Paul of Tarsus, an apocalyptic Pharisee of the diaspora community in Asia Minor, initially feels that Christian claims that Jesus is the Messiah are absurd to the point of being blasphemous. He is very intelligent and well read in the Septuagint (the source of all his quotations of Scripture). He participates in the suppression of the Christians and may well have been present at the martyrdom of St. Stephen. On the road to Damascus he has a nervous breakdown, due probably to the echoes of Isaiah condemning oppression of the poor ringing in his ears, since early Christian communities were most likely comprised largely of the socio-politically disadvantaged. His breakdown is likely also, considering his later hostility to the Jewish Law, a result of his view that Pharisaic obsession with minutiae of the Law of Moses is superfluous to the central Biblical message of the Two Great Commandments to love God and one’s neighbor. During his seizure he has a vision of the resurrected Jesus from whom he learns “his gospel.” He then fastidiously avoids going to see other Apostles for three years, during which time he formulates his message, the gist of which is as follows: 1. Jesus rose from the dead, hence he is blessed of God, not cursed as would be anyone “hanged upon a tree.” 2. Since he is blessed, his death must have been directed by God; it cannot have been a random event. 3. His death must be a sacrifice; but he is blameless, so it must be a sacrifice for others. 4. Others must therefore be guilty, but of what? Ah, the sin of Adam (original sin) must have universal effect. 5. How can we benefit from this sacrifice? Only by baptism, whereby we are cleansed of Adam’s sin and may receive God’s grace. 6. Is that enough? No, we must consciously accept and believe in Jesus’ sacrifice; otherwise we won’t be saved. 7. Isn’t it enough to help those in need, as Jesus taught in the Parable of the Sheep and Goats? No, if that were sufficient, then Jesus would not have been required to die on the cross. This entire system of ideas is constructed to defend Paul’s cherished belief that Jesus’ crucifixion is necessary. All the rest of the elaborate tissue emerges from this one flawed tenet. When Paul encounters resistance from Jews who do not share his deviant reading of Jewish Scripture, he reacts by taking his message to Gentiles. That he was a convincing speaker is undeniable. In certain cases, people (e.g., his jailer) seem to have been “converted” without having the slightest understanding of what he preached. Indeed, Paul himself could not willfully contradict Jesus’ teaching because he simply did not know Jesus’ teaching. When he writes his Epistles (~50CE) there are as yet no gospels and he avoids contact with other Apostles. What his writings reflect about Jesus is limited to: the fact that Jesus was Jewish, was born of a woman, had a brother named James, taught his followers to pay their preachers and not to divorce, performed the Last Supper, and was crucified. He never quotes Jesus, even when discussing an issue about which Jesus spoke convincingly . He never says, “Jesus taught,” but always “I taught.” If we compare Jesus’ teachings to Paul’s, discrepancies are evident: While both Jesus and Paul are apocalypticists who teach love of God and of neighbor, Jesus teaches turning the other cheek, while Paul bitterly attacks his enemies; Jesus spurns Mammon, while Paul seeks and cultivates the wealthy; Jesus feels disgust with the self-righteous, while Paul builds a ‘righteous’ church bureaucracy; Jesus preaches the imminence of the end, as does Paul at first, but when the end doesn't come, Paul adjusts his message; Jesus associates with sinners, while Paul associates with “believers”; Jesus teaches salvation through good works, while Paul teaches salvation through baptism and faith; Jesus lives as a Jew, while Paul rejects the Law and lives “as a Greek”; Jesus teaches Jews to “follow the Law,” while Paul vehemently forbids Gentile converts to follow the Law.” ~~~~~~~