idea. As per the Odes of Solomon the idea the saviour is a saviour who saves wasn't new, but the legalistic atonement was. [This w]ould suggest Paul also downplayed the earthly host body for the Christ (his deeds, words, etc) so much so it appears to us there may never have been any Jesus of Nazareth at all. But Paul's conscious downplaying is pretty transparent and detectable which does lend support that there was a man and if there was his followers might be pretty miffed at Paul.

They might have been miffed, but absent Paul's theology of the atonement, they still would have been sitting around Jerusalem twiddling their thumbs. At that first meeting with James and Peter in Jerusalem, I can't help but suspect that Paul may have done most of the talking and Peter and James may have decided to conform their understanding to his rather than trying to instruct him.

Based on the absence of any discussion of his teachings in the early epistles, my hypothesis is that rather than being an itinerant rabbi, the historical Jesus was a guerilla leader (or some other type of non-teacher). After his crucifixion, someone had a vision of him returned from the dead, which led to the idea of a crucified Messiah and the atonement. At first no one thought that Jesus was a teacher, so there was no discussion of his teachings in Paul's epistles. As time went by, however, it became useful to attribute teachings to the earthly Jesus which led to the gospels.

[Peter Kirby]

I'd suggest what he introduced was the atonement idea. As per the Odes of Solomon the idea the saviour is a saviour who saves wasn't new, but the legalistic atonement was. [This w]ould suggest Paul also downplayed the earthly host body for the Christ (his deeds, words, etc) so much so it appears to us there may never have been any Jesus of Nazareth at all. But Paul's conscious downplaying is pretty transparent and detectable which does lend support that there was a man and if there was his followers might be pretty miffed at Paul.

They might have been miffed, but absent Paul's theology of the atonement, they still would have been sitting around Jerusalem twiddling their thumbs. At that first meeting with James and Peter in Jerusalem, I can't help but suspect that Paul may have done most of the talking and Peter and James may have decided to conform their understanding to his rather than trying to instruct him.

Based on the absence of any discussion of his teachings in the early epistles, my hypothesis is that rather than being an itinerant rabbi, the historical Jesus was a guerilla leader (or some other type of non-teacher). After his crucifixion, someone had a vision of him returned from the dead, which led to the idea of a crucified Messiah and the atonement. At first no one thought that Jesus was a teacher, so there was no discussion of his teachings in Paul's epistles. As time went by, however, it became useful to attribute teachings to the earthly Jesus which led to the gospels.

Welcome to the forum, Vinny!

[nightshadetwine]

The vibe I get from Paul is that he was a newcomer to this Christian cult and was excited about it. I think he kind of wanted to put his own mark on it and make it more like a Greco-Roman mystery cult. He was a Hellenized Jew so I think he possibly took the cult in a more Hellenized direction. Opening it up to anyone and making it more accessible to gentiles was part of this Hellenization. He turns baptism into a symbolic death and rebirth like you find in the mystery cults. Some of the mystery cults were known for being open to people of different classes, genders, and ethnicities. The followers of Dionysus were said to make up his body and Paul uses this same concept for Jesus. He also uses Middle Platonic and Stoic concepts that gentiles would have understood. Some of this may have been around before Paul but I think Paul really ran with it. Paul's selling Jesus to the gentiles.

[davidmartin]

The vibe I get from Paul is that he was a newcomer to this Christian cult and was excited about it. I think he kind of wanted to put his own mark on it and make it more like a Greco-Roman mystery cult. He was a Hellenized Jew so I think he possibly took the cult in a more Hellenized direction. Opening it up to anyone and making it more accessible to gentiles was part of this Hellenization. He turns baptism into a symbolic death and rebirth like you find in the mystery cults. Some of the mystery cults were known for being open to people of different classes, genders, and ethnicities. The followers of Dionysus were said to make up his body and Paul uses this same concept for Jesus. He also uses Middle Platonic and Stoic concepts that gentiles would have understood. Some of this may have been around before Paul but I think Paul really ran with it. Paul's selling Jesus to the gentiles.

The very first religion we know of is on the cusp of hunter gatherers beginning to settle down into cities and the temple there is festooned with carved symbols of rebirth such as vultures poking their beaks through a woman's breast. The vulture devours the dead bodies, the breast symbolises the new life the vultures return back. This is ancient, all this stuff. It's the stuff of religion. When it gets stale renewal movements happen. That's what caused Christianity to break out and Mithras and these other cults and I agree Paul latched onto it but those concepts of rebirth and embodiment of the divine were already there, as the Odes show, he just restated them in his own unique way. I think the James the Just style of rigid Judaism was never the origins of it, that was a convenient legend to bestow orthodoxy on the founders essential for the wholesale appropriation of the Hebrew scriptures into orthodox Christianity. But the roots were not dissimilar to Paul I think what he did was combine some traditional orthodoxy into it not the other way around so as to be the first Pharisee of the movement. What he couldn't be in Judaism he found here. My bet is the actual originators were not too pleased by this AT ALL but from our perspective he gives us a window into the early scene. Just some crazy ramblings for you

[nightshadetwine]

This is ancient, all this stuff. It's the stuff of religion. When it gets stale renewal movements happen. That's what caused Christianity to break out and Mithras and these other cults and I agree Paul latched onto it but those concepts of rebirth and embodiment of the divine were already there, as the Odes show, he just restated them in his own unique way. I think the James the Just style of rigid Judaism was never the origins of it, that was a convenient legend to bestow orthodoxy on the founders essential for the wholesale appropriation of the Hebrew scriptures into orthodox Christianity. But the roots were not dissimilar to Paul I think what he did was combine some traditional orthodoxy into it not the other way around so as to be the first Pharisee of the movement. What he couldn't be in Judaism he found here. My bet is the actual originators were not too pleased by this AT ALL but from our perspective he gives us a window into the early scene. Just some crazy ramblings for you

I agree that you find this death and rebirth symbolism in Jewish texts predating Christianity. The thing about early Christians like Paul though is that they took it a step further than their earlier Jewish texts. As far as I know, Jews didn't have a divine being, angel, God, etc. that died and then was resurrected. They weren't expecting an individual to be the "first fruits" of the resurrection and then everyone else resurrecting as a group just as he did. They ate the body of a sacrificial animal(which Jesus is compared to) but not the body of a deity or a divine being. They also didn't ritually identify with the actions of Yahweh like Christians do in baptism. I think the early Christians were likely aware of the mystery cults and savior deities that died and resurrected, and I think this gave them a "nudge" in the direction of turning Jesus into a resurrecting savior deity. It's possible they didn't even realize they were doing this but because these concepts were just 'in the air' or part of their culture, they ended up appropriating them.