 |
Tom Merrington - St Paul
Of course Christianity would not have taken hold without Paul, though doubtless another contender - perhaps Mithraism - would have flourished instead. You could say Christianity is the 2000 year inflation of Paul's hallocinogenic 'bubble'! I wonder if he was chewing some hedgerow 'herb' on his way to Damascus.
Graeme Cox - St. Paul : You're Missing the Point
I've read alot of the comments on the St. Paul programme, mainly anti Paul, and you are all missing the point. What is of import here are the changes in the spiritual/ pyschological make up of mankind during this period. When you understand this you would realise that who preached what and who got the upper hand is neither here nor there as the outcome would have been the same i.e. where we are now, today, was inevitable.You would then understand what was going on in Paul on the road to Damascusand why they felt they had moved into a new age.All your academic diatribe and prolixity is superfluous and worthless waffle. You shouldn't be looking at the past but should be considering the future as we move towards some more changes.
Louise Taylor - St. Paul
The subject was well presented up to a point. However, Melvyn Bragg stopped the contributor who was talking about the development of St. Augustine's theology based upon St. Paul from moving on to discuss Karl Barth. The next contributor spoke about Martin Luther and, as Melveyn seemed to imply, the good news that we didn't need the Church in order to be saved, in other words, the doctrine of justification by faith alone. But this is not the end of the debate by any means and it was wrong from the programme to end here. The Council of Trent was set up by theRoman Catholic Church in order to answer the questions thrown up by the Reformation, including Luther's teaching on justification. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is brought about by both faith and works. In layman's language, you can't say you have faith in Christ but lead a life contrary to Christian values feeling that faith will justify you. Scholars have considered Paul's theology on justification for four hundred years since the Reformation. In thi slight, why was Luther given the last word?
John Edwards -- St Paul
There is no evidence that Jesus existed as an historical person. St Paul made up a Gnostic religion, and subsequently the writer of Mark's gospel made up a story that the Saviour was a real person who could walk on water.
Richard Misson - St Paul Continued
Paul travelled with a woman who baptised, he is also made to attack the Gnostic practice of treating women as equal to men:'A woman should quietly receive instruction in complete obedience. I will not allow a woman to be a teacher nor act superior to a man.’At the end of the second century, then, Paul is portrayed by Literalist Christians as anti-Gnostic and authoritarian. This has been assumed to be historically accurate, but is actually only the perspective of these Literalist Christians. Just a few decades earlier, however, their view was the complete opposite - in the first half of the second century letters attributed to Clement, the Bishop of Rome, vigorously attack Paul as a misguided heretic! These letters describe Peter as vehemently denying Paul's status as an apostle since only an eyewitness of the resurrection should be regarded as an apostle and Paul did not actually see the risen Christ. Paul's vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus is apparently not only invalid; it is a revelation from an evil demon or lying spirit! (Herodotus). Jesus is claimed to be 'angry' with Paul who is his 'adversary', because what Paul preaches is 'contradictory' to Jesus' teachings. Peter writes of Paul as his 'enemy' who has convinced some of the Gentiles to reject the Jewish Law and to embrace 'foolish teachings' which are 'outside the Law'. Paul is accused of creating a heretical gospel and Jesus' genuine apostles have to secretly send out 'a true gospel' to correct these heresies. Like his contemporary the arch-heretic Simon Magus, Paul is a satanically inspired divider of the Christian community. He is a dangerous man who should be expelled from the Church!PAUL AND THE PAGAN MYSTERIESIf we can throw off the traditional picture of Paul and look at the evidence with an open mind this anti-Paul rhetoric is understandable, since his letters show distinct Gnostic and Pagan influences. Paul is a Jew who had embraced the ubiquitous Greek culture of the times. He writes in Greek, his first language. He quotes only from the Greek version of the Old Testament. His ministry is to Pagan cities dominated by Greek culture. Of these, Antioch was a centre for the Mysteries of Adonis, Ephesus was a centre for the Mysteries of Attis and Corinth was a centre for the Mysteries of Dionysus. Paul was a native of Tarsus in Asia Minor, which by his time had surpassed even Athens and Alexandria to become the major centre of Pagan philosophy. It was in Tarsus that the Mysteries of Mithras had originated, so it would have been unthinkable that Paul would have been unaware of the remarkable similarities we have already explored between Christian doctrines and the teachings of Mithraism.Paul frequently uses terms and phrases from the Pagan Mysteries, such as pneuma (spirit), gnosis (divine knowledge], doxa (glory), sophia (wisdom), teleioi (the initiated), and so on. He advises his followers to 'earnestly seek the greater charismata'. The word 'charismata' derives from the Mystery term makarismos, referring to the blessed nature of one who has seen the Mysteries. He even calls himself a 'Steward of the Mysteries of God', which is the technical name for a priest in the Mysteries of Serapis.Paul quotes the Pagan sage Aratus, who had lived in Tarsus several centuries earlier, describing God 'in whom we live, and move and have our being'. He also teaches Mystery doctrines. Like the Pagan sage Socrates, who was deemed wise because he knew he knew nothing, Paul teaches:'If someone thinks he knows something, he still doesn't know the way he ought to know.Just as Plato had written that we now only see reality 'through a glass dimly', so Paul writes, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face.”This famous passage from Paul has also been translated:'At present all we see is the baffling reflection of reality; we are like men looking at a landscape in a small mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face.’This translation clearly brings out the Platonic nature of
David McDonagh
I was surprised that the others did not question Melvyn's confidence that the Acts [presumably by the author of the "Luke" gospel], was trustworthy as a source for Paul when the character there clashes so much with the author of the Pauline epistles. It seems clear that Acts, by the great contrast cited, is a later work of fiction. Ditto the gospels themselves, all indulged in owing to the end clearly not being nigh after all. Paul never went on about the life of Jesus as he had no access to the said gospels, that were written after he was dead. They are both Paukline & also post-Pauline too. It would be great if Melvyn could invite G.A. Wells to gave his account of Christianity.
Lawrence: Paul/Saul
Paul may indeed have founded Christianty, but decidedly in the role of double agent. Paul remained true to his traditional Jewish roots. He recognised the insidious danger to religious Jewish life posed by the nascent Christian movement and took drastic and revolutionary steps to expose and delineate it for what it was: a fundamentally non-Jewish belief and value system. What better way, than to commandeer the new religion and steer it away once and for all from Torah Judaism?
Nick Darby - St Paul
Dear Melvyn,I hope you get to read this.First of all, many thanks for the stimulating 'In Our Time' programs,but straight to the point. I happen to be reading 'Irrationality byStuart Sutherland' (Pinter & Martin) and came across this apposite quote(page 8):There is a small area in the middle of the right-hand side of the brainwhich produces a curious effect if an epileptic focus develops there. Insuch a focus the nerve cells from time to time all fire together: whenthey do so, they cause an epileptic seizure. A focus in this particulararea can render the person highly religious, and cause him to avoid sexin any form and to give up all addictions such as smoking and alcohol.Remarkably, when the focus is removed the person goes back to hisprevious existence: he may become an atheist, and return to cigarettes,alcohol and the pursuit of sex. It may be that the form the Christianreligion has taken was in part caused by St Paul suffering an epilepticattack on the road to Damascus.
Paul
I was very, very disappointed with the In Our Time broadcast on Paul, which completely lacked the balance and objectivity of previous programmes, eg previous week on the evolution of the whale. It is stated 'there is a movement away from scepticism'. Well, sure there is - if you simply have three Christian apologetic speakers on the programme and ignore all recent analysis by other sources!! I refer for example to Maccoby H 'The Mythmaker: Paul and the invention of Christianity', 1986, Eisenman R 'Paul as Herodian' 1996, Eisenman R 'James the brother of Jesus', Cresswell P 'Censored Messiah' 2004 and Cresswell P, 'Jesus the Terrorist' 2009 which has a long section on 'The Enemy: Paul'.The programme states that the only evidence lies in the gospel sources. Not true; there is some surviving ebionite testimony on 'the enemy' Paul, eg in the Pseudoclementine Recognitions. There's Josephus and certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls, eg the Commentary on Habbakuk; there is a powerful case that these contain evidence relating to Saul/Paul.Some statements in the programme are just factually incorrect, eg the opening statement that Paul/Saul was a Jewish zealot tentmaker who persecuted Christians. Almost certainly wrong on all four counts! The most outrageously misguided statement, towards the end, was that Paul was persecuting Christians because they were watering down Judaism! That's absolutely wrong. Paul/Saul on just the evidence of the Letters and Acts was persecuting messianic Nazorean Jews, that is extremely zealous Jews, on behalf of the pro-Roman Sadducee High Priest. There weren't any Christians then! That was something, as Acts makes clear, that Paul created first at Antioch.The apostles (the Nazorean followers of a Jewish messiah) didn't incidentally receive Paul nor did he join them. On purely the internal evidence of Acts, they kept him at arm's length (because he was so dangerous) and ultimately rejected him.What about the Eucharist which the evidence from the Letters, Acts and the Didache indicate Paul invented?What about the question of Paul's claimed Roman citizenship? How did he get it? Your apologetic Christian panelists don't discuss these issues, and it can be presumed don't have answers. But there are good explanations from alternative viewpoints , which could have been discussed had the programme been wide and objective enough.Please, please can we have a further programme which looks at all these issues and is more balanced?
Robert Gore.......St. Paul
The impression I got from reading all the New Testment about St. Paul, as a student, was that he deliberately modified the teachings of Jesus to try and contain the new rapidly growing breakaway sect within the broader Judaism, and to make the teachings acceptable to the jews of the day by emphasizing those parts that would appeal and neglecting those that would exclude. The program seemed to imply that St Paul did the opposite, namely modifying the teachings to make them acceptable to gentiles to draw them in. The new sect appealed to the poor, the foreign and the excluded and persecuted because it taught a direct personal link to God, without intervention by a trained priest and stated that a church was merely a gathering of any few faithful in any place at any time. Is it not the case that the early church had a majority of non jews and various immigrants and minorities, including the miscelaneous poor, and that the fear of Paul was that this ragbag group would steal the power and knowledge of the Orthodoxy and grow to challenge the then existing status quo? Until recently, (within the last 40 years) prayers and ceremonies were still held in remote Syrian and Iraqi monastries in Aramaic, the local language of Jesus and his followers, and that these followers had a direct oral link to the original teachings, that had not been through the formal contortions of Councils and politics and language changes that had happened to the texts and faith in Europe, and had not undergone, to the same extent, the changes instituted by St. Paul? Their simple faith did not seem to be primarily about money, power, and property and control like the main thrust in Europe across the centuries, inspite of various reforms and aspirations. That is why some quip that the modern Western faith would be better called Paulianity. Hopefully some scholars will make contact with these remnants of the ancient church and find some insight into the spirit of the early teachings before all their old men have died out or been killed during the recent upheavals, and their lineage is lost for ever.
Mrs Jan Say:
In response to Melvyn's Newsletter question, 'Is it Blasphemous?' (that he had just been musing that without Paul's writings Christianity might have remained just one more small sect). Of course it's not blasphemous to question any aspect of a faith. Such questions surely allow us to engage in proper discussion. But I do feel very sad that the BBC was today (after last night's Question Time broadcast) cowed into submission, once more, by complaints from representatives of other faiths - AND YET we regularly hear broadcast insults and the ridicule of our own faith system, Christianity. (eg News Quiz?) Faiths do not need to compete with one another and followers of faith systems do need to convert one another. We read our scriptures and we also have a mind of our own. Christianity is, surely, this country's inheritance and is our way of tryng to make a certain sort of sense out of a world which is clearly far more than 'simply' matter and freewill. Not everyone has to agree - how can we agree on something we can't explain or describe? We can however read, learn, teach and search for a personal road within faith. I don't expect you to publish this communication but really want us as a nation (which doesn't think itself too clever to learn from the thoughts of great thinkers of the past and present) to stand up for our own faith tradition. The differences in presentation between the marvellous In Our Time and the rabble-rousing Question Time are obvious to listeners and speakers alike. I am a fan of both! Would that it were possible to allow, encourage, deep and reasoned debate in light of philosophy, psychology and the spiritual difficulties - as they might be called - of all members of the human race to be taught from the perspective of professionals who PRACTISE their Christianity in humility and are broadcasting as a result of such work and experience ... Poor old Anglican Church, so misunderstood! :(
Alice: Paul and the Newsletter
I'm relieved to see the comments from Clive Durdle and Rokewood - I, too, was disappointed that the panel seemed to be stuck with the errors of the 'New Testament' concerning Pharisees. My sense that there wasn't much real scholarship around was reinforced by the Newsletter's reference to both Paul and Jesus as rabbis. They weren't. Rabbis didn't exist until after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70CE. I really am surprised that this programme seemed to lack any Jewish or historical perspective. I know that Christians have a big focus on Paul - after all, he pretty much invented/established Christianity - but In Our Time is usually critical and questioning, and the lack of non-Christian thought seemed an aberration.
Quentin
There is nothing blasphemous about speculating that without Paul and Damscus Christianity might have been short lived.(Newsletter)After all think of the millions of reproductive chances in our lineage, yet we are all meant to be here.I cannot square the chance of human affairs with God's providence because the latter is beyond the capacity of human understanding. One takes place in the human sphere, and is true, the other takes place if the infinite sphere, and is true.
Ken on St Paul
I was disappointed that the Academics chosen were unable or unwilling to discuss the poles apart teachings of Jesus and Paul: one said be a child and discover for yourself, the other to be a bondservant and believe in the Son-God.What a missed opportunity in our time.
Robin Allott St Paul
I was pleasantly surprised by the manner in which the subject was developed, particularly the the importance (for St Paul and his successors) of the concept of original sin. No doubt the general level of depravity in his time would have been much the same as it is in modern society so the question of the nature and origin of original sin is still relevant. Perhaps one might consider a conflation of St Paul (and St Augustine) with Darwin. Original sin would then be seen as what has been necessary in human evolution for the survival of the fittest. Genes and brain structure have inevitably had to be selected for reproductive vigour and aggression. These remain fundamental in human psychology and sexual behaviour, even if they have been modified to some extent by language-based cultural advances in the functioning of human groupings. The churches and moralists over the ages have been struggling against the evolutionary drive, still very powerful as can be seenin the continuing remorseless growth of the world population (to 10,000 million).
St. Paul
I am very surprised that nothing in the discussion touched on Paul's "consenting" presence at the death of Stephen. He was killed (according to Acts) when he announced that he had seen Jesus "standing at God's right hand". Paul was a cheer-leader for the killers.It is not likely that Stephen's speech as we have it is recorded word for word; that was not the way of ancient historians (like Tacitus). But the account may well have been how Paul later remembered it, and so gave it to Luke. When Paul turned around from persecutor to "believer" it was this question of Jesus' real role which somehow changed his loyalties. I would have liked some discussion of the psychological and other elements likely to have underlain his "conversion"Ian Buist
Anth Paul and the "new religion"
Only a shallow knowledge of the Bible would suggest that the Jewish rabbi, Paul, propagated a different religion from that of his forefathers, or that his teachings differed from those of Christ who commissioned him. Paul said that he was persecuted for daring to believe literally in the promises made IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, and for daring to preach that the Messiah promised there had been revealed in Christ. If you base your argument on the fact that these promises were now, through Paul (and others), offered to the non-Jews, you must “blame” Peter, who was the first to be told not to call unclean what God Himself had cleaned (Acts 10). Indeed, you must go further and blame Christ Himself, who often alludes to the way Gentiles would benefit from the “crumbs that fall from the children’s table”, and will be present at the wedding feast whereas many of the original invitees would spurn the offer. Jesus goes so far as to explicitly refer to a “time of the Gentiles” which will precede the final denouement of history. It is just as useless to seek to drive a wedge between Christ and His chosen messenger as it is to try to rip the Old Testament out of the New. The testimony is one seamless garment : what God has joined together, let not political correctness - or the BBC, which often amounts to the same thing - try to put asunder.
Angie Gyani
Thank you for your programme on St. Paul. It was great to hear such a lively discussion on something so important to our history. Thanks again.
ST. PAUL AND HIS DYNAMIC ENTHUSIASM !!!
I enjoyed todays panel explaining the circumstances of St. Paul's Convertion to Christianity !!!I heard Helen Bond say that St. Paul thought that something was going to happen soon, about 20 - 30 years after Christ's death and resurrection !!!Helen Bond also said it was thought St.Paul was martyrd about 65 AD. !!!St.Paul was right, something did happen in 66AD. !!!GOD had the disciple whom Jesus loved, St. John write down The Book of Revelation, and in 66AD. visited TheHigh KING of Ireland, with it's lesser Kings, and explainedThe Book of Revelation to them, that was to become what is today British History !!!The High Priest of Jerusalem, Caiaphas( who rejected Jesus and oversaw HIS crucifixion), happened to be at The High King of Ireland's Court, when St. John( Ireland's first " St.Patrick " )visited with GOD'S Message of Revelation, and saw The Reverence Jesus's Disciple received. He probably gnashed his teeth, seeing Jesus's Message at The Right Hand of POWER(in Ireland) just like Jesus said : -Matthew 26 : 64 - 65." ... Hereafter shall ye(Caiaphas) see The Son of man sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming in the clouds(Irish mist)of heaven(British Isles). Then The High Priest rent his clothes ... " !!!GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.Sincerely,Veteran09.
Malcolm Wall Saul of Tarsis
I was so disappointed by the lack of rigour given to this subject, it seemed far more like a sermon than an intellectual investigation. To declare a source as authoritative because that is all we have and it says it is, is just too hilarious really. No other sources from the period make any mention of this cult's idol, albeit Bishop Eusabius tried to forge that infamous Josephus passage! There was no city of Nazareth at this time and the tales based upon it are therefore just that tales, to have this mythology talked about as history was uninspiring.Just to help the gullible types out; A true scripture from the supreme creator being would be crystal clear, internally coherent, portraying "creation" with absolute fidelity and flawless descriptions, a human pastiches of said would be opaque, ambiguous, factually incorrect about physical reality, full of self contradiction and seem to contain several conflicting voices. You'll get it soon I'm sure!
Janis Raishbrook St. Paul
Very enjoyable discussion but I'm disappointed that not more was said about resurrection, which was so central to St. Paul's theology.
Thomas Hudson: Criticism
I enjoyed your programme this week, but I feel it did lack a little in historical criticism; it is undoubtedly true that Paul is a huge figure in the history of Christianity, but I would agree with Rokewood below; the gospels as we have them are perhaps not the most reliable historical references.
Cameron Hawke-Smith/ St Paul
A good discussion - maybe there will be an opportunity to explore the extent to which St Paul distorted the teachings of Jesus? The experts stressed that he gave all his attention to the events of the crucifixion and resurrection and little to the moral teachings. Could it not be that he completely misunderstood what Jesus had preached, e.g. in interpreting the Kingdom of Heaven in terms of the physical End of the World? It has always seemed to me that the interpretation of the crucifixion as a 'sacrifice' was an ingenious (and powerful)piece of metaphysical manipulation of an event that must have caused massive disillusion to Jesus' disciples.
JB
Time now to give the brother of Jesus-James- a programme.The subject of this mornings-Paul-but was he an impostor? There is a broader picture.All be it not as safe and tidy as the one Paul gave the world.
Tony Rignall: Apostle Paul
Thanks for today's programme. I attended an evangelical church for over 10 years and in all that time never heard the teachings of St Paul so clearly, and understandably explained. Although I am no longer a 'Christian' in the accepted sense of the word the programme taught me a great deal about the faith I (thought) I once had.
St. Paul
Thank you for the program on St. Paul. I wanted to add something regarding original sin. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I do accept the condition of original sin. However, that does not mean inherited guilt. We believe that a person is guilty of only their own sin--this is in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church.
Richard Misson
The great Gnostic sages of the early second century (CE) called Paul 'the Great Apostle and honoured him as the primary inspiration for Gnostic Christianity. Valcntinus explains that Paul initiated the chosen few into the 'Deeper Mysteries' of Christianity which revealed a secret doctrine of God. These initiates had included Valcntinus' teacher Theudas, who had in turn initiated Valentinus himself.'Many Gnostic groups claimed Paul as their founding father and Gnostics calling themselves 'Paulicians' continued to flourish, despite persistent persecution from the Roman Church, until the end of the tenth century. Paul wrote his letters to churches in seven cities which are known to have been centres of Gnostic Christianity during the second century. These Christian communities were led by the Gnostic sage Marcion, for whom Paul was the only true apostle. One thing is for sure: if Paul really were as anti-Gnostic as the Literalists claim, then it is astounding how many Gnostic texts quote him or are actually attributed to him. The followers of Marcion even had a gospel which they claimed was written by Paul. The texts found at Nag Hammadi include The Prayer of the Apostle Paul and The Apocalypse of Paul. A scripture called The Ascent of Paul records the 'ineffable words, which it is not permissible for a man to speak' which Paul heard during his famous ascent to the third heaven alluded to by the apostle in his Letter to the Corinthians." Another text, called The Acts of Paul, describes Paul travelling with a companion called Thecla - a woman who conducted baptisms!''THE GENUINE PAUL?Who is the genuine Paul? Could he have been a Gnostic, as the Gnostics claimed? As we have already discussed, modern scholars now regard many of the letters attributed to Paul as forgeries. Of the 13 New Testament letters, only seven are now accepted as largely authentic.The so-called 'Pastoral' letters to Timothy and Titus are regarded as fakes by all but the most conservative of theologians. Computer studies have confirmed that the author of the Pastorals is definitely not the author of the letters to the Galatians, Romans and Corinthians, which are accepted as genuinely by Paul. The earliest collection of letters attributed to Paul does not contain the Pastorals. In fact, we do not even hear of the Pastorals at all until Irenaeus. They appear as a part of the Christian canon only after this time, always as a set, and are regularly dismissed by Christians of all persuasions as forgeries. Even the great orthodox propagandist Eusebius does not include them in his Bible.This is important, as it is only in the Pastorals that Paul is anti-Gnostic. Unlike the genuine Pauline letters, the Pastorals present him as an organizer of the Church, a mainstay of Church discipline and the unswerving antagonist of all heretics. He is made to condemn Gnostic myths as 'unhallowed old wives' tales and to recommend his followers 'not to meddle with the teachings and not to waste time on endless mythologies and genealogies, which lead to empty speculations'. Obviously by the end of the second century the view of Paul as a Gnostic teacher was a sufficient threat to motivate someone to create an indisputably Literalist Paul in response.This Paul is made to specifically advise:'Guard what has been handed down to you by fending off all the Godless prattle and contradictions of false "Gnosis", which some have adhered to, losing the way of the faith.He is also made to be authoritarian in enforcing the power of the Church hierarchy, writing, 'those who do go wrong should be publicly reproved, to give the others a scare.’ He particularly attacks 'Hymenaeus and Philetus', two Gnostic teachers who have 'wandered afield from the truth' and are teaching the Gnostic doctrine that 'our resurrection has already occurred although in his genuine letters Paul claims to be already 'resurrected' himself! And despite the fact that there was a widespread tradition that Paul travelled with a woman who baptised, he is also made to attack the Gnosti
David in Brussels: Paul indispensible for the Gosp
The aim of the New Testament canon is other than providing a complete history of evangelisation. Other sources exist despite deliberate, massive destruction of early books. (Envisage a few centuries of atheists like Mao or Stalin in charge of religion and history.) According to the first-century Clement of Rome, Paul preached in the ‘furthest limits of the West’ (this term generally refers to Britain rather than Spain). Tertullian and other writers affirm this. The historian Eusebius, in his early fourth-century, pre-Nicene book ‘Proof of the Gospel’, wrote that Paul, the 12 apostles, the 70 disciples of the Council and thousands of other first-century evangelists ‘took possession’ not only of the Roman empire, the Persian, Armenian, Parthian, Scythian, Indian and other empires but reached ‘the very ends of the earth’. He specifies directly the British Isles. Christianity gave the deathblow to classical paganism, nullified Roman imperial ideology and exposed the fallacies of Greek philosophy. The empire reacted with brute force with war in Britain, Judea and Parthia. Jerusalem was the centre for this worldwide evangelism, not Rome. It was the seat of all apostles and the setting of the martyrdom of many, including John the Baptist, Stephen, James the apostle and James, the brother of Jesus. Gibbon records that after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the headquarters church moved beyond Judea to Pella. Eusebius lists the bishops of Jerusalem of the early centuries, starting with James, the brother of Jesus, followed by Symeon his paternal cousin. Roman pretensions only date from Constantine’s seizure of power when, after centuries of the empire’s religious persecution, ethnicide and ideological extermination, he mixed the dying pagan ideas in an overtly Christian State religion. ‘Let us have nothing in common with the despicable Jews,’ he wrote. This Roman entity continued to persecute those who resisted its propaganda, especially those who would fit Paul’s ideological profile, a Jew and a Christian with non-pagan, non-hellenistic, biblical theology, conversant in Hebrew. The indestructible message in Hebrew and Greek canon proved to be more important than any individual, whether Paul vs Nero, Arius vs Athenasius, Augustine, or later individuals like Erasmus, Luther, so-called 'rationalist' critics, and the neo-Romans, Stalin and Mao.
John, Paul of Tarsus
Jesus of Galilee becomes Christ after Paul’s teaching. We lose the historical andgain on the mythological. Where is Jesus the Hassidim teacher and healer?. Jesus never instituted the Eucharist as Paul claims. The eucharist is a symbol to Paul of the death of Jesus. Paul does not commend Jesus to his disciples as an admirable moral teacher, nor story teller, nor famed healer and miracle-worker. No, he is mythological,the Messiah, the Rock. Jesus can be raised again in the cup of blood, conqueror ofdeath. The Christ that died for our sins. Paul made clear if his followers were baptised in the death of Jesus they would rise again to life immortal. He exaggerates the number of people who saw the risen Christ, 500. Paul is the founder of the Christian religion-the offering of the body and blood of Christ, not Jesus. Paul was responsible for wresting the religion of Jesus from the Jews and making it available to the gentile world. What part does virtue and works play in the scheme of things? But God forgives. There is this conflict in Paul between Law and Grace. God’s grace pours outto all mankind not , he said, just to the virtuous. The hellenizing Jew overcomes the strict Pharisee. The mystic trumps the moralist. Due to man’s fallen nature and original sin men can only be saved through faith in the mercy of God. Since Jesusdied for sinners, a tremendous hope has come into the world. According to Paul forgiveness is possible through Christ. The gulf between the perfection of God and imperfection of man could never be bridged by rules. Jesus gave people not moralbetterment but glorious liberty, he reconciles God and man: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”. Seen through the eyes of faith Jesus is Christ:‘For now we see in a mirror darkly, but then face to face’. Publican rather than Pharisee. It was well brought out he was a great theologian and poet respecting his Jewish heritage ushering in a universal faith in a new covenant of all people throughoverthrowing Judaism. There’s no need to be converted to Judaism to believe.
Rabbi Y Y Rubinstein "Paul."
Firstly I am a contented listener to I O T. and sometimes BBC broadcaster. I feel the structure of the Paul programme missed a huge facet. What does the Judaism that Paul came from say about his life and work?A Pharisee is today the Orthodox Jewish tradition.The Talmud was heavily censored by the church but those parts tell a story alluded obliquely to in the Programme that he was in fact a Rabbi. He was, says the Talmud, charged by the Sanhedrin (The Jewish Supreme Court,of which he was a member) with infiltrating the new movement, seen as heretical and alter it so radically that it could no longer be confused with original Judaism.This explains so very much of who and what he did. A pity you did not have a Pharisee on the discussion to paint the picture of what he came from and an alternative version and a shame to have missed this view of the tale.
Sandy Raffan, St Paul
I thought Helen Bond was a real breath of fresh air on today's programme - she made St Paul a real human being. So much so that I stuck with the theology for much longer than if it had just been discussed by Melvyn and the two John's.
Rowland Nelken - St. Paul
Great discussion - very informative, but for this listener there was an enormous hole. Reference was made to the expectation of an imminent transformation, a parousia, a rapture of the righteous, as in the Epistle to the Thessalonians. St.Augustine's rationalisation of apocalyptic disappointment was also referred to.What was never mentioned was the continuing expectation of an imminent apocalypse, a battle of Armageddon, a rapture, a Day of Judgement. All these horror scenarios are given credibility, in large part through St. Paul's writings, bond as they are in the Holy Bible.Even St. Augustine had only put back the End of the World by a millennium or so. In 'The City of God' he states quite baldly that the world will end 7000 years after the Creation. By his calculations that was to occur in the 1650s. Yes, St. Paul created the structure of CHristendom; he spread it way beyond the Jewish world and laid foundations that would survive the eclipse of Rome.He was also instrumental in the darkest aspects of my childhood. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, and for them as for a range of other sects, the imminent End, the Rapture et al. were not first century quirks. They were (are) still to be expected. For anyone who venerates a Holy Book as the Word of the Lord, that is a perfectly sensible conclusion, absurd as it may seem in any other context.The expectation of a great transformation, an eschaton survived even the fading of CHristianity. Some European early 19th century communists were Christian and based their expectations of revolution on the 'New World' prophecies of St. Paul. Marx recycled the same myth but subsituted economic statistics for Divine Revelation...but that's another story.You can read of the connections between these stories (St. Paul, Marx and many others) in my forthcoming book 'Paradise Delayed'. I'll sign off by reiterating my main point. The Rapture, the Parousia, the End of Days, were mentioned. The continuing explosive power of these beliefs was ignored.Rowland Nelken - Nottingham
john abrami Original sin: from today's
The old understanding of Original Sin is now outdated, now that it is clear(or should be clear) that the Genesis Story about Adam's disobedience is just that, a sacred story. To take it as fact does no good to anyone, least of all God's reputation with people who use the inteligence He gave them! It encaps thhe belief that the disorder in humans comes from ourselves, not God.It simply points to our condition.It is an inspired wonderful simple revealing bit of the Scriptures not about Adam. About us. About Every-woman-man. A mixture of good and bad, but invited to climb to the holiness of God Himself with his Son's help. Not something God can force on us. Something we have to co-operate in, to choose, with total commitment to bring about. Thanks Melvyn and in Our Time panel - Marvelous
Paul Everitt - Apostle Paul
Just like to say how much I enjoyed today's discussion about Paul. The great themes of his teaching, all have sinned, salvation only by grace through faith in Christ were well presented. So often the Christian faith is knocked in the media, it was refreshing to here a good well presented discussion. Well done BBC, Melvyn and guests!
Rokewood––Historicity and Paul
I enjoyed the discussion of St Paul very much this morning, particularly the skillful unfolding of Paul's theology by all three contributors. I was struck, however, by the naive attitude shown to the sources, which seemed quite blind to recent NT scholarship. Issues of dating, language and even factual incompatibilities make it very hard for us to rely on Acts or the Pastoral Epistles as valid guides to events in Paul's life. Acts seems a much later document than the discussion assumed (the link to 'Luke' for both Gospel and Acts is unknown until well into the 2nd century) and even the authenticity of Galatians is highly questionable (Galatians and Acts have quite different accounts of Paul's conversion, for example). A dimension of historical scepticism, from which sometimes NT discussions seem uniquely immune, would have enriched the programme.
Christine, Leicestershire
Thank you for the programme about Paul. I enjoyed learning more and was pleasantly surprised that it did not dive into liberal disclaimers. As a conservative Christian, I appreciated the various comments. Thank you.
Clive Durdle St Paul
I was very disappointed in your programme. You do not seem to have checked Britannica and the Jewish Encyclopedia about Pharisees - who were the radical anti slavery anti circumcision spirit of the law lot.Why no mention of the gnostic Paul, and that we probably have three Paul's, an original gnostic Pharisaic liberal Greek Jew, an edited catholicised one, and agreed works called by Paul but written by others.No discussion of Acts as a much later work to bring together factions.Is not the road to Damascus classic fiction when the reality is that Paul is grounded in well trodden Greek Jewish thinking - he uses the Septaguint - written in that Greek city Alexandria? His thinking about grace is a logical extension of Jewish thinking - a small step - not a revolution. His Christ is in the heavens!You have in In our Time covered Persia and Alexandria but somehow you do not see Judaism and its interesting "oriental cult" within its context.And finally have you never heard of Earl Doherty?
John Gaynard
What does your panel make of the claims Robert Eisenman makes about Paul, in books such as the "Damascus Covenant, for example that Paul was a member of Herod's family, that he manipulated the words and person of Peter in his struggle with James, brother of Jesus, for the control of the early Christians and that he also had a hand in James's death? Thanks for a great programme.
|
|
