SECTION I
Chapter 7--St. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles

Importance of Studying Paul and His Letters

  Paul's letters have had a tremendous influence on Christian doctrine.
His letters are also believed by scholars to be the EARLIEST writings in the
New Testament, composed during the period of Paul's missionary activity
sometime between 35-60 C.E.(The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
are believed by most scholars to have been written sometime AFTER the Jewish
War of 66 C.E. (i.e., between 67 C.E. and 120 C.E.).

  Thus Paul's letters are invaluable in the historical effort at understanding
Christian doctrine during this important formative period. Perhaps even more
important, it is quite likely that Paul's views were known to some of the
gospel writers (such as Mark), and in turn, influenced some of their
interpretations of Jesus' mission on earth. This would mean that the gospel
account of Jesus' ministry and the history of early Christianity contained
in Acts were also influenced by Paul's views on Christianity.

   This is significant, because we know from Paul's own writings, that there
were "other" theologies during his lifetime, that were competing with HIS
version of Christianity.  For example, Paul was deeply concerned that the
"arch" apostles were not accepting his views, and that some of the churches
had become politically polarized into groups who were "for Peter" or "for
Paul" and so on.  As pointed out in the previous chapter, Paul appears
reluctant at times to name his ideological opponents or to directly
challenge their authority.

  This, in itself, is a clue that Paul's opponents must have wielded
respect within the Christian community, and that Paul was not anxious to
directly confront this group.  Exactly who Paul is referring to is no
secret-- As we have seen, Paul does refer to them in some passages as James
the 'Lord's brother', Peter, and John.  The fact that

  (1) the historian Josephus also writes that James was the brother of Jesus
AND the ruler of the Christian church in Jerusalem, and

  (2) that Luke's Acts refers to a leader named James, (in addition to the
writings of other early Christian writers) --

has led many modern scholars to conclude that James and Jesus were indeed
brothers.

  At times, Paul writes as if some of the "arch" apostles were questioning
his authority as an apostle, such as when he says: "what have those arch
apostles have that I don't". (2 Corinth 11:5), Paul also complained that this
group taught a version of Christianity that was SO different from his version,
that it was from a "different Jesus" than the one he knew. (This is an
interesting statement since as we shall see, Paul only "knew" Jesus from
his divine revelation.) Our focus then will be to look for clues on how
Paul's doctrines were different from those of the "arch" apostles at
Jerusalem.  To do that, we must look at Paul's background and the nature
of his divine revelation that he experienced upon being converted.

Paul's Background--Before Converting to Christianity

  There are TWO accounts of Paul's early missionary activities within the
New Testament.  One of these is based on Paul's personal letters--which most
scholars believe were written around 35-60 C.E. The second account of Paul's
activities were written in the book of Acts. The book of Acts was believed by
many scholars to have been written by Luke at the earliest, sometime around
90 C.E. This would have been roughly 30-55+ years AFTER Paul composed his own
writings.  At this time, Luke was probably basing a lot of his information
on oral tradition.  As we shall see, by analyzing Paul's own letters, a very
different picture emerges than the one presented by the book of Acts.

Where was Paul Born?

I.  VERSION ACCORDING TO ACTS:

  ACCORDING TO LUKE, the author of Acts, Paul was born in Tarsus, which
was a large hellenized cosmopolitan city, in what is today Turkey. The
mystery religions were very active in Tarsus.--Indeed the name 'Tarsus'
was derived from the name of the mystery God Baal-Taraz (one of the popular
dying and resurrected deities of the times). (The topic of the Mystery
Religions is discussed in more detail in Section IV, Chapter 2.)

II. VERSION ACCORDING TO PAUL'S LETTERS:

   Paul's letters seem to imply that he had roots within the Jewish religion:

  "I am an Israelite myself, of the stock of Abraham, of the tribe of
  Benjamin' (Romans 11:2); and '... circumcised on my eighth day,
  Israelite by race, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born and
  bred; in my attitude to the law, a Pharisee ...' (Philippians 3:5)

    Paul never states where he was born, therefore most scholars believe that
Paul was probably a Jew who was born in Tarsus. (Possibly, since Paul was
trying to establish his authority, in competition to the apostles in Jerusalem--
he did not wish at the time to emphasize that he was NOT born in Palestine.)

Was Paul a Pharisee?

I.  VERSION ACCORDING TO ACTS:

    According to Acts, Paul is quoted as saying:

"I belonged to the strictest group in our religion:  I lived as a Pharisee."
(Acts 26.)

  Paul, we are told, left Tarsus at some point, where he went to Israel and
studied in the Pharisee academy under one of the most famous Jewish rabbis
of ALL time--the rabbi Gamaliel.(See Acts 21:39, 22:3). Therefore, if true,
this would indicate Paul had an incredibly distinguished background, giving
him the credentials to write authoritatively on issues between the Christians
and the Jews.

II. VERSION ACCORDING TO PAUL'S LETTERS:

  Paul states that he had an "attitude to the law" as "a Pharisee ..."
  (Philippians 3:5)

  Paul never directly states that he actually WAS a Pharisee.  Nor does
he ever mention any association with the Pharisaic academy under Gamaliel.
It would seem incredible that this might be a mere oversight by Paul,
because as a general reading of his letters will show, Paul was anxious to
prove his credentials in standing up to the "arch apostles" who taught
a version of a Jesus than he did!  As we have seen, this reference to
"certain other groups" was none other than the original twelve apostles,
who had been handpicked by Jesus himself--not to mention that James was the
brother of Jesus.  Paul would thus need strong credentials to stand opposed
to this group.

   Paul refers numerous times to his DIVINE REVELATION through Christ,
stressing that this is the basis for his authority within the Church. Paul
never mentions that his credentials INCLUDES being a Pharisee or, studying
under the illustrious Gamaliel.

Importance of Determining if Paul was Really a Pharisee

 There are two reasons why it is important to determine if Paul really was
a Pharisee as presented in the book of Acts (and hinted at, in his own
letter):

  First, Paul held himself out as an authority on Judaism and therefore
knowledgeable in defining the CONTINUATION of Jewish thought and doctrine
into Christianity.  When Paul lived, there was no Jewish group more respected
for their knowledge of Judaism than the Pharisees. (Indeed, the Pharisees
became the official spokesmen for Judaism, instead of the Sadducces, after
the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.). As we shall see in a later section,
Paul set down important principles of doctrine--including such areas as
sexuality, the status of women, and original sin (which greatly influenced
later Christian theologians and scholars--and became an integral part of
Christian dogma!  (Footnote: For example, St Augustine and his doctrines of
predestination and original sin were strongly influenced by the writings of
Paul.)  Therefore, it is important for Paul's background to be solid, if
modern scholars are to accept Paul's writings as truly inspirational.

  Secondly, according to the book of Acts, Paul persecuted the early
Christians before his conversion.  From this general picture, generations
of Christians would interpret this to mean that ALL Jews were hostile
to the early Christians.  As we shall see, this is a simplistic view. For,
there were other Jewish sects other than Pharisee Jews, operating in Palestine
during this time. The most influential of these were the Sadduccees who,
although a minority party within Judaism, were made up primarily of the wealthy,
aristocratic classes who ruled Israel.  Their leader, the High Priest, was
appointed by Rome, and interested in keeping down revolutionary activity,
in order to preserve their "privileged" position. We have already seen that
Palestine was seething with political discontent during this time-- fueled in
part by religious apocalyptic beliefs--and that this anger was often directed
at those leaders who co-operated with the enemy. Many Jewish religious
movements were put down by the Romans, with the help of the Sadducees.

 If it were the Sadducees who were persecuting the Christians, then it
could be argued that this group was NOT representative of Judaism--but was
instead a minority group that was persecuting BOTH Jews and Christians alike
in order to keep down revolutionary activity. That is--the Sadducees were
acting primarily in a POLITICAL (and NOT RELIGIOUS) manner in order to
preserve their own self interests.

Evidence that Paul was Involved with the Sadduccees, not the Pharisees

  As we shall see from background details provided by both Luke and Paul--
Paul was almost certainly involved at this time with the Sadduccees,
and NOT with the Pharisees:

I. EVIDENCE FROM LUKE

  To begin, note the following recorded speeches on Paul that occur in
Acts, chapter 22. Paul is the speaker:

 "I have always been ardent in God's service, as you all are today. And
  so I began to persecute this movement [Christianity] to the death,
  arresting its followers, men and women alike, and putting them in chains.
  For this I have as witnesses the HIGH PRIEST and the whole Council of
  Elders.  I was given letters from them to our fellow-Jews at Damascus, and
  had started out to bring the Christians there to Jerusalem as prisoners for
  punishment; and this is what happened..." (emphasis mine)

  Notice the reference to the "High Priest", which resurfaces again  as
"chief priests" in another recorded speech by Paul in Acts:

"It was I who imprisoned many of God's people by authority obtained from the
CHIEF PRIESTS; and when they were condemned to death, my vote was against
them." (Acts 26:10, emphasis mine) .

  When the apostle Peter was tried, Acts 5 states that the High Priest and
the Sadduccees were their persecutors. A trial is held in what is described
as "the full senate of the Israelite nation".  At the beginning questioning,
it is clearly stated in this scene that it was these same Sadduccees who
were so angered by Peter's retort that  they "must obey God rather than men",
that they wanted to put the Christians to death.

  Acts 5 continues then with the following scene:

  "a member of the Council rose to his feet, a Pharisee called Gamaliel,
  a teacher of the law held in high regard by all the people" [ie the Jews].

 After comparing the Christians to some of the other failed Jewish messianic
groups, Gamliel urges the council to "leave [the Christians] alone."
He then continues,

  "For if this idea of theirs or its execution is of human origin, it will
  collapse; but if it is from God, you will never be able to put them down,
  and you risk finding yourselves at war with God."

After Gamaliel's eloquent appeal, the council decides to take his advice and
free the Christians (although the Sadducees saw to it that they were given a
beating  first).

  In the above scene, the Sadducees are directly named as the group hostile
to the Christians.  In addition, the Pharisees are shown to be supportive
of the Christians--even willing to consider it possible that their Christian
idea "is from God". If Paul was a Pharisee (especially one who had studied
under the same teacher Gamaliel in this scene), then he was acting totally
OUT OF CHARACTER with the Pharisees in this scene--but totally IN character
with the SADDUCEAN RULING PARTY.

II. EVIDENCE FROM PAUL'S LETTERS

Paul admitted in one letter, that he saw nothing wrong in using EXAGGERATION
in order to win converts for Jesus. This can be seen in the following verses
from Pauls' letter to the Corinthians.  Here, Paul states that he "became
LIKE a Jew to win Jews"--and became LIKE a Gentile to win Gentiles for
Christ:

  "I am a free man and own no master; but I have made myself every man's
  servant, to win over as many as possible.  To the Jews, I became like a
  Jew, to win Jews; as they are subject to the Law of Moses, I put myself
  under the law to win them, although I am not myself subject to it. To
  win Gentiles, who are outside the Law, I made myself like one of them,
  although I am not in truth outside God's law, being under the law of
  Christ.  To the weak I became weak, to win the weak.  Indeed, I have
  become everything in turn to men of every sort, so that in one way or
  another I may save some.  All this I do for the sake of the Gospel, to
  bear my part in proclaiming it." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

  Paul may have studied Pharisaic law, but this is questionable, as an
analysis of his rabbinic proofs do not conform to the methods used by
the Pharisees (Maccoby). Paul's writings also show total contempt for the
pursuit of wisdom, which is in complete opposition to  Pharisaic traditions
of respecting learning and knowledge.--For example, there is a Pharisee
story telling how God Himself laughed when he was "outwitted" by his
clever hebrew children on a fine point of law.

  If Paul was ever a Pharisee, he turned completely against their traditions--
by holding contempt for the "wisdom of the wise". According to Paul, God
Himself, despised the "wisdom of the wise":

 * "It is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness
of the clever I will thwart.'  Where is this wise man?  Where is the
scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the
wisdom of the world!" (1 Corinthians 1:19-20)

  As for his OWN lack of 'eloquent wisdom', Paul explains this away as
follows:

 * "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and
not with eloquent wisdom lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its
power... (1 Corinthians 1:17)

  If Paul did study as a Pharisee, it would appear likely that he
abandoned his studies, probably at an early stage, and fell in with the
Sadducees to become an agent to the High Priest.  In this role he arrested
any group that the High Priest deemed to be political trouble makers.

  In summary, both the author of Acts and Paul AGREE on one important
point:  That Paul's background was heavily rooted in the Jewish laws and
traditions, making him an authority in interpreting Judaism's relationship
to Jesus.  However, both Luke and Paul's letters do NOT agree on those details
which made Paul such an authority on the subject: Luke stressed that although
Paul was born outside of Palestine in Tarsus, he nevertheless studied Judaism
under the famous and well respected academy of Gamaliel.  According to Paul's
letters, his authority came from his lineage from Judaism--"a Hebrew born
and bred" plus his direct divine revelation from Jesus (explained below).
If Paul was born in Tarsus, as Luke (the author of Acts) points out, then
possibly the reason why Paul omits this fact in his letters, is that he was
concerned that it might detract from his image as an authority on Judaism.

Paul's Role in "ARRESTING" Christians before his Conversion Experience

I. ACCOUNT PER LUKE:

  Per Luke, Paul was charged by the Sadducean High Priest to arrest
Christians in Damascas:

"He went to the High Priest and applied for letters to the synagogues
at Damascus authorizing him to arrest anyone he found, men and women,
who followed the new way, and bring them to Jerusalem." (Acts 9:2)

   Damascus was outside of the jurisdiction of not only Judea during this
time, but the Roman Empire as well. After 37 C.E., the city of Damascus was
under the rule of the independent Arab kingdom of Nabataea.  Probably the
reason why Jesus' followers had left Judaea for Damascus was to escape from
both the jurisdiction of the High Priest AND the Roman Empire.  That Paul
was given orders to "arrest anyone he found" would almost certainly mean his
operation was to be a clandestine one-- for it is very unlikely that King
Aretas, the king of Nabataea would view such an action from a foreign power
as a friendly act. (Maccoby)

  According to Paul, after he had arrived in Damascus, it was the COMMISSIONER
of King Aretas who plotted to arrest him:

   "When I was in Damascus, the commissioner of King Aretas kept the city
   under observation so as to have me arrested; and I was let down in a basket,
   through a window in the wall, and so escaped his clutches."
   (II Corinthians 2:32-33)

  Interestingly enough, the book of Acts, in describing the same scene,
suggests that it was "the Jews" INSTEAD of the commissioner of King Aretas
who persecuted Paul while in Damascus.  According to Acts 9:22-5:

  "But Saul [Paul] grew more and more forceful, and silenced the Jews of
   Damascus with his cogent proofs that Jesus was the Messiah.  As the
   days mounted up, the Jews hatched a plot against his life; but their
   plans became known to Saul.  They kept watch on the city gates day and
   night so that they might murder him; but his converts took him one night
   and let him down by the wall, lowering him in a basket."

  Suppose, say the King Aretas' commissioner was JEWISH (although this
is NO WHERE stated!)--Notice how Paul's version LACKS the overall anti-Jewish
slant as presented in Luke's Acts. Indeed Paul's letters overall are very
positive regarding his hope that all Jews will eventually convert. (Footnote:
with only a few sections which some scholars believe are interpolations. See
Section VI, Chapter 7 for details on this).

Paul's Divine Revelation:

I. VERSION ACCORDING TO ACTS:

  According to the book of Acts, Paul received his divine revelation while
traveling on the road to Damascus in pursuit of arresting Christians there:

    "And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come
   neigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a
   great light round about me.  And I fell unto the ground, and heard a
   voice saying unto me, 'Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" And I
   answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, 'I am Jesus of
   Nazareth, whom thou persecutest."  (Acts 22:6-8)

  The author of Acts clearly portrays Paul's experience as a real, PHYSICAL
event. It notes  that even Paul's companions saw the light, although they
understood no voice.(Acts 22:9).

II. VERSION ACCORDING TO PAUL'S LETTERS:

   Paul's own letters also refers to his conversion experience. However
it sounds as if it were more of a mystical (and therefore MENTAL) experience,
as opposed to a physical experience. Paul discussed the details of his vision
in his second letter to the Corinthians, (roughly fourteen years after it
had happened):

       I know a man in Christ who, fourteen years ago, was caught up
     whether still in the body or out of the body, I do not know,
     God knows - right into the third heaven.  I do know, however,
     that this same person... was caught up into paradise and heard
     things which must not and cannot be put into human language.
     (2 Corinthians 12:1-4)

  Note how Paul's description does not mention "seeing a light" or "hearing
a voice" of Jesus.  Instead it sounds more like a SPIRITUAL journey to
another level of consciousness, up into the "third heaven" where he
experienced a "paradise" that "cannot be put into human language". (As we
shall see in Section IV Chapter 2, this view of the universe was straight
out of Greek Platonic thought.)

After the Divine Revelation

I. VERSION ACCORDING TO ACTS:

  To return again to the Acts version, we are told that immediately after
Paul's experience, that he was blinded and had to be cured of his
blindness by the Christian Ananias. (Acts 9:17)

II. VERSION ACCORDING TO PAUL'S LETTERS:

  But Paul's letters NEVER refer to him being blinded by his vision, nor
needing assistance from other Christians to cure him!  Instead, according
to Paul, immediately after his "revelation" he did not feel it necessary
to "stop to discuss this with any human being" vision, but went straightforth
to Arabia:

   "I did not stop to discuss this with any human being, nor did I go up to
  Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went
  off to Arabia at once...Even when after three years I went to Jerusalem to
  visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see
  any of the other apostles ... " (Galatians I: 16-19).

  Paul's statement that he immediately went off to Arabia was probably done
in imitation of Moses-- who after receiving the Ten Commandments from God,
stayed in the Arabian wilderness for forty days and forty nights.  Paul
likewise goes off to Arabia to meditate on his revelation from God,
before returning to impart it to mankind.  Hyam Maccoby has argued that
just as Moses was marked as the founding prophet of Judaism by his
experience of God's presence in the burning bush, Paul stressed his
Damascus vision as singling him out as a great prophet for Christianity.
(Footnote:  Maccoby goes even further and argues  that Paul saw himself as
THE OFFICIAL founder of Christianity, and that it was his views that
were largely responsible for transforming Christianity from a sect WITHIN
Judaism into a NEW major religion. (Maccoby, MYTHMAKER, p 104-5)

  According to Paul, his revelation gave him full knowledge of Jesus:

    "But I certify of you, brethern, that the gospel which was preached of
    me is not after man.  For I neither received it of man, neither was
    I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-2)
    This is repeated again in his letter to the Corinthians, where Paul
    states that "the tradition which I handed on to you came to me from the
    Lord himself." (1 Corinthians 11:23)

  Note, that Paul did not believe he needs physical instruction from any
man--not even the apostles, but that instead his divine "revelation of
Jesus Christ" had given him all the information he needed for his new
career.  In the next few verses in Galatians, Paul also states that God
had set him apart before he was born (1:15); and revealed his "Son in me"
(1:16) in order that he might preach to the "heathen".  This phrase "Son in
me" sounds like the spirit of Jesus' being present within Paul, indicating
great power has been bestowed upon him.

  These passages also show Paul viewed himself as a man of great importance--
singled out by God for his great mission, even while still in in his
mother's womb.  Although Paul mentions he was responsible for persecuting
the Church, he NEVER mentions his involvement in the stoning of the martyr
Stephen.

  Paul's account of his conversion experience is very different in TONE from
the one given in Acts, which portrays Paul's experience as a HUMBLING one--
ie whereby Jesus puts Paul down for persecuting his people, leaving Paul blind
from the experience. In Acts, the humbled Paul needs to be cured by ANOTHER
Christian.- Later Acts portrays Paul as being introduced by Barnabas to the
Apostles. This is quite a different picture than exists in Paul's own letters--
where he instead goes off immediately to Arabia without talking to any man!

  In conclusion, since the portrayal of Paul and his relationship with
the early Christians is so different in Acts than that given by Paul himself
in his own letters, one has to question whether historical facts in Acts are
not taking a back seat to theological themes.  As noted earlier, the book
of Acts, is believed by most scholars to have been written sometime around
90-110 C.E.--some thirty to fifty years after Paul's letters to the Galatians.
Since Paul is writing about himself, it would also seem that when we see a
conflict in accounts between what is contained in his letters, and what we
read in Acts, that Paul's letters have to be closer to the real historical
events.

What was the Nature of Paul's Revelation--was it Physical or Mental?

  One of the most crucial, and hotly debated issues today is over the
exact NATURE of Paul's revelation--which as we have seen was interpreted by
gentile Christians as giving Paul the divine knowledge to interpret Christian
doctrine.  That is, did Paul's revelation result from a PHYSICAL appearance by
Jesus, or was it a mystical and therefore a MENTAL revelation?

  The account in Acts of Paul's divine experience presents Paul's revelation
as a REAL, PHYSICAL event! Paul's letters also show support for the view that
Jesus' appearances were PHYSICAL when, he states in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, that
Jesus:

  "WAS SEEN of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that he WAS SEEN of about
   five hundred brethren at once...After that, he WAS SEEN of James; then
   of all the apostles.  And last of all he WAS SEEN of me also, as of one
   born out of due time." (1 Corinthians 15:5-8, emphasis mine).

Many scholars have argued that the use of the Greek verb "harao" meaning "was
seen" clearly shows that Paul also meant that Jesus made PHYSICAL appearances
to his followers and to himself!

  However, Paul never gives ANY physical details of these resurrection
appearances other than to state that they happened. This would be natural if
these were SPIRITUAL (ie inspired by the SPIRIT of the Holy Ghost) as opposed
to a PHYSICAL revelation(s).

  Also, when Paul himself describes the nature of his revelation, he clearly
does NOT describe a physical sighting. For example, in his opening verse to
the Galatians, Paul wrote that he did not learn the gospel from other men, "...
but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-2).
As we have already seen, in his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul
reflected on the nature of his revelation as follows:

     "I know a man in Christ who, fourteen years ago, was caught up
     whether still in the body or out of the body, I do not know,
     God knows - right into the third heaven.  I do know, however,
     that this same person... was caught up into paradise and heard
     things which must not and cannot be put into human language."
     (2 Corinthians 12:1-4)

  The question therefore remains as to what exactly Paul meant when he
stated that Jesus "was seen" by the apostles.  Did he mean to be "seen"
in the physical sense, or in the spiritual, mystical sense--ie in
the "mind's eye"?

  We know that Paul repeatedly stressed the SPIRITUAL nature of Christianity--
and how God "revealed" information about Jesus "by his Spirit". For example,
in 1 Corinthians 2:10, Paul states that "God has revealed to us through the
Spirit.  For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God." (In
the previous verse, Paul seems to indicate that Jesus' divinity was hidden
when he wrote "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man
conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.)

  In Romans 8:15-6 Paul wrote that when we cry "Abba, Father!", it is "the
Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God."
And "Only through the Spirit of the Holy Ghost that dwelled within can one
really profess faith in Jesus"(Romans 8:9); And once "in the "spirit" the
faithful Christian can "speak mysteries" (1 Corinthians 14:2). A few verses
later Paul once again reiterates his belief in revelation and prophesy,
stating that these (along with doctrine and knowledge) are more important
when under the Spirit, than the mere speaking in tongues.

  Even Acts (see 2::1-4) speaks how the Spirit of the Holy Ghost was believed
to fill believers and impart great wisdom upon the recipient:

  "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one
  accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of
  a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were
  sitting.  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire
  and it sat upon each of them.  And they were all filled with the Holy
  Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
  utterance.

  Likewise, in 2 Peter 1:20, the author wrote "prophecy never had its
origin in the will of man, BUT MEN SPOKE FROM GOD AS THEY WERE CARRIED
ALONG BY THE HOLY SPIRIT" (emphasis mine.)

  Thus, Paul and other early Christians appeared to have strongly believed
they could receive revelation and other gifts while under the influence of the
Holy Ghost.  This emphasis on spiritual revelation by Paul and his Christian
gentile congregations, shows that they would not have REQUIRED a revelation
to be PHYSICAL in order for it to have been considered divinely inspired!
(Indeed Luke also refers to visions on occasion, such as when the women who
visited Jesus' tomb "had a VISION of angels, who said he was alive". (emphasis
mine, Luke 24:23). Luke also relates how Joseph was told by an angel of
Jesus' divine birth THROUGH A DREAM. (Luke 1:28-35))

  Probably the closest example of where Paul appears to talk about a real
physical event, is in his letter to the Colossians.  Paul has heard about a
religious leader who was preaching to his gentile Christian community a
"voluntary humility" and the "worshipping of angels".--In reality though,
Paul believed this man was only deceiving the people with his self-made
delusions--ie "those things which he has not seen, puffed up by his fleshly
mind"! (Colossians 2:18)

  Religious scholars have made the excellent point that Paul appears here to
be contrasting himself with this false leader--who "puffed up" his revelation
using "his fleshly mind". That is, they argue, by contrasting himself with
this false leader who used his "fleshy mind", Paul MUST have meant that HIS
revelation was instead PHYSICAL in nature!

     However, because Paul does not make this perfectly clear--another
interpretation is also possible.--For if Paul's revelation had truly been
physical in nature, then Paul would merely have had to state that the false
leader's revelations were all in his "mind" or "head". Instead, by carefully
qualifying that his opponent used his "FLESHY" mind, Paul could be merely
making a distinction between MENTAL revelations.--That is, while HIS mental
revelation was from the true spirit (Holy Ghost), his opponent's mental
revelation was instead, from the "flesh".

Paul's Inner Turmoil Before Receiving His Revelation

   In reading Paul's letters, we see evidence that Paul was experiencing
inner turmoil during the time BEFORE he converted to Christianity. His
writings show that he was under a great deal of stress when he set out
to Damascus to arrest Christians.  Possibly he was worried about his own
political safety, as this surely would have been a more dangerous mission,
by being outside the jurisdiction of the High Priest in Jerusalem. Yet Paul's
writings speak more of a SPIRITUAL turmoil as he set out--he even felt that
he had lost control of his own moral actions:

    "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am not:  I am unspiritual, the
  purchased slave of sin.  I do not even acknowledge my own actions as mine,
  for what I do is not what I want to do, but what I detest.  But if what
  I do is against my will, it means that I agree with the law and hold it to
  to be admirable.  But as things are, it is no longer I who perform the
  action, but sin that lodges in me.  For I know that nothing good lodges
  in me - in my unspiritual nature, I mean--for though the will to do good
  is there, the deed is not.  The good which I want to do, I fail to do;
  but what I do is the wrong which is against my will; and if what I do is
  against my will, clearly it is no longer I who am the agent, but sin that
  has its lodging in me.
  ... Miserable creature that I am, who is there to rescue me out of this
  body doomed to death? God alone, through Jesus Christ our Lord! Thanks be
  to God! In a work, then, I myself, subject to God's law as a rational
  being, am yet, in my unspiritual nature, a slave to the law of sin."

    Paul's writings showed he also knew that what he was doing was morally
wrong.  Yet, there was some conflict within him because he was entrusted
with an important mission from the High Priest himself. If he backed down
now, this would likely ruin his career and reputation. Paul thus felt bound
by duty to obey orders that were issued from the most powerful leader of the
Jews.

   In addition, Paul later wrote how he felt smothered by the Jewish
laws, which according to him, acted as a "curse" upon those who did not
uphold them all. (Galatians 3:10).  He had reached such a low mental state,
that only help from a divine being could "rescue [him] out of this body
doomed to death".  It was during this time, that Paul had the vision that
this divine being was none other than Jesus Christ, of whose followers he
had been persecuting.

Other "THEORIES" Regarding Paul's Revelation

Did Paul Experience a Psychological Flash or Insight?

   Some have theorized that Paul's experience can best be explained through
human psychology--as opposed to divine intervention. That is, when a person
is mentally struggling with opposing, seemingly insurmountable forces, a
person can experience, in a flash, a great insight that synthesizes these
conflicts in a powerful and creative way.  It is not uncommon for the
recipient of these insights to feel a new sense of power and purpose.

Was Paul an Epileptic?

  Other critics have speculated that Paul's experience could be explained
according to a mental disorder--such as epilepsy. Paul's brief description of
his divine experience:" I know a man in Christ who, fourteen years ago, was
caught up whether still in the body or out of the body, I do not know, God
knows - right into the third heaven"--is typical of how epileptics describe
mental seizures:

   According to M. Landsborough, M.D., St Paul's uncertainty about being
"whether still in the body, or out of the body" is a state of mind frequently
experienced by individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy." (M. Landsborough,
"St. Paul and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy," JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, NEUROSURGERY,
AND PSYCHATRY, No. 50 (1987) p 662)

  According to Dr. Landsborough, "Epileptic experiences can be patterned
by pre-existing events, especially emotional ones." He suggested that Paul's
low emotional state of mind on his road to Damascas and his preoccupation
with persecuting Christians could have triggered a hallucinated conversation
with Jesus.  (Ibid, p 660)

  Dr. Landsborough also pointed out that Paul's revelation was not an
isolated event:

  "[If Paul's] recorded subjective experience of a single attack ...[w]ere
   an isolated event without recurrences, it would be difficult to sustain
   the diagnosis.  But Paul experienced other 'visions.'   ...in one...he
   saw a Macedonian standing before him appealing to him to cross over to
   Troy from Macedonia to help (Acts 16:9); in another, Jesus speaks words of
   encouragement to him (Acts 18:9); in another, while praying in Jerusalem,
   he fell into a trance...and saw Jesus (Acts 22:17-21)"  (Ibid p 661)

  During Paul's times, the ancient hellenized world believed that all
epileptic seizures were of "divine origin"--ie were manifestations of
outside forces taking over an individual, as opposed to a mental disease.
Hippocrates, the ancient Greek "Father of Medicine" wrote in his ON THE
SACRED DISEASES how he disagreed with his colleagues, in arguing that
epilepsy was NOT of divine origin:

  "Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it.  But
  if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why there
  would be no end of divine things"

  "The Sacred Disease appears to me to be not a bit more divine than other
  diseases, nor more sacred; it has a nature and a cause.  Men believe
  it something divine through ignorance and their sense of the marvelous.
  Yet while its divinity is sustained because of an inability to comprehend
  it, this is really disproved by the simplicity of the manner in which the
  disease is cured, to wit, by purifications and incantations...(Those) who
  first ascribed this disorder to the gods must have been like magicians and
  purifiers, charlatans and quacks of our own day who claim excessive
  piety and more than average knowledge, while they use divinity as a pretext
  and a shield for their own inability to produce a cure"
  (Hippocrates. THE SACRED DISEASE. Trans. by W.H.S.Jones. London: Williams
  Heinemann, 1923, vol II, p. 139)

  Paul himself wrote that he suffered from "some affliction", a "thorn in the
flesh"-- which COULD be interpreted to mean an epilepsy attack.  Unfortunately
Paul gives no details of his affliction. He states he prayed to Jesus THREE
times to be healed, but that Jesus refused!  Instead, according to Paul,
Jesus told him that his "grace [was] enough" and that his "power [was]
perfected in [Paul's] weakness. (2 Corinthians 12:7-9.). Paul again refers
to an "illness"  when he wrote to the Galatians that "...it was because of
an illness... that I preached the gospel to you..."(Galatians 4:13)

   Of course Paul might be referring to a "spiritual" illness as opposed
to a real physical illness! Because this is not made clear, no one will
ever know for sure. (See Section VII, Chapter 5 for other examples of
epileptics--and a general discussion of the mind.)

Was Paul Just Another Person Looking to be a Prophet?

  Some skeptics have argued that Paul appears to be claiming that his
revelation gave him special status as a prophet. Their evidence for this
view is  basically to point out that history is literally FILLED with people
claiming divine stature as a prophet.-- The Old Testament tells how even back
then, there were a large number of prophets in the centuries before Jesus
(with many of them being false). (See Chapter 1). The New Testament also
alludes to the fact of there being numerous "false prophets" during the
times of Jesus who were able to deceive the people with "great signs and
wonders". (Chapter 3) Nor was this an anomaly of the times.--Any serious
student of history will be able to point to myriads of self-proclaimed
"prophets" throughout history and across different cultures.

Did Paul's Superstitious Background Lead Him to Imagine Everything?

  And last, some skeptics have argued that possibly all that happened was
that Paul was synthesizing various superstitious beliefs into a new doctrine.
It is a known fact that one's superstitious background can strongly affect
what one believes they have seen or experienced.-- History is filled with
examples where eyewitnesses have sworn that they have seen what today most
people would agree were imaginary creatures-- ranging from aliens from outer
space, to fairies, even to witches and demons. During the hysteria of the
witch trials for example, a modern review of the "evidence" for witches
from times, indicates that what people SWORE they saw, was in reality
highly dependent on their set of beliefs.--That is, if they BELIEVED that
Satan was everywhere, creating evil and mischief, later some would imagine
that they actually saw him.

   As we shall see in Section IV, Chapter 2-- Paul's view of the universe
borrowed heavily from the common superstitions of the ancient classical Greek
world--and its belief in intermediate divine beings and magical powers.

Paul's View of the Universe

  During the time of Paul, Platonic hellenistic philosophy held that the lower
planets were inhabited by demonic supernatural spirits, which frequently
interfered with the affairs of men and women.  As we shall see in a later
section, Greek outlooks by Paul's time had already infiltrated into Jewish
"Wisdom" circles, and were especially popular among the Diaspora Jews living
in Greek cosmopolitan areas--such as Alexandria, Antioch and Tarsus.  Thus,
these Jewish wisdom circles, in explaining how an all powerful god could
allow evil in the world--supposed that Satan and the demonic angels had
actually rebelled against God and taken control over the world. (FootNote
this belief in the power of the Devil in the world is also presented in
Luke's story of the Temptation of Jesus and elsewhere in Luke 10:18 and 13:16.
See GA Wells, HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS, Prometheus Books, 1982,  p 34)
The story of the "fallen angels" and "sons of God" who came down from heaven
and mated with the fair "daughters of men", and were imprisoned for that sin--
was also a  favorite legend among the Jewish Essenes.

 The belief in demonic spirits/fallen angels controlling the lower spheres
of the universe can be seen in several passages of Paul's letters.  Take for
example, the following passage from 1 Corinthians:

   ". we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom which
  God ordained before the world unto our glory.  Which none of the PRINCES OF
  THIS WORLD knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the
  Lord of glory...But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit:  for
  the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."
  (1 Corinthians 2:7-10)

   According to Professor Brandon, the phrase the "princes of this world"
is a translation of the phrase (in its original Greek) "archontes tou
aiones touou". A more direct translation of this would be "rulers of this age",
referring to the Platonic belief that demonic powers rule over the lower
realms of the universe--including the earth itself.

  Some religious scholars have argued, that Paul meant HUMAN and not
SUPERNATURAL powers here by his term "rulers of the age."   However, if
Paul had meant a non-divine power in this passage, then the term "rulers of
the age" could only have referred to the Romans, who, during the time of
Paul, were considered to be the most powerful Empire in the world.  Yet,
throughout his letters, Paul typically writes from a pro-Roman point of
view. (For example in Romans 13:11, Paul urges the Christians at Rome to
honor the government authorities there, since they are appointed according
to God's will, and "are not a terror to good conduct but to bad") (Romans 13:1).
Likewise, Paul does not ever speak of Jewish leaders as being a powerful
force. In fact they were not!--Palestine was a poor, weak country under the
control of the Romans.

    There are OTHER passages too, where Paul is clearly referring to
SUPERNATURAL powers:

  For example, Paul's letter to the Galatians demonstrates his belief in
astrology--where the  spiritual elements in the universe control the
destinies of men-- even from the time when they are small children.
(see Galatians 4:3,8-9)

   "So with us; when we were children, we were slave to the elemental
  spirits of the universe...Formerly when you did not know God, you were in
  bondage to beings that by nature are no [real] gods; but now that you have
  come to know God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly
  elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?"

  The terminology of elemental spirits was a common Greek gnostic expression
for the lower forces of nature.

  In 1 Corinthians, Paul states that a woman should wear a covering over her
head "because of the angels" (1 Corinthians 11:10).  The term "angels" is
probably a reference to evil fallen angels watching down from the sky, who
seeing a woman's beautifully coiffed hairdo, might decide to do mischief.
A few verses earlier, Paul asserted that any woman who leaves her head
UNCOVERED in church, is little better than a prostitute. From this verse,
originated the Roman Catholic custom, requiring women to cover their heads
in church with a scarf or a mantilla.

  Even Paul's description of his divine revelation is laced with clear
references to Platonic thought.--During his divine revelation, Paul experienced
feeling "caught up in body or spirit" into this "third heaven" whereby God
imparted his "hidden wisdom" to him.  Here he was in "paradise" and "heard
things which must not and cannot be put into human language". (see
Section IV, Chapters 2 and 3)

   Paul perceived the world in the classic dualistic and wisdom form,
which was the popular Greek thought of his day. (See Section IV, Chapter 2)
Note, for example, the use of the hellenistic terms  "wisdom of God in a
mystery", and  "hidden wisdom" in the following passage to the Corinthians:

   "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:  In whom
  the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,
  lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of
  God, would shine unto them." (II Corinthians 4:3-4)

 Interestingly enough, Paul believed that Jesus' powers were busy fighting
off these evil forces, and therefore that he (Paul) had to be careful not
to draw too much of this power into himself to demonstrate "eloquent wisdom",
least he might use all the power up:

  "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with
  eloquent wisdom lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power ..."
  (1 Cor. 1:17)

  Once the astrological basis for Paul's statements are understood, it
becomes clear that Paul's belief in the nature of Jesus and the universe
ran something like this:

   The life and crucifixion of Jesus is no longer an event of special
significance to the Jews and their hopes for a LOCAL messiah, but has been
transformed into a COSMIC, UNIVERSAL experience of personal salvation
and resurrection. Paul viewed all mankind as being enslaved by demonic
forces in the universe.  Deliverance from this condition had been arranged
by God through the sacrifice of Jesus, whom he identified as a divine,
supernatural being ("the Lord of glory").  Jesus' crucifixion was the
work of these demonic forces. But God in "his hidden wisdom", had tricked
them, in order that Jesus' resurrection would lead the way for man's salvation.

   In Section IV Chapter 2, (which reviews the culture and religions/philosophy
of the ancient Greeks)--it will be shown that the belief in a divine-human
personage who descended from the heavens to play a role in the salvation of
mankind was a common theme in almost all the Greek mystery religions.

Paul's Exposure to the Mystery Religions

  If Paul was born in Tarsus, he would almost certainly have come into contact
with the many pagan mystery religions that were popular in this hellenistic
city.  He would have had childhood memories of the sacred processions for
the dying and resurrected mystery god Baal-Tarez, after which the city of
Tarsus was named.  Likewise, he may have come into contact with other popular
dying and resurrected deities worshipped in the city: Attis, Adonis, Osiris,
or Mithra.

  When Paul heard about the death and resurrection of Jesus, he could easily
have interpreted these historical events within the framework of his childhood
memories of these mystery gods.  Jesus' death and resurrection could have
brought to mind images of these divine gods, who likewise had come to earth,
and experienced suffering in the act of redeeming mankind. Paul wrote in his
letters of the Deuteronomic passage foretelling the curse (as Paul saw it)
associated with the body of the hanged one.

  According to Hyam Maccoby,

  "Paul's dwelling on this image of the hanged one, could have easily come from
  icons he had seen of the god Attis "whose dripping, flayed body fertilized
  the fields and whose mysteries renewed the souls of his frenzied devotees."
  (Maccoby, MYTHMAKER, p 102)

Similarities between Paul's Theology and the Mystery Religions

   The theology that Paul taught had many similarities with the mystery
religions--specifically regarding baptism, stigmata, and the eucharist.

--Baptism as Conferring a Divine Spirit

   The ancient Jews engaged in baptism. (See Section II, Chapter 3.)
However, they did not view the act as conveying a divine SPIRIT upon the
believer. Nor did they view the act as washing away the believer's sins--
unless it was ALSO accompanied by repentance and righteous living.

  The earliest belief that baptism bestowed the Holy Spirit occurs in Paul's
letters--such as 1 Corinthians 12:13, where Paul states: "For by one Spirit
we were all baptized into one body.  (Howard M. Teeple, HOW DID CHRISTIANITY
REALLY BEGIN,  p 143) Luke, the author of Acts (who knew of Paul's letters)
uses the term "baptism" metaphorically to mean the receiving of the Holy
Spirit--with or without the rite of a (water) baptism. Thus, Jesus' desciples
were "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Luke 1:5) without being immersed into
water.  Other Christians however were initiated through the (water) rite
of baptism.

  It is known that the ancient Greek mystery religions DID baptize initiates
in order to wash away the believer's sins and prepare them for a holy state,
in preparation for a new heavenly life after death. (See Section II, Chapter
3, Section IV, Chapter 2).

  According to the second century Christian father, Tertuillian:

  "In certain Mysteries, e.g. of Isis and Mithra, it is by baptism
  that members are initiated...in the Apollinarian and Eleusinian rites
  they are baptized, and they imagine that the result of this baptism
  is regeneration and the remission of the penalties of their sins."
  (Tertullian, DE BAPT. 5, as referenced by S. Angus, p 81). (See
  Section IV, Chapter 2 on the Mystery Religions).

  In the MITHRAS LITURGY, one reads how the initiate prayed that "I may be
be born again in thought and sacred spirit bequeathed in me."

  This means (as Mithraism was older than Christianity) that similar to
the ancient Christians, the Mithra cult believed that initiation through
baptism was accompanied by the reception of a divine spirit. (As quoted
by Howard M. Teeple, HOW DID CHRISTIANITY REALLY BEGIN, Religion and
Ethics Institute Evanston, Illinois, 1994, p 143. Teeple also points out
that baptismal basins/fonts used for sprinkling/immersion can be found
today in ruined sites of ancient Mithraic chapels in Germany, Austria,
and Italy, p 144).

  To Christians, baptism came to symbolically represent a "rebirth" of the
convert--which washed away his/her sins, so as to be worthy of eternal
salvation.  This doctrine is stated in 1 John 3:9 as follows:

  "No one born of God commits sin, for God's nature abides in him,
   and he cannot sin because he is born of God."

  When it became obvious that baptized Christians could slide back into sin,
this created new doctrinal problems.  Some early Christian groups believed
they could repent and be baptized again.  Other groups, believed the gift of
baptism could be conveyed only ONCE--and therefore suggested postponing
baptism until adulthood, or even until one was near death.

--Sharing in the Suffering of the Mystery God/Stigmata

   Paul claimed to have had marks or stigmata on his body, which showed the
depth of his experiencing Jesus' suffering on the cross. (See Galatians 6:17).
The mystery cults, likewise, emphasized experiencing the suffering of the
mystery god-- so that in becoming one with him, they could also partake in the
ecstasy of his spiritual rebirth.  Some of the devotees of the mystery god,
Attis, for example, castrated themselves in the height of their celebrations,
to partake in the rebirth of their god. (When early Christians also began to
take up the ideals of chastity, the famous Christian father Origen castrated
himself to make himself pure for Christ.)

--The Rite of the Eucharist -- or "Last Supper"

  Paul described the tradition of the Eucharist in his first letter to
the Corinthians--whereby he stated he was now delivering to his brethren
information on this rite which he had "received of the Lord".  Then he goes
on to describe how Jesus took bread, broke it, and then said

  'Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you: This do in
   remembrance of me". Likewise the same rite is performed with the
   wine saying "This cup is the new testament of my blood:  This do ye,
   as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."  (1 Corinthians 11:23-30)

  Note how Paul states he has received this information "of the Lord",
which hints again at a revelation.  Because Paul states that he has received
this from "the Lord"--and NOT from the apostles in Jerusalem--this suggests
that the Jerusalem Church possibly did not observe this rite.  Some have
argued that this means that it was Paul who instituted the tradition of the
eucharist into Christian tradition. (See Section II, Chapter 6).

   Tthe Jews partook in a communal meal, but this was to give thanks unto God
for their bread and wine.  However, the mystery religions (centuries before
Jesus) partook in a sacred meal, whereby the initiate connected with the flesh
of the mystery deity--be it Attis, Serapis, Mithra--and in this way
obtained immortality for his or her soul. (See Section IV, Chapter 3 and
Section II Chapter 6).

   It is known that Mithraism (which predates Christianity by about a century)
included a "Last Supper" for Mithra's followers.   Interestingly, Paul's term
for the Eucharist (Greek 'kuriakon deipnon') means Last Supper, which is the
exact same expression used in the mystery religions for their sacred meal to
their savior-god.  Paul saw the wine and the blood of the Eucharist in a real 
way connecting to the Body and Blood of Christ.  Anyone who participated in the
rite of the Eucharist in an inappropriate manner would become sickly, even 
die:

   "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in
    an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of
    the Lord...any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body
    eats and drinks judgment upon himself.  That is why many of you are
    weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Corinthians 12:27-30)

(Possibly this is how Paul explained how believers could still come down
sick and even die.)

  As an interesting side note, it appears that second and third century C.E.
pagans confronted Christians with the fact that their sacrament of the
Lord's Supper was almost identical to the one celebrated by the Persians
in their worship of their savior-god, Mithra. At a loss to explain these
similarities (for the Christian fathers knew Mithraism was older) some
of the early Christian fathers attributed this similarity to be from the
influence of the "devil".  According to Tertullian, the similarities
between the Church sacraments and those of the mystery religions was
due to the mischief of Satan:

 "Satan imitates the sacraments of God. ("Dei sacramenta Satanas affectat ".
DE EXH. CAST., 13).

  The evidence given above is irrefutable to those who look at the facts
honestly--ie Paul was influenced by, at least, SOME of the popular Greek
thought of his time. However, this conclusion shouldn't really be a surprise.
For it is a known fact, that almost ALL people are influenced to some degree
by the historical times in which they lived, and the culture(s) in which
they are raised or exposed to.