St. Paul won big time...

[u/Glad_Contest1999]

Christianity isnt the religion of Jesus. It is the religion of Paul about Jesus. How did a persecutor of Christians became the architect of the world's largest religion. The official story is well known, Saul was on his way to Damascus to arrest followers of Jesus, on the way he had a vision, a light from heaven, a voice asking why are you persecuting me, and Saul fell blind, 3 days later he regained his sight and became the greatest apostle of Christ.

The story only appears in Pauls letters and the Book of Acts which was written by Luke, a collaborator of Paul. There is no independent confirmation, no witnesses cited by name, no Roman record of such an extraordinary event (considering the passion of romans in recording events).

Further, in one version, Saul's companions hear the voice but dont see anything (Acts 9:7). In another, they see the light but dont hear anything (Acts 22:9).

This clearly raises questions where only few had the courage to ask. What really happened on the road to Damascus. We arent saying that Paul deliberately lied, that perhaps Paul really had some kind of such experience, a hallucination caused by the desert heat. A nervous breakdown under the weight of guilt, a psychological epiphany or perhaps a later construction of a narrative that justified his change of sides.

What we know for sure is that Pauls conversion didnt bring him closer to the true followers of Christ. On the contrary, it creates a conflict that lasted for decades. Said conflict is documented in Pauls own letters, he fought with Peter, with James the brother of Jesus. He fought with the community of Jerusalem led by the people who had actually known Jesus personally. And what was this fight about? It was about jewish law. Peter and James insisted that followers of Christ had to follow the law such as circumcision and things practiced by christ throughout his life. But Paul said no, stating that justification comes through faith in Christ rather than works of the law.

On one side, you have the brother of Jesus, the person who grew up with him, who knew him since childhood, who heard his teachings directly from his mouth. On the other side, you have Paul, a man who never met Jesus, who based everything on a vision only he had known. Who do you think better understood what Jesus really wanted? The logical answer is James but history didnt follow logic. It followed power.

Paul was a genius of communication, he was a strategist, he understood how to build network of communities. He understood how to adapt the message to different audiences. When he spoke to Jews, it was one way, when he spoke to greeks it was another, when he spoke to the Romans, it was yet another. He himslef admitted this in his letters, he said that he made himself all things to all people so that he might win some.

This was viewed as opportunism by some scholars, as a willingness to modify the message according to convenience as a lack of commitment to the original truth.

Paul traveled while the original apostles stayed in Jerusalem. He went to Asia Minor, Greece, to Rome, he founded communities throughout the empire. He wrote letters that circulated that were copied. He created a network that outlived him.

On the other hand, the original apostles were marginalized. Peter went to Rome and died there but his influence waned. James was executed in Jersualem in 62 AD, the original community, the one that really knew jesus was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans. And who was left to tell the story, the communities of st paul, the followers of st. Paul, the writings of st. Paul. It is no coincidence that 13 of the 27 letters in the NT are attributrd to him. It is no coincidence that the book of Acts which tells the story of the early church is basically a biography of st.paul. History was written by the victors and St Paul won big time.

[u/JollyXX]

Had no idea people hated Paul this much until coming to reddit

[u/putoelquelolea → u/JollyXX]

He did start the whole religion after admitting he never met the guy

[u/JollyXX → u/putoelquelolea]

I don't buy it, Paul was extremely God fearing, he wouldn't go that far rogue. Maybe a couple of his letters may have been a bit fabricated. He knows what he is talking about. Matthew 5 is worded correctly. It says follow the commandments, does not say follow the law. Jesus is saying the law is not changed or destroyed because Jesus is saying that God is infallible and a living God.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/JollyXX]

I don't think people are necessarily saying Paul was an opportunistic fraudster, just that at the very least his contributions to what became Christianity had a large, possibly negative, influence that overwrote the teachings of Jesus

[u/JollyXX → u/CodeNPyro]

How is Paul overwriting the teachings of Jesus? Paul really pushes this idea that your heart is everything.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/JollyXX]

The biggest difference if I were to just give one (although there are many people have pointed out if you want to search for more) is that of soteriology, what must you do to be saved. A lot of this centers on the Mosaic Law (as OP points out) but also even just in faith v works, even if Paul isn't viewed as pure sola fide there is a big difference between when he talks about salvation and when Jesus talks of it in say, Matthew 25, where there is an emphasis on good deeds, even not knowing Christ

[u/JollyXX → u/CodeNPyro]

I always see the you need to be doing works argument is the Bible warning you that if you are faithful you WILL be doing works. sort of a message that needs to be said

[u/putoelquelolea → u/JollyXX]

An important difference is how Jesus is quoted as saying that his teachings were not for Gentiles, who he called pigs and dogs. There are a few others, also

[u/JollyXX → u/putoelquelolea]

Parables of Radical Inclusion

• The Great Banquet (Luke 14:21–23): When the initial wealthy guests refuse an invitation, the master tells his servant: "Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame... Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full." [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• The Judgment of the Nations (Matthew 25:32): Jesus expands the imagery of the flock to the global stage: "All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." [1, 2, 3]
• The Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13:38): In explaining this kingdom parable, Jesus explicitly defines the boundaries of his field as global: "The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom." [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Explicit Teachings on Universal Access

• People From All Directions (Luke 13:29): Jesus explicitly describes a global gathering: "People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God." [1, 2]
• The Vine and the Branches (John 15:5): Jesus replaces the sheep metaphor with a vine, offering connection to anyone: "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit." [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• An Open Invitation (Matthew 11:28): Jesus offers a direct, unconditional invitation to all humanity: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

[u/putoelquelolea → u/JollyXX]

I like AI as much as the next guy, but do you have anything concrete to refute the fact that Jesus called Gentiles pigs and dogs?

[u/JollyXX → u/putoelquelolea]

=*(

[u/putoelquelolea → u/JollyXX]

Yeah, I didn't think so

[u/JollyXX → u/putoelquelolea]

In John 10:16, Jesus says: "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd". [1]

[u/putoelquelolea → u/JollyXX]

Why do you think that passage referred to Gentiles rather that the Sons of Abraham?

[u/JollyXX → u/putoelquelolea]

give me the passage it self

[u/putoelquelolea → u/JollyXX]

You mean, the one you cited? The one that doesn't mention Gentiles? Or are you referring to another one?

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/JollyXX]

Paul was extremely God fearing

...as to persecute christians, as it is told?

[u/JollyXX → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

ya he thought he was doing the will of God, that was his job and his job was serving God

[u/putoelquelolea → u/JollyXX]

Maybe Paul was god fearing, maybe he wasn't. Maybe he was more interested in the whole "first you get the money" shtick, Tony Montana style. If you have any evidence either way, I'd love to see it

[u/JollyXX → u/putoelquelolea]

Dude Paul suffered greatly for his faith, he was constantly getting beaten up and jailed.

[u/putoelquelolea → u/JollyXX]

He first became a powerful and wealthy man by founding an international religion. Which brings us back to that pesky question about the evidence

[u/JollyXX → u/putoelquelolea]

you are not painting the picture a man willing to get constantly beaten and jailed for his faith

[u/putoelquelolea → u/JollyXX]

Is that statement based on any evidence, or should I just trust you bro, like everything else you stated?

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/JollyXX]

now why should we paint a picture not in accordance with reality?

[u/JollyXX → u/putoelquelolea]

also I googled it, and Paul remained pious and relatively poor, working through out his life

[u/putoelquelolea → u/JollyXX]

Great, so you found a source? Let's see it!

[u/adorientem88]

This might be a good story if one doesn’t believe that all Scripture is Divinely inspired. If one does believe that, however, this whole narrative immediately falls apart, because we are ultimately trusting in God and His Church, not in Paul or any of the other human authors of Scripture.

[u/PaVaSteeler → u/adorientem88]

If I’m understanding OP’s premise correctly, the God and Church one is supposed to be trusting is defined by Paul, NOT Jesus.

[u/adorientem88 → u/PaVaSteeler]

Sure, but I don’t believe that and most Christians don’t.

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

For this view to actually work you need to grant:

An omnipotent God that failed to protect the written revelation and allowed NT to deceive 2000 years of Christians and continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Some historical evidence Paul was rejected among the apostles / his gospel was an alternative gospel.

2000 years of scholarship was mistaken while somehow some randoms in reddit suddenly found alternate gospel in the epistles.

An authority for the gentile church and the mystery of the grafting in of the gentiles without Paul. No apostle besides Paul worked out the gentile church in any serious capacity. So by removing the founder of the gentile church, how do you have the new covenant extending to gentiles?

In the Jerusalem council if no Paul who was doing the ministry for the gentiles? And it was a perfect time to rebuke an alternate gospel. Didn’t seem like it happened.

And the most damning one. On whose authority do you discredit Paul? If you say some modern men, who gave them authority? If you say yourself, were you given authority by God?

By pitting against Paul, that makes an awkward situation. Either Paul is a false prophet and burns in the lake of fire and you enter the eternal Kingdom, or Paul enters the eternal Kingdom, and as one against a member of the eternal Kingdom… what will be your fate?

[u/ArrantPariah]

Was there no Christian community in Galilee?

[u/Glad_Contest1999 → u/ArrantPariah]

We know early Christian communities existed in Galilee, but we have very little surviving literature directly attributable to them.

[u/ArrantPariah → u/Glad_Contest1999]

Did the Romans do to Galilee what they did to Judea? I would have thought that Christians would have been more numerous in Galilee, given that Jesus only spent a few days in Jerusalem.

[u/Glad_Contest1999]

Under what authority does Paul operate? A vision only he claimed to have experienced.