Is this a fairly accurate description of Saul of Tarsus?

Question

A young man who grew up in Tarsus, the center of Mithraism, a Roman citizen and a Jew.

He had never been to Judea during his youth, but by the time he was a young man his youthful zeal led him to Judea where he gladly joined in the religious persecution of minority sects that Judaism had always required in the Old Testament.

Eventually his fascination with Fundamentalism began to wane when it didn't provide him with the answers he had sought and his exposure to Mithraic beliefs began to reassert itself.

He hijacked a local religious movement that he had persecuted in Judea and began to preach a hybrid religion based on their beliefs and Mithraic initiations, which placed him in the unique position of dictating the beliefs of a new religion.

Eventually, after his death and the following deaths of the original Jewish Christian church, his Greek converts from Paganism turned his Jesus into a Mediterranean Demigod, like so many other characters worshiped in the region.

Answer 1

Interesting theory, it's possible that it occured this way.

Answer 2

No. Saul was a young man who grew up in Tarsus, a Roman citizen and a Jew. (Acts 21:39 )

By the time he was a young man his youthful zeal led him to Judea where he gladly joined in the religious persecution of minority sects that Judaism had always required in the Old Testament.

Then, he met Jesus. Face to face while on the road to Damascus. (Acts 13: 9 Saul was also called Paul.) Paul's life was changed. He was now a believer and became one of the greatest and most inspiring preachers of the Gospel ever. Acts 9:1-31. Paul later either was executed or died in prison because of his faith in Jesus.

Answer 3

Not bad but I would add a few things.

First it did not have to be Mirthian influence that affected him. Greek/Roman theology has more than enough stories of divine beings having children and human sacrifice.

Second I think he himself turned Jesus into a demigod. That is why many early Christians broke away from Pauline theology until they were stamped out a few hundred years latter by the Catholic Church.

Answer 4

The mithraism stuff is fanciful dreck from modern pop religion books.

The reason we know it to be ahistorical is that not much is actually known about mithraism. There were no scriptures, no writings, just a handful of steles that don't say much.

In fact, what very little we do know about mithraism comes only from the patristic writers of Christianity in antiquity. That's an irony isn't it? The latest en vogue critique of Christianity depends on scarce sources that are entirely Christian.

Answer 5

sounds about right Father.

Have you read "Misquoting Jesus" yet? I'm just about finished it, and it's a fascinating study of how we have the version of Christianity we do, basically the Pauline version. He happened to be a prolific letter writer, and it happened that many of his letters survived, and his view of who or what Jesus was became the dominant view in the 3rd century. Other views of Jesus were then declared heresy. (And we know how the church treated heretics)

Modern Christians really know nothing at all about the history of their faith. It is simply a fluke of history that they have the canon they do, and not another version.

Answer 6

You got Saul and Tarsus right. Everything else is false. Paul joined the Christians after being made "a chosen vessel" of Christ, he cooperated with the Christian community, met in their councils and LED the movement to convert the gentiles, to Christianity. There is no mithra in Paul. This is a fantasy.

Answer 7

I suppose so. Even when I was in the church, I never trusted or liked Paul/Saul. When he gave three different accounts on "meeting" Jesus on the road, I knew he was a liar.

Answer 8

No. You are creating an explanation which could have merit if it were true. There is no basis for the conclusion you draw.

Answer 9

You're half correct:

He was knocked off of his horse on his way to Damascus by the Lord Jesus Christ and transformed.

And went on to become one of the most influential born again, apostolic Christians ever....and while under the influence of the Holy Spirit, proceeded to write about 50% of the New Testament as we know it today.

And those are the facts.....

Answer 10

Well, the first sentence is more or less correct... and that comment about him dying is correct...

Everything else is pretty much editorial comment that has no basis in reality...