Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: windword

No, I'm talking about this, James' ruling about what the Gentiles needed to follow as Christians:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So it was James who made this ruling at the Jerusalem council, that no other burdens were required other than those things above. The entire reason the council was convened was because a Pharisee sect of believers were teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the law. James declared no they did not. From previous in chapter 15 of Acts:

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses

And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

If you want to blame someone for teaching that the Law of Moses no longer had to be followed, blame Peter and James for ruling it so at the Jerusalem council.

a reply to: NOTurTypicallet's not make a mistake that many do, thinking that James made this command. James only clarified not mandated any rules. Those things were what "seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to "us" (them). Remember God had his hand I this James made no decisions that weren't ordained of God. They were said to be sent tot he church via a letter ordained by the apostles but we should not take God out of the picture and think that this was a doctrine of men. And it was not enforced see how he said you did well IF you keep these

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

that if carried that even if they didn't no foul.

Peter and James were sent to Israel with the gospel of the kingdom. That gospel needed obedience to the Law of Moses repentance and baptism.

The gospel of the grace of God Given Paul by Jesus started a new era where there was to be faith alone on thee cross of Christ, where all men Jew or Gentile were made part of the body of Christ. You will notice that once God shows peter he is going to the Gentile he does not allow peter to add law, repentance and baptism to hi message in Act 10, after that you never here about peter again except inn ACTS 15 because of the error of a sect of Pharisee's who like many today teach the kingdom gospel and obedience too law

a reply to: Akragon

Where did you get that monster angel story from... i know i read it somewhere

That's what I thought too when I ran across it. I vaguely remember reading about it like 30 years ago. But what I wrote was paraphrase from Wikipedia.

Elcesaites-Hippolytus
Hippolytus of Rome (Philosophumena, IX, 8-13) records that in the time of Pope Callixtus I (217-222) a Jewish Christian called Alcibiades of Apamea, came to Rome, bringing a book which he said had been received from Parthia by a just man named Elchasai.[2] According to Alcibiades the book had been revealed by an angel ninety-six miles high, sixteen miles broad and twenty-four across the shoulders, whose footprints were fourteen miles long and four miles wide by two miles deep. This giant angel was the Son of God, who was accompanied by His Sister, the Holy Ghost, of the same dimensions.[3] Alcibiades announced that a new remission of sins had been proclaimed in the third year of Trajan (AD 100), and he described a baptism which should impart this forgiveness even to the grossest sinners.

I ran across this tidbit after reading about Augustine of Hippo(Algeria) (354 – 28 August 430). His mother was a Christian and his father was a Pagan. He was Manichaean, a fusion of teachings of Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus, with Mesopotamian Jewish-Christian Gnosticism, Mani's parents were members of the Jewish Christian Gnostic sect known as the Elcesaites.

So I got to wondering, why would Augustine be Manichaean if there was a nice Christian Gnostic group ongoing in Egypt, also in North Africa? Why get his religion from Mesopotamia? Simple. The so-called Egyptian Gnostic School was Manichaean. Scholars had hypothesized a Gnosticism before Jesus, but there really isn't any evidence for that. All the Gnostic texts have Jesus as the protagonist, the mouthpiece speaking Zoroastrian and Buddhist teachings. Why would Jesus be the spokesman? Because he was the latest in the "line of sages".

Nice thread by the way. So much different from the typical Paul bashing threads. Paul was a regular mortal human, who died in the 60s AD. The typical Paul bashing does weird things, in essence it takes a mortal man, elevates him to an immortal nemesis to all that is good and proper, has him standing behind Constantine's throne calling for the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, 265 years after his death. And the nonsense goes on and on from there, growing more fantastical as it goes.

"Oh Paul never met Jesus in the flesh" they say. Name one writer who did!

Anyway, just to throw my opinion out there. Suppose there were two choices;

(1) All Gentile Christians remain Christian, ignore Torah, read Paul, and consider genetic Jewishness utterly and absolutely irrelevant to anything present or future.

or

(2) All Gentile Christians throw Paul out, embrace Torah, run to the Talmudists to learn how to be good Noahide subjects to those who are their god chosen superiors in every way. Push their national politicians to formally adopt Noahide Law. Cheer as all the gays, lesbians, adulterers, cross-dressers, polytheists, Pagans, Heathens, and anyone speaking against monotheism gets beheaded.

I would choose (1) any day.

ETA

Oh, I can hear it now, "But, but, Christianity has Pagan elements"
Good! The more the better!

"But, but, Roman Catholics revere the Mother of God!"
Good! They should!

a reply to: NOTurTypical

No, I'm talking about this, James' ruling about what the Gentiles needed to follow as Christians: For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Now you're talking in circles. You said that the mandate to abolish the Torah in it's entirety, for everyone, was documented in Galatian 2. Now you refer me to Acts, which it had been argued was written decades later.

So it was James who made this ruling at the Jerusalem council, that no other burdens were required other than those things above. The entire reason the council was convened was because a Pharisee sect of believers were teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the law. James declared no they did not. From previous in chapter 15 of Acts:

Again, belaboring the redundancy, James was talking about Gentiles converting to their "Christ" cult.

13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles.
The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
“‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’— things known from long ago.

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Again, at no point did James abolish the need for Jews to honor the Torah or release Jews under his charge. He left that up to the individual, as was the tradition when acquiring Jewish converts. It must be their decision to follow the law/Torah, but first they must understand why. What James did do was require converts to subject themselves to minimal Noahide laws.

Conversion

a reply to: pthena

Hippolytus of Rome (Philosophumena, IX, 8-13) records that in the time of Pope Callixtus I (217-222) a Jewish Christian called Alcibiades of Apamea, came to Rome, bringing a book which he said had been received from Parthia by a just man named Elchasai.

THATS IT!!

That name swtiched on the proverbial light bulb LOL

I wrote a thread on that very book a few years back....

The Book of Elxai: What was the Early Church Hidiing?

Nice thread by the way.
So much different from the typical Paul bashing threads. Paul was a regular mortal human, who died in the 60s AD. The typical Paul bashing does weird things, in essence it takes a mortal man, elevates him to an immortal nemesis to all that is good and proper, has him standing behind Constantine's throne calling for the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, 265 years after his death. And the nonsense goes on and on from there, growing more fantastical as it goes.

Thank you my friend...

This is not an attempt to bash Paul, even though i am not a fan of his at all

I prefer to present information on subjects like this and watch as the conversation evolves, as it should...

opps

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: pthena



THATS IT!!

That name swtiched on the proverbial light bulb LOL

I wrote a thread on that very book a few years back....

The Book of Elxai: What was the Early Church Hidiing?

For someone who rejects the Bible I find it bizarre you would accept that book as genuine, real, correct and without error as well as acceptable for anything.

Nothing in it can be proven

a reply to: Akragon

The Book of Elxai: What was the Early Church Hidiing?

I clicked the link and started reading. Couldn't get past the first page. Now I'm grieving over the familiar names of former members who had, in previous days, graced the pages with thought, wit, and humor.

This is not an attempt to bash Paul, even though i am not a fan of his at all

I figured this was an educational exercise. But I am agenda driven. When I take my anti-Paul sentiments and compare them to my anti-Noahide sentiments there is no comparison really. It's like a blade of grass compared to the distance to the Sun. And I'm not lying. That's the truth, I assure you.

From among the crowd come the whispers:
"Did you hear that? He's protesting too much."
"Yeah, we all know what that means."
"Shhh, he's looking right at us."

a reply to: Akragon

Some good points in the video…thanks for posting it…

I often wondered why James and the other followers of Jesus would still follow parts of the Torah such as sacrifices, if Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, surely they new Jesus better than anyone…

Another key factor here is that just like Paul, Luke never met Jesus either, except maybe when he was a little kid. Luke was said to be a friend or companion of Paul, which means Luke's Gospels could possibly be influenced by Pauls interpretation/slant etc…

Mark never new Jesus either, but it’s been suggested that he wrote his Gospel based on Peters accounts, not sure how much truth there is in that, but this all seems a bit fishy to me; surely these guys were intelligent enough to write their own version, and put their own names into the texts…


- JC

a reply to: windword

Now you're talking in circles. You said that the mandate to abolish the Torah in it's entirety, for everyone, was documented in Galatian 2. Now you refer me to Acts, which it had been argued was written decades later.

No I didn't, I said the outcome of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) is alluded to in Galatians 2. The reason for said Jerusalem council to convene was Pharisee believers were teaching that Chriatians had to become circumcised and follow the law of Moses. James and Peter both said, nope. And laid upon believers no other burdens/demands than 4 things.

a reply to: Akragon

forget it

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword

Now you're talking in circles. You said that the mandate to abolish the Torah in it's entirety, for everyone, was documented in Galatian 2. Now you refer me to Acts, which it had been argued was written decades later.

No I didn't, I said the outcome of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) is alluded to in Galatians 2. The reason for said Jerusalem council to convene was Pharisee believers were teaching that Chriatians had to become circumcised and follow the law of Moses. James and Peter both said, nope. And laid upon believers no other burdens/demands than 4 things.

Yes you did!

ME: Acts was written at least a decade after Galatians. So, your time line is irrelevant, besides the fact that James never said that Jews didn't have a need to honor the Torah, and Gentiles never were under the law anyway.

YOU: Paul talks about the outcome of the Jerusalem council in the 2nd chapter of Galatians. www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread isn't about whether or not Gentiles need to follow the Torah. It's about, according to the lecture video in the OP, how genetic Jews were eliminated by Paul at the same time he eliminated their need to honor the Torah and the Law.

You're trying to tell me that James declared the Torah and its law invalid, universally. He did not. That was ALL Paul.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

the outcome of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) is alluded to in Galatians 2.

Have you ever once considered that the Book of Acts just may have serious mistakes in it? Follow the rule Paul wrote the Letter to Galatians himself about his own actions. Acts was written decades later by anonymous. If discrepancies exist between Galatians and Acts, go with Galatians.

In Galatians Paul goes to great lengths to say that his contacts with the Jerusalem group were extremely limited and extremely rare. There is no reason to believe that Paul was in Jerusalem for any counsel except that it says so in Acts. According to Galatians 2: 11-13, if there was a council, and if a letter was sent to Antioch by "certain men sent by James", it certainly wasn't anything like the supposed letter in Acts 15. The people coming from James were the circumcision party, by the context in Galatians.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword

No, I'm talking about this, James' ruling about what the Gentiles needed to follow as Christians:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So it was James who made this ruling at the Jerusalem council, that no other burdens were required other than those things above. The entire reason the council was convened was because a Pharisee sect of believers were teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the law. James declared no they did not. From previous in chapter 15 of Acts:

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses

And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

If you want to blame someone for teaching that the Law of Moses no longer had to be followed, blame Peter and James for ruling it so at the Jerusalem council.

No. It was Paul who taught that the law of Moses no longer had to be followed, while adding on his on twist to make it now "his gospel".
If you can show me how Paul taught the same thing as Jesus, knock yourself out. He didn't. He stood up to the true disciples that Jesus CHOSE. He made himself better than them, and it was them that he labeled, "Judaizers"...which was a term he actually made up to demean the men who Jesus actually chose to be the apostles.
The whole reason Paul was called to Jerusalem to stand before James, was because James had heard that Paul was teaching a false gospel against the law of Moses. Paul back peddled and said he wasn't, while then saying he would take the Nazarite vow that James demanded him to. If you read later Paul's words (I believe it was Galatians), Paul told a totally different story of what went down at the meeting. Paul was constantly covering his own butt. Using his Roman citizenship to do so.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

All of that from the anonymous book of Acts.

Jesus might as well be considered to be yet another Pagan god.

Get three monotheists together, each one has a different concept of what/who the one god is. There are then three monotheist gods.

Get three Jesus people together. Same thing. There is not one Jesus, there are three, because each person has her own idea of who/what Jesus is.

You have determined that Paul's Jesus is not your Jesus. Fine and good. But do you want the James version of Jesus? The James who hung out in the temple and participated in animal sacrifice? Probably not.

So you have your Jesus; not Paul's, not James', not Peter's, and probably not the one with Talmudic/Noahide stamp of approval either.

So when you hear the creedal formula "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". You should say, "No, that's not right at all. My Lord is way different from yours, and my faith is not too similar to yours either."

a reply to: ChesterJohn

For someone who rejects the Bible I find it bizarre you would accept that book as genuine, real, correct and without error as well as acceptable for anything.

Nothing in it can be proven

Not sure where you got any of that...

I take Jesus' words as practical knowledge... usable even today for the most part... the OT as myth and legend mixed with some reality...

I said nothing about the book of Elxai being without error... genuine, or anything of the like...

from the first line in that thread...

In 1415 the chruch of Rome destroyed all knowledge of two Second Century Jewish books which apparently contained the true name of Jesus... One of these books was called Book of Elxai

We know the book existed... we know it was destroyed by the church...

Notice said thread was in the "religious conspiracy" sub forum?

Try not to put words in my mouth brother...

Thanks

a reply to: Akragon
well one must accept all God's words or none, you must reject all of it or none of it, it is not a pick and choose. So that is from here and the past that I have gathered you do not believe the word of God. beware for Jesus quoted your supposed mythological OT.

I read your linked post and you seem to feel that that book of Elxai should almost be included I the cannon of scripture.

I for ne a sure glad it is not.

please, we may be human beings, but I think we are not on terms to where you can call me brother. CJ will be fine thank you.

a reply to: Akragon

Yes, Saulus invented the Christian religion, and he designed it to be condemned by Judaism, and be in conflict with Rome.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Akragon
well one must accept all God's words or none, you must reject all of it or none of it, it is not a pick and choose. So that is from here and the past that I have gathered you do not believe the word of God. beware for Jesus quoted your supposed mythological OT.

I read your linked post and you seem to feel that that book of Elxai should almost be included I the cannon of scripture.

I for ne a sure glad it is not.

please, we may be human beings, but I think we are not on terms to where you can call me brother. CJ will be fine thank you.

Well apparently you have taken the authority to tell me what i MUST accept...

So likewise Brother... I will call you what i will as well

haven taken said authority on my own accord

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

All of that from the anonymous book of Acts.

Jesus might as well be considered to be yet another Pagan god.

Get three monotheists together, each one has a different concept of what/who the one god is. There are then three monotheist gods.

Get three Jesus people together. Same thing. There is not one Jesus, there are three, because each person has her own idea of who/what Jesus is.

You have determined that Paul's Jesus is not your Jesus. Fine and good. But do you want the James version of Jesus? The James who hung out in the temple and participated in animal sacrifice? Probably not.

So you have your Jesus; not Paul's, not James', not Peter's, and probably not the one with Talmudic/Noahide stamp of approval either.

So when you hear the creedal formula "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". You should say, "No, that's not right at all. My Lord is way different from yours, and my faith is not too similar to yours either."

Totally agree with you, man. I don't believe much of any of it anymore. Though, I've encountered Jesus, Yahweh, demons, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
The last five years, a gay man who wants to be loved by god more than anything, has entered my world...and he's still gay. I question the whole "eating animals" thing, and why this world is built in a predatory way.
I don't think a "God of love" would have put us in this environment...and not given a damn if we hurt as bad as we do.
I can compare Paul to the Torah and see how he contradicts it. I can find contradictions in the Torah (0r OT) itself. It's all full of holes. My philosophy now is, be good to your fellow man...and some people are just awful human beings.
Other than that, I don't have much use for the Bible anymore. I've met some truly good hearted church going folks. I've also met some people who play the game at church. I've met people who aren't even in the church who are good people. (you would be one...)
It's all complete BS. Religion that is. There are good people in this world, and bad. There are all kinds of people. Most are just trying to survive and be happy. If God is there, then he shouldn't be so unreachable.
If I have to read the Bible to know Him, then that's sad. It's putting God in a box.