You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context

paul was an agent of rome sent to subvert and coopt jesus’ revolutionary anti-imperialist movement, beginning the process of transforming that message into one compatible with the ideological superstructure of the roman empire, a process that culminated with constantine and the council of nicaea after three centuries of murdering “heretics”

permalink
report
parent
reply

I think this theory is better if he wasn’t specifically sent, but just a guy saying tons of shit to be famous/wealthy/etc. and Rome allowed his words to spread because they were less confrontational. These things were the “systemic” defense of an existing base-superstructure system.

permalink
report
parent
reply

he started off as a pharisee, a member of the comprador regime directly persecuting the early christians before his nominal conversion. so i agree, i’m not saying paul was like a roman equivalent of a cia agent or something. but he was part of the system, as you say.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Pharisees weren’t really compradors. The actual compradors were the Sadducees. They were the ones who maintained the Second Temple and who collaborated with the Roman colonizers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It doesn’t really work though, since Luke-Acts is very much a defense of Paul (though not without some differences) and is probably the most politicallly radical of the Gospels

permalink
report
parent
reply

I’m not sure what you’re saying here, unfortunately. I’ve read the Bible before but do not know enough about internal referencing to make any defense of my theory honestly. What does Luke defending him have to do with whether he was sent by Rome specifically or not?

I have no reason to doubt or argue any theory here, it just seems like you know something I don’t and I want to learn it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

There’s also the fact that most of Paul’s odder statements, like banning women from leadership, are not by him at all. Only about half his epistles are actually by him or his immediate inner circle.

FWIW, I don’t think Paul was a grifter, I think he was a former grifter who became a sincere convert after some weird shit happened to him, and unfortunately like Evrart in Disco Elysium he was just so slimy it drips off him onto the page.

permalink
report
parent
reply

personally i think the line between grifter and sincere convert is also quite blurry for this kind of thing. if someone’s paycheck depends upon a particular belief, in due time they’ll come to believe it sincerely. and then yeah, there’s paul and there’s the early paulist counterrevolutionary faction.

permalink
report
parent
reply

holy shit paul is the nereveraine

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

askchapo

!askchapo@hexbear.net

Create post

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer thought-provoking questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you’re having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

Community stats

  • 1.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.1K

    Posts

  • 40K

    Comments