That Paul was subversive is the orthodox view. Craig Keener is professor of New Testament at Hood Theological Seminary in Salisbury, North Carolina. At https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.o ... servative/ Keener presents an excellent and measured brief analysis of Paul’s conservative subversion which is well worth reading. Keener concludes “Paul’s radical thinking and tactical conservatism stand side by side, testifying to the tightrope the early Christians were forced to walk—and the strategic brilliance of one of their most outstanding missionary thinkers.”DWill wrote: http://www.booktalk.org/post141107.html#p141107 In the case of Paul, we're supposed to accept that this Jew who created orthodox Christianity was really a subversive;
Christian ideas of the last as first are inherently subversive of imperial structures. Paul proposes a radical social equality, arguing for change within the framework of non-military methods. It is wrong to accept popular conservative images of Paul that do not in fact accord with the sources.
A key question for understanding early Christianity is how and why the secret teachings which Paul and Christ say they put at the centre of faith were lost. Noting Paul’s tactical astuteness as mentioned by Keener, his problem was not fear of authorities, but rather ability to engender mass fervor.DWill wrote: We're supposed to accept that Paul would never commit to writing what he is really thinking because of fear of authorities, Jewish or Roman.
If in fact Christ was invented, then keeping this fact secret was apparently a key objective of those who were responsible for the invention. The reason for this is that a God who exists is far more powerful than one who is invented. Far from fear of authorities being the reason for concealment of the invention of Christ upon an astral template, the real reason for the concealment is that the ignorant masses need faith in mystery to generate institutional traction.
Just as the Jews insisted on the historicity of all the Old Testament figures, from Adam and Eve through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc, as a key part of sustaining popular faith, so too the invention of Christ had to be carefully hidden to prevent disillusion.
But this Gnostic secret was highly vulnerable. Once a faction gained power which sought to stamp out all knowledge that the story was a lie, the church found it quite easy to systematically eliminate nearly all trace of the reality, except for the forensic traces of astral code which the authors were able to hide in the Bible.
The question of where Paul is explicit or not is a matter of both systematic theology and strategic political ambition for church growth. Paul withholds information that would undermine popular faith, and is explicit on information that supports popular faith.DWill wrote:But of course he is very explicit on many things, so claiming he is withholding on certain others is arbitrary.
You may not realise the rather delicious irony in your claim here, given that Paul never speaks of Jesus having a family, or of being historically located in time and place,whether in Bethlehem, Galilee, Nazareth or Jerusalem. “Disposing” of this claim that Paul presents no lineage for Christ means putting blind faith above observant reason. Yes I agree that is easy, but it is not correct or logical.DWill wrote:
One of the easiest claims to dispose of is that Paul doesn't conceive of Jesus as human, with a family lineage.
This is all complex material, and it is easy to make mistakes. In this case, it is entirely forgivable for you to read the Gospels into the Epistles, since that is a core driver of church propaganda. There are no family trees in Paul. Those are only found in the Gospels, and wondrously mythical they are.DWill wrote:The different family trees don't favor a conclusion that the writers didn't believe he had been alive. Flann has cited several of the references that show Paul's true ideas about the origins of Jesus.