Why do we accept that Paul’s “visions” were real?
Sep 3Questioner
Why do scholars accept that Paul had an actual life-changing vision on the road to Damascus, followed by many conversations with the spiritual Jesus, when his resulting beliefs and actions appear to have betrayed Jesus’ original teaching?121 comments10 likes
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
An excellent question.
LikeReply
Admin
When You have the Truth, Everything Fits…
Yes indeed. the mysteries of faith and lack thereof…I am not sure most of the “top line” scholars in the field, which I happen to share with two books on Paul, do believe Paul’s visions were real. I think most of us believe he thought he had seen this or that…but some who are despisers of Paul, mostly outside the academic arena—are convinced he was a con-man and grifter. Not me…I think everything about his life and thought, fits well with other Messianic figures I have studied and even knows and dealt with. Sincerity can be judge I think—as Jesus said “by their fruits you will know them.”
LikedReply6 likes
But doesn’t he say that he was talking with the spiritual Jesus throughout his mission trips? How come he was getting the message so wrong?
LikeReply1 like
Anne Fields I’m with you and a massive skeptic. I’ve personally never been a fan of Paul, and as Dr. Tabor outlines and paints a beautiful picture of the angst and tension between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders — it would seem to me they viewed him as the same. The calling back to Jerusalem, James likely referring to Paul when writing “Oh vain man” or “you idiot” and making him retake the vow publically shown in Acts that would have been humiliating given his already lots of writing and evangelizing. As I’ve said before — it wouldn’t shock me if his visions were drug induced. Arabia was known for their cannabis farms . . . He spent 3 years there just after as well.
LikeReply3 likes
Marty Banzhaf actually can speak to some of these things very well. Hope he weighs in at some point.
LikeReply
marcus j. blue
LikedReply2 likes
Anne Fields I dig your question, here is my stab. Paul the Hillite trained under Gamaliel (open to the goyim to restore Israel) Skeptical of Jesus Family Movement (inititally through Stephen’s witness) coming from a suspect Northern Village associated with Davidic Netzarim (branchers) and Noztrim (failed covenant keepers). Paul had one consuming conviction: he had been given a mission. He gathered people, lost people, argued with people, reconciled with some of them, formed new teams and kept moving. He lived under the Sabbath and how to break it in halakah Pikuash Nefesh a categorie that simply translated “to save a life”. That intensity could create friction, and his letters bear the marks of real conflicts in real assemblies. But the later history of Christianity took those occasional letters and built systems out of them. Before blaming Paul for everything downstream, perhaps we need to put Paul back on the road—with Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Priscilla and Aquila, Phoebe and the rest of the band. He believed, quite literally, that they were “on a mission from God.”See less
LikedReply2 likes
Marty Banzhaf I don’t really understand this. Was his “mission from God” to change the teachings of the Jesus Family Movement? Those who had known Jesus personally?
LikeReply
Anne Fields My “stab”…. Paul was a thoroughly Hellenized Jew. “Something” happened to convince him that Jesus was a spiritual Messiah that came to save the people. What actually happened is a bit unclear. However he did seem to be sincere in his “conversion.” But he saw this message as extending to the entire world, not just the Jews. The Jerusalem group were a bit more reticent about spreading the word to gentiles and did not work directly enough or fast enough to suit Paul. So he took it upon himself to do that, and in the process he developed his own theology, drawing upon his Hellenized background, that he thought would appeal to gentile/pagans. And in the process he made a total break from Judaism and created a new religion. And whatever had happened to him to set him on this path he judged to be superior to those that knew Jesus personally. So, whatever it was, it must have been a pretty significant experience! See less
LikedReply3 likes
Anne Fields Think Septuagint LXX Alexandrian Judaism coming to the rescue of the Selucid Palestinian Herod Edomite controlled Yehoudoi that needed a Maccabean spiritual revival that was still underway. https://globalsouthadvance.blogspot.com/2025/04/how-to-read-bible-as-story-part-4.html
LikeReply
Marty Banzhaf 🤣
LikeReply
Marty Banzhaf the John the Purifier movement of baptism from the apostasy
LikeReply
marcus j. blue 100%
LikeReply
Paul was traveling to Damascus with other people. Presumably at least some of them were fellow persecutors. What happened to them when he got to Damascus and “switched sides”? Weren’t they worried about the mission? They don’t appear to have tried to stop him or get him “back on track”. Weren’t they worried he might give their names and plans to the “opposition”? Did they just go home without saying anything?
LikeReply2 likes
Anne Fields I think the question assumes too much. Acts never says Paul’s companions were fellow persecutors. More importantly, “switching sides” imports a later Christianity-versus-Judaism framework. Paul remained a Jew and Pharisee; what changed was that the persecutor became convinced that the Jesus proclaimed by Stephen—the exalted Son of Man—had indeed been vindicated by Israel’s God. Damascus makes much more sense as an intra-Jewish messianic crisis than as Paul changing religions or starting a new one. He was a missionary and a jerk, believe me I am one and work with much bigger stubborn jerks that’s why everybody ends up doing their own thing. Us evangleicals are a big club of persecutors.
LikedReply4 likes
Marty Banzhaf 😂
LikeReply
Marty Banzhaf I don’t entirely agree. The Ascents of James in the Pseudo-Clementines has James & his followers having a debate with and doing a good job of convincing people in the Temple to see things their way. Then Paul shows up and creates a huge fight. He actually tries to murder James. This is a big turning point and the Nazaranes flee Jerusalem as a group to lay low for awhile. Paul gets permission/good graces from the High Priest to pursue them. He is on his way to Damascus to find them. The AJ doesn’t have anything about Paul’s conversion, but it likely took place on this trip. The AJ clearly portrays a group of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem as separate from and in contention with the High Priest & Jews of the Temple. There were certainly two sides. So after his conversion experience, Paul did “switch sides.” See less
LikeReply1 like
Keith P. Myers Robert Eisenman certainly makes a great deal of this Ascents of James tradition in constructing his James-versus-Paul thesis. I find the tradition fascinating and worth hearing, yet Pseudo says it all. My caution is chronological: this is pre–Acts 15. An early and even violent conflict does not establish that the later apostolic settlement never occurred. That is precisely why Acts 15—and then James’s very deliberate Jew/Gentile distinction in Acts 21:20–25—matters so much to me.
LikeReply2 likes
Marty Banzhaf It is called “Pseudo” simply because, like all of the Gospels, Clementine’s name was attached to it but scholars acknowledge that he didn’t actually write it. Most of the story in The Ascents, like the stories in the Gospels, is likely fictional. But, like the Gospels, there is very likely a kernal of truth to it. Whether Paul made a huge scene in the Temple and tried to murder James is true is most likely the questionable part. But the kernal of truth here is that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Christians, the Jerusalem Christians were not on good terms with the Temple Priests, and Paul at this point was totally against them. It suppports the idea from Acts that Paul had the blessing of the High Priest to further pursue them. It is also supported by Josephus’s account of the High Priest being the one to have James taken and murdered on his behalf. So don’t be too quick to dismiss the “Ascents of James.” See less
LikeReply1 like
-Keith P. Myers Jeff Geist Terry Traster marcus j. blue Here’s some pissuito pig graphics just call it the Ass-Rants of Marty Buona Notte its been a fun!
LikeReply1 like
The Christian Myth and Symbolism Guy
Marty Banzhaf I bought your book but admit that I haven’t gotten far into to it. Good selection here, and I agree with your assessment of The Ascent of James as a good framework. Paul as Annas’ henchman. But his conversion and evangelistic zeal certainly does present a problem. He devised some great Theology, so maybe—like many great minds who have great ideas—he just wanted to take those ideas out for a spin. Thanks for your insightful comments; I will try to get back to your book.
LikeReply2 likes
Eric Weber and Marty Banzhaf and marcus j. blue I hope you will all take the time to consider my thoughts on what the earliest texts can more confidently say – and can’t say – about Christian origins. The Paul v James conflict from my reading of the early layer of Galatians and the recovered primitive gospel of Paul (and of Jesus) proves there was ZERO conflict between them (and also questions WHICH James!).
I expect to have had it peer-reviewed and appropriately edited for mid October at the latest and then I’ll post here. Then you can all either laugh at and demolish my maverick ideas … or hopefully reconsider some prior assumptions that are commonly made … and imo have created a very distorted view of the first century beginnings of the movement.See less
LikedReply2 likes
Ali Rowan Ali, this is actually one of the places where I find myself very interested in what you’re doing. The claim that there was no fundamental Paul–James conflict is much closer to where I land than the familiar story of Paul breaking with Jerusalem and founding something essentially new.
Where I remain cautious is methodological. I’m not yet persuaded that we have to recover a “primitive Paul” by removing the passages that create difficulties. I increasingly think the Paul we actually possess can be heard coherently within the Jewish argument once we stop reading him through the later law/grace and Judaism/Christianity bifurcations. That is partly why Nanos and Staples have been so useful to me. I will take the time to work through your argument carefully—and the “which James?” You could tack on:
And on “which James?”—the Galatians text itself seems to point most naturally to James the Lord’s brother: Paul names him explicitly in 1:19 and then simply “James” among the pillars in 2:9. What I would be cautious about is turning the “certain men from James” of 2:12 into a formal “James party.” Paul does not actually say James authorized their position, and he distinguishes “those from James” from “those of the circumcision.” That distinction may matter quite a bit.See less
LikeReply2 likes
Marty Banzhaf all becomes clear in the Apostolikon – reception history, textual evidence (even to the tiniest degree) and the weight of logical argument actually place it as the prior text to which the “later law/grace and Judaism/Christianity bifurcations” were added – along with many other agendas that were only necessitated by the change in political and religious landscape in the second century after it’s initial publication in the early 140’s.
LikeReply
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
Ali Rowan there was definitely a conflict between James and Paul. If not physical, certainly ideological. The whole faith vs. works. The letter of James is clearly directed against Paul’s justification by faith (and other) ideas. Paul’s dismissal of the ‘so called pillars’ in Galatians (even if James was not the brother – but he was in my opinion that is established fact). Paul clearly has an issue with the authority of Jerusalem.
LikeReply1 like
Jeff Geist I agree. It is WAY TOO much concoction to rewrite multiple letters to add in all of these differences and disputes for an angle. I take the Occam’s Razor approach to this . . .
LikeReply2 likes
The irony is that “James versus Paul because faith versus works” is itself the very later Christian bifurcation we are trying to get behind. Mark Nanos’s Paul in Judaism is not preaching grace against Torah; he is arguing about the status of Gentiles among the people of Israel’s Messiah. Once that frame is restored, James’s insistence on embodied faith and Paul’s Gentile mission are not automatically contradictory at all. https://youtu.be/6sKV3_8OkDA?is=XkSBuzzTlWgJtnb9
LikedReply2 likes
Marty Banzhaf brilliant!
LikeReply
Ali Rowan we are now BFFs. I sent him my book and he wanted to talk to me ASAP
LikeReply1 likeShow more replies
What I find interesting, is that after Saul’s history of persecuting the followers of Jesus (the Pseudo-Clementines actually portray him as trying to murder James in the Temple) why the Jerusalem group took him in as Paul and one of their own!!
LikeReply3 likes
Keith P. Myers That may actually tell us something important. The Jerusalem community did not simply “take Paul in”—Acts says they were afraid of him (Acts 9:26). Barnabas had to intervene. And Paul himself says that years later James, Cephas, and John extended fellowship to him (Gal 2:9). Whatever later Pseudo-Clementine polemics made of Paul, our earliest evidence suggests something harder and more interesting: James knew who Paul had been, and nevertheless recognized what God was doing through him. That deserves more weight than the later quarrels. And if you want quarrels just watch Youtube and the echo chambers slinging arrows in all directions, nothing new under the sun.
LikeReply3 likes
Marty Banzhaf keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
LikeReply3 likes
Marty Banzhaf
It was for a command performance that Paul was asked to come to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James. He was there to give an account of his teaching to the heads of the actual real church.
LikeReply
Johanna Williams i understand, I have been and I am accountable to leaders as a humanitarian missionary for over 4 decades. Creativity can raise eyebrows and get you in trouble.
LikeReply
Truth is Truth, let’s all find it together
Johanna Williams Great to see you here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeReply
Terry Traster wish I were joining you all but will be there in spirit.
LikeReply1 like
Truth is Truth, let’s all find it together
Johanna Williams you will be missed!
LikeReply
Keith P. Myers and They all fully accepted his gospel and shook hands all round in Gal 2:9!
The letter of “James” is pushing back at the REDACTED Pauline Corpus!
LikeReply
Truth is Truth, let’s all find it together
Read Dr. Tabor’s books Paul and Jesus and Paul’s Ascent to Paradise
LikeReply3 likes
I have read Dr. Tabor’s Paul and Jesus and don’t think there is anything about Saul/Paul’s fellow travelers to Damascus. Their witness testimony would have been really important. Did they join Paul in his “conversion”, continue their persecutions without him, or maybe they just went home very puzzled about what happened? If the latter, wouldn’t they have had to report to those who sent them?
LikeReply2 likes
Anne Fields where have we read anything in the Bible about Paul’s trip to Damascus? I don’t recall that it is discussed. No fellow travelers alluded to nor the trip discussed.
LikeReply
Johanna Williams is in his own training in 2 Cor 12 – this is the authentic version with him being presented by the city officials not the Jews
LikeReply
Sorry I meant Evanjellyfish just call me a Portugeuse Man O War a colony of specialized organisms (zooids) functioning together as one animal.
LikeReply
marcus j. blue Friends & Enemies close – Actually Mario Puzzo was original on that one (I thought Sun Tzu or Macchiaveli) so lets have a Michael Corleone Film fest for Labor Day Weekend! Terry Traster will either like this or censor it –
LikeReply
Truth is Truth, let’s all find it together
Marty Banzhaf You misspelled Grift
LikeReply2 likes
Terry Traster Now Now
LikeReply
Saul’s companions were also sent by the powers that be to “round everyone up” were they not?
LikeReply
marcus j. blue you think the Mafias bad? When it comes to religion just Ben givr
LikeReply1 like
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
Personally, I think it was a matter of ‘keeping friends close and enemies closer’. I think that James and the Jerusalem congregation thought that by keeping Paul close they could attempt to control the message. Paul soon went ‘off the derech’ or literally ‘off of the path or way, if you prefer, and was unable to be controlled Jerusalem. The reasons for that may be multiple.
1. Was Paul correct and the family of Yeshua had the message wrong? That is the interpretation of the Church and one I totally disagree with. That explanation confirms the bias of the gospels and NT writing against the disciples and family; however, I believe was later (after 70CE) written to support the victors (Rome).
2. Did Paul actually have a ‘vision’ and based on his vision and his Hellenistic background create a mystery religion based on his vision and distortion of the gospel? Possibly
3. Was Paul a Pharisee? Highly unlikely as he misquotes basic scripture, doesn’t understand basic concepts of Judaism and the Torah etc. No Pharisee or Rabbi could make the arguments he makes in Galatians for example. He did have some learning and may have attempted while in “Arabia” for three years to learn at Qumran. That would explain some of the terminology he uses in his letters. Paul was by no means a stupid man. He was clever and deceptive possibly, but not stupid.
4. It is interesting that the Greek word translated universally as ‘persecuting’ in Acts 9:4 literally means ‘pursuing’. Was Paul perhaps pursuing the ‘risen Jesus’ (whatever form of resurrection that may have been). Or was he pursuing James?
5. We know that Saul/Paul was a Roman citizen. We do not know how this citizenship was obtained. Most likely he was born a Roman citizen and possibly later became a convert to Judaism. We do know based on his own letters that he had close familial ties with the Herodian establishment.
6. This last point, Paul’s Herodian connections, leads to the most intriguing possibility. That is that Saul, who we already know was working for the Sadducee quislings and Roman Herodian authorities to ‘persecute’ or ‘pursue’ the Nazarenes or Ebionites, became a double agent working for Rome to infiltrate and ‘turn’ if not the original Jewish followers, the large number of Roman citizens that were becoming attracted to the message of Jerusalem. This theory is well developed in the book ‘Operation Messiah’ written by Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon. It explains why Paul was not arrested immediately after his ‘conversion’ and why at every turn he was protected by the Roman soldiers and provisional government in Judea when he was arrested. This theory, to me at least, also explains how Paul’s message is 180 degrees from the message of James and the original disciples. The movement was growing despite the physical persecution of the original followers. Therefore, the next best step was to infiltrate it and turn it in a favorable direction toward Rome. Rome
One of the projects I am hoping to work on is an in-depth study of this issueSee less
LikedReply4 likes
Jeff Geist I’ve always had wonderings of the last point myself. The points are too convenient to not have a possible play.
LikedReply2 likes
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
marcus j. blue Thijs Voskuilen has another book out called ‘The Perfect Spy’. Updated, or at least the preface was updated, as of 2025
I have not finished it. It is on Kindle and is Kindle Unlimited if you have that.
LikeReply1 like
Jeff Geist With all due respect, Jeff, and thanks for chiming in. But I have to probe this a bit. This sounds remarkably close to the Tovia Singer/Hyam Maccoby-type reading of Paul, especially the argument that Paul couldn’t really have been a Pharisee because of the way he handles Torah. Have you read Harvey Falk’s Jesus the Pharisee? Interestingly, Maccoby used the same title, but Falk comes to very different conclusions—particularly concerning Paul, Gamaliel, Hillel, and the Gentile question.
Rather than deciding beforehand what a Pharisee could or could not have said, I’m inclined to take Paul’s own Jewish self-identification seriously and then ask what his arguments meant within a first-century Jewish dispute over Gentile inclusion. Mark Nanos, Paula Fredriksen, Jason Staples, and others have given us, I think, a much stronger historical road into that question.
The Voskuilen/Sheldon Roman-agent theory is certainly provocative, but to me it requires considerably more speculation than the traditional Christian Paul it is trying to overturn. I don’t think we need either the Christianized Paul detached from Judaism or the anti-Paul detached from Judaism. Perhaps we need to put Paul back into the Jewish argument first.See less
LikeReply1 likeShow more replies
Truth is Truth, let’s all find it together
YouTube & Muslims have waged war vs Paul. Remember, He was insignificant until the 2nd Century & Marcion.
LikeReply1 like
Terry Traster damn Marcion always cropping up . . .
LikeReply1 like
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
For the sake of clarity I am definitely in the Tovia Singer and Hyam Maccoby camp.
LikeReply
Jeff Geist and I’m with Thomas Jefferson decentralization.
LikeReply1 like
Jeff Geist Keith P. Myers The above is from my Last Days book and this is exactly where I think we need to be careful about chronology and sources. Paul’s own letters are our earliest evidence, and Paul identifies himself as an Israelite, a Benjaminite and a Pharisee. Quoting the Septuagint hardly demonstrates ignorance of Hebrew—it was Jewish Scripture throughout the Greek-speaking Jewish world already for a quarter of a millenium perhaps more. See previous comment about Alexandrian Egypt Jewish preeminance.
The Ebionite story about Paul being a Gentile convert because he wanted to marry a priest’s daughter is fascinating later counter-memory, but it cannot simply be read backward as biography against Paul’s own first-century testimony. If we sift through these “poor ones” there were perhaps three groups. I question catholic reception or later Ebionite reception deciding beforehand who the first-century Paul was. See less
LikeReply1 like
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
Marty Banzhaf my issue is not so much Paul’s use of the Septuagint it is more how he misquotes or changes some of the verses he uses and therefore changes the meaning of the verse.
Thanks for the excerpt from your book.
The usage of the term Ebionite or more correctly ‘Ebionim’ is old and is found in the DSS, the NT and I believe is what James was referring to in James chapter 2 when he speaks about the ‘rich and poor’. When James states in 2:7, “Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you are called”, I believe he has the name, or title or sect if you will, of the Ebionim in mind. It was one of the earliest descriptions (along with Nazarenes) of the Jerusalem community.
It is without question that the term Ebionim or Ebionite was later used as an epithet against the original Jewish congregation by the church fathers (supposedly for the their lack of a proper ‘theology’ or for their ‘poor theology’.) A great tradition buried by deliberate obfuscation.
Thanks again!See less
LikeReply3 likes
Jeff Geist this is a much more interesting question. When you compile Paul’s specific scriptural citations, I’d genuinely like to look at them individually, because “misquotation” can become complicated very quickly when we’re dealing with LXX, Hebrew textual traditions, interpretive citation, and normal Second Temple Jewish exegetical practices.
Mercy ministry had the poor in mind Jesus said we will always have them with us. Now is that a mentality or a result of oppression? Sometimes it just helping people after a catastrophe etc. So on Ebionim, though, I’d still distinguish the ancient designation “the poor” from the later group we call the Ebionites.
Certainly ebyonim is old and I absolutely think these “poor ones” traditions matter for understanding the Jerusalem movement. This is also why I would hesitate to make DSS Qumran the interpretive center for James and the Jerusalem community. Qumran represents a distinctly sectarian world, and its 364-day calendar is a particularly important marker of that distinction. The Jesus movement, by contrast, appears within the broader festival life of Israel. So Qumran can illuminate James without becoming James. Likewise, ancient ebyonim can illuminate later Ebionite memory without proving an unbroken identity.See less
LikeReply1 like
Jeff Geist In Jeff Butz’s book he points out that different sources use various names for Jewish Christian groups and it can become confusing and difficult to tell which group a given Heresy Hunter is referring to, or even if the writer himself knew the differences. But Butz presents a good working outline: The original followers in Jerusalem were Nazarenes. The New Testament calls them this. Just before the fall of the Temple in 70 CE, Simon had taken the majority of the Nazaranes to Pella in the Transjordon for protection. As they flourished and spread throughout the region they called themselves “Ebionites” or “poor ones”. Over time they were exposed more and more to Pauline Christianity and likely felt pressured by it as the Pauline Churches gained power and status. So some groups of Ebionites began to compromise a bit and accept Pauline Christian doctrine, primarily the idea of the virgin birth and divinity of Jesus. These groups were ostracized by the Ebionites for compromising and not yet fully accepted by the Paulines, so they forged a new identity and called themselves “Nazoreans” (or one of the other variant spellings, take your pick). They did this because “Ebionite” had become a pejorative term among the Pauline Christians, and the new name harkened back to the original Nazarane roots in Jerusalem. Butz even proposed that our canonical Gospel of Matthew was produced by such a group using an older Ebionite/Hebrew Gospel as a source. As the Nazoreans compromised and assimilated more and more they essentially were absorbed into the Pauline Church, which also accept their Gospel of Matthew. The Ebionites died out more slowly over time as the Pauline Church became more widespread and powerful. All of the variant spellings of “Nazorean” likely refers to the same group, or just small variations of these “next stage” Ebionites before they fully assimilated.See less
LikeReply2 likes
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
He doesn’t throw morality out. The directives given by James in Acts 15 are the basics of the Noachide laws. I imagine the actual directives (if we had them) would be more complete and list them all. Acts is, by far, a flawed account.
Paul does (perhaps better)‘disregard’ them and teaches his followers to disregard them.
This is especially evident when it comes to meat sacrificed to idols. That was a huge change and a direct violation of the direction of James and the Jerusalem congregation.
The Noachide laws are not newer – they were well known by the first century. One more strike against ‘Rabbi’ Paul in my opinion.
LikeReply1 like
Jeff Geist Keith P. Myers Come on, guys—read my stuff! 😂 You’re like a pack of theological hyenas. The Sanhedrin is adjourned. Let me sleep. Shabbat shalom!
LikeReply
Marty Banzhaf You write so much! It is hard to know where to start!
LikeReply1 like
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
I have read both of his books and enjoy his take immensely. I don’t always agree with him but he is very good.
LikeReply
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
לילה טוב! שבת שלום!
LikeReply1 like
The three accounts of his alleged vision in Acts are not only different they are all fiction when compared to Paul’s own testimony in Gal 1:16 – an internal reality not an outside view. Also his own account of his experience in Damascus in 2 Cor 12:32-33 has completely different reasons and persecutors. If anything at all, these two blatant contradictions point to proof that Paul’s corpus, as a collection – in its bare, short form – was unknown by Greek-educated intellectuals until it was brought to Rome around 140 CE. This unknown teacher of the first comprehensive layout of Christian doctrine was so open to interpretation.
Tragically after Hadrian’s punishments of everyone who was circumcised after Bar Kokhba there could not be any Jewish-Christians (all necessarily circumcised) in the Roman school to recognize all the features in Paul’s original writing and teach them as intended, fully aligning with the mission and teaching of Jesus from the Parables of Enoch (the subject of my ’thesis’ to be reviewed soon). Three great intellectual thinkers interpreted this simple corpus in different directions: Marcion had already interpreted it according to his Antithesis which he had appended as the study guide for his New Testament: Valentinus took the interpretation towards the Gnostic ideas and Justin towards the orthodox.
But Paul needed a back story to heroize him and give him Divine endorsement and also create the impression of a close network of churches all fully conversant with all of Paul’s doctrines that the orthodox has now inherited. So, one was created, picking up some clues from the authentic snippets in Paul’s own writing. The anonymous author (definitely not this fictional “Luke” of the first century) was a careless historian, loved picking names out of Josephan accounts and dropping them to give an air of authenticity and got his chronology and persons mixed up in several places.
But what astounds me is the blatant mismatch of the tale that heroized Peter in Acts 10-11 as the strong advocate with dramatic divine endorsement for fully accepting Gentiles AND EATING WITH THEM (Acts 11:2-3). This is the criticism of the “Circumcision Party” and Peter stood up to them and silenced them (11:18) and everyone agreed – including this alleged “circumcision party” – that no-one can resist God’s will to grant repentance and life to the Gentiles. End of (or it should have been). This happened not many years into the beginning of the movement.
Now compare it with Paul’s SOLE visit (in the original version) to Jerusalem 14 years after his conversion. Even the expanded and largely rewritten account – a process in scholarship called redaction (don’t confuse it with the term’s use for hiding portions in documents for legal purposes) of Paul’s written testimony in Galatians. The REDACTION’S extra visit “after three years” has particular purposes, but they’re not relevant to the point I’m making here. However, There’s no way around it … PETER is the one now refusing to eat with Gentiles because he thinks they are unclean and PAUL is the advocate for their inclusion when he spoke with the three senior Apostles – the occasion that was reimagined as Acts 15. When that happened in Gal 2:9 it was handshakes all round in complete harmony and agreement that what was being proclaimed by Paul to the Gentiles was completely in accordance with the actual teaching and mission of Jesus. No misgivings. No contradictions. One concession was that Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised and take on the yoke of the Torah for all the ceremonial purity and dietary laws and festivals.
How this event was rewritten is quite dastardly in CREATING a disdainful superiority in Paul and rejection of the entire Jewish Law and an irreparable division that was NEVER there in the original short account. By SWITCHING the advocate for Gentile inclusion, clearly, the Redactor of Paul’s letters and the author of Acts never compared notes! This is further shown by the total contradictions in Paul’s alleged three missionary journeys (much of it taken from Homeric tales) and the invented greetings and travel plans at the end of his letters!. Apologists who hold the totally unfounded doctrine of divine inspiration of the texts that the church selected to endorse itself followed up with “scriptural inerrancy” – when trying to rationalize this mess of contradictions (after ignoring the Peter/Paul Gentile advocate switch) have to invent Paul’s release from Roman house arrest and a further journey!
Wake up people … You can’t trust Acts … Nor the REDACTION of Paul’s original letters which introduced EVERY SINGLE THING that contradicts Jesus in this novel Soteriology of believing doctrines about the ultimate Yom Kippur sacrifice that Jesus’ death never was – and for a purpose that never needed fulfilling: God has always freely forgiven the authentically repentant without any debt repayment. But they created this version, exalting Paul’s new teaching they gave him so that it fulfilled and superceded and rejected the beliefs and practice of their Jewish brothers unless they joined this newly invented Gentile version in their Church, too. For their Roman overlords they had to spiritualizre the Kingdom of God they sought and completely distance themselves from the troublesome Jews who wanted this Kingdom to be literal and on Earth so Daniel 2 would be fulfilled.
Nevertheless, many sincere people have found great positives and meaning for their personal spiritual journey from these texts – as I had done myself for nearly 40 decades – and I understand and respect the veneration in which they are held. However for me now, I can detangle myself from the fear of “losing my salvation” if I critically investigate the texts again. So, in my more educated opinion, these second century creations added to the original texts now appear to me as a disgusting spiritually abusive, manipulative propaganda for power and control 🤬See less
LikeReply2 likes
Ali Rowan Given that Paul is often acknowledged as a great theologian for creating the groundwork for an entirely new religion in his letters…..if it wasn’t really him but rather a redactor, do you have any theories as to who this ACTUAL great theologian might have been? Justin perhaps?
LikeReply1 like
Keith P. Myers that’s a question and a half. Really is not possible to say but whether it was him or someone taking inspiration from him, we will never know. Some suggest Polycarp, but because of his more direct lineage to John (who knew the Parables of Enoch) through Ignatius, it’s surprising that he would have diverged so much from the original in only the second generation after Jesus. But then again, it didn’t take long for different ideas to evolve from those of Paul by just the first generation afterwards – as seen in Col and Laod – and 2 Thess.
LikeReply1 like
Ali Rowan But another interesting related idea…….Marcion’s theology in his antitheses can clearly be shown to have a solid foundation in Paul’s letters. However, stripped down so that they are in alignment with the Jerusalem Christians as you suggest would then beg the question…..how did Marcion come up with his theology?
LikeReply1 like
That was really only made possible because of the deutero-Paulines which have Jesus as a far more ethereal being.
I’ve taken a while as I’ve worked through studying the Parables of Enoch and how Paul used them, to understand how he understood Jesus before he came, during his time and afterwards and why he calls him son of God. Best read in my doc rather than explain it all now.
Why Marcion thought Jesus was rejecting the Creator who gave the Law, is in his misunderstanding of Galatians. The crucial difference that Marcion – and even most Christians today – didn’t get was that Paul’s term, “works of the Law” did NOT refer to the most essential basic commands of the 10 that relate to how you treat your neighbour. THIS is “the Law” that Jesus came to ESTABLISH (this is the TC version and it’s RIGHT) not “fulfil” – that’s the Christianisation of the verse. Neither did he understand what Paul meant by Rom 10:4, “Christ is the telos of the Law for Righteousness for everyone who believes.” That Greek word is usually translated as “end” in most Bibles and gets read as “terminate, complete, finish,” when it’s more akin to “goal, ultimate purpose.” Paul is saying, the “holy, good and just” (Rom 7:12) “law for righteousness” leads you TO Christ, the fullest, most complete expression of it for those who believe and keep it. Just see how the NLT completely misunderstands it!
For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God. 😫😵💫🤮😡
By obeying THIS Law from the Creator, Jews ARE JUSTIFIED. It’s the SAME “Law” of ethics that is instinctively written in the hearts of Gentiles and if they keep to that, they are also justified. ALL people everywhere are judged according to the deeds they have done whether good or evil and will receive accordingly – the righteous are glorified, the wicked are expelled from the Earth.
The church has conflated the works (all the mechanics of external purity, Sabbath, dietary rules and regulations for sacrifices) with the Law, itself. Paul never rejected the Creator’s “holy good and just” law. Jesus never came to fulfill or annul it either. But Marcion read it wrong just like the church has. Valentinus focused on the deuteros and Justin made a Middle Platonic philosophy out of it … Which then got written in and also a novel legalistic transactional sacrifice imported into the sufferings of Christ in order to “fulfil” all those additional WORKS of the Law. This neatly terminated all reliance on the Jewish ways including the sacrifices and to spiritualize everything about the Christian Kingdom of God so they they could prove to the Romans they were no threatSee more
LikeReply1 like
Ali Rowan I think there is quite a lot in what you are saying here is congruent, especially your resistance to reading Paul as if Torah itself were the problem. Romans 7:12 simply will not let us do that, and I also think Romans 10:4 is much better heard with telos as goal or culmination rather than simple termination.
And interestingly, that is why I think your reading of Romans may actually bring you closer to Paul than your redaction thesis allows. If we can recover this Jewish argument from the letters themselves, perhaps the deeper problem was not Paul abandoning Torah, but the later church gradually losing the Jewish grammar necessary to understand him.
Here Mark Nanos an under-rated secular Jewish scholar on his treatment of “works of the law” helps clarifys some context. I would encourage all to read and listen to his research and perspective. https://youtu.be/otzyUSOniSE?is=MjfaYmbq9T9lUt9sSee more
LikeReply2 likes
Marty Banzhaf completely agree that Paul never deviated from the baseline fundamental of the Torah and took its ethics to the Gentiles. He tells us what his gospel is in Rom 2:12-16 which is exactly the process described by Jesus and in the Parables of Enoch. The problem WAS the redaction added in Rom 3 to steer people into viewing God as a harsh debt-demanding perfection-requiring despot who demanded payment that only Christ’s “righteous” life and sacrifice could give. Tragically this became the God of the Church – but was never the God of Jesus nor of Paul, nor of David (Ps 103)
The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in loving mercy …
He has not dealt with us according to our sins
or repaid us according to our iniquities. …
As a father has compassion on his children,
so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.
For He knows our frame; He is mindful that we are dust.See more
LikeReply2 likes
Anne Fields What Paul wrote in his letters is more reliable than the Damascus road story in Acts. He wrote “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor 9:1). He doesn’t give any details of what he saw — my guess is that it was something similar to the following:
During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying “Come over to Macedonia and help us”. (Acts 16:9 Some translations say “dream” instead of “vision”). I think Paul had a dream while asleep at night of a man appearing to him and saying “I am Jesus”. (It was necessary for Paul to say “I saw Jesus” to establish his credentials as an apostle on equal footing with the other apostles). He doesn’t say he received teachings from Jesus on that occasion when he saw him. He wrote the following in Galatians 1:
“The gospel that was proclaimed by me … I received through a revelation of Jesus Christ … (God) was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles”. I think Paul didn’t receive these revelations when he had the dream of seeing Jesus. These “revelations” were thoughts that popped into his head over several years, and he believed that these thoughts were put into his head by God.See less
LikeReply2 likes
Ali Rowan Yes so true- Romans 3:2 is still one of my favorite verses here: Israel was entrusted with the logia tou Theou—the oracles of God. Whatever Paul says next has to be heard with that vocation still intact.
And when it comes to Anselm’s satisfaction theory and its later Protestant penal-substitutionary iterations, my concern is that we can turn Christ’s sacrifice into something done instead of us in the wrong sense. We are called into that same pattern of self-giving—to become living sacrifices, to bear one another’s burdens, to take up the cross.
Keep sketching out the Parables of Enoch as you’ve been working through them. I do think that apocalyptic world helps us hear some of Paul’s language more clearly, especially around judgment, the Son of Man, and the vindication of the righteous, even if I’m still more cautious about making direct literary dependence carry too much weight.See more
LikeReply
You may be surprised to see that the only mention of Christ’s sacrifice in Apostolikon is him as the Passover Lamb – for indeed, he was slain exactly at the time the lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple for Passover … and the Exodus symbolism of deliverance from the Angel of Death and liberation from Pharaoh’s (world ruler’s) jurisdiction into God’s is all that is required. Jesus was not the goat of Yom Kippur, sacrificed for sin atonement!
There is a lot else that has come to be believed that was added in the second century, but you’ll have to read it at your leisure.
I have done a comprehensive comparison of the eschatology of the Parables of Jesus and with the help of the Travencore-Cochin earlier layer of Matthew and the Evangelion’s earlier layer of Luke, it soon becomes evident that Jesus absolutely did model his own eschatological Parables on the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch, but that text and the future it told was not wanted by the Jews because it didn’t match the expectations of vindication and becoming the dominant world power they thought God had promised through other Second Temple texts that were LATER selected for the Tanakh. So many subtle additions have been made in Matthew, Luke and to Paul to make Jesus be the Son of Man predicted in Daniel, and the Messiah of Zechariah and Isaiah, etc. It’s been a breathtaking discovery that I can’t wait to share!See less
LikeReply1 like
Eric Weber Thank you! I think Paul was just doing a type of Mishnah. Later Christianity makes him out to be “holy writ” because of 2 Tim 3:16 where he mentions “theopneustos.”
LikeReply2 likes
The Christian Myth and Symbolism Guy
Marty Banzhaf I can get behind “theopneustos,” but with all the deliberate obfuscations that have been introduced into the text to protect the guilty and condemn the innocent, I would have to answer symbolically:
LikeReply
The Christian Myth and Symbolism Guy
I call my “readers” [Reapers] because they go back and forth down the rows gathering up all the Words. See above? The fields are white for the Harvest already!
LikeReply
Eric Weber Amen!
LikeReply1 like
Here is my talks with a Jewish teacher over 3 years ago they are short clips of our conversation – Jeff Geist (good napping talks for you) https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwBhDb75vw4_3Aq7NDu-3uFdYGq9iIHVK&si=pdnjpNfDuJmP__xT
LikeReply
More talks with a Jew on Paul and the Law https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwBhDb75vw48V1WcEcLacD7Jp-lg26N8p&si=uHY39j8R8joikRDq
LikeReply
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
Thanks! I will see if I can stay awake 🤔
Romans 2 is interesting. Up until verse 24 or so it makes some sense and follows Judaic thought. (And echoes James).
Starting with 24 (quotation out of context to the Tanach citation) to the end of the chapter Paul is lost in his own ‘land of make believe’.
LikeReply
Jeff Geist
I too have read Thijs Voskuilen’s “Operation Messiah” and think it makes so much sense. I have also read Dr. Tabor’s book “Paul and Jesus” and find no incompatibility.
Voskuilen, an investigative detective, now has a website, www.operationmessiah.com. Under Books and Sources, he has a lengthy blog entitled, “Paul Against the Parthian Backdrop”. In it he uses modern intelligence analyses to consider whether Paul was an intelligence agent working for the Romans. I find this article intriguing and well worth reading. It seems to me quite possible Paul was an expert storyteller who was continually maintaining his “cover” as a Roman intelligence agent.
Here is an excerpt from near the end of the blog:
4.7 Final Assessment
Taken together, the Strategic, Policy, and Tactical layers form a coherent intelligence picture:
· Paul operated in regions of acute strategic sensitivity.
· His activities aligned with Rome’s policy goals during a period of instability.
· His behavior matches modern indicators of fake defector or infiltrator activity.
· His letters reveal patterns inconsistent with transparent religious motivation.
· His impact reduced the likelihood of coordinated Jewish unrest in key areas.
The convergence across layers suggests that Paul’s role cannot be understood solely as that of a religious convert or theological innovator.
He functioned as a stabilizing force within a volatile geopolitical environment, producing outcomes that served Roman strategic interests.
This does not close the case; it reframes it. Paul is not merely a figure of theological debate.
He is an intelligence case whose credibility must be assessed before any further historical or doctrinal conclusions can be drawn.
See less
LikeReply3 likes
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
Anne Fields I think it explains Paul very well. First he attempted to physically persecute the Jerusalem congregation, but it kept growing and posing a potential continuing threat to Rome. Second, he figured ‘if you can’t beat them ‘join’ them. Then twist the message and make it a pro Roman message.
LikeReply3 likes
Anne Fields Sounds interesting! And the book he did that is written as a screenplay looks like an entertaining way to explore his idea!
LikeReply
I heard Bart Ehrman say on a recent episode of Misquoting Jesus that he is beginning to think that Paul may have been a slave in his early years, probably in a cultivated and wealthy family. Where he may have learned Greek and helenistic philosophy. 🤔
LikeReply
Serge Coriandoli Taursus was a VERY Hellenized area with influences of many gods including Artemis, etc. Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest of his Hellenized mindset and other education before “claiming” to be a pharisee and “claiming” to be an apostle. The ultimate chameleon if you will . . . Jeff Geist Marty Banzhaf Keith P. Myers
LikeReply2 likes
The Alexanderian Jewish influence was an institution.
LikeReply
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
One of Robert Eisenman’s papers is called, ‘Paul as a Herodian’ – outlines his connection to the Roman hierarchy. I would recommend it highly.
LikeReply1 like
Jeff Geist There’s extreme good evidence historically and textually to say the Herodians in Jesus time were the elite Jerusalem Essenes who had always supported Herod after one of their prophets, Manachem, prophesied he would become king. While Herod was still just governor of Galilee, the Essenes helped Herod (and the Romans) when he was camped at Arbel evicting the pro-Hasmonean rebels that had taken over their cave village there. Later they helped him again with the Battle against the Parthians on the Plain of Ginnosar beneath the village. They also sheltered the Pharisees in Arbel who fled after they were fiercely persecuted by the newly installed Sadducean hierarchy. That’s why the Pharisees and Herodians are mentioned in league together in the Gospels twice … There’s a third ref (beware the leaven) still attested in some manuscripts that was changed to Herod in the canonised versions.
Paul calls himself a Pharisee in Phil and he was.See less
LikeReply
Seeking to recover what has been lost (or hidden)
Ali Rowan
To me that is a misreading of the Jewish history of the time. To my knowledge the only authors who come close to saying that are those who conflate Essenes with Sadducees because of the similar origins of their names and the possibility that both groups split from an earlier common origin.
The Essenes were no more of a homogeneous group than the Pharisees were.
There were at least 7 different types of Pharisees according to the Talmud. Hippolytus lists at least 7 different types of Essenes. Judaism in the time of the second Temple was quite varied.
However, I don’t think Paul was a Pharisee at all.
He lacks basic Torah knowledge and misquoted and twists the Tanach on multiple occasions.
He may have had some training but calling himself a Pharisee is just more evidence of his boasting. Or he is using the term to show how he was ‘separated’ for a special mission as he claims. He also knows terminology from Qumran and the Essenes and may have studied there, but I don’t think he ever ‘graduated’.
To me Paul is the embodiment of the expression: “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. Just like Josephus, I think he went from group to group and learned but never settled on one thing. Then he joined the establishment and persecuted the Jerusalem movement. Then, either by subterfuge or by genuine conviction he took the little
bit s of learning that he had and made up his own belief system.
I don’t think a Pharisee would work with the illegitimate Sadducee High Priests. Especially not High Priests appointed by the Herodian occupation government.
That makes no sense and would not be historically accurate. Paul boasts of his connections to Rome and The Herodian establishment and used his citizenship as a ‘get out of jail free’ card when he came afoul of the Roman government.
It is interesting to me that both Josephus and Paul appear to have been traitors to the Judaism they claimed they followed. For different reasons but both abandoned their Judaism and essentially defected to Rome. See less
LikeReply
No he ( Paul) doesn’t say he was talking with Jesus.
LikeReply
Johanna Williams Who was he talking to?
LikeReply
There was no place for Paul/ Saul on either side of the line. So he went to the “heathen” islands and nations and did a good work. I have always wondered about the conversation when he was recalled to Jerusalem by James and the other leaders to meet with the followers of Jesus. By that time Paul had made some progress with his ministry to the pagans. Acts makes it sound rather civil. It was later than I would have thought because James had not been thrown off the temple yet and killed.
LikeReply
I think I am relieved to not have to defend a position in front of you scholars!
It seems to me the Bible text is not considered as reliable as the detractors who were writing after the events. I know it’s not perfect but I consider it the higher authority.
Also we can trust the DSS precisely echoed in the Hebrew Bible. Be clear we can trust that as bedrock after a thousand year gap between them.
