On 9 Feb 2001, at 13:25,____ wrote:
> I've noticed in many of your writings that you like to
quote the Apostle Paul.
> From my reading in the Bible, I find Paul to be one of the
most shifty,
> opportunistic charlatans to put pen to paper. This character twisted the OT
> into a pretzel(as did most of the NT writers) if it served his purpose. In my
> opinion, Paul was an intolerant religious zealot who did his utmost to stomp
> on any form of belief outside his theological cocoon.
G.A. Wells writes about Paul:
"The modern European is familiar enough with the story told in the gospels and in Acts. But he is bewildered when he turns from these to Paul's epistles and wonders how such turgid documents have come to constitute a quarter of the whole canon, even why they were admitted into it at all.
"The oldest extant manuscripts of these letters give them as a collection, but date only from the late second and early third centuries...
"The lay reader not only finds these epistles almost unintelligible; it comes as something of a shock to learn that they were written earlier than the gospels and therefore provide more important clues as to how the earliest Christians regarded Jesus, even though they deal with a later period than the gospels purport to portray.
"External evidence confirms that they existed well before the gospels. The gospels were known and quoted by the middle of the second century, the Pauline letters much earlier.
"The New Testament includes thirteen letters which name Paul as author, but some of these must be set aside as the work of later writers adopting his name and authority. ...The first four in the canon, and the one to the Galatians - are universally accepted as genuinely Pauline, [even if computer techniques prove that others added to them later, interpolating what they felt to be useful for reading in church meetings in accordance with what was seen to be needed for a particular congregation.]
"Pauls letters... were written before AD 60. He himself says that he composed them late in his career as a Christian, and that there were already christians before his own conversion. Christianity then existed by about AD 30. These earliest Christians were Jews. Early Christian documents accept the God of Israel, the Old Testament, Jewish apocalyptic and angelology literature, and Jewish ideas about the Messiah. A non-Jewish origin for a sect which embraced all this is out of the question. Hence the Jewish, rather than the pagan religious background is likely to be of prime importance in explaining [Christianity.]
"It is no longer in dispute that many religious ideas among Jews and early Christians originated as a result of musings on existing sacred and semi-sacred literature. ...When Christianity originated, Jewish writings included a considerable body of "wisdom" literature.. In some passages wisdom figures not just as an abstract idea, but is personified. Wisdom is a supernatural personage created by God before he created heaven or earth ... "She is the sustainer and governor of the Universe who sits by the throne of God." "She comes to dwell among men and bestow her gifts on them, but most of them reject her...."
"It is thus obvious that the humiliation on earth and exaltation to heaven of a supernatural personage, as preached by Paul and other early christian writers, could have been derived from ideas well represented in the Jewish background. Paul was strongly influenced by the wisdom traditions, for statements made about Wisdom in Jewish literature are made of Jesus in the Pauline letters.
"Paul writes of "Christ in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Coloss.2:3) Elsewhere he calls Christ "the power of God and the Wisdom of God," (1Cor. 1:23-5)
"In this passage from 1 Corinthians, Paul comes very close to expressly calling the supernatural personage that had become man in Jesus "Wisdom."
"What is particularly difficult to understand is that Paul should refer to Jesus as a pre-existent supernatural personage if in fact this Jesus had been a contemporary with whose friends, relatives, and followers Paul himself was personally acquainted.
"...All those of the extant post-Pauline epistles of the New Testament which are likely to have been written before the end of the first century refer to Jesus in essentially the same manner as Paul does. They stress one or more of his supernatural aspects - but say nothing of the teachings or miracles ascribed to him in the gospels, and give no historical setting to the crucifixion, which remains the one episode in his incarnate life unambiguously mentioned, at least in some of them." [The Historical Jesus}
Now, what we derive from this, and more in depth study, is the fact that Paul was a scholar and a mystic and a teacher of the Wisdom tradition that was borrowed or rather, plagiarized, by the Jews and included in part in the Old Testament.
We also find that there was a great deal of interpolation in these letters designed to give authority to whatever agenda was on the mind of the individuals doing it.
But the important thing is: Paul gives us a window into a tradition that is many thousands of years old if we have the perspicacity to see past what are clearly additions and corruptions of the text. Obviously, even the mention of a literal crucifixion was added because, in most contexts, Paul describes this Wisdom as "descending to earth" and being rejected, just as knowledge and wisdom always have been... and the whole idea of a guy - a historical person on a cross - was completely foreign to Paul.
>The following are some
> examples of Paul's brand of truth seeking:
>
> Gal 1:9
> As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a
> gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Can't you see who would put such a thing in there? Obviously a person who wants to use the authority of Paul for his own control issues.
> 2 Cor 10:6
> And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience
> is complete.
See above. Compare such remarks to the general tone and body of the authentic texts, of which there are 8.
> 2 Thes 1:6-10
> God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you
> and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen
> when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful
> angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of
> our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut
> out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day
> he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all
> those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony
> to you.
2 Thessalonians is generally accepted to be post Pauline and NOT written by Paul. Wells writes:
"The second letter to the Christians at Thessalonica is ascribed to Paul in the canon and claims to have been written by him. There are good grounds for regarding it as from a later hand.
There are many phrases in 2nd Thess. that "connect" it to 1st Thess. But they are so obvious that they draw down questions such as: why would a single author, writing two brief letters of this kind, use so many of the same phrases in both... particularly since the TONE of the two letters is so different???
1Thess is warm and affectionate... 2 Thess is, however, entirely lacking any personal warmth. If we assume that Paul is its author, then his mood must have REALLY changed. And if that is the case, why did he decide to use so much of the 1st Thess epistle????
In 2nd Thess the author writes in 3:17 "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine. It is the way I write."
The real Paul does indeed twice state (in Gal 6:11 and 1 Cor. 16:21) that he wrote the conclusion of a letter in his own hand instead of dictating it. But, in neither of those cases is there any suggestion that the purpose of the signature is to authenticate the letter. Its purpose is to "bring the apostle closer to the church in question with a few personally added words... " purely an act of warmth and affection - he wanted to give his letter a "personal touch."
So, the passage in 2n Thess only makes sense if the author wished to allay any suspicions of inauthenticity which his letter, by its harsh tone, might arouse.
This author certainly had the idea of "letters falsely attributed" foremost in his mind and warns his readers against pernicious teachings in letters "purporting to be from us." You could say that he was giving himself away right there.
In the genuine Pauline epistles, Paul NEVER mentions the idea of forged letters from himself. It never occurred to him. So, it is strange that the writer of 2 Thess should allude to this matter of so great seriousness with only a brief remark.
The author of 2 Thess is most emphatic that the addressees MUST accept the doctrines he puts to them. They are to hold aloof from any Christians who do not do so. Such persons, it is implied, will be frightfully punished at the second coming. His motive in pretending to be Paul is clearly to claim Paul's authority for doctrines which he feels are not merely correct but essential to salvation. His principal concern is to correct, in Paul's name, what he regarded as misconceptions about the 2nd coming. In order to do so, he flatly contradicts what 1 Thess says on this subject!!!
In the genuine Pauline letter, the 2nd coming of Wisdom (remember, Jesus was a symbol for this and not a physical return of a historical person) was to be soon. And this coming of Wisdom was to deliver us from the "wrath to come." Further, the prophesied "day of the Lord" would come unheralded, like a "thief in the night," at a time of apparent peace and security. This was apparently written to assure its readers that staying peaceful and living blamelessly was the route to this Wisdom.
In 2 Thess, however, we find that the 'second coming' is not supposed to be expected any time soon. And, of course, the focus here is a physical return of a historical personage. It lists a series of upheavals that must occur first, rebellion, man of lawlessness, blah blah blah. It might be thought that the current emperor or a potential claimant to the throne was suggested here. Yet, some of these same remarks are also detailed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so we cannot toss out the epistle completely since it is also a window to possible original material, for whatever it might be worth.
Nevertheless, the sharp contradiction between the end coming at a time of peace and safety, as opposed to the end being preceded by catastrophes is evident.
Some argue that Paul must have changed his mind... But the teaching of the second letter cannot represent a change of the mind of the real Paul; for when the author gives this teaching, he asks the addressees: Do you not remember that I was still with you when I told you this?
The purpose of this epistle is obvious... it is to move the idea of the 2nd coming from Wisdom to a future event embodied in a single individual... who, of course, is NEVER going to come as proposed, but the controls are nevertheless being gradually transferred into the hands of those who are behind the author of this epistle, since they are the arbiters of this salvation.
Now, another thing that is evident is that this letter actually sought to controvert the teachings of the REAL Paul by saying that the erroneous view that "that day" is imminent or that it has already come, is being supported by a letter or letters "purporting" to be from Paul.
Interestingly, NEITHER letter to the Thessalonians bases its eschatological teaching on what Jesus was purported to have taught! But, of course, as Wells writes: "In due course both of the two incompatible doctrines were put in his mouth, and Mark and Matthew, each drawing at this point of his gospel on disparate sources, ascribe both views to him within one and the same speech. Mk 13:5-31 specifies unmistakable antecedents of the second coming, while verses 33-7 urge watchfulness in case it comes unexpectedly!
"In Matt 24:6 -14, likewise specifies catastrophes which will preced the end; but in verses 42-4 warning is given that it will be upon us unexpectedly "like a thief in the night" - the very phrase that had been used by Paul in 1 Thess without being attributed to Jesus - which Paul would have done if Jesus had actually said it to bolster the point!!!
Now, does this sound like a man who valued free thought and the seeking of > knowledge????? Every time I see you quote Paul, I cringe. Other than this, I > enjoy your excellent site and admire your work.
Well, maybe the above will help. This is just a very short treatment of it to let you know that I am not as dumb as I sometimes seem to be... there is so much, so VERY much stuff to write about I don't think I will live long enough.
Just to go through the Bible with the reader and point out how to "read/weed" it would be a useful exercise. Because, remember, the control system does follow the 'truth' very closely except when they twist and diverge on the crucial points that will take the reader off in the wrong direction while their brain is entrained. And then, they will put things in very good material that cause people to be turned off to it when, in fact, the majority of it is quite worthy of study.
Anyway, you might really like to get into some studies of the Bible by reading some of Well's books. There are a lot of hypnotized theologians out there, but he isn't one of them.
L
