Paul Conspired to Hijack Christianity and Succeeded

In my humble opinion one really should mention which Christianity they espouse to believe in, the Christianity presented by Jesus Christ or the Christianity presented by Paul (AKA Saul) of Tarsus who conspired to hijack Christianity and succeed in doing so.

When I was a teenager and only beginning to loose my faith in organized religion and scripture as the word of God one of the things which bothered me most was the obvious dichotomy and conflict between the Christianity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John and the alleged Christianity presented in the epistles and books written by or heavily influenced by Paul of Tarsus, AKA Saul. Christ and the Christianity he taught to his chosen and publicly acknowledged disciples was about love and peace and communism, acceptance of all who came to Him seeking God who willing to follow his instructions, humility, etc.

Instead of being publicly acknowledged by Christ as a chosen apostle we have only Paul's word that Christ chose him to be an apostle. Instead of espousing a Christianity in perfect accord with the teachings and example of Jesus Paul turned Christianity toward a more harsh and judgmental path. A perfect example of this is that while Jesus was a pioneer in the respect he showed and dignity he accorded women Paul was a shameless misogynist. We have only the word of Paul that he was chosen by God to write God's word for man. So great was the conflict between Paul's brand of Christianity and that taught by Jesus prior to his crucifixion there was much animosity, open conflict and even outright rejection between Paul and several of the disciples chosen and publicly acknowledged by Christ.

I quickly learned that long before I, much less my poorly defined misgivings about this and other problems with the Bible existed, others had delved very very deeply into this and other problems with the Bible where I only scratched the surface and a vast number of others which had not occurred to me.

Please note also that without the condemnation of the sex despising Paul (better to marry than to burn, indeed!) the only Biblical rejections of homosexuality with which I am familiar are the Old Testament passages which cite eating of shellfish, wearing of mixed fabrics and homosexuality as abominations. I haven't noticed Jerry Falwell picketing Red Lobster for serving shrimp or Wal-Mart for selling cotton polyester blend shirts. This is not a self serving observation. I am a heterosexual father of two.


I still sometimes read the Bible but usually only Psalms and other parts I consider to be stunningly great literature as well as the red letter (reportedly the words of Christ) passages of the three Gospels mentioned above. I believe in God, but this is often the God of Spinoza or Einstein.

You might find this to be an interesting read.

Some day a reformation in the Christian church may strike deep enough to get back to the unadulterated religious teachings of Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. You may preach a religion about Jesus, but, perforce, you must live the religion of Jesus. In the enthusiasm of Pentecost, Peter unintentionally inaugurated a new religion, the religion of the risen and glorified Christ. The Apostle Paul later on transformed this new gospel into Christianity, a religion embodying his own theologic views and portraying his own personal experience with the Jesus of the Damascus road. The gospel of the kingdom is founded on the personal religious experience of the Jesus of Galilee; Christianity is founded almost exclusively on the personal religious experience of the Apostle Paul. Almost the whole of the New Testament is devoted, not to the portrayal of the significant and inspiring religious life of Jesus, but to a discussion of Paul's religious experience and to a portrayal of his personal religious convictions. The only notable exceptions to this statement, aside from certain parts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are the Book of Hebrews and the Epistle of James. Even Peter, in his writing, only once reverted to the personal religious life of his Master. The New Testament is a superb Christian document, but it is only meagerly Jesusonian.

www.urantia.org...

[edit on 2007/2/22 by GradyPhilpott]

A case could be made that Paul hijacked Christianity, but that's based on an assumption that Paul's writings were incongruent with what Christ taught and what the Old Testament prophesied would happen with the coming of the messiah.

One of the primary arguments used it Paul's ministry taking the Gospel of Christ to the Gentiles. Even Peter, in the book of Acts, has a problem with this at first. However, if you read the gospel of John, there are allusions to exactly this happening, as there are in some of the greater prophets. Even Genesis 12:3 predicts this, where God says to Abram,

I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

It was through Abraham's line that Christ came, and it is through Christ that all peoples on Earth have been blessed with reconciliation with God.

As to only having Paul's word that Christ commissioned him, that's not entirely true. We have described in the book of acts a man whom we know little about, except that he was a believer in Christ and a well respected Jew (remember, at this time, Christians were seen as a sect of Judism). His name was Ananias, and he was close to the Lord. That can be ascertained in Acts 9:10-19. You have Saul's conversion in the desert, and, at the same time, a complete stranger who has heard of and fears Saul is told by God where to find him and what to do.

It is also important to know who Saul was. He was the golden boy of Israel. Taught in philosophy at the best greek schools, and taught in Judaism in the best Pharasitical schools, he was being groomed to be a major mover and and shaker in Israel, if not High Priest. He also kept the law, and saw it as his responsibility to make others keep the law. He was a member of a sect of ultra orthodox Jews who believed that if they could get every Jew to keep the law for just 24 hours, the Messiah would come and liberate Israel from Rome.

This was not a man who was driven by ambition, this was a man who was driven by a passion for his God. This was demonstrated in the radical turnaround in his life after he saw the vision on the road to Damascus. He realized just how wrong he was, and, rather than continuing on the same path (that was, by the way, earning him great prestige in Israel), he gave it all up for the truth.

This about this in modern terms. This would be like Dick Cheney coming out, saying we blew it in Iraq, 9-11 was staged, and adopting Islamic socialism is the only path to peace in the world. He would have no allies. His own party would abandon him, and he would not be embraced by the Democrats, who would probably be suspecting some kind of ruse after such a radical turn around.

Yet that is exactly what happened with Paul. The Jewish leadership went after him hard core after that. He had betrayed their trust. At the same time, he was notorious for killing Christians. Peter wanted nothing to do with him, and Peter was then considered the leader (short of Christ) of the church.

That Peter's heart was being softened to the ministry Paul was being called to in the very next chapter of Acts, as he went to dine with Cornelius, is more evidence of God being involved in developing His church exactly as it developed.

Paul did not hijack Christianity from Christ, but instead was obedient to Christ and became the greatest known missionary of the Christian faith.

Sailghoti,I certainly personally believe that Christianity has been hi-jacked. I am just not sure who the culprit is.

When one discusses such topics as this, the first thing that comes to my mind is not Peter,Paul,Matthew Mark,Luke or John, but the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

I suggest that maybe you start from there and work your way to the present. That is just my opinion...

I find it interesting that the first King of the Jews was named Saul, and he was a Benjamite, anointed by Samuel. I also find it interesting that in demanding a king, the Jews rejected God. 1Samuel 8-9 tells this story. Samuel explains "the manner of the king which shall reign over you," ending with

1Samuel 8:18
And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

Could there be the same parallel in the NT? Saul of Tarsus was a Benjamite, and he went on to lead Christianity after the deaths of James and Peter at the hands of Herod Antipas.

Edit to add: I have some difficulty with the genealogy by Matthew in the NT that traces Christ's lineage back to Abraham, because it traces the lineage to Joseph, Jesus' earthly father, and Mary had a virgin birth. I've been told in other threads that Mary carried the lineage, but this contradicts the NT.

Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Icarus Rising]

Icarus Rising, please see this thread about the genealogy of Jesus through Mary.

As to the council of Nicea, nothing was hijacked there. Christianity entered a very dangerous phase, because it was suddenly accepted by the culture which opens the door for gentle wearing away for values to match the shifting sands of popular culture. However, the council of Nicea only established what was already being taught by churches of the day. There were many gnostic sects popping up, and Constantine wanted, if Rome were to adopt Christianity, to establish what, exactly, that meant. As such, over 300 bishops were brought together, and fundamental doctrines, such as the divinity of Christ, were discussed then voted on.

Icarus Rising, Saul was appointed Israel's king by God because the people grumbled against Samuel as a judge. However, Saul was in God's favor until he directly violated a command issued him by God through Samuel. (See 1 Samuel 15 )

i was wondering about this question
how could christianity exist without the teachings of "jesus" being corrupted?

i've been looking through my handy dandy bible, and i do not see one instance where the messianic figure actually talks about founding a new religion
the only stuff that comes even close is akin to "spread my word" which has nothing to do with any sort of worship service

He doesn't talk about founding a new religion because He didn't found a new religion. He fulfilled the scriptures, but was rejected by many of God's chosen people, just as they rejected Him for Baal and Mammon in the past. Just as with the coming of every prophet to the Jews, each Jew had the choice to accept them or reject them. The prophets didn't start new religions, they continued to develop Judaism. However, there were Jews who did not accept them, and continued with an antiquated, false Judaism.

Notice that shortly after the ultimate sacrifice was made, the Jews stopped all animal sacrifices. Judaism grew with the coming of Christ into the next phase God had planned for it. Because some Jews didn't come along doesn't mean that it's a new religion. Moses didn't claim to start a new religion, yet it was then the Law was handed down. Samuel didn't claim to start a new religion, but it was then Israel received its first kings. Christ didn't claim to start a new religion, but it was then the gap between humanity and God was bridged.

That is not bloodline, jake, that is patronage. Mary didn't have a drop of the actual bloodline of David in her, did she? What you propose is semantical, at best, and the true bloodline still passes through Joseph.

The Jews did reject God when they asked for a king, regardless of God's choice of Saul as that king.

1Samuel 8:7
And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Jesus was not descended from David?

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
That is not bloodline, jake, that is patronage.

God made the rules, not I. I simply quoted Him and applied it to Mary's line. There's not enough information, without taking scripture as a whole, to establish if Mary's of David's line or not. When we take scripture as a whole, as I did, we can see how it could be, even if Mary isn't of the line of David.

Now...Why do you say she's not? What scripture supports that?

Animal sacrifices were ended because the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Romans, along with the genealogies of the Levitical priesthood. No more priests means no more sacrifices.

Please realize, I am not disputing that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, nor that He is my Lord and Savior, just that some of the historical records surrounding his life and ministry have been skewed in favor of the Davidic Kingship.

Remember, David was descended from Ruth, a Moabitess. Boaz must have forgotten Deuteronomy 23:3 when he "went in unto her."

Deuteronomy 23:3
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever.

Three generations later we get David.

This is why I am not a big fan of the Davidic Kingship.

I believe Jesus knew where He came from, and I believe He knew the legacy of David was a failed legacy, a warmongering legacy, destined to destroy itself and everything it came in contact with, and He wanted no part of it.

I believe that the blessings and promises God bestowed on Abraham, which were passed down to Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh are where true salvation through Jesus Christ are to be found, not in the birthright of Judah. If the birthright is to be followed, then Ishmael, or Esau, or Rueben (who defiled his father's bed and lost his) would be the anointed ones. How do the blessings and promises all of a sudden revert to the birthright of Judah? They don't, imo. The kings of this world wanted it that way to keep us in bondage.

Why are the blessings and promises lost after Genesis 48:20?

Yes, that's the reasoning behind animal sacrifices ending, but could God not have prevented the desicration of the temple were it His will? Could He not have put the Jews in a position to rebuild in the last 2000 years?

As to the nature of the lineage of Christ...Tamar is named, Rahab, Bathsheba, and Solomon, all of which are highlighted in scripture for sinning, going against God's will. Gentiles, too, are mentioned, Tamar, being a Canaanite, Rahab, a Canaanite as well, Bathsheba, an Hittite, and Ruth, a Moabite. If the line leading to Christ had to be flawless, then God's plan would have been thwarted with Adam, which doesn't make sense, considering God's plan was to reconcile humanity due to Adam's sin.

If you recognize the Messianic nature of Christ, then you can accept with confidence that Mary came from the line of David because it was prophesied in both Jeremiah 33:15,17 and in 2 Samuel 7.

Ok.

I'm still not a big fan of the Davidic Kingship, and I would like to know what happened to the blessings and promises after Ephraim and Manasseh.

Of course, God is in complete control, and His will be done through Jesus Christ, the Messiah, His Son, my Lord and Savior.

My apologies to sailghoti, for straying a bit off topic. I am more of the opinion, as SpeakerofTruth has said, that the truth was well hidden during the Council of Nicea (though I believe moreso the 2nd Council than the 1st), not hijacked by Paul. This thread goes into that time period in more detail, with the 2nd Council following closely thereafter.

Nevertheless, those with eyes will see and those with ears will hear, and the entire truth is in the Holy Bible.

If Paul was a hijacker, why did the other Apostles not call him out as such?

Paul, dear old Paul, could be considered the first heretic . . . Paul a citizen of the city of Cilicians, this place was one of the centers of Mithra worship.

Paul obviously was influence by this from his humble beginnings living in this city.

The views of Paul toward Christianity were influenced with the believes of Mithra, this can be seen in the comparison of how Paul use the teachings of Jesus and redefined them into his own way of thinking. . .

While Jesus preached that a new way of birth while believing on him Paul believe in the sacrificial person that needed to suffer in order to find redemption for sins, he was into the ancient religion of priesthood, altars and blood.

If you see the comparison also of how Mithra was a god of rock, and his services were done in caves this was use by Paul in references of Jesus origins.

This can be seen in (1 Cor. 10:4) Paul, says,”They drank from that spiritual Rockand that rock was Christ”, this are the identical words to be found in Mithraic scriptures.

Paul influences from Mithra believes influenced his writings and preaching of Jesus.

Yes under this, I believe that he took Christianity and turned around along with Jesus teaching into his own version.

That can be calle hijacking.

Marg, I'd love a link to the line in the Mithra texts Paul quoted. It makes perfect sense that he would do so in speaking to the Corinthians, just as he used the unknown god in Athens to communicate with the Athenians the message of Christ. That's a very cool little tidbit of information if true

As to Paul redefining the teachings of Jesus...You say Paul spoke of suffering, and yes, he did. As God told Ananias in Acts 8:16 when Ananias questioned Him about going to Saul in Damascus,

"For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name."

On top of that, Christ said Christians would suffer. For example, in John 18:15-24 Jesus says,

18"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. 23He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'

Christ also, time and again, said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments". However, Paul did not say that the suffering had to take place to be saved. Not at all. The closest any of the epistles would come to that would be James's, and even his stated only that fruits would be evidence of salvation. The thief on the cross did not bear fruit, but Christ said He would be with him because of his belief. Jesus taught that the servant is no greater than the master, and because the world hated Him, it would also hate His followers, and it would result in persecution.

This links explain the conection between Christ been a rock and Mithras been born from a rock.

Mithra was born from a rock [Firmicus, /De errore/, xxi.; etc.], as shown in Mithraic sculptures, being sometimes termed ``the god out of the rock'', and his worship was always conducted in a cave; and the general belief in the early Church that Jesus was born in a cave is a direct instance of the taking over of Mithraic ideas. The words of St. Paul, ``They drank of that spiritual rock ... and that rock was Christ'' [I Cor. x. 4.] are borrowed from the Mithraic scriptures; for not only was Mithra ``the Rock'', but one of his mythological acts, which also appears in the acts of Moses, was the striking of the rock and the producing of water from it which his followers eagerly drank. www.innvista.com...

Its very interesting to see how Mithras believe were incorporated into Christian believes and Jesus.

No, I wouldn't say the belief of Mithra was incorporated into Christianity. What Paul eluded to is from Exodus 17, when Moses struck a rock with his staff and drew water from it. Isaiah goes further to elaborate on this in Isaiah 48:21

They did not thirst when he led them through the deserts;
he made water flow for them from the rock;
he split the rock
and water gushed out.

Nehemiah 9:15 also states,

In their hunger you gave them bread from heaven and in their thirst you brought them water from the rock; you told them to go in and take possession of the land you had sworn with uplifted hand to give them.

Paul was a very effective missionary, and he demonstrated this much in the book of Acts. As I mentioned, he would incorporate people's beliefs into his explanation of who Christ is when he was outside of Israel. He did it in Athens, and, it appears, he did it, too, in Corinth, relating something known well to Jews but unknown to Gentiles through something they knew. Missionaries today do this, too. They use concepts known to the people they're talking to to explain truths that otherwise may be difficult to understand. Christ did this with parables, and we, too, do this when we use a metaphor to explain something. You relate a difficult concept to something easy to understand and well known.

Even so, though, based on the text you quoted, I'm not convinced Paul was eluding to Mithra. The principle of water coming from rock was well known to the Jews, being in the Torah and oft mentioned by the prophets. If he did use concepts well known about Mithra in his ministry, it would be consistent with what Paul had done in other places, and what Christ did in His ministry, but I'm not so sure this is a situation where that took place.

First Corinthians was written, though, to chastise a people who were going astray and attempting to adopt other religions into Christ. It would make sense, if Mithra worship was one of those beliefs, that he would use that to convict them as well.

why then Paul was rejected by the early Church? I am still wondering why he became so well accepted when in the beginning he was not.

He claimed that he learned his Judaism in Jerusalem from Rabbi Gamaliel, (acts 22:3) he claimed that until that point he was just a Pharisaic Jew (Acts 26:5), Why did he changed? what made him a heretic of his own Jewish believes.

I do not trust very much Paul humble beginnings and I feel that he gets too much credit that he really diverse.

Is three passages in acts that describe Paul's change, He got three versions of the same story of how he got converted . . . I think Paul was an opportunist that found a new religion while his old religion was losing luster and he wanted to be part of it.

He claimed to be an Apostle and that was visited by Christ after death, and that gave him his authority . . . I think he lie . . .

The original Apostles disputed this and even Jewish believers also considered him to be false.

He took Jesus Gospels, ignore them and presented a version of his own full with milthraistic believes and transformed Jesus into a divine spirit that from a god that was here before time and that will return for the saved into a kingdom not of this world.

I tell you he was the one that transformed Jesus teaching and made the mess that religion has become now that help control so much masses during the early days and strong hold of Christianity.

And that is my opinion, he hijacked Jesus teachings and made them into his own.

His version was so attractive to the early church when it was gaining power that was easier transforming a man into a divinity for the early mases that were after all becoming very dependant of the church.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by marg6043]