Where did Christianity come from?

 

Have you ever asked yourself; Where did Christianity come from?’, ‘What are the origins of Christianity?’ or ‘Where did all of this come from that became known as Christianity?’ Since Christianity was derived from Jewish tradition and the writings of the Old Testament, if you answered ‘the Bible’ to the initial question, then you’re on the right track. 

 

However, it is a track that is too often obstructed by the notion that Christianity came about as a result of prophesy from the Torah. In that case, the question on the origin of Christianity should be amended to ‘Where did ‘Jewishness’ come from?’ Was it born full-blown from the head of Yahweh or El? Did it suddenly occur when Abram cut off his foreskin? Was it taken by Moses directly from god His/Its-own-self on Mount Sinai? Was it fabricated from the dreams and hallucinations of Elijah or Daniel or one of the other prophets? Is the Torah, as the Word of God, made from whole-cloth without plagiarism or syncretism; without precedence or outside influence?

 

Another useful term to internalize: ‘syncretism’…

 

Syncretism is the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought. It is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion. 

 

The advancement in the trek towards further, fuller understanding of the origin of Christian dogma is blocked and the trekker way-laid by the general acceptance that god is a real thing; established belief-system. That belief system – both the Christian and Jewish variants – at its foundation, contends that all the matters of the Bible (at the least the Old Testament) are strictly and ultimately Jewish and handed down through the levels of heaven to the Chosen People. As in all matters of Faith, further critical examination of the claims presented in the Bible as the ‘Word of God’ is squelched by the dogma that ‘Thou shalt NOT question or challenge the Lord God!’ The Bible as a testament of anything of any value becomes a cul-de-sac and a dead-end for thought.

 

As the believe system of a tiny, desert-dwelling group, which were conquered by mighty empires throughout the ages (e.g. Babylonian, Egyptian, Greco/Roman, etc.) there mostly likely was a considerable amount of ‘syncretism’ involved in the development of the faith of the Hebrews. Syncretism is evident in every other philosophy or system of worship on the planet. It would be more than remarkable that the Hebrews would be a sole exception. It would be preposterous that it would be the case. Unless one were to give warrant the claim that the Hebrews, the descendants of Abraham – ‘the father of many’ - were the ‘Chosen of God’

 

Scholars such as Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Robert Price and many others have devoted segments of their professional lives to the study of syncretism and the influences of one culture on another throughout history. Standing on the shoulders of these giants one is afforded the vista across the ages; connecting the dots which comprise the portrait of the human story. As is often said ‘Nothing can come from nothing’. So, it is with the entirety of all god-myths, fables, legends. They did not come from nothing; they came from earlier god-myths, legends and fables which permutated to fit a new audience, culture and time.

 

When the Jews were conquered by the Babylonians (Persians), they took many ideas from Zoroastrianism as well as the cultural history of the Persian culture; the concept of Satan as the evil counter-weight to god and the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example. There would most likely be no story of Noah if it weren’t for the epic of Gilgamesh which includes a massive flood guided by a god which chose a human to survive the flood. Richard Carrier and other scholars point out that during the Persian rule of the Hebrews, the Jewish cosmology changed to reflect the cosmological understanding of the Babylonian (Persian), Zoroastrians. The Hebrews sought to improve their god and their cosmology.

 

The Zoroastrian priests of Babylonia informed the Hebrews of the teachings of Ahura-Mazda, the imagined battle of Light against Dark. Before this, Lucifer – the Light-bringer – wasn’t the opponent of god Lucifer, was the ‘right-hand-man’ of Yahweh. Likewise, the concepts of eternal life, the redemption of an ephemeral soul in a heavenly paradise, Hell as punishment for evil-doers and the ‘apocalyptic’ destruction of the world by fire were all concepts syncretized and absorbed by Hebrew scholars and made to align somehow with Jewish traditional beliefs. The Hebrews took the dualistic tenets of Zoroastrianism and syncretized those tenets to fit the Jewish adherence to their henotheistic/monotheistic religion.

 

It should be easily understood that the Christian faith - and its variants - then took these tenets from the Hebrews who had syncretized Zoroastrian tenets and added them along with several other syncretized elements such as resurrection and dying and rising gods to the Old and New Testaments.

 

The Egyptians also had a great influence on Hebrew thought; many diasporas Jews lived in Alexandria where they learned of the myths of Osiris, Thoth, Set and the pantheon of the culture. Jews passed along bits and pieces of Egyptian culture to the people of Judea and the Temple priests in Jerusalem who syncretized those bits to suit the belief system of the Jewish Faith. Once again, the concepts of ‘eternal life’, ‘resurrection of the body’ and a ‘redeemer figure’ who saves the righteous from death were adapted to suit the evolving needs of Hebrew culture. These concepts - further syncretized - were then adapted by the Christians as articles of Faith.

 

Further, the Christ story borrowed heavily from the tales of Osiris, Horus and other myths of the Egyptian pantheon. Osiris was born of a virgin; his suffering death and resurrection were celebrated in annual mystery play around the vernal equinox just as the Christian Easter is celebrated. As referenced in the chapter on ‘Mystery Cults’, close parallels abound in the fictional life-stories of Osiris, Hercules, Adonis, Tammuz, Attis, Mithra, Zalmoxis, etc, and the Christian life-stories of the Man from Nazareth.

 

Myths regarding Lord Krishna – a major god of the Hindu pantheon - also are mirrored by the Christian tales. Krishna was born of a virgin and his birth was heralded by a star, for example. His death was sought by the local king, Kansa, just as the Judean king, Herod the Great, sought to kill the Christ-child. As the eighth avatar of Vishnu and Vishnu’s human incarnation, Krishna was the second entity in a Hindu Trinity; Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Later in his story, Krishna was crucified and is pictured in Indian art as hanging on a cross, arms out-stretched.

 

Curiouser and curiouser…

 

As coincidences pile up, the logician as well as the apologist would warn that correlation does not infer causation and that the plural of anecdote is not ‘evidence’. Nevertheless, the abundance of parallels and similarities between the authorized story of Christ, the religious cosmology inherited from the Israelites and the religions of Persia, Babylon, Egypt and India must be considered and pondered. One possible conclusion is that Judaism and therefore Christianity were cobbled together from bits and pieces of Zoroastrianism, Egyptian tenets and influence of the various mystery cults of the turn of the first millennium, CE. Another might be that humans and proto-humans invented stories to assuage their feeling of helpless ignorance of the world and embellished those stories as needed.

Again with Saul/Paul of Tarsus? Yes!

 

Saul/Paul of Tarsus was a grifter who saw that by opening the nascent Jewish sect of G-zus worship to a Gentile market, he could benefit himself. Chances are that he was, as I inferred, schizotypal (at best) or just a liar and a con-man.

Why would this interpretation of Saul/Paul’s actions be untrue? Scholars such as Dr Robyn Faith Walsh and others assume that Saul/Paul’s actions were benign or innocently befuddled. Why not see that Saul/Paul was a grifter using the new Jewish sect just as more modern grifters of religion such as Mega-church pastors, Creflo Dollar, Rick Warren, Joel Scott Osteen, etc. (ad nauseam) use Christianity? Such grifters are not a modern invention. Charles MacCay references scads of such charlatans in his book ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds’(i.e. alchemists who promised eternal live as well as untold riches) were but one of the categories of grifters and frauds that have existed throughout history. Christianity promises eternal life (much as the alchemists did), however, Christianity promised eternal life only  after death and in the presence of the Divine. (Or eternal torture for non-believers) That promise of eternal life is at the heart of the Christian cult. Saul/Paul spent a considerable amount of energy selling the notion that, after death, believers would be assigned new, improved bodies in the after-life. Malarkey, all of it. 

 

Saul/Paul also spent considerable effort selling the idea that he hadn’t learned of the teachings of new Jewish cult of Jesus of Nazareth from anyone on this earth. He hadn’t learned of the Jesus story from any of the apostles; not from Peter/Cephas. Not from James. Not from John. Not from anyone. He adamantly claimed that he had learned of the new teachings directly from the Jesus himself. This teaching came in the form of ‘revelations’ (i.e. hallucinations). Saul/Paul distanced himself from Simon/Peter/Cephas and any of the other ‘earthly’ Apostles and followers of the Galilean at every opportunity.  Galatians 1: 11-12 is an example of that adamantine claim of divine instruction. (I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.) Yet, we know that Saul/Paul never met Jesus; never spoke to a living Jesus. His claim to have received the teachings of the Nazarene rest solely on his own claim to have had revelation; had had a divine ‘hallucination’ by which the tenets of the new Jewish sect were transmitted.

This, to me, smacks of the con-man’s claim that ‘only I can do what I say I can do’ and ‘only I can fix it’. Saul/Paul is claiming that his is the conduit to eternal salvation. 

 

Was this all malarkey that had a conscious, self-serving, ulterior motive? I contend that perhaps it did, in the case of Saul/Paul. It is a key component of a con-game to sell what does not actually exist to the gullible. Why would Saul/Paul’s fraudulent game be different- at its core - from any of the other fraudulent cults, cons and grifts which litter both the ancient and the modern world? Is it so unimaginable that Saul/Paul saw the growth of the new Jewish cult as an opportunity to rise above his own station? Perhaps he actually had ‘visions’; perhaps not. Perhaps he was schizotypal, delusional, schizophrenic, or had some other mental malady which might explain his hallucinations. Perhaps he was only faking the visions. All that we have are reports of his ‘revelations’ and nothing more. Do we simply take him at his word? Are we to assume that Saul/Paul had no nefarious intent. 

 

Why? Why would we do that?

 

Paul was not shy about asking for financial support. He was not shy in taking it. He actually complained vociferously when a congregation balked at supporting his assistant and their female traveling companions. He had others write his epistles – those writers and scribes surely expected to be compensated. Saul/Paul sought sponsorship for his ministry. Much as Creflo Dollar seeks sponsorship for a new private jet plane. Saul/Paul capitalized on the ‘Christ-cult’ which he had previously been employed to persecute.

 

Saul/Paul also spent considerable effort selling the idea that he hadn’t learned of the teachings of new Jewish cult of Jesus of Nazareth from anyone on this earth. He hadn’t learned of the Jesus story from any of the apostles; not from Peter/Cephas. Not from James. Not from John. Not from anyone. He adamantly claimed that he had learned of the new teachings directly from the Jesus himself. This teaching came in the form of ‘revelations’ (i.e. hallucinations). Saul/Paul distanced himself from Simon/Peter/Cephas and any of the other ‘earthly’ Apostles and followers of the Galilean at every opportunity.  Galatians 1: 11-12 is an example of that adamantine claim of divine instruction. (I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.) Yet, we know that Saul/Paul never met Jesus; never spoke to a living Jesus. His claim to have received the teachings of the Nazarene rest solely on his own claim to have had revelation; had had a divine ‘hallucination’ by which the tenets of the new Jewish sect were transmitted.

This, to me, smacks of the con-man’s claim that ‘only I can do what I say I can do’ and ‘only I can fix it’. Saul/Paul is claiming that his is the conduit to eternal salvation. 

 

Was this all malarkey that had a conscious, self-serving, ulterior motive? I contend that perhaps it did, in the case of Saul/Paul. It is a key component of a con-game to sell what does not actually exist to the gullible. Why would Saul/Paul’s fraudulent game be different- at its core - from any of the other fraudulent cults, cons and grifts which litter both the ancient and the modern world? Is it so unimaginable that Saul/Paul saw the growth of the new Jewish cult as an opportunity to rise above his own station? Perhaps he actually had ‘visions’; perhaps not. Perhaps he was schizotypal, delusional, schizophrenic, or had some other mental malady which might explain his hallucinations. Perhaps he was only faking the visions. All that we have are reports of his ‘revelations’ and nothing more. Do we simply take him at his word? Are we to assume that Saul/Paul had no nefarious intent. 

 

Why? Why would we do that?

 

Paul was not shy about asking for financial support. He was not shy in taking it. He actually complained vociferously when a congregation balked at supporting his assistant and their female traveling companions. He had others write his epistles – those writers and scribes surely expected to be compensated. Saul/Paul sought sponsorship for his ministry. Much as Creflo Dollar seeks sponsorship for a new private jet plane. Saul/Paul capitalized on the ‘Christ-cult’ which he had previously been employed to persecute.

Consider: Saul was a Pharisee; he was associated with the Temple in Jerusalem and thus knew how corrupt the Temple was by reputation. 

Saul had good education and was an interpreter of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible). He was a native Greek speaker but more than likely knew Aramaic as his family came from Galilee.

 

By dint of his schizotypal personality, he perhaps thought himself a ‘prophet’ ordained by ‘god’; a new version of John the Baptist.

Moreover, he saw Christianity as a Jewish movement with a Hebrew god, but with a new Messianic/Apocalyptic mission; to destroy the ‘archons’ which ruled the world. These ‘archons’ are generally thought to be Satan and his fellow fallen angels or demons. 

Saul/Paul took himself to be the Jewish prophet for the Gentiles for the end times. That was why he fought with Peter (Cephas) and James to extend the new ‘faith’ to the Gentiles by removing the restrictions of circumcision and the dietary laws 

 

One push-back to the notion that Saul/Paul used the new sect of Judaism to promote himself is that he – as a Pharisee – was enjoined to ‘persecute’ members of the new sect. (How this persecution was accomplished and to what degree is open to much speculation; did Saul/Paul have warrant to break up meetings? Did he like Agent 007 have a license to kill? Was he just a taker of names; a list maker?) 

Whatever the case, that Saul/Paul was charged with ‘persecuting’ members of the new sect is lodged as evidence that his conversion is righteous, true and veracious. 

 

A similar method to bolster one’s case is utilized by Christian apologists such as Ray Comfort and Lee Strobel; both claim to have been atheists who were converted to a righteous faith in Jesus of Nazareth. It is the assertion of having been non-believers which lends emotional credence to the fervency of their conversion and the honesty of their faith. The emotional weight of the claim tends to disallow a closer examination of their conversion story. 

 

In Saul/Paul’s case, it is the emotionally charged flip-flop from prosecutor to proselytizer coupled with the claim of revelatory visions and celestial visitations which bolsters the conversion story for Saul/Paul. However, there is not much indication that Saul was charged with anything more than impinging on gatherings of the new sect; ‘Christians’. The proto-orthodox church has proliferated stories about martyrdom and mayhem but there seems to be little indication that such brutal suppression of the new sect was factual.

Paul/Saul of Tarsus (again)

 

Paul was a Jew, born during the first years of the common era. His original name was Saul, and he was a native of Tarsus in Cilicia (present day Turkey) and possessed Roman citizenship. According to Jerome (De Viris Illustribus, ch. 5), his family originated from Giscala (Gush Ḥalav) in Galilee. This may explain his adherence to the Pharisaic form of Judaism (Acts 26:5) and his studies in Jerusalem, where, according to Acts 22:3, he was a pupil of Rabban *Gamaliel the Elder; however, neither his Jewish nor his Greek learning was extensive or deep. Initially, he was a fanatical persecutor of the Christians and, according to the account in the New Testament, he was sent to Damascus on the authority of the high priest in order to arrest any Christians that he found there and bring them to Jerusalem for trial; on the way he had a vision of Jesus, and he converted to Christianity and was baptized in Damascus.

 

That is the standard, accepted introduction to Paul/Saul. Could it be that Paul/Saul had aspirations to be more? Might it be that Paul/Saul conceived of a plan to utilize the new Faith to strengthen his own personal position in the world? 

 

One may consider that Saul/Paul may have been deluded by his schizotypal affliction to actually believe that he had seen Jesus and learned about this new deity directly from his ‘revelations’. Perhaps, Saul/Paul was truly obsessed with the desire to proselytize the new Faith; possessed by the Holy Spirit.  

 

Or one might don more skeptical – almost cynical – glasses and assert that Saul/Paul was running a con-game to promote this new sect of Judaism in order to advance his own interests. He might have used the proclivity of ‘revelations’ amongst people of the time; a time rife with end-time preachers and new sects touting messianic preachers and leaders. (One could point to such figures of the period such as Apollonius of Tyana, the ‘Egyptian’, Simon Magus and perhaps scores of others who were proclaimed by followers as being deific miracle workers.) To tout yet another anointed one as the ‘Son of Heaven’ and savior of the world would certainly have been an easy sell to a demographic already primed with talk of the ‘end-times’ full of wrath, judgement and apocalyptic imagery. One who could offer salvation from such a violent end would find an audience during such a period.

 

It must be remembered that Saul/Paul never met the man from Galilee; not in the flesh. Saul/Paul’s only contact with Jesus was by way of visions, revelations, hallucinations, in fact. Whereas personal revelation can only be related as hear-say and never proven to be ‘real or anything more than an episodic ‘fugue’ state. It would have been extremely easy for one of an unethical nature to fake such ‘revelations’ as needed to persuade his audience to trust him as a true source of divine inspiration. It would have been quite easy for Saul/Paul to exhibit such ‘mystical-spiritual’ activities as speaking in tongues or practicing divination (e.g. ready animal entrails) which when coupled with revelations from god or other celestial entity might serve to entrance his marks. Consider, too, that people were predisposed to the idea of resurrection from the dead by a messianic figure. Romulus, Hercules and others had additionally ascended into heaven and had transformed into gods.

 

Perhaps we should discuss what makes up an effective con-game. It’s an old saw that a time–limit must be set on any offer. Salesmen are told to make any offer of discount with a time-limit; Buy Now! 'This offer expires when I leave the room', and so on. Con-games are much like sales-pitches; the difference is that in a con-game, the promised benefits are always just out of reach whereas a salesman must deliver on his promises. With Saul/Paul selling Christianity, the time limit was purportedly set by Jesus; ‘the kingdom of God is at hand’, and ‘Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.’ ‘Truly’, saith the Lord, ‘this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.’ Thus, the all-important time-limit is set; Now (or very soon). 

 

Next, for a good con, there must be ‘the offer you can’t refuse’; in the case of Christianity, that promise is eternal life after death! Talk about a hook for the fishes. (After all, were the apostles not fishers of men?) There is no better con than to promise what everyone wants but which can never, ever be delivered. After the hooked ‘believer’ is dead, there’s little likelihood that they’ll complain, after all. It also helps immensely that ‘eternal life’ was a promise made repeatedly by many sources and internalized as a desire held by many.

 

There’s the basic con; the setting of a time limit - Act Now!

And the offer of something astounding and desirable; eternal life! 

Very simple – the simpler the better. Saul/Paul saw this simple con for which people were willing to undergo harsh treatment and persecution. All it took was for Saul/Paul to feign a direct connection to this purported savior from Galilee. Saul/Paul’s writings are filled with staunch assertions that he was getting all of his teachings directly from the horse’s mouth (even if the horse was a hallucination). Makes no nevermind; Saul/Paul had the real stuff and could even claim that he’d gone to heaven and seen with his own eyes the glory that awaited all ‘true believers’. 

To my mind, Saul/Paul was a fraud who fought the rumors of his fraud most of his career by insisting that he had had 'revelations' of G-sus which made him an 'apostle' even though he never had personal contact with the Man from Galilee. He benefited from largesse of newly converted pagans (Gentiles) to the expanded Jewish sect which financed his travel, his assistants and his life-style. 
If he was self-deluded and actually 'believed' the tenets of the nascent Christianity and accepted his hallucinations as fact, it only means that he was off his nut.

 

Saul/Paul? Hmmm...

 

It must be remembered that whereas modern people – influenced by modern psychology and modern times - generally discount the veracity of dreams as a reliable method of assessing daily life or foretelling the future, ancient humans took greater stock in dreams. For example, throughout Herodotus’ ‘The History’, oracles and dreams play an important role and were recorded as historical.

Dreams are recounted and considered for vital information amongst most early and primitive cultures. Sages, oracles and shamans were sought out to bring meaning to febrile dreams. 

 

On the other hand, there are a considerable number of modern people who still put warrant in the nature of their dreams. Numerous websites, books and blogs are devoted to assisting dreamers in deciphering the hidden messages of their dreams. Tweezing architypes from dreams about the mundane is one thing; like astrology or dowsing, it might be considered a harmless pass-time. However, hidden, secret messages in dreams in dreams regarding career choices or sex partners cannot and must not be considered tantamount to receiving vital missives from celestial entities which govern religious creeds and tenets. 

 

In line with this tangent on dreams, the Book of Daniel is a massive dump of dream interpretation; Chapter Two was done at the behest of the ruler of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar II who was troubled by an elaborate dream he’d had. More relative to the discussion of Paul’s revelations, the Book of Revelations, itself, is a months-long acid trip of bizarre images and visions which are variously interpreted as having a plethora of disparate meanings, prophesy and import. 

 

(Incidentally, the Book of Revelations was nearly left out of the authorized version of the Christian Bible as too fantastical which might serve to reflect the Church’s disallowance of private revelation by its contemporary congregants as mentioned before.) 

 

However, in its earlier, more sectarian existence, Christianity seemed to be heavily reliant on the revelations, visions and dreams of not only its congregants but of the Scriptural accounts of revelations, dreams and visions; Joseph, Abram, Jacob, Solomon, etc. 

 

Yahweh was all over people’s dreams back in the day.

 

As it is evident that the early Christian church was fragmented into numerous sects of competing mystery cults, based on an infamous miracle-working man/god that nobody apparently ever heard of outside of a handful of people for which there is little to no supporting evidence, it could be confidently asserted that the whole magilla of Christianity can be written off as a very bad dream; an historically huge “folie à millions” – a shared madness of millions.

 

How was the Christian church so successful? It was by a fortuitous combination of factors; the disintegration of society along with the out-lawing of all pagan religions when the Roman Emperor, Theodosius, compelled non-believers to accept the Christian faith under pain of death, expulsion and loss of property.

 

Paul, as the prime mover of the Christian/Gentile sect, was aware that there were other ‘gospels’ being taught. Marcionism was exceedingly popular in Asia Minor; the letters to Galacians in central Anatolia bear that out as Paul railed against ‘new gospels’. Only what Paul/Saul taught was the ‘word of god’ all else was to anathemized. Later the Roman church would declare Marcionism a heresy and destroy the sect with the help of the Roman Empire. Until that time – the early third century – heavy-lifting proselytizers, like Saul/Paul - had to battle for market-share by claiming their Christ product™ was not only superior, but was the one and only one to clean your souls and promise resurrection and eternal life but make your glassware shine!

Ironically, Marcion of Sinope, the leader of the Marcionites, thought himself a follower of Saul/Paul. 

 

Check the section ‘Various Heresies’ for more on Marcionism or practice your ‘Google-fu’.

 

As might be deduced, Christians were not encouraged to examine facts. ‘Back from the Dead? Sure! Why not?’ They were told to read the scriptures and find the answers there. Early Christian communities (churches) were formed from the lower, working classes and the marginalized people of the time (e.g. slaves, ex-slaves, women, etc.)  - people of no appreciable education who had little time to research ancient texts, even if they were literate. Ordering them to research and confirm prophesy in the Old Testament was like ordering a cactus to walk across the desert. 

 

Miracles are alluded to in Acts; miracles from the Holy Spirit and performed by the apostles and disciples to sway the yet-to-be converted. Water to wine? Mana from heaven? Withering a fig tree? Healing a leper? What determined them to be miracles? Who determined them to be miracles? 

('The Bobble tells us so...')

 

What must be considered is that Paul/Saul had an agenda; an agenda which may or may not have been initiated by this conversation by revelation. As has been stated elsewhere, Paul/Saul’s Damascus Road experience may not have actually happened at all and was not witnessed by any of his companions. The aforementioned schizotypal episode might explain this reported revelatory experience. However, it may in some likelihood not be the source of Paul/Saul/s fervency and if not, then there must be an explanation for why Paul/Saul undertook such a herculean task; converting the Roman world. 

 

Of course, the agenda usually attributed to Paul/Saul was straightforward; proselytizing the ‘Good News’ and by doing so, convert the Roman world with the messianic message. That agenda seems incomplete and far too romanticized to be accepted outright. Traveling the ancient world to initiate the founding of Christian communities and bolster those communities involved great hardship, deprivation and danger. The personal revelation he experienced on the road to Damascus seems to fall far short of the incentive necessary to propel and sustain such an aggressive agenda. 

 

What might be proposed is that Paul/Saul had a separate agenda than one which might be substantiated by the Road to Damascus experience. That agenda might not have been solely based on the fervent drive to spread the Good News of salvation nor compelled solely by the personal revelation of the celestial entity of Jesus of Nazareth. Might Paul/Saul of Tarsus had a separate more mundane agenda of attaining a higher social position than he could attain as a member of the Sanhedrin? Whether Paul/Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin and whether or not he was a Pharisee is in dispute. It must be noted that he was not a member of the Sadducees, the high priests who controlled the Temple and, as such, controlled the Hebrew people through the domination of the Temple. Might it be that Paul/Saul saw the spread of the new sect of Judaism – not yet called Christianity – as a means by which the power of the Temple could be over-ridden?