Who is Paulus?

Who is Paulus?

June 26, 2021 Off By Felso

The same can be said of the letters of Paul, which were written after the four gospels. Paul, who we can rightly call the second founder of Christianity, draws attention in his letters to the fact that in order to be cleansed from sin, one must follow the path of Jesus, that is, believe in God, who died and then rose again. Death is the result of sin; then, getting rid of death is possible only by getting rid of sin. Paulus particularly emphasizes this point in his letters.

The second important thought in these letters is the belief that man can never overcome his “alone” sinful nature. According to Paulus, man knows what goodness is in; but despite this, he has a tendency towards evil that he cannot avoid.

Let’s compare this view with Socrates’ views: In these two main views of Socrates, which says “virtue is knowledge” and “no one does evil on purpose”; basically, the idea that sin and crime is due to a mistake is hidden. For this reason, a person who knows where and why true happiness occurs will not make mistakes and will never do evil as a result.

This main view of Socrates was later dominated by the Stoics, the Epicureans, and moreover, the Neoplatonists. Especially at this point, Christianity, which is in the state of establishment, and Paulus, who played a major role in establishing this new religion, have the opposite belief of Socrates. According to early Christianity, man knows “good”; but still not good.

Paulus, one of the most important missionaries of nascent Christianity, founded many Christian congregations and was eventually persecuted by Nero and died. early believers of Christianity; they were the ignorant people of the poor masses rather than the enlightened people. The appearance (manifestation) of the God of Christianity in the form of a humiliated man especially attracted the workers. Although this was the case in the beginning, the situation changed later on, other social strata and eventually philosophers joined Christianity.

In the first two centuries of the BC, we come across a number of works that were written solely for the “defense” of Christianity. These works try to answer the view that Christians were not official servants (tab’a) of the Roman state. Secondly, these defenses counter accusations that Christians are atheists, that is, denying the existence of God.

Godlessness of Christians!? His accusation was because the new religion did not adopt the Gods of other religions. Thirdly, in these defenses, criticisms of the morality of Christianity are answered. Consequently, these defences emphasize that Christianity is not at all contrary to the highest aspects of philosophy, say, a Stoic or Neoplatonism.

In the meantime, it is mentioned that there is the idea of ​​the immortality of the soul in Christianity, and it is claimed that the same idea exists in Stoa and Neoplatonism, even if not in the Christian religion. After these defensive efforts in the first period, we see that in the second period of Christian thought, attempts were made to “philosophically justify” the principles of the Christian religion.

In this second period, one particular subject is dealt with, the relationship between “faith and knowledge”, that is, between Christian dogmas and philosophy. Christianity is based on a set of dogmas revealed by revelation. He wants these dogmas to be adopted with a belief befitting a believer. What is the relationship of these dogmas, which are asked to be adopted with pure belief, to philosophy? This period basically deals with this issue.

During this period, “different” answers were given to this question. His first response was M.S. I-II. We find it in the doctrine of “Gnosis”, which is encountered in the centuries and is also seen in other Hellenistic religions. Gnosis (literal meaning) is a religious knowledge, that is, a knowledge that is peculiar to people of distinguished and mystical nature.

Therefore, the Gnostics are privileged people with a “supernatural” knowledge. These Gnostics argue that it is not enough to just believe in the dogmas of religion and that a Gnostic interpretation of dogmas is essential. Thus, the Gnostics embrace that personal and mystical knowledge is superior to dogma.

This Gnosis movement was not holistic (unity), but was divided into various branches. Also, Gnosists tend to take into their systems dogmas other than those of Christianity. In this respect, Gnosis is a trend that is in line with the trends of the period. If this current could prevail, perhaps Christianity would have disappeared into its religious tendencies. The Christian church, which was getting stronger, saw the danger and started a fierce fight with the Gnosis current.