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

[ABuddhist]

Rather, he was constantly trying to assert, against other Christian believers and leaders, that his Christianity was the true Christianity. Why did it take me so long to realize this?

How widespread is this understanding of him?

[mlinssen]

Rather, he was constantly trying to assert, against other Christian believers and leaders, that his Christianity was the true Christianity. Why did it take me so long to realize this?

How widespread is this understanding of him?

Indeed. But where do you get the idea that he was addressing Christians?
And that there was Christianity already?

Just curious

[ABuddhist]

Indeed. But where do you get the idea that he was addressing Christians?
And that there was Christianity already?

Just curious

Well, he was talking about a crucified man-god, dead and resurrected, who bought us for a price - which is the central doctrine of Christianity. Furthermore, none of the theological disagreements which he had with his co-religionists were against the concept of a crucified man-god, dead and resurrected, who bought us for a price - instead, they were about issues such as observing religious taboos and the resurrection of believers.

[schillingklaus]

Paul is entirey fictional, whence any comparison to typical whatsoever people is pointless.

[ABuddhist]

Paul is entirey fictional, whence any comparison to typical whatsoever people is pointless.

Well, concerns such as yours are why I specified that my interpretation is based upon taking his letters at face value.

[davidmartin]

In this reading Paul is also a self admitted late comer to the party! 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. Would 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

Paul - "The Lord had to die and become sin, his words and deeds mean nothing"
His followers - "Wait a minute that's not what He said!"
Paul - "But He appeared to me in a vision"
His followers - "But we knew him and wore our feet out following him!"
Paul - "Hey everyone. Don't listen to those heretics!"
His followers - "Psst, want a gospel?"

[mlinssen]

Indeed. But where do you get the idea that he was addressing Christians?
And that there was Christianity already?

Just curious

Well, he was talking about a crucified man-god, dead and resurrected, who bought us for a price - which is the central doctrine of Christianity. Furthermore, none of the theological disagreements which he had with his co-religionists were against the concept of a crucified man-god, dead and resurrected, who bought us for a price - instead, they were about issues such as observing religious taboos and the resurrection of believers.

Christianity as we now know it, perhaps - but even that doesn't demonstrate that his audience was Christian, or does it? On the contrary, the fact that he has to explain all this makes it not (appear as) self-evident, which can only mean that his audience was anything but Christian, I'd think

[robert j]

Paul’s spiritual system was about Gentiles gaining full participation with the God of Israel --- without the benefit of circumcision --- by means of faith in his JC figure. Paul derived his redemptive and salvific JC figure, his conduit to the God of the Jews, from his creative and generative readings of the Jewish scriptures.

The Galatians were leery of Paul’s shortcut by means of faith alone, and apparently preferred to follow the explicit and unequivocal words of God in the Jewish scriptures that required circumcision for males of any age and for converts. Paul summed-up the goal in his closing of the letter, it was all about “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).

Even his sophisticated, Hellenist Corinthians were apparently focused on gaining access to the God of the Jews. Gentiles were often welcome to participate in many synagogue activities --- but not the Passover celebration for which circumcision was required for males. Paul offered the Corinthians their own way of celebrating the Passover ---

Cleanse out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are, unleavened. For also Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed, so that we might celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, not with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and of truth. (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)

And Paul laid-out the role of his JC figure as a logos of sorts, as a conduit, as a means to participate with God ---

… yet to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we through Him. (1 Corinthians 8:6). See also Romans 5:1-2.

And in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, in the end according to Paul ---

… then also the Son Himself will be put in subjection to the One having put in subjection all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)

Decades after Paul (according to conventional dating) and after the first Roman-Jewish war, some Gentiles were apparently still attracted to Jewish spirituality. Roman poet and essayist Juvenal wrote from the perspective of the privileged classes in his satirical commentaries on city life in Rome around 100 CE.

Juvenal engaged in a sustained expose on the perfidy of wealthy Roman wives in his essay, The Ways of Women (Satire 6).

His essay is chock-a-block with references to gods, goddesses, and superstitions of the times --- especially about 2/3 of the way through where he focuses on the superstitions of privileged Roman women.

Amid rituals to satisfy Bellona, the Roman goddess of war, and Cybele, the mother of gods with a Phrygian eunuch attendant; rituals in observance of Isis; tributes to Anubis, the god of the dead; bribes for forgiveness by Osiris; and consultations with soothsayers examining the entrails of a dog, and Chaldaean astrologers; just to name a few, we find a mention of Jewish mysticism.

In this passage Juvenal looks down his nose in a barely disguised sneer at a woman of the streets ---- not one providing physical comforts, but rather spiritual. The passage is likely a caricature, a composite portrait drawn from a plethora of types he'd seen on the streets of ancient Rome around 100 CE. I doubt Juvenal himself believed it, but it’s interesting that for a sophisticated Roman audience he would characterize the Jewish interpreter of the laws of Jerusalem as a trusted go-between with the highest heaven —

Leaving her basket and her truss of hay
a palsied Jewess comes begging to her secret ear
an interpreter of the laws of Jerusalem
faithful messenger of highest heaven
high-priestess of the Tree

She too fills her palm but sparingly
for a Jew will tell you dreams
of any kind you please
for a mere small coin

Juvenal, The Ways of Women (Satire 6).

This is just what Paul claimed to offer --- “an interpreter of the laws of Jerusalem, faithful messenger of highest heaven”

[GakuseiDon]

In this passage Juvenal looks down his nose in a barely disguised sneer at a woman of the streets ---- not one providing physical comforts, but rather spiritual. The passage is likely a caricature, a composite portrait drawn from a plethora of types he'd seen on the streets of ancient Rome around 100 CE ---

Leaving her basket and her truss of hay
a palsied Jewess comes begging to her secret ear
an interpreter of the laws of Jerusalem
faithful messenger of highest heaven
high-priestess of the Tree

She too fills her palm but sparingly
for a Jew will tell you dreams
of any kind you please
for a mere small coin

Juvenal, The Ways of Women (Satire 6).

This is just what Paul claimed to offer --- “an interpreter of the laws of Jerusalem, faithful messenger of highest heaven”

Perfect! That may be the key insight into what was driving the real Christianity of Paul. As the saying goes: "Follow the money!" Or to paraphrase Juvenal: "for Paul will tell you dreams, of any kind you please, for a mere small coin".

[neilgodfrey]

One way to explore Paul's letters is to study their earliest explicit uses -- who and to what ends? I suppose Irenaeus is our first candidate or have I overlooked someone? It's been a long time since I read anything of his. I presume he makes explicit use of Paul's letters in more than his criticism of Marcion, yes?

There must be scholarly publications looking at the question of the earliest explicit uses of Paul. What are some?