Assertions about Paul of Tarsus
Incitatus
make assertions about matters such as Paul
Here are some assertions of equal value - but better evidenced - from the
opposition
* Jesus did not talk about the atonement and that this innovation came
from Paul of Tarsus. It is to Paul that Christianity should trace its
roots. The origins of Christianity as we know it came, not from Jesus, but
from Paul.
* The leadership and importance of James, brother of Jesus, was
suppressed by the developing Gentile Church but it is through James that
we would most likely be able to trace the original teachings of the
earthly Jesus.
* The original followers, the successor to James and the apostles of
Jesus (whether they number twelve or not), were the Jewish Christians
(called Nazarenes and Ebionites), who never preached of a heavenly divine
Jesus. They fought Pauline Christianity to the end of their days.
duke
> They fought Pauline Christianity to the end of their days.
Will they make that into a movie any time soon? You haven't been able to
provide even rudimentary reasons to believe this, so maybe somebody else can.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Incitatus
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:13:31 +1100, Sen...@Rome.com (Incitatus) wrote:
>
> > They fought Pauline Christianity to the end of their days.
>
> Will they make that into a movie any time soon? You haven't been able to
> provide even rudimentary reasons to believe this, so maybe somebody else can.
>
> duke, American-American
Doke mate I am not trying to justify a religion - you are
That is where the need to justify assertions originates
Johannine Paulism is unevidenced from beginning to end and as a religious
system that claims to be based on historical fact it is THEREFORE of no
value
You cannot devalue what I am NOT offeriong
AND I AM NOT OFFERING A SUBSTITUTE SUPERSTITION
Just suggesting it might be time to clean up your present one
duke
>> > They fought Pauline Christianity to the end of their days.
>> Will they make that into a movie any time soon? You haven't been able to
>> provide even rudimentary reasons to believe this, so maybe somebody else can.
>Doke mate I am not trying to justify a religion - you are
You know, mate, I (born in 1942) believe WWII happened because the overwhelming
evidence says that it did.
YOU keep insisting that Paul kidnapped the Christian faith. I have asked you
over and over and over for something, anything, to give one such an opinion. To
date, nothing. Not one thing from you. Other than "just believe me".
Well, I don't. You are trying to justify a false non-Paulian religion.
Incitatus
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Well, I don't. You are trying to justify a false non-Paulian religion.
>
Absolutely
Glad you understand that
Paul was a fraud - That is the real reason why Catholicism is wrong
Luther simply did not go far enough - he saw the problem as being
leadership, where the real problem with Catholicism is its core doctrine
of Johannine Paulism that incorporates and fills out Pauls rejection of
Jesus the Jew - born as the natural son of Joseph and Mary - crucified by
Pontius Pilate as Pretender to the Throne of Judea - a throne that was a
Roman appointment
Paul's whole aim was to make his weird Mystery Cult paganised version of
Christiaity attractive to a Roman audience. He did that by whitewashing
the actions of Pilate and villifying Jews and especially Pharisees. It is
these slanders that sadly became incorporated into the later written
Gospels
When you get to Heaven you will be told that I am correct
In the meantime just be nice to people whatever you believe. Christians
all too often aren't. There is a core of sheer viciousness in their
Johannine Pauline doctrine that breaches Jesuses teaching to love your
neighbour as yourself.
duke
>> Well, I don't. You are trying to justify a false non-Paulian religion.
> Absolutely
>Glad you understand that
That's always been understood. But nothing from you to substantiate your false
beliefs.
>Paul was a fraud - That is the real reason why Catholicism is wrong
Where, when, why, how?
>Luther simply did not go far enough - he saw the problem as being
>leadership, where the real problem with Catholicism is its core doctrine
>of Johannine Paulism that incorporates and fills out Pauls rejection of
>Jesus the Jew - born as the natural son of Joseph and Mary - crucified by
>Pontius Pilate as Pretender to the Throne of Judea - a throne that was a
>Roman appointment
>Paul's whole aim was to make his weird Mystery Cult paganised version of
>Christiaity attractive to a Roman audience. He did that by whitewashing
>the actions of Pilate and villifying Jews and especially Pharisees. It is
>these slanders that sadly became incorporated into the later written
>Gospels
>When you get to Heaven you will be told that I am correct
Uhhhhhhhhh, I'll stick with God rather than pharlap.
>In the meantime just be nice to people whatever you believe. Christians
>all too often aren't. There is a core of sheer viciousness in their
>Johannine Pauline doctrine that breaches Jesuses teaching to love your
>neighbour as yourself.
Uhhhhh, actually, that's Jewish. Jesus taught us to love one another as God
love us. John 13:34.
Incitatus
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:17:48 +1100, Sen...@Rome.com (Incitatus) wrote:
>
> >> Well, I don't. You are trying to justify a false non-Paulian religion.
> > Absolutely
> >Glad you understand that
>
> That's always been understood. But nothing from you to substantiate
your false
> beliefs.
>
> >Paul was a fraud - That is the real reason why Catholicism is wrong
>
> Where, when, why, how?
I have no delusions about anyones ability to convince you that you are on
the wrong path. You have already chosen a totally unevidenced "path" but
support it through a mangled concept of 'faith"
What I can tell you is a method you can use to search for yourself
Take the entire life story of Paul and most especially the period with
which Acts concludes and after that time - and look at the stories you
have been told of Paul
Then look at the evidence on which those stories have been based. You
will find it is all fable. Acts itself is a Pauline propaganda document
from which you may reasonably assume - supposing Acts and Luke to be by
the same author - hat Lukes Gospel is also Pauline.
The similarity with the two other Synoptics points clearly to Pauline
influence on these too. So we have a body of propaganda that is only
supported by itself and a ridiculous and bogus claim that all of these
writings have been done under the guidance of the holy spirit
Evidence of any quality being totally unavailable in Christian sources one
is forced to try to reconstruct - often using the same documentation that
Christians use to try and see what on earth really was going on.
Historical knowledge of the period is quite good in terms of what was
happening throughout the Roman Empire - so the task is less hopeless than
it first seems
Like him or not Hyam Maccoby is a very good place to start - He quotes his
sources and explains his reasons - often in Judaic based terms
Duke, you either want this search or you want to shout back as your lousy
church screams back at people in its usual Inquisitorial manner. The only
thing I would add to this is that people in their millions are sick of
this church , of its priveleges , of its arrogant heirarchy, of its
refusal to properly examine itself and its teachings. It is either going
to reform itelf or it is indeed coming crashing down. Countries like
Ireland have already left the fold and Italy itself looks set to follow.
Latin America handles the crackup by adopting a dual attitude of
lipservice to Catholicism and social revolution - it is falling apart at
the seams
Some wouldsay we already live in a postChristian age - and maybe that is
indeed the way it has to be - in order to reach a postreligious age.
Religion has caused nothing but conflict. For millenia it has been the
major cause of war - maybe we should just dump the lot
I would prefer reform - but the reform must be on a level that answers all
the demands of an approaching social revolution. We cannot sustain this
idiocy any longer - it endangers the planet itself, our lives and the
lives of our children and of their descendants.
When we say "clean it up Duke' - we mean it
The alternative may well be dissolution.
It has happened before.
++++++++++++++++
Incitatus
The problem of John's Gospel
This Gospel is the latest of the four main Gospels. Scholars have argued
for centuries about the exact date it might have been written. As recently
as the 1985 one well-known scholar (J A T Robinson) put it as early as
around 65. But most agree that it reached its final form no earlier than
100. Many think it was written around 20 years later than that.
From the earliest times John's Gospel has been recognised as very
different from the other three (usually known as the Synoptic Gospels from
the Greek synoptikos, meaning "having a common view of") which are similar
to each other in form, outline and content.
Not only does John's Gospel have a different feel in terms of how it
treats the person of Jesus, but it is clearly a different type of writing
altogether. Some specific differences are:
*
Jesus isn't portrayed as saying much about how we should behave. That is,
moral and ethical issues are given a back seat.
*
The other gospels contain quite a number of accounts in which Jesus casts
out demons. John's Gospel has none.
*
One of the characteristics of the Synoptic Jesus is that he regularly
interacts and eats with disreputable people. He doesn't do that in John's
Gospel - the tax collectors, whores and poor people don't get a show.
*
The Gospel features Jewish priests and those of Pharisaic group. But it
doesn't mention the Sadducees, Zealots, or Jewish scholars or elders.
*
In John's Gospel, Jesus performs "signs" specifically in order to
demonstrate that he is the Son of God. In the Synoptics, he refuses to do
this - and the teaching that he is the Son of God is somewhat ambiguous
and mixed up with the title of "Son of Man."
*
John's Gospel contains long discourses by Jesus, reported as though they
were taken down verbatim. Nothing like these appears in the other three
Gospels.
*
All the gospels are more concerned with imparting a certain view of Jesus
than with telling us "what really happened" - what we today call history.
John's Gospel contains little history. It is much more like an extended
theological tract. The author's main concern is with theology. The opening
section is an excellent example of this sort of development.
These and many other differences were recognised as early as Clement of
Alexandria (died about 215).
But I am here concerned mainly with the historical Jesus. Only some 20
percent of the Synoptic Gospels can be classed as what Jesus really said
or did. Almost none of this material appears in John's Gospel. In short,
however convincing the contents of John's may seem, very little of it is
confirmed by the other gospel authors.
In such a situation one might hope that other contemporary authorities
might back up John's Gospel. For example, the work of the Hebrew-Roman
Josephus predates John's Gospel by about 20 years. He witnessed many
events in Palestine in the second half of the first century. He wrote a
history of events before and during his lifetime. But it's clear that he
often exaggerates and relies on unsatisfactory information. Despite that,
he provides our only detailed record of Palestine and the times during
which Jesus lived and died. Once historians have made allowances for his
methods, and taken into account his private motivations, a good historical
record remains.
Some of Josephus' information backs up the gospels. That Jesus lived is
confirmed (though later Christians have probably tampered with the
relevant passage). John the Baptist gets a larger mention than Jesus. And
many of the smaller details about rulers of the time are included by
Josephus, some of them showing up errors by the gospel authors. But
by-and-large, the gospels - and especially John's Gospel - stand alone.
Because they are not backed up by external sources, they don't meet the
requirements of top-class historical documents.
They should therefore be carefully examined if they are to serve as a good
Christian source of a Jesus of history. Scepticism is the watchword in
this respect.
All this is not to say categorically that John's Gospel isn't authentic
history through and through. Perhaps it's better history than the
Synoptics, as some have claimed. But the problem is that nobody can prove
it. The book may be excellent theology. But it isn't good history in the
sense that historians at large would class it as such. The Synoptic
Gospels in contrast have much information in common. This helps sort out
their theology from their history. But we have no other sources to confirm
most of what is in John's Gospel.
Many Christians nevertheless hang onto it with what I think is
considerable desperation. It seems to me that they do so because they
approve of its theology, not because they can make a good case for it
being "what Jesus really said and did". There is nothing intrinsically
wrong with that.
On the other hand, unless theology is in some sense based upon the Jesus
of history, it can't rightly claim any more authority than any other
religious or philosophical system. Christianity has always claimed to be
based upon a real man, who actually existed and who really did say and do
certain things. This claim supercedes all other claims. The Christian
faith is, in other words, not a man-made system of belief. Its basics are
founded upon something that really happened.
That John's Gospel isn't good history is a comparatively recent discovery.
Only in the last two hundred years has a majority of Christian scholars
agreed on this fact. For many centuries Christians of all persuasions have
taken the long speeches of Jesus as verbatim accounts of what Jesus said.
Many still do. It was supposed that they were recorded or remembered by
that young disciple who fled naked when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14.51).
In other words, Christian tradition took precedence over history in
authenticating the life of Jesus.
In the first four or five hundred years of the Church's life, the entire
New Testament was accepted as having come direct from God. The gospels,
and John's Gospel in particular, were therefore used as the basis for much
early theology. John's Gospel took precedence over the Synoptic Gospels
probably because it seemed to early theologians and Church leaders to
contain detailed information about Jesus. I don't think it is going too
far to say that traditional Christian theology is largely derived from
this Gospel.
John's Gospel differs from the Synoptic Gospels in some other ways also.
For example, Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles show an affinity
with Greek culture and some ignorance of Jewish culture. The author of
John's Gospel, in contrast, seems well-informed about Jewish doctrines and
practices.
Despite this affinity to Jewish culture, the Gospel is strongly
anti-Jewish. The Synoptic Gospels also contain some anti-Jewish material,
but in them this element is much more muted. It seems that this stance -
which appears deplorable to us today - may have been stimulated by
conflict with Hebrew authorities in the very early years when the first
Christians still thought of themselves as Hebrew. It may also have been
stimulated by occasional persecutions of Jewish people by Roman
authorities, in particular in the late first and early second centuries.
These persecutions may have given Christians encouragement in their
prejudice.
One scholar suggests, with considerable credibility, that this
anti-Semitism came about because John's author may have been part of a
group of Jewish Christians expelled from a Jewish synagogue congregation
towards the end of the first century (see John 9.22) [1]. Interestingly,
Steve Mason shows how Josephus writings survived to a great extent because
they were used to reinforce early Christian anti-Semitism [2].
The other Gospels, Matthew in particular, contain indications of a
conflict between the first Christians and Jewish authorities - but only
John's Gospel is clearly anti-Jewish. Unfortunately for us all, Christian
anti-Semitism over the centuries has been encouraged because the Bible has
been seen as God's revelation. If the Bible - and especially John's Gospel
as the most "accurate" and most "complete" piece of the New Testament - is
perceived like this, there is ample (though, it turns out, unjustified)
reason for Christians to think like in anti-Semitic terms.
Other features - such as the use of the Greek word kosmos to denote the
entire civilised world - indicate that the community for whom this Gospel
was written might already have been perceiving themselves in the context
of the Roman Empire, rather than as a small sect still essentially part of
the Middle-Eastern Jewish establishment.
In selecting those parts of John's Gospel for inclusion as good history, I
have tried to be generous. But John's material differs so radically from
the Synoptics that it has proved difficult to include any but a small part
of the total.
Take John's account of John the Baptist as an example, which I have left
out of the historical part of John's Gospel. The outline is similar to the
Synoptic accounts. But detail is so different that the Johannine version
can't be harmonised with the other gospels. Details such as 1.28, "All
this took place in Bethany on the far side of the Jordan" are not
confirmed by the Synoptics. Because John's Gospel is our only source for
this information we can't say that it's good history. It may be - we just
don't know.
In this respect, then, we can confirm through John [1] that Jesus had some
sort of connection with John the Baptist. (Note that this Gospel has no
account of his baptism by John the Baptist, although it's easy to assume
that John's reported words in 1.31-34 means that he did baptise Jesus.)
And [2] we can suppose that some of John's followers attached themselves
to Jesus (1.35-37). More than that is to stretch the available evidence
too far.
Then again: John's Gospel confirms that Jesus attacked the money changers
and sellers of animals in the Temple. But this event is placed right at
the beginning of the Gospel, not towards the end as in the Synoptics. In
addition, it doesn't take much of an eye to recognise heavy insertion of
theology by John's author in comparison with the plainer accounts of the
other Gospels. He says, for example, "Destroy this temple and I will
resurrect it in three days" - so giving place to early theology about the
resurrection after three days.
Such examples could be multiplied. But the conclusion is the same as that
for the non-historical parts of the Synoptic Gospels which, though they
may be "what really happened," don't meet the criteria for good history.
The author of John's Gospel no doubt used older traditional sources for
some of his records - but, if so, not much of it matches the sources used
by the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke.
His primary purpose, it seems, was not to write history but to interpret
the theological meaning of the life and person of Jesus for his group of
Christians. This he did with long theological discourses for which there
is zero evidence that they were what Jesus actually said. They are his own
thoughts expressed as the words of Jesus. He also made his own theological
points by arranging the order of events according to his personal scheme
(as did all the gospel authors).
In short, the Gospel of John contains almost no good history and therefore
shouldn't be used as information about what Jesus really did and said. It
wasn't designed to be history and we shouldn't read it that way. It's
actually a theological treatise and as such may be most useful.
So if we want to know more about what some very early Christians thought
about Jesus, it's a good guide. But if we want to interpret Jesus for
ourselves, I think it's better to stick with the historical information we
can sift out from John's Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels.
_____________________________________________________
[1] Recall that John's Gospel was written after 100. Recall also that the
author of the Gospel thought about history very differently from us today.
He would not have thought it dishonest to "write back" into his gospel
events which happened a long time after Jesus died.
[2]Josephus and the New Testament, Hendrickson, 2003
duke
>> That's always been understood. But nothing from you to substantiate
>your false beliefs.
>> >Paul was a fraud - That is the real reason why Catholicism is wrong
>> Where, when, why, how?
> I have no delusions about anyones ability to convince you that you are on
>the wrong path. You have already chosen a totally unevidenced "path" but
>support it through a mangled concept of 'faith"
There's no way you can convince me of your foolishness. You can't (or won't)
even begin to explain why one would accept such a preposterous idea.
>What I can tell you is a method you can use to search for yourself
I have no need to. You sure can't substantiate your wild idea.
>Take the entire life story of Paul and most especially the period with
>which Acts concludes and after that time - and look at the stories you
>have been told of Paul
The story I've been told is that he's the first convert, and his words going out
reflect developing Christianity.
>Then look at the evidence on which those stories have been based. You
>will find it is all fable.
How so all fable? Compared to what?
> Acts itself is a Pauline propaganda document
>from which you may reasonably assume - supposing Acts and Luke to be by
>the same author - hat Lukes Gospel is also Pauline.
The author of Acts is unquestioned Luke. The time of Acts runs from right after
Christ to Paul's imprisonment.
>The similarity with the two other Synoptics points clearly to Pauline
>influence on these too.
They are, after all, discussing the same subject, each having his own source of
information - common and otherwise.
> So we have a body of propaganda that is only
>supported by itself and a ridiculous and bogus claim that all of these
>writings have been done under the guidance of the holy spirit
What a weird statement. Are you actually suggesting that each of these are in
any way presented completely as personal and individual revelation?
>Evidence of any quality being totally unavailable in Christian sources one
>is forced to try to reconstruct - often using the same documentation that
>Christians use to try and see what on earth really was going on.
>Historical knowledge of the period is quite good in terms of what was
>happening throughout the Roman Empire - so the task is less hopeless than
>it first seems
I hate to say this, but it almost seems that you are trying to say that the
gospels and epistles are supposed to be fully individual revelation and not a
presentation of developing beliefs and ways of the early Christians.
>Like him or not Hyam Maccoby is a very good place to start - He quotes his
>sources and explains his reasons - often in Judaic based terms
You can't even broach a reasonable story. Why should I look further.
>Duke, you either want this search or you want to shout back as your lousy
>church screams back at people in its usual Inquisitorial manner.
I can't even begin to reflect any desire to continue. You whole presentation is
shot full of holes. Why should I look further?
Incitatus
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I can't even begin to reflect any desire to continue. You whole
presentation is
> shot full of holes. Why should I look further?
>
>
That easy beacuse you have wasted and are wasting your life
But I agree maybe that doesn't matter
I'm sure you And Jesus can laugh about this when you get to Heaven
I rather suspect his first words might be on the lines of
"ever been had?"
Incitatus
> What a weird statement. Are you actually suggesting that each of these are in
> any way presented completely as personal and individual revelation?
>
Since Matthew and John are presented as "Eyewitness testimony" certainly so
Their being thus represented would in modern terms be regarded as fraudulent
In those days writers did that sort of thing - claiming alternate
authorship for their writings
duke
>> I can't even begin to reflect any desire to continue. You whole
>presentation is
>> shot full of holes. Why should I look further?
>
> That easy beacuse you have wasted and are wasting your life
>But I agree maybe that doesn't matter
>I'm sure you And Jesus can laugh about this when you get to Heaven
>I rather suspect his first words might be on the lines of
>"ever been had?"
Highly unlikely. And you haven't even begin to explain otherwise other than, of
course, to just say "believe me".
duke
>In article <jqu2q25f6fbsl9adp...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>> What a weird statement. Are you actually suggesting that each of these are in
>> any way presented completely as personal and individual revelation?
>Since Matthew and John are presented as "Eyewitness testimony" certainly so
Eye witness of what? The most likely time frame for Matthew is 80-90AD and
probably written in Antioch in Syria.
John was most likely written in 95-100AD, a period of time lapsing between the
formation of **this tradition** and the actual writing.
>Their being thus represented would in modern terms be regarded as fraudulent
>In those days writers did that sort of thing - claiming alternate
>authorship for their writings
I gather you're now postulating that Paul wrote Matthew and John.
Incitatus
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
Again Duke - although I find it hard to believe that you do not realise
you are misrepresenting what I said
There is painfully little evidence pointing to accurate dating for the
Gospels but the majority consensus is that they postdate Pauls writings
and teachings -possibly even having been written long after his death or
retirement around 65 AD
This is important in that the direction of cross influence should be taken
into account. Pauls reference to the Eucharist and to the Last Supper
certainly suggests that he was not familiar with any of the four Gospels
and indeed was not particularly familiar with Jesuses actual teachings.
Pauls religion centres on the nature and supernatural mission he CLAIMS
for Jesus
Looking for the origin of this one finds more in Roman Mysticism and
Mystery religion than one finds in Judaism. In fact the use of Atonement
imagery seems intended to be used to place a pagan concept within a Judaic
fold. This is something Paul did not fully achieve and the end result was
a deliberate breach with Judaism exascerbated on Pauls side with a blood
libel and with antisemitism.
No Paul wrote neither Matthew NOR John nor any of the Gospels. But
Paulism and Pauline imagery heavily influenced them - including Mark
When exactly were the Gospels written. All datings seem questionable but
it is possible that they were ALL written even later than most people
would readily accept. The Ryland parchment being of Codex nature does not
assist in dating. Its codex nature would date it as third to fourth
century at the earliest.
We are left with a possibility that ALL the Gospels are second century
artefacts written 100 years after the supposed death of Jesus. The Easter
morning scene is even a possible literary echo of a Roman novel.
So I am not postulating ANY particular authorship for the Gospels - are
you? What I am looking at is the the probable level of Pauline influence
I can understand your concern , Duke. Roman Catholicism and its
half-formed son - Protestantism - are both forms of Paulism being based on
Pauls Asia Minor Cult - there is really no argument on that. Paulism in
Christianity is further moderated and confirmed through Johns Gospel -
written many years after Paul's disappearance and probably after his
death. I know of no attempt to claim that Paul wrote any Gospel. It
would not be hard to computer compare the original Greek but I would be
very surpised at such a result as you suggest.
============
jane abraham
Let hear what Banabas said,
Barnabas was a Jew born in Cyrus. His name was Joses,
and due to his devotion to the cause of Jesus, the other apostles had
given him the surname of Barnabas; this term is variously translated as
"Son of Consolation" or "Son of Exhortation".
He was a successful preacher with a magnetic personality. Any one
tormented by the clash of creeds found solace and peace in his company.
His eminence as a man who had been close to Jesus had made him a
prominent member of the small
group of disciples in Jerusalem who had gathered together
after the disappearance of Jesus. They observed the Law of
the Prophets, which Jesus had come, "not to destroy but, to
fulfil" (Matthew 5:17). They continued to live as Jews and
practiced what Jesus had taught them. That Christianity could
ever be regarded as a new religion did not occur to any of
them. They were devout and practicing Jews distinguished from their
neighbours only by their faith in the message of Jesus.
In the beginning they did not organise themselves as a separate
sect and did not have a synagogue of their own. There was nothing in
the message of Jesus, as understood by them, to necessitate a break
with Judaism. However, they incurred the enmity of the vested interests
among the Jewish higher echelon. The conflict between the Jews and the
followers of Jesus was started by the Jews because they felt that the
Christians would undermine their authority.
ACTS 12: 25
"And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when
they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John,
whose surname was Mark."
ACTS 13: 1 and 2
"Now there was in the church that was at Antioch certain
prophets and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon, that was
called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had
been brought up with Herod the tetrach, and Saul.
"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy
Ghost said: Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work
whereunto I have called them.
ACTS 14:11 to 15
"And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted
up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia. The gods are come
down to us in the likeness of men.
"And they called Barnabas Jupiter, and Paul Mercurius.
"Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city,
brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have
done sacrifice with the people.
"Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of,
they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out.
"And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are
men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye
should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which
made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are
thereon."
The gulf progressively began to widen. During the siege
of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Christians left the city; and refused
to take part in the Bar Coachaba rebellion in 132 A.D. These
two events brought to the surface the difference between the
Christians and the Jews.
The question of the origin of Jesus, his nature and relation
to God, which later became so important, was not raised
among these early disciples. That Jesus was a man super-
naturally endowed by God was accepted without question.
Nothing in the words of Jesus or the events in his life led them
to modify this view. According to Aristides, one of the earliest
apologists, the worship of the early Christians was more purely
monotheistic even than of the Jews.
With the conversion of Paul a new period opened in
Christian Theology. Paul's theology was based on his personalexperience
interpreted in the light of contemporary Greek thought. The theory of
redemption was the child of his brain, a belief entirely unknown to the
disciples of Jesus. Paul's theory involved the deification of Jesus.
The Pauline period in the history of the Christian Church
saw a change of scene and principles. In place of the disciples,
who had sat at the feet of Jesus, a new figure, who had not
known Jesus, had come to the forefront. In place of Palestine,
the Roman Empire became the scene of Christian activity.
Instead of being a mere sect of Judaism, Christianity not only
became independent of Judaism but also became independent of Jesus
himself.
Paul was a Jewish inhabitant of Tarsus. He had
spent a long time in Rome and was a Roman citizen. He
realised the strong hold which the Roman religion had on the
masses. The intellectuals were under the influence of Plato
and Aristotle. Paul seems to have felt that it would not be
possible to convert the masses in the Roman Empire without
making mutual adjustments. But his practical wisdom was not acceptable
to those who had seen and heard Jesus. However, in spite of their
difference, they decided to work together for the common cause.
As recorded in the Acts, Barnabas represented those who
had become personal disciples of Jesus, and Paul co-operated
with them for some time. But finally they fell out. Paul wanted to give
up the Commandments given through Moses about things to eat; he wanted
to give up the Commandment given through Abraham regarding
circumcision. Barnabas and the other personal disciples disagreed. The
following sentences in the Acts give a hint of the rift:
"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught
the brethren, and said, "Except ye be circumcised after the
manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."
"When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissen-
sion and disputations with them, they determined that Paul
and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders
about this question" (Acts 14:1 and 2).
After this rift, there was a parting of the ways. In the
Acts, Barnabas disappears after the rift, because the recording
of the acts of the Apostles was done by the followers of Paul.
Because of Paul's compromise with Roman beliefs and
legends, Pauline Christians grew in number and grew in
strength. A stage was later reached when kings were used as
pawns to further the ends of the Church.
The followers of Barnabas never developed a central organ-
ization. Yet due to the devotion of their leaders their number
increased very fast. These Christians incurred the wrath of the
Church and systematic effort was made to destroy them and
to obliterate all traces of their existence including books and
churches. The lesson of history, however, is that it is very
difficult to destroy faith by force. Their lack of organization became
a source of strength because it was not so easy to pick them up one by
one.
Modern research has brought to light odd facts about these
Christians. They are like the crests of waves and looking at
them one can visualise a whole body of ocean not yet visible.
We notice that up to the 4th century A.D. there existed a
sect known as Hypisistarians who refused to worship God as
father. They revered Him as an All Mighty Ruler of the world,
He was the Highest of all and no one was equal to Him.
Paul of Samasata was a Bishop of Antioch. He was of the
view that Christ was not God but a man and a prophet. He
differed only in degree from prophets who came before him
and that God could not have become man substantially.
Then we come across another Bishop of Antioch viz Lucian.
As a Bishop his reputation for sanctity was not less than his
fame as a scholar. He came down strongly against the belief
of Trinity. He deleted all mention of Trinity from the Bible
as he believed it to be a later interpolation not found in the
earlier Gospels. He was martyred in 312 A.D.
Next we come to the famous disciple of Lucian viz Arius
(250-336 A.D.) He was a Libyan by birth. Peter Bishop of
Alexandria ordained him a Deacon but later excommunicated
him. Achilles the successor of Peter again ordained Arius as
priest. Alexander the next Bishop of Alexandria once again
excommunicated him. Arius however had gathered such a
large following that he became a headache for the Church.
If kept out of Church he could be a great danger to her but
he could not be accommodated within the Church as he wanted to
establish the unity and simplicity of the Eternal God. He believed that
how so ever much Christ may surpass other created beings he himself was
not of the same substance as God. He was as human being as any other
man. The teaching of Arius spread like wild fire and shook the very
foundation of the Pauline Church. The controversy that was simmering
for three hundred years suddenly became a conflagration. No man dared
to oppose the organized Church but Arius did,and remained a headache
for her whether he was ordained a priest or was excommunicated. During
this time two events changed the history of Europe.
Emperor Constantine brought a greater part of Europe
under his rule and secondly he began to support the Christians without
accepting Christianity. To the soldier prince the different creeds
within the Christian faith were very confusing. In the Imperial Palace
itself the controve sy was raging not less fiercely. It appears that
perhaps the Queen Mother was inclined towards Pauline Christianity
while his sister Princess Constantina was a disciple of Arius. The
Emperor was wavering between the two faiths. As an administrator he was
interested only in uniting all the Christians within one Church.
It was at this time that the conflict between Arius and Bishop
Alexander became so widespread and so violent that it became a law and
order problem. So the Emperor anxious to maintain peace in the newly
unified Europe had to intervene.
In 325 A.D. a meeting of all denominations of Christianity
was called at Nicea (Now Isnik, a village). Bishop Alexander
was not able to attend the conference and he deputed his
lieutenant Athanasius, who subsequently succeeded Alexander as Bishop
of Alexandria.
The conference had many prolonged sessions. Emperor
Constantine could not grasp the full implications of the eccle-
siastical confrontation, but he was very clear in his mind that
for maintaining peace in his realm the support and cooperation of the
Church was necessary. Accordingly he threw his weight behind Athanasius
and banished Arius from the realm. Thus the belief of Trinity became
the official religion of the empire. Fearful massacre of Christians who
did not believe in Trinity followed. It became a penal offense to
possess a Bible not authorized by the Church and according to some
estimates as many as 270 different versions of the Bible were burnt.
Princess Constantina was not happy at the turn of events. The Emperor
ultimately was persuaded to accept the faith of the men he killed. The
result was that Arius was called back in 346. The day Arius was
scheduled to visit the Cathedral of Constantinople in triumph, he died
suddenly. The Church called it a miracle. The Emperor knew it was a
murder. He banished Athanasius and two other Bishops. The Emperor then
formally accepted Christianity and was baptized by an Arian Bishop.
Thus Monotheism became the official religion. Constantine died in 337.
The next Emperor Constantanius also accepted the faith of Arius. In 341
a conference was held in Antioch and Monotheism was accepted as a
correct interpretation of Christian faith. This view was confirmed by
another Council held in Sirmium in 351. As a result Arianism was
accepted by an overwhelming majority of Christians. St. Jerome wrote in
359 that 'the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian'.
In this context the next important figure is that of Pope
Honorius. A contemporary of Prophet Mohammed (peace be
on him) he saw the rising tide of Islam whose tenets very much r
esembled those of Arius. As the mutual killings of Christians was still
fresh in his memory he perhaps thought of finding a via media between
Islam and Christianity. In his letters he began to support the doctrine
of 'one mind', because if God has three independent minds the result
would be chaos. The logical conclusion pointed to the belief in the
existence of one God. This doctrine was not officially challenged for
about half a century. Pope Honorius died in October 638. In 680, i.e.
42 years after his death, a council was held in Constantinople where
Pope Honorius was anathematized. This event is unique in the history of
Papacy when a Pope was denounced by a succeeding Pope and the Church.
The next two personalities of this faith that deserve mention
were members of the same family. L. F. M. Sozzini (1525-
1565) was native of Siena. In 1547 he came under the influence
of Camillo a Sicilian mystic. His fame spread in Switzerland
He challenged Calvin on the doctrine of Trinity. He amplified
the doctrine of Arius, denied the divinity of Christ and repu-
diated the doctrine of original sin and atonement. The object
of adoration according to him could only be the one and only
one God. He was followed by his nephew F. P. Sozzini (1539-
1604). In 1562 he published a work on St. John's Gospel
denying the divinity of Jesus. In 1578 he went to Klausonburg
in Transylvania whose ruler John Sigisumud was against the
doctrine of Trinity. Here Bishop Francis David (1510-1579)
was fiercely anti-Trinitarian. This led to the formation of a
sect known as Racovian Catechism. It derives its name from
Racow in Poland. This city became the stronghold of the faith
of Arius.
Among the present-day Christians a large number of men
and women still believe in one God. They are not always vocal. Due to
the crushing power of the Churches they cannot express themselves and
there is not much communication between them.
In the end it will be of interest to quote Athanasius the
champion of Trinity. He says that whenever he forced his
understanding to meditate on the divinity of Jesus his toilsome and
unavailing efforts recoil on themselves, that the more he wrote the
less capable was he of expressing his thoughts. At another place he
pronounces his creed as:-
There are not three but "ONE GOD".
http://barnabas.net/lifebarnabas.htm
duke
>> I gather you're now postulating that Paul wrote Matthew and John.
> Again Duke - although I find it hard to believe that you do not realise
>you are misrepresenting what I said
You shouldn't be. After all this time, I **still** don't know where you are
tying to go, and what basis you have for making such a path.
>There is painfully little evidence pointing to accurate dating for the
>Gospels but the majority consensus is that they postdate Pauls writings
>and teachings -possibly even having been written long after his death or
>retirement around 65 AD
True, but you continue to refuse to address that the writings, both gospels and
letters, reflect the beliefs of the early Christians rather than personal
revelation supposedly only to Paul. Had Paul presented a different story than
the growing beliefs of the people, they would have strung him up. And until you
can address this issue, you have no point to make that you can support.
>This is important in that the direction of cross influence should be taken
>into account. Pauls reference to the Eucharist and to the Last Supper
>certainly suggests that he was not familiar with any of the four Gospels
Even though he was a traveling companion to Luke, whose writings "agree" with
Matthew and Mark?
Then you don't address what Jesus Christianity was compared to Paul
Christianity.
Then you don't address the anticipated viewership of each gospel and the
subsequent letters.
And then you don't address what Christianity became and is following 2000 years
of biblical research by learned scholars and researchers.
>and indeed was not particularly familiar with Jesuses actual teachings.
>Pauls religion centres on the nature and supernatural mission he CLAIMS
>for Jesus
See above.
>Looking for the origin of this one finds more in Roman Mysticism and
>Mystery religion than one finds in Judaism. In fact the use of Atonement
>imagery seems intended to be used to place a pagan concept within a Judaic
>fold.
All you're doing is copying some wacko author who you bought into.
>No Paul wrote neither Matthew NOR John nor any of the Gospels. But
>Paulism and Pauline imagery heavily influenced them - including Mark
Wow, and the people who they were quoting had nothing to say?
>When exactly were the Gospels written. All datings seem questionable but
>it is possible that they were ALL written even later than most people
>would readily accept.
You really should be asking when were the beliefs of the people put pencil to
paper? The revelations started with the actions of Jesus, and not a personal
revelations 50 or 100 years later.
>I can understand your concern , Duke. Roman Catholicism and its
>half-formed son - Protestantism - are both forms of Paulism being based on
>Pauls Asia Minor Cult - there is really no argument on that.
You're wrong. I have no concern. I, to this very moment, still have no idea
where you get your wacko words.
And I rest fully assured that you will never be able to substantiate your
thoughts.
Ya'betz
red-herring across the trail of Christian-Muslim apologetics in the modern
world.
Get a life.
>
"jane abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168672190....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Duke, hope this will help you.
>
> Let hear what Banabas said,
>
'yawn'.
> duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:34:42 +1100, Sen...@Rome.com (Incitatus) wrote:
>>
>> >> > They fought Pauline Christianity to the end of their days.
>> >> Will they make that into a movie any time soon? You haven't been able
>> >> to
>> >> provide even rudimentary reasons to believe this, so maybe somebody
>> >> else can.
>>
>> >Doke mate I am not trying to justify a religion - you are
>>
>> You know, mate, I (born in 1942) believe WWII happened because the
>> overwhelming
>> evidence says that it did.
>>
>> YOU keep insisting that Paul kidnapped the Christian faith. I have asked
>> you
>> over and over and over for something, anything, to give one such an
>> opinion. To
>> date, nothing. Not one thing from you. Other than "just believe me".
>>
>> Well, I don't. You are trying to justify a false non-Paulian religion.
>>
>>
>> duke, American-American
>> *****
>> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>> Pope Paul VI
>> *****
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
duke
>Duke, hope this will help you.
>Let hear what Banabas said,
>That Christianity could
>ever be regarded as a new religion did not occur to any of
>them.
Then why did they consider him the Son of God, and practiced the Holy Eucharist
after the Jewish meal, only to abandon the Saturday meal and turn to Sunday and
the Eucharist?
>They were devout and practicing Jews distinguished from their
>neighbours only by their faith in the message of Jesus.
What else could they do? The Eucharist was the sole participatory event left by
Jesus to them, who were called to express and develop their new faith in the Son
of God, expressed in the Nicene Creed.
Thank you for your dissertation below. But nothing on how Paul hijacked the
Christian faith from Jesus. Which is the question.
duke, American-American
Incitatus
to agree with but I think you are being a little too certain about events
between about 65AD and around 90AD
I suspect that the breach with Judaism was not caused by the Jews at all
but engineered by the Paulists who were anxious to separate themselves
from what had become a displaced and persecuted culture. Paulism did not
want to become part of the Diaspora so Paulism joined the persecutors.
Paul himself had had no compunctions about persecuting Jews - that was his
profession when he persecuted christians for the Roman appointed High
Priest and the Roman appointed and protected Herodians so Post-Paul
Paulism had a built in similar inclination to regard Jews as pests
Paulism separated itself through deeper paganisation of its belief system
probabaly centering itself more on rituals such as the Eucharist. It is
possible that the story of Paul, as we now have it, itself grew in the
manner that Pauls image of Jesus grew - we may have a religion involving
several strata of distortion
What seems possible is that following Pauls teaching and his letters and
oral and possibly (lost) written sources a corpus of Christian writings
grew which we know as the Synoptics and the Epistles of Paul.
Paul therefore was the first strata of distortion we can trace, the second
strata is the Gospels and the Book of Acts. It is upon this strata that
the breach with Judaism was built- to be later confrmed in its separated
form in the Gospel believed to have been written in Ephesus and falsely
titled the Gospel According to John and attributed to John the disciple.
In article <1168672190....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, "jane
Incitatus
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:09:55 +1100, Sen...@Rome.com (Incitatus) wrote:
>
> >> I gather you're now postulating that Paul wrote Matthew and John.
>
> > Again Duke - although I find it hard to believe that you do not realise
> >you are misrepresenting what I said
>
> You shouldn't be. After all this time, I **still** don't know where you are
> tying to go, and what basis you have for making such a path.
DUKE I am not "trying to go" anywhere - I am getting away from unproven
assertion and falsehood that others before me have turned into a religion.
I have grown out of the culture in which you seek purpose in everything ,
and meaning and spiritual message - I have recognised - as you have yet to
- that this is a world of deceit and even madness. At best I have sought
to understand through evidence the structure of that deceit and its
motivation. I have concluded that the crucial strata of deceit - the key
to what is CLAIMED about what went before and to what actually came after
is Paulism and later Johannine Paulism - in its displacement of Jesuses
religion from mainstream Judaism. In this it is immaterial whether Jesus
himself was a real historical figure. What is essential is to recognise
that whatever came before the picture described by Paulism is patently
false in terms of reality.
>
> >There is painfully little evidence pointing to accurate dating for the
> >Gospels but the majority consensus is that they postdate Pauls writings
> >and teachings -possibly even having been written long after his death or
> >retirement around 65 AD
>
> True, but you continue to refuse to address that the writings, both
gospels and
> letters, reflect the beliefs of the early Christians rather than personal
> revelation supposedly only to Paul. Had Paul presented a different story than
> the growing beliefs of the people, they would have strung him up. And
until you
> can address this issue, you have no point to make that you can support.
I think they came very close to "stringing him up" The anger against him
- the exchange of tirades against false gospels is still visible in the
New Testament. The victorious Paulism claimed it was all sorted out and
yet the evidence is entirely to the contrary in that so many sects that
formed a spectrum from Judaism across Christianity in its Pauline
orthodoxy form to Gnosticism continued to exist - most of them centred on
a rejection of Paulist thinking. The Psaulists persecuted them - in the
end using the power of the Roman Emperor in Constantinople. The very
existence of "creeds" is evidence of dissent even without the backup
evidence of the arguments that brought them into being and created the
crime of heresy against the Christian STATE.
>
> >This is important in that the direction of cross influence should be taken
> >into account. Pauls reference to the Eucharist and to the Last Supper
> >certainly suggests that he was not familiar with any of the four Gospels
>
> Even though he was a traveling companion to Luke, whose writings "agree" with
> Matthew and Mark?
Luke wrote after Mark according to most timelines.. It is Paul who
influenced Luke not Luke who influenced Paul. Luke was not a disciple -
he became Paul's greatest apologist. Lukes very flaky account in Acts
casts severe doubt on his Gospel. That he would distort in one makes it
likely he did so in the other - starting with the rather silly but very
pretty little "Christmas Story".
>
> Then you don't address what Jesus Christianity was compared to Paul
> Christianity.
It was JUDAISM - it was a reformed form of Judaism that was more open and
more popularly based. Jesus appears to have broken the barrier of racism
that dominated the political and social structure of the Empire. He
spotted that the key to it was love of your neighbour set within a
framework of love of God. But that God remained for Jesus expressed in
the First commandment and what followed that commandment in Exodus:
"I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is
in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD
thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments."
(Exodus 20)
Do you doubt this Duke?
SNIP
> You really should be asking when were the beliefs of the people put pencil to
> paper? The revelations started with the actions of Jesus, and not a personal
> revelations 50 or 100 years later.
That Chronology comes from reading the ideological document we know as
the New Testament in precicesly the manner the Johannine Pauline
propagandists intended us to - That is - in the opposite chronological
direction to that in which it was written
Churches are rarely honest about this - they rarely correct the common
misapprehension that the Gospels existed (written by actual disciples) and
Paul drew from them and from oral testimony confirmed by a visitation from
the Risen Jesus.
Duke this is nonsense. This is a deceitful reversing of the pattern of
LITERARY influence - The Jesus of the Gospels is largely a Pauline
invention constructed to confirm his flaky theology. Indeed so little is
ever referred to of Jesuses actual teachings and life by Paul - except for
the Pauline version of his death and its purpose - that one might wonder
just how much of the layers of factual distortion developed as Pauline
liturgy developed and if as is often suggested there is a second century
distortion in play here as to the dating of the Gospels themselves. For
it would seem on the face of it , not entirely unlikely that in their
existing form they were even later written than present tradition is
prepared to consider
But hey - around 65-75 AD for the first one - Mark - will do for our purposes
Incitatus
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2007 23:09:50 -0800, "jane abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Duke, hope this will help you.
>
> >Let hear what Banabas said,
>
> >That Christianity could
> >ever be regarded as a new religion did not occur to any of
> >them.
>
> Then why did they consider him the Son of God, and practiced the Holy
Eucharist
> after the Jewish meal, only to abandon the Saturday meal and turn to
Sunday and
> the Eucharist?
Son of God is easy to explain - it was the title claimed by the
Julian-Claudian Emperor dynasty for itself. Augustus was revered as the
Son of God and deified as such - This is a matter of Roman history.
Caligula especially applied this title to himself. Christians here were
creating a slogan - "The Emperor is not the Son of God - Jesus is the Son
of God"
>
> >They were devout and practicing Jews distinguished from their
> >neighbours only by their faith in the message of Jesus.
>
> What else could they do? The Eucharist was the sole participatory event
left by
> Jesus to them, who were called to express and develop their new faith in
the Son
> of God, expressed in the Nicene Creed.
But Jesus did not leave the Eucharist to them. Paul invented it. The
Jerusalem Church does not appear to have left evidence of their use of it
at all. The Eucharist is antisemitic in nature being a breach of Jewish
dietary laws. It belongs to Pauls phoney claim of Jesus accounting the
events of the Last Supper to him thereby making him an "apostle" - It is
baloney.
However it is a highly charged emotional ceremony that later art endowed
with great beauty and seductive legend - including the Grail legends that
fascinate to this day - and stunning music from Palestrina through Bach
Mozart Beethoven Bruckner to the present day
>
> Thank you for your dissertation below. But nothing on how Paul hijacked the
> Christian faith from Jesus. Which is the question.
Easy - he claimed Revelation from the Risen Christ. He was a fraud in the
manner of tele-evangelists.
Paul's "good press" stems from the fact that a religion based on such
pompous and fraudulent hogwash creates a credibility within the vulnerable
that is easy to exploit and is therefore self funding - especially with
government granted tax breaks
Very few of the leading Paulists walk to church these days in America or
elsewhere - unless like the Pope they live on the premises
Very few live in humble little homes.
Wise up Duke - there is one major reality about Paulism:
Its a con job
It always was
And sometimes the best of its deluded believers die defending it
But then so do communists - so even the willingness to sacrifice ones life
for an abstraction isn't unique to the religious or to what you might
regard as "truth"
++++++++++++++++++++
_____________