Opinion of Paul the Apostle

[wimp]

A lot of otherwise devout Christians think he is an HP for various reasons. I personally think he had a lot of good things to say, and his conversion story is no doubt inspirational.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Paul is a complicated person, made moreso by the epistles attributed to him but likely not written by him. Without him, Christianity likely would've remained an obscure Jewish sect, last heard of in the tumults of the First Jewish Revolt.

His message is more in accord with modern sensibilities if you exclude writings such as the pastoral epistles attributed to him but almost certainly not written by him.

That said, his conversion story suffers from being falsifiable, tho his continued adherence in the face of adversity indicates that at minimum he wanted what he said to be true, even if it weren't.

[vitoNova]

A shrewd businessman who had a vested interest in spreading his cult into the Roman world.

Follow the money. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but I think he's become something of a sin-eater for things people don't like about small-o orthodox Christianity and so most of the popular criticisms of him get on my nerves. The unusually stringent ~Christian sexual ethic~, for example, derives in large part straight from the mouth of Jesus, and Christian antisemitism is at least as evident in the Johannine writings as it is in the Pauline writings (Paul continued to identify as a Pharisee throughout his life, for goodness' sake!).

[Mopsus]

A shrewd businessman who had a vested interest in spreading his cult into the Roman world.

Follow the money. 

Please go on.

[vitoNova]

A shrewd businessman who had a vested interest in spreading his cult into the Roman world.

Follow the money.  

Please go on.

Think of a cross between My-Pillow Guy, Bill O'Reilly, with a dash of James Carville.  

[Mopsus]

A shrewd businessman who had a vested interest in spreading his cult into the Roman world.

Follow the money. 

Please go on.

Think of a cross between My-Pillow Guy, Bill O'Reilly, with a dash of James Carville. 

Those were the 12 Apostles. 

This thread is about Paul.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but I think he's become something of a sin-eater for things people don't like about small-o orthodox Christianity and so most of the popular criticisms of him get on my nerves. The unusually stringent ~Christian sexual ethic~, for example, derives in large part straight from the mouth of Jesus, and Christian antisemitism is at least as evident in the Johannine writings as it is in the Pauline writings (Paul continued to identify as a Pharisee throughout his life, for goodness' sake!).

I don't understand how someone who wrote Romans 11 ( "all Israel will be saved" ) could be considered antisemitic.

[vitoNova]

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but I think he's become something of a sin-eater for things people don't like about small-o orthodox Christianity and so most of the popular criticisms of him get on my nerves. The unusually stringent ~Christian sexual ethic~, for example, derives in large part straight from the mouth of Jesus, and Christian antisemitism is at least as evident in the Johannine writings as it is in the Pauline writings (Paul continued to identify as a Pharisee throughout his life, for goodness' sake!).

I don't understand how someone who wrote Romans 11 ( "all Israel will be saved" ) could be considered antisemitic.

Yeah.  And Trump is "totally not racist."

All those early Christian cultists fresh-off-the-boat had no choice but to throw their fellow Jews under the bus because it made converting Romans much easier.   Which was, after all, their ultimate goal.  

It was much more politically prudent to blame the Rabbi's crucifixion on "those people" as opposed to telling the truth:  Rome had Jeebus executed for insurrection.   

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but I think he's become something of a sin-eater for things people don't like about small-o orthodox Christianity and so most of the popular criticisms of him get on my nerves. The unusually stringent ~Christian sexual ethic~, for example, derives in large part straight from the mouth of Jesus, and Christian antisemitism is at least as evident in the Johannine writings as it is in the Pauline writings (Paul continued to identify as a Pharisee throughout his life, for goodness' sake!).

I don't understand how someone who wrote Romans 11 ( "all Israel will be saved" ) could be considered antisemitic.

Yeah.  And Trump is "totally not racist."

All those early Christian cultists fresh-off-the-boat had no choice but to throw their fellow Jews under the bus because it made converting Romans much easier.   Which was, after all, their ultimate goal. 

It was much more politically prudent to blame the Rabbi's crucifixion on "those people" as opposed to telling the truth:  Rome had Jeebus executed for insurrection.   

It's amazing how your posting style is so theatrically abrasive and unpleasant as to make the received, mostly-uncontroversial explanation for why the Gospels stress Jewish leaders' culpability in Jesus' death seem like an edgy Nu Atheist take.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     St. Paul was a pious man of God, and an inspiration to all of us in repenting of his sins and traveling the land as a great apostle and preacher. I have a very easy time voting FF for him.

[vitoNova]

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but I think he's become something of a sin-eater for things people don't like about small-o orthodox Christianity and so most of the popular criticisms of him get on my nerves. The unusually stringent ~Christian sexual ethic~, for example, derives in large part straight from the mouth of Jesus, and Christian antisemitism is at least as evident in the Johannine writings as it is in the Pauline writings (Paul continued to identify as a Pharisee throughout his life, for goodness' sake!).

I don't understand how someone who wrote Romans 11 ( "all Israel will be saved" ) could be considered antisemitic.

Yeah.  And Trump is "totally not racist."

All those early Christian cultists fresh-off-the-boat had no choice but to throw their fellow Jews under the bus because it made converting Romans much easier.   Which was, after all, their ultimate goal.  

It was much more politically prudent to blame the Rabbi's crucifixion on "those people" as opposed to telling the truth:  Rome had Jeebus executed for insurrection.  

It's amazing how your posting style is so theatrically abrasive and unpleasant as to make the received, mostly-uncontroversial explanation for why the Gospels stress Jewish leaders' culpability in Jesus' death seem like an edgy Nu Atheist take.

Surprising to hear, actually.  I would assume it was a fringe theory.  It's not like I read anything academically justifying my "argument" other than what little I paid attention in Catholic school as a kid.

It's simply the only explanation that makes logical sense.  

These early Xtians folks weren't old bearded mystics who wandered the desert in humble robes.  They were businessmen and realpolitikers.  

[Xeuma]

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but I think he's become something of a sin-eater for things people don't like about small-o orthodox Christianity and so most of the popular criticisms of him get on my nerves. The unusually stringent ~Christian sexual ethic~, for example, derives in large part straight from the mouth of Jesus, and Christian antisemitism is at least as evident in the Johannine writings as it is in the Pauline writings (Paul continued to identify as a Pharisee throughout his life, for goodness' sake!).

I don't understand how someone who wrote Romans 11 ( "all Israel will be saved" ) could be considered antisemitic.

Yeah.  And Trump is "totally not racist."

All those early Christian cultists fresh-off-the-boat had no choice but to throw their fellow Jews under the bus because it made converting Romans much easier.   Which was, after all, their ultimate goal. 

It was much more politically prudent to blame the Rabbi's crucifixion on "those people" as opposed to telling the truth:  Rome had Jeebus executed for insurrection.   

It's amazing how your posting style is so theatrically abrasive and unpleasant as to make the received, mostly-uncontroversial explanation for why the Gospels stress Jewish leaders' culpability in Jesus' death seem like an edgy Nu Atheist take.

Surprising to hear, actually.  I would assume it was a fringe theory.  It's not like I read anything academically justifying my "argument" other than what little I paid attention in Catholic school as a kid.

It's simply the only explanation that makes logical sense. 

These early Xtians folks weren't old bearded mystics who wandered the desert in humble robes.  They were businessmen and realpolitikers. 

This explains everything.

Anyways, obvious FF is obvious.

[Mopsus]

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but I think he's become something of a sin-eater for things people don't like about small-o orthodox Christianity and so most of the popular criticisms of him get on my nerves. The unusually stringent ~Christian sexual ethic~, for example, derives in large part straight from the mouth of Jesus, and Christian antisemitism is at least as evident in the Johannine writings as it is in the Pauline writings (Paul continued to identify as a Pharisee throughout his life, for goodness' sake!).

I don't understand how someone who wrote Romans 11 ( "all Israel will be saved" ) could be considered antisemitic.

Yeah.  And Trump is "totally not racist."

All those early Christian cultists fresh-off-the-boat had no choice but to throw their fellow Jews under the bus because it made converting Romans much easier.   Which was, after all, their ultimate goal.  

It was much more politically prudent to blame the Rabbi's crucifixion on "those people" as opposed to telling the truth:  Rome had Jeebus executed for insurrection.  

It's amazing how your posting style is so theatrically abrasive and unpleasant as to make the received, mostly-uncontroversial explanation for why the Gospels stress Jewish leaders' culpability in Jesus' death seem like an edgy Nu Atheist take.

Surprising to hear, actually.  I would assume it was a fringe theory.  It's not like I read anything academically justifying my "argument" other than what little I paid attention in Catholic school as a kid.

It's simply the only explanation that makes logical sense.  

These early Xtians folks weren't old bearded mystics who wandered the desert in humble robes.  They were businessmen and realpolitikers.  

Regarding the Gospels, the most interesting theory (though not the most pious) is that they reflect the relations between Christians and Jews at the time that they were written. Thus the Synoptics’ rhetoric against “the scribes and the Pharisees” reflects a time in which Christians and rabbis offered competing interpretations of tradition within one Jewish community; whereas John’s rhetoric against “the Jews” reflects a time in which Christians had been irrevocably separated from the Jewish community.

Regarding Paul, I’m sorry to tell you this, the only explanation that makes sense is that he was genuinely converted.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but I think he's become something of a sin-eater for things people don't like about small-o orthodox Christianity and so most of the popular criticisms of him get on my nerves. The unusually stringent ~Christian sexual ethic~, for example, derives in large part straight from the mouth of Jesus, and Christian antisemitism is at least as evident in the Johannine writings as it is in the Pauline writings (Paul continued to identify as a Pharisee throughout his life, for goodness' sake!).

I don't understand how someone who wrote Romans 11 ( "all Israel will be saved" ) could be considered antisemitic.

Yeah.  And Trump is "totally not racist."

All those early Christian cultists fresh-off-the-boat had no choice but to throw their fellow Jews under the bus because it made converting Romans much easier.   Which was, after all, their ultimate goal.  

It was much more politically prudent to blame the Rabbi's crucifixion on "those people" as opposed to telling the truth:  Rome had Jeebus executed for insurrection.  

It's amazing how your posting style is so theatrically abrasive and unpleasant as to make the received, mostly-uncontroversial explanation for why the Gospels stress Jewish leaders' culpability in Jesus' death seem like an edgy Nu Atheist take.

Surprising to hear, actually.  I would assume it was a fringe theory.  It's not like I read anything academically justifying my "argument" other than what little I paid attention in Catholic school as a kid.

It's simply the only explanation that makes logical sense.  

These early Xtians folks weren't old bearded mystics who wandered the desert in humble robes.  They were businessmen and realpolitikers.  

Regarding the Gospels, the most interesting theory (though not the most pious) is that they reflect the relations between Christians and Jews at the time that they were written. Thus the Synoptics’ rhetoric against “the scribes and the Pharisees” reflects a time in which Christians and rabbis offered competing interpretations of tradition within one Jewish community; whereas John’s rhetoric against “the Jews” reflects a time in which Christians had been irrevocably separated from the Jewish community.

Regarding Paul, I’m sorry to tell you this, the only explanation that makes sense is that he was genuinely converted.

Yeah, the only real question that might sensibly be asked is whether the Road to Damascus actually happened as reported, or if it was something he devoutly wished had happened that way.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Voted HP because wacky zealot prophet who goes around speaking in tongues is not the kind of person I admire, much less like. That said, I find the personality in Paul's letters rather compelling in its forcefulness, earthy eloquence, ironic humour, single-mindedness. He's an individual, multi-sided, with his own voice, when every other figure in the Bible is an archetype of some sort.

And to call Paul an antisemite when almost his central theological concern was the election of Israel is kind of silly. The author of gJohn spitting about "you Jews" he is not, and it's unfair on him to say one lead to the other.

Yeah, the only real question that might sensibly be asked is whether the Road to Damascus actually happened as reported, or if it was something he devoutly wished had happened that way.

Probably not because Acts is pretty unreliable (for one it directly contradicts Paul's own letters in places). Something dramatic must have happened though, possibly related to his claim that he was taken up to the "third heaven" and visited Paradise.

Anyway I have hard time seeing Paul as a slick conman of gullible gentiles considering people complained he was not actually very impressive in person. He has far too much of "ordinary person thrust into greatness by sheer bloodyminded conviction of his own destiny" about him.

[afleitch]

Voted HP because wacky zealot prophet who goes around speaking in tongues is not the kind of person I admire, much less like. That said, I find the personality in Paul's letters rather compelling in its forcefulness, earthy eloquence, ironic humour, single-mindedness. He's an individual, multi-sided, with his own voice, when every other figure in the Bible is an archetype of some sort.

And to call Paul an antisemite when almost his central theological concern was the election of Israel is kind of silly. The author of gJohn spitting about "you Jews" he is not, and it's unfair on him to say one lead to the other.

Yeah, the only real question that might sensibly be asked is whether the Road to Damascus actually happened as reported, or if it was something he devoutly wished had happened that way.

Probably not because Acts is pretty unreliable (for one it directly contradicts Paul's own letters in places). Something dramatic must have happened though, possibly related to his claim that he was taken up to the "third heaven" and visited Paradise.

Anyway I have hard time seeing Paul as a slick conman of gullible gentiles considering people complained he was not actually very impressive in person. He has far too much of "ordinary person thrust into greatness by sheer bloodyminded conviction of his own destiny" about him.

The fact that that sort of controversial, zealous, self aggrandising perhaps even economical with the truth Christian who has been questioned from Tertullian to the present day is himself a core tenet of the NT text is I think almost admirable. A 'trap' maybe?

He might not have been the first of his type and he's certainly not the last.

[Former President tack50]

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but I think he's become something of a sin-eater for things people don't like about small-o orthodox Christianity and so most of the popular criticisms of him get on my nerves. The unusually stringent ~Christian sexual ethic~, for example, derives in large part straight from the mouth of Jesus, and Christian antisemitism is at least as evident in the Johannine writings as it is in the Pauline writings (Paul continued to identify as a Pharisee throughout his life, for goodness' sake!).

I don't understand how someone who wrote Romans 11 ( "all Israel will be saved" ) could be considered antisemitic.

Yeah.  And Trump is "totally not racist."

All those early Christian cultists fresh-off-the-boat had no choice but to throw their fellow Jews under the bus because it made converting Romans much easier.   Which was, after all, their ultimate goal.  

It was much more politically prudent to blame the Rabbi's crucifixion on "those people" as opposed to telling the truth:  Rome had Jeebus executed for insurrection.   

Hot take: In the year 4050 Q or Donald Trump will be seen as the second coming of Jesus, having died for our sins much like how Jesus did back in 33AD; since both led an insurrection