rs said:
Having grown up in an evangelical Christian environment, all I can say is that modern Christianity is predicated on lowering your self esteem so that you can be "saved" and enslaved to a capricious God, who will bless you or curse you, all according to an invisible and unintelligible plan that you are not worthy enough to understand.
There is virtually nothing in Christian doctrine about empowerment or personal freedom. It's sick, really...
True. A really excellent book with an "outsider's" view of the religion that Paul created is Hyam Maccoby's "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity". I don't necessarily subscribe to his idea that there was a Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels and Acts, and that he was a pharisee, but rather that he was getting close to the idea that Jesus was modeled on Judas the Galilean and that Paul was the creator of Christianity, pure and simple, and used elements of Gnosticism, Hellenic dying/resurrecting savior mystery cults, and co-opted the Jewish OT for the "history" part of his myth. Where he went wrong was relying on the myth itself as a real history.
What Maccoby does VERY well, is summarize Christian theology as something that began as antinomianism, but really didn't work because Paul did not take human nature into account. Looked at rationally, as Maccoby does, Christian theology is really pretty silly and insulting to humanity not to mention making the Creative Force of the Cosmos look idiotic.
Of course, Elaine Pagels and other Nag Hammadi experts suggest that Paul taught two Christianities, two levels, and that the real deal was never put in writing but delivered in person. See: "The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters". She brings up some significant evidence that Paul was, indeed, teaching something very "secret" and that secret may have been more interesting than the low-rent "just believe and you get saved" routine.
Another couple of really excellent books on how this absurd system was created and foisted on humanity are Tolbert's "Sowing the Gospel: Mark's Work in Literary-Historical Perspective" followed on by Dykstra's "Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark's Gospel".
Then, there is Hilsenrath's "Jesus the Nazorean" which almost gets you to the idea that Jesus was really Judas the Galilean, though she can't quite make that leap, preferring to stick with the name "Jesus" and assuming he was a son of Judas, instead of understanding that the name "Jesus" was an honorary moniker that went with "Messiah". "Joshua" means "savior" and "messiah" is "anointed" and I think that the zealot/sicarii/rebel followers of Judas gave him this title after they began "seeing" him (or saying they did).
The main thing that was Paul's unique contribution to the mix was THE CROSS which we are certain he got from witnessing a re-enactment of the funeral of Julius Caesar who was sort of the original man who became a god, and was a "savior of mankind" who was destroyed by the "evil powers" of this world and all the common people who longed for freedom wanted him to come back and fix things. Caesar's comet and the reported earthquakes, darkness, visions, all got mixed up together with a Jewish freedom fighter/religious zealot in Paul's mind; add a dash of gnosticism, co-opt the OT, and there you have it.
Then, when a student or follower of Pauline ideas decided to create the myth, i.e. gospel of Mark, he had a whole lot of materials to hand to represent Paul's theology in story form. He was clearly drawing on Josephus, Homer, Paul's OT exegesis, and his own creativity. I think the version of Josephus that he had also was a bit more expansive on the life of Judas the Galilean and most of this was soon edited out and the Testimonium Flavianum inserted in place of the story of the death of Judas because that account was way too close to the story of the crucifixion of Jesus to be allowed to stand. The author of Mark then used the name "Judas" as the betrayer to better divert attention away from the real-life rebel against Rome who was his primary model for the Jewish messiah. Also, it is clear that Paul did not know any idea of a betrayer, so that idea also came from the Caesar/Brutus relationship. He used elements of Caesar's life and sayings as a framework fleshed out by Homeric allusions, and Caesar's funeral as the frame for the Passion.
As an example of a man of virtus, Caesar was unparalleled. It's a shame to have exchanged that for a set of ideas that reduce humans to helpless slaves with no responsibility for their treatment of others or the world at large.
Well, my 2 cents for the moment.