Jewish Response to Paul's Doctrines:

  Paul taught that circumcision and other Jewish rituals and laws were
not required to become a Christian.  This brought him into direct conflict
with Jewish Christians in Jerusalem-- The book of Acts (see 15:1) tells
how,

  "Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the
  brothers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught
  by Moses, you cannot be saved.'"

  As we shall see below this group was no doubt representative of the Jewish
Christians as led by James, Peter, and James in Jerusalem.

  Although Luke downplays the bitter nature of the dispute between Paul
and the apostles in his Acts, we know from Paul's own letters how very
serious these conflicts were.   I have cited a number of passages below,
which demonstrates this conflict between Paul and the Jewish Christian
apostles in Jerusalem:

  * "... there are serious  differences among you.  What I mean are all
 these slogans that you have, like 'I am for Paul', 'I am for Cephas
 [Peter]', 'I am for Christ'  (1 Corinthians 1:12-13)

 * In a letter to a group of Christians who had recently been converted
  in Galatia, Paul referred to a certain group  who taught a version so
 different from his that it was  "another gospel" preaching about "another
  Jesus". At one point, Paul bitter complains:

   --"As far as I can tell, these arch apostles have nothing more than I
   have" (Galatians 1:19)

   --  Paul wrote how Peter had been eating with him and other Gentile
   converts, when 'certain men came from James'.   Peter then withdrew
   from the table fellowship 'for fear of the group that insisted on
   circumcision" (Galatians 2:12).   According to Acts, Peter receives a
   divine dream which tells him that Paul's interpretation is the correct
   one.   Interestingly enough, Paul NEVER mentions this dream of Peter's
   in any  of his letters NOR of any reconciliation with Peter! (more on this 
below).

  There is one passage, where Paul appears to be defending his views,
against the charge of being out of his "right mind"?):

    "For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right
  mind, it is for you...From now on...we regard no one from a human point
  of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view,
  we regard him thus no longer." (II Corinthians 5:13-16)

  Note also, the reference how "we once regarded Christ from a human
point of view". (A closer translation of the Greek 'kata sarka Christon'
would be a 'Christ according to the flesh'.  Paul is almost certainly
referring to his universal, supernatural view of Jesus as the new "point
of view". (Brandon, op. cit.)

  As we have seen, Paul confirms that his views were under attack by
a group that he later identifies as the Jerusalem Christians.  Paul could
not directly repudiate their charges, as this group included the original
apostles of Jesus. He, on the other hand, was a new-comer to the faith
and had never even known the historical Jesus. The original apostles could
rightly claim that having personally known Jesus, they were closer to the
"source" of truth. Paul fought back by stressing both his divine revelation
AND his background in Jewish law, which, he claimed, made him an expert in
interpreting Jewish doctrine.

  From what we have pieced together on the daily living of the early
Christians in Jerusalem, it would be understandable for them to have been
shocked at Paul's views on Christianity. For two of their most cherished
beliefs had been distorted. As Professor Brandon put it:

  "... by envisaging all mankind as needing salvation from a common
  doom, the fundamental distinction drawn by the Jews between themselves,
  as the Elect People of God, and the Gentiles was ignored, thus negating
  the basic premise of Judaism.  Then the very idea of the existence of
  another diving being, called the 'Lord of glory', violated the
  principle of monotheism, which was also basic to Jewish religion.
  Equally alien and offensive was the identification of a human person,
  Jesus, with this 'second god', the 'Lord of glory'. (Brandon, op cit, P 20)

   Paul stressed the continuity between Judaism and Christianity.  Yet,
the fact that the Jews found his views new and shocking, means that the
majority of Jews did not see the connection Paul did.--What they saw was a
blatent introduction of Greek religion into his doctrine.-- That is,
instead of a historical PERSON who was the messiah of Israel, Paul taught
that Jesus was a DIVINE being, who had descended from heaven and experienced
death, for the purpose of saving mankind.  This was an identical theme
posed by many of the mystery religions, including Mithraism, Isis, etc
which were so popular throughout the hellenized lands controlled by the
Roman Empire. (See Section IV, Chapter 2 on the Ancient Greeks and Mystery
Religions for a discussion of this topic.)

  Paul attempted to show that Jewish scripture was a prophesy of Jesus'
life on earth. That is why it was so important for him to impress his
audience with his credentials as a Jewish expert of law and scripture.

  But, to Jewish Christians, Jesus was seen as the messiah, or "anointed
one"--a human who had been given supernatural powers by God to liberate
Israel from their rule under the Romans, and to set up a new kingdom on earth
dedicated to the worship of Yahweh and his laws.  On earth, Jesus had
set out on a mission to call the Jews, or God's chosen people to repentance
and a return to God's laws. When this was unsuccessful, it was necessary for
him to suffer on the cross to expiate the sins that remained.  God accepted
this sacrifice and resurrected Jesus.  Jesus was expected to soon return
with supernatural powers to liberate Israel from Rome, and to rule over a
new kingdom on earth.

   Jewish traditions told of other individuals who had experienced
suffering and redemption, such as Isaiah's image of the suffering servant.
But these were personal sacrifices made by ordinary men for their sinful
community--and never portrayed as a sacrifice of a god.  Likewise,
Judaism emphasized the salvation of the NATION of Israel in a kingdom
ON EARTH.  The mystery cults, alternatively interpreted salvation as
an INDIVIDUAL endeavor, characterized by a spiritual escape to a
heavenly plane of existence.

The Jerusalem church's Decision Regarding Keeping Kosher

  Paul went to Jerusalem twice to meet with the Christian council there on
the subject of relaxing the Jewish laws and rituals required for gentile
Christian converts.

I. VERSION ACCORDING TO ACTS:

  According to the Acts' account, Peter had originally sided AGAINST Paul
on the issue of requiring all Christian converts to keep kosher, but had
experienced a divine dream by God whereupon he was told that none of God's
creations should be considered unclean (unkosher) to eat.  Peter becomes
convinced that Paul's attitudes against kosher are indeed the correct
one.

   The gospel writers also clearly show Jesus as speaking out against
excessive adherence to the Jewish laws--But unlike the gentile gospel
writers, the Jewish Christian Peter just can't seem to overcome his
Jewish background to understand that this is no longer required by God.
Although Peter becomes convinced after his divine dream that kosher is no
longer necessary, apparently other JEWISH Christians were not so convinced.
According to Acts 15, Paul was called to Jerusalem specifically to discuss
his views regarding circumcision and kosher:

  "Now certain persons who had come down from Judea began to teach the
  brotherhood that those who were not circumcised in accordance with Mosaic
  practice could not be saved.  That brought them into fierce dissension
  and controversy with Paul and Barnabas.  And so it was arranged that
  these two and some others from Antioch should go up to Jerusalem to see
  the apostles and elders about this question."

  This controversy was over whether Gentile converts should be required to
become "circumcised and told to keep the Law of Moses" (that is, become
full converts to Judaism first).  Peter is described here as arguing for
Paul, before the council against this requirement, saying: "... why do you
now provoke God by laying on the shoulders of these converts a yoke which
neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?"  James, appears to have
sided with Paul on this issue, when he states:

    The final judgment is issued by James who says,

  "My judgment therefore is that we should impose no irksome restrictions on
  those of the Gentiles who are turning to God, but instruct them by letter
  to abstain from things polluted by contact with idols, from fornication,
  from anything that has been strangled, and from blood."

II. VERSION ACCORDING TO PAUL'S LETTERS:

   Now Paul's version of this first journey.  According to Paul--
instead of being summoned to Jerusalem to answer charges, he CHOSE to
travel to Jerusalem "because it had been revealed by God that I should
do so."  Instead of a council meeting called to handle the controversy of
whether gentiles should convert to full Judaism first, Paul gives the
impression of a private meeting with James, Peter, and John--where he is
treated as their equal:

    "But as the men of high reputation (not that their importance matters
to me:  God does not recognize these personal distinctions) - these men
of repute, I say ... acknowledged that I had been entrusted with the
Gospel for Gentiles as surely as Peter had been entrusted with the Gospel
for Jews...Recognizing then the favour thus bestowed upon me, those
reputed pillars of our society, James, Cephas [Peter] and John, accepted
Barnabas and myself as partners, and shook hands upon it, agreeing that
we should go to the Gentiles while they went to the Jews.  All that they
asked was that we should keep their poor in mind, which was the very thing
I made it my business to do." (Galatians 2:6-10).

  Paul's account is so very different from the one presented in Acts, that
some scholars have wondered if they were referring to the same trip.
A close reading shows Paul's thinly disguised contempt for "those
reputed pillars of our society".  He notes how "God does not recognize
these personal distinctions" of rank.  Also, of those things he was asked
to perform, he had already made it his business to do.  He views himself
as an equal to them, having been appointed as the "Apostle to the Gentiles".

  According to Paul, in the next few verses of the same letter, when
persons who "came from James" visited him in Antioch, they directly
confronted his (Paul's) views on allowing the Gentiles to loosely
follow Jewish laws:

  "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face,
because he was clearly in the wrong.  For until certain persons came from
James he was taking his meals with gentile Christians; but when they came
he drew back and began to hold aloof, because he was afraid of the advocates
of circumcision.  The other Jewish Christians showed the same lack of principle;
even Barnabas was carried away and played false like the rest.  But when I saw
that their conduct did not square with the truth of the Gospel, I said to
Cephas, before the whole congregation, 'If you, a Jew born and bred, live
like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, how can you insist that Gentiles must
live like Jews?'" (Galatians 2:11-14)

  The bitterness expressed by Paul is these verses show how truly divisive
this issue was between him and the Jewish Christians.  Note the verse
in Galatians where Paul says how all the trouble started when "certain persons
came from James".  As we have already seen, James was both the brother of
Jesus and the head of the Christian church in Jerusalem.  James would
have been a powerful opponent for Paul to face.  Even the book of Acts
shows James (whom it never identifies) as a powerful personality during
this time who makes the final decisions before the council, etc.

Reconciliation between Acts and the Pauline Letters.

  Possibly Luke, the author of Acts is purposely "smoothing over" this
bitterness to give the impression that a sense of brotherly love
existed among the early Christians.  The book of Acts even portrays Peter as
siding with Paul after receiving a vision from heaven.

  Paul of course NEVER refers to any revelation by Peter nor ANY reconciliation
between him and Peter on their differing views.

  Interestingly, the passages in Acts on Peter closely parallels the Old
Testament story on how the prophet Ezekiel had a dream about unclean foods:
Like Peter, Ezekiel sees the heavens open up (Ezekiel 1:1 vs Acts 10:11).
In the next vision Ezekiel is told to "eat" of "unclean" food (ie bread baked
with human dung) but protests saying "By no means, Lord" (Ezekiel 2:9,
4:14).  Peter is shown something and told to "eat", likewise protesting
with the words "By no means, Lord" (Acts 10:13-4). Ezekiel explains that
he has never eaten anything "unclean".  Peter also argues that he had never
touched any "uncleanness" (Ezekiel 4:14 vs Acts 10:14) (Randel Helms, GOSPEL
FICTIONS, p 21). It should be noted that in Ezekiel there is one fundamental
difference--Ezekiel's visions of uncleanliness were THREATS of what would
happen if the children of Israel should turn AWAY from the road to
righteousness--whereas Peter interprets this to mean that there is NO sin
involved in eating unclean foods.

Paul's Last Visit to Jerusalem

I. VERSION ACCORDING TO ACTS:

  Five years after his first Jerusalem visit, the book of Acts tells
how Paul returned to Jerusalem a second and last time.  Notice that behind
the seemingly friendly atmosphere that the author tries to portray, there
were serious charges being brought up against Paul:

   "Next day Paul paid a visit to James; we were with him, and all the elders
  attended.  He greeted them, and then described in detail all that God had
  done among the Gentiles through his ministry.  When they heard this, they
  gave praise to God.  Then they said to Paul: 'You see, brother, how many
  thousands of converts we have among the Jews, all of them staunch upholders
  of the Law.  Now they have been given certain information about you:  it
  is said that you teach all the Jews in the gentile world to turn their
  backs on Moses, telling them to give up circumcising their children and
  following our way of life.  What is the position, then?  ..." (Acts 21:18-20)

  The book of Acts makes it appear that the church elders took Paul's
side, but rumblings were coming from the Jews.  However, as we have seen,
Paul's letters (such as the negative references to those persons who came
"from James") make it appear likely that the elders in the Jerusalem Christian 
Church were ALSO participating in the charges AGAINST Paul. This would also 
appear likely as, an analysis of Paul's letters will show.--Paul was basically
telling the gentile world that it was NOT necessary to follow Jewish
laws and rituals--such as circumcision and kosher.

  The book of Acts continues, how the elders of the Jerusalem Christians
then ordered Paul to go through the ritual of purification with four other
men, saying:

    "Then everyone will know that there is nothing in the stories they were
  told about you, but that you are a practicing Jew and keep the Law
  yourself.  As for the gentile converts, we sent them our decision that
  they must abstain from meat offered to idols, from blood, from
  anything that has been strangled, and from fornication.' (Acts 21:20-25)

  Paul is thus ordered to make a public display of religious purification
in the Temple. Paul obeys, showing his deference to James' authority.
However,

     "... the Asian Jews caught sight of Paul in the temple, and they stirred
  up the whole crowd, and laid hands upon him, shouting: 'Come and help
  Israelites! Here is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the
  people, the Law, and this place; moreover he has brought Greeks into the
  temple and defiled this holy place'.

  In the commotion that ensued, the Roman soldiers intervened and Paul was
arrested (thus protecting him against the mob.)  Paul declared he was a
Roman citizen, and asked for a Roman trial. In Acts, Paul is shown to have
had respect for Roman authority over the region, (with the current Roman
governor Felix even believing Paul was innocent).  Yet the facts are, that
Paul was NOT released by Felix--but was sent on to Rome for his trial.

  At this point, nothing more is ever written about Paul again.  According
to Christian oral tradition, Paul was martyred under Nero in Rome some years
later.  It is possible that Paul was active for some time in Rome too
before he died. Perhaps it was here that his writings became known to a
man who would later write the first canonical gospel of the life of Jesus,
revered by all later Christians under the name of Mark (who as we shall
see, possibly wrote for a Christian community in Rome).

  According to the book of Acts, Paul had some pre-knowledge of how
his trip to Jerusalem might turn out, and predicted that "fierce wolves"
would come in to try and draw the converts away:

    "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not
  sparing the flock, and from among your own selves will arise men speaking
  perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." (Acts 20:22-30)

  The Gentile churches would have heard how Paul was required to prove his
Jewish orthodoxy to the Jerusalem Christians by worshipping in the Temple, and
his consequent imprisonment and later death. They would have been naturally
perplexed by the situation, but perhaps had no leaders as charismatic as
Paul to replace him. It would seem likely, that the Jerusalem Church stepped
in to replace Paul's doctrine with THEIR version of the 'true' faith.
(This would explain Luke's reference to "fierce wolves" )

   Paul's version of Christianity undoubtedly would have suffered greatly
after his imprisonment and execution, probably sometime between 55 and 65 C.E.
(Nero's persecution against the Christians took place in 64 C.E.).  There is
other evidence for this view too.  Some of Paul's letters that  have come
down to us are not complete, but appear likely to be fragments  that have
been pieced together.  This could be explained by the fact that  there was a
period during which Paul's writings did not hold the reverence  and importance
to Gentile Christians that they would later have...