Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

your premise is wrong, your verses are out of context and fail to rightly divide whom is being spoken of who and when, your whole study wreaks of elementary bible study errors. I have poninted this out to you and malocchino but you never adress it. You just claim I am just saying the same things Well yeah that is because that is where you errors lay in your failure to study correctly, taking verse out of context and then placing your own personal interpretation to the verses in question.

Which once again leads me to ask why even use a bible you do not believe is 100% true, without error, inspired and without corruption.

Thomas Jefferson : "Paul was the first great corrupter of Jesus' teachings."

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Thomas Jefferson : "Paul was the first great corrupter of Jesus' teachings."

en.wikipedia.org...

THANK you....I pointed that same thing out about 20 pages back. Chester ignored it.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Which once again leads me to ask why even use a bible you do not believe is 100% true, without error, inspired and without corruption.

Because I've read it for 28 years....from front to back and then some. I USED to believe it was inerrant...just like you.
When I finally stopped listening to pastors, teachers, elders, (and all the indoctrination put on believers)...etc....and just did my own studies and research, I realized that Paul contradicts Jesus, that the OT is FULL of contradictions, and that the whole CHURCH you see today is full of division and hypocrisy...all because of that "book".
Do you really think the TRUE GOD, would use men to write a book that caused so much controversy and division????
Heck, you can't even agree with other CHRISTIANS on this website. You guys argue amongst yourselves. It's actually quite funny.
But, you go ahead and defend that book to your dying breath. I know that if you don't, you will somehow feel you are failing "your Savior" and "your God". That's the real reason you keep defending it.
Hey, why don't you defend Jesus??? I mean, He's the one you are supposed to be loyal to, right?

I feel like Saul[ the "apostle" to the goyim, self appointed and under the authority of himself alone with not a soul to corroborate his claims of revelations from Christ or soteriology through ''faith not works" in the truth of Paul's "gospel" that finds no place in the message of the Messiah and at every point is opposed to his actual teachings, of which Paul legitimately had no clue as he probably wasn't entrusted with the teachings of the Messiah because he was fooling nobody with his story and act in Jerusalem and was "forbidden from preaching in Asia" by none other than the ''Holy Spirit" and in anger wrote a bunch of letters complaining of his rejection and inferiority while making extraordinary claims trying to win back converts from the original and True Apostles who had taught him nothing and he seems to have just wrote what amounts to nonsense and hateful agitprop, lies, and sloppy reasoning, the manifesto of a madman no more believable than that of Joseph Smith...

Sorry, I was ranting. I feel like Paul the self proclaimed 13th apostle and self appointed outside of Asia "apostle to the 'gentiles' or non-Jews, though Peter is recorded as being appointed by God to this position making Paul a renegade, got elected to the Presidency.

Donald Trump IS Saul/Paul reincarnated and with money, power, and sadly the title of President elect.

They are kindred egomaniacs hungry for power in high places and willing to do anything at all and say anything with no guilt about telling a lie to less educated folks not connected with Rome/America, if it gains them power.

After 2,000 years he has returned and finally sits in the seat called the "most powerful in the world."

President Paul is here, like it or not.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

your premise is wrong, your verses are out of context and fail to rightly divide whom is being spoken of who and when, your whole study wreaks of elementary bible study errors. I have poninted this out to you and malocchino but you never adress it. You just claim I am just saying the same things Well yeah that is because that is where you errors lay in your failure to study correctly, taking verse out of context and then placing your own personal interpretation to the verses in question.

Which once again leads me to ask why even use a bible you do not believe is 100% true, without error, inspired and without corruption.

I see you are still playing the same old "your just wrong" card and not backing it up with anything substantial, just repeated accusations of ''wrong" "in error", "out of context" and ''rightly dividing the word of truth."

The error is you, you admit that two different sets of conflicting teachings exist in the New Testament but your solution is to pretend that Jesus' teachings were Jew specific and Paul's non-Jew specific by taking an obscure statement about properly handling scripture, not Paul's writings but the Tanakh as he allegedly wrote before anyone with the exception of maybe James.

And divide is an improper translation and only used in the KJV, it should be interpret not divide and you erred by thinking only one specific translation of the Bible is completely accurate you have manipulated a mistranslation to claim, without realizing that this could never be true because Paul had Jews in his circle and wrote to Jews, that two gospels exist and they are divided into Jew and not Jew.

Only this falls apart further because Paul cursed any other gospel other than ''my gospel" which means that only one gospel is even legitimate to Paul, Jew or Greek, and he tried hard to win Jewish converts from the Apostolic Church in Asia, though he was ''forbidden by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Asia."

You unwittingly prove that you know damn well Paul was no true prophet or apostle of Christ and that his teachings are incompatible with the teachings of the Messiah passed to the 12 and James and the 70, the TRUE Nazarene Church of Asia and NOT Paul.

So he taught whatever it took to cause as much disharmony as possible and his letters are religious propaganda and not divine in any way.

Marcions Church was the continuation of this opposition and he made Paul what he is today, and was called a heretic for rejecting the 12 Apostles and anything Jewish, I imagine that he was well aware of the conflict with the Petrine faction rejecting Paul and instead of cramming two opposing doctrines together and trying to harmonize them, and did the same to them.

The Roman faction had no choice but to include Paul, although they quote him in the early centuries before Nicea it wasn't until then that the idea of a single Canon was considered outside the 4 Gospels and the very secondary epistles, which were in dispute long after even by Luther about James, because it was too Jewish and discredits ''faith without works" calling it dead.

So many people are decieved but you take it up a notch with the "2 gospel" doctrine that you really don't know how to explain and just like saying ''divide the word of truth."

But two Gospels divided between Jew and not Jew is not the teachings of the Churches today, any of them.

Jesus message was universal and to all the Churches there is Jesus Gospel, from God and Paul taught the same thing, which is not the case at all.

You are right that two gospels exist, one real and one made up by one evil man with no corroboration and a very unconvincing message.

Jesus taught the true Gospel to the 12 Apostles who taught it to anyone and spread it throughout Rome and Judea.

Paul was a charlatan, the Wolf of Benjamin and leaven of the Pharisees, a false prophet, as predicted by Jesus and warned about in Mt. 24.

His ''gospel" is incoherent and a mad departure from all logic and to put it simply the writings of a sociopath.

The very concept of a Kingdom besides the Kingdom of God/Heaven as taught by Jesus and claims to personal revelation should be enough to tell you that he is full of crap because Jesus said not to believe anyone who makes such claims.

I pointed out your errors rather than just stating the fact that you made them because when you say someone is wrong you have to provide a reason and you don't, you just make accusations without saying even what it is that someone is wrong about and how they are wrong.

But I actually pinpointed your actual errors and pointed them out to you, it was easy too as you make a ton.

So to wrap up, your Pauline gospel is a bunch of lies and that's why you think there must be two Gospels, even though the Bible says otherwise.

Because you can't fathom Paul being a false prophet you take out of context and poorly translated obscure comments and build a dogma that involves cursing the other gospel, in Paul's own words.

And just ignore the fact that the Bible doesn't teach two gospels divided by race but divided by truth.

You were warned about false prophets in the first Gospel, Paul and ''My gospel", as he puts it fit the warning perfectly.

The Law of two or three witnesses alone dismantles Paul's dubious claims, he has no witnesses, he never mentions Damascus and the conversion or conversation with Jesus and claims solely on his word they are divine.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
There is no reason to infer that they were lying,

No evidence, and Paul is known for making accusations without evidence, so again why should I believe it without evidence.

Believing that Hermogenes and Demas were lying because Paul of all people accuses them of hypocrisy without evidence is bad analysis.

The author doesn't s?

I’ve already explained how in my previous post…I’ll try to outline it more clearly one LAST time

Well I found your previous explanation unsatisfactory, I didn't ignore it and just because one quote alleges something never proven, disproven even when Hermogenes speaks so I realize the author said that but it doesn't outweigh the total non hypocrisy displayed by Hermogenes.

So there is a seeming contradiction, what other reason than to hide his true feelings could the author have to contradict himself?

Accusations that have no proof, they aren't being set up to be the bad guys because they don't ever do anything bad, the set up would make no sense whatsoever if they didn't do anything wrong.

They’re being set up as people that can’t be trusted, and gradually they develop a clear motive for disliking Paul even further, and for lying about Paul and ultimately having him handed over to the authorties etc…while Paul is being praised as rightoues and loving through various other parts of the text!!!

Acts of Paul
1 When Paul went up unto Iconium after he fled from Antioch, there journeyed with him Demas and Hermogenes the coppersmith, which were full of hypocrisy, and flattered Paul as though they loved him. But Paul, looking only unto the goodness of Christ, did them no evil, but loved them well,

Here is where the writer is setting them up to be the bad guys and having a dislike for Paul…That dislike and hatred grows as the texts goes on…

For example here again below…

Acts of Paul
4 And when Paul saw Onesiphorus he smiled, and Onesiphorus said: Hail, thou servant of the blessed God. And he said: Grace be with thee and with thine house. But Demas and Hermogenes were envious, and stirred up their hypocrisy yet more, so that Demas said: Are we not servants of the Blessed, that thou didst not salute us so?

Due to the fact that there’s nowhere in Pauls speech (verses 5-6) where he states chastity is a requirement for salvation…it has to be inferred that Demas and Hermongenes are not being truthfull about Pauls teachings, which continues the theme of them being the bad guys and dislikng Paul etc…

The reader of the text is supposed to appreciate and understand that aspect…


We know that the writer thinks Demas and Hermongenes are the bad guys and against Paul and so forth, so it makes perfect sense that the reader is supposed to infer, that they are lying about what Paul taught regarding chastity, just to get him arrested…And remember, Paul isn’t teaching that chastity is a requirment for salvation in verses 5 to 6…


This all culminates in them helping to get Paul arrested…in these verses below…

11 But Thamyris leapt up and went forth into the street and watched them that went in to Paul and came out. And he saw two men striving bitterly with one another, and said to them: Ye men, tell me who ye are, and who is he that is within with you, that maketh the souls of young men and maidens to err, deceiving them that there may be no marriages but they should live as they are. I promise therefore to give you much money if ye will tell me of him: for I am a chief man of the city.
12 And Demas and Hermogenes said unto him: Who this man is, we know not; but he defraudeth the young men of wives and the maidens of husbands, saying: Ye have no resurrection otherwise, except ye continue chaste, and defile not the flesh but keep it pure.

Demas and Hermogenes disliked Paul from the beginning and his teachings, so they have clear motive to lie about Paul teaching those things to get him arrested. But Paul NEVER taught those things in his speech…


You can’t see it because you’re not reading and comprehending the text in it’s entirety… you’re just not weighing it up overall…

Added to which there are tons of other verses which praise Paul…here are just a few examples…

The Acts of Paul
5 And when Paul entered into the house of Onesiphorus, there was great joy, and bowing of knees and breaking of bread, and the word of God concerning abstinence (or continence) and the resurrection; for Paul said:

The Acts of Paul
18 But Thecla at night took off her bracelets and gave them to the doorkeeper, and when the door was opened for her she went into the prison, and gave the jailer a mirror of silver and

The Acts of Paul
A lion, then, of huge size and unmatched strength was let loose upon him, and it ran to him in the stadium and lay down at his feet. And when many other savage beasts, too, were let loose, it was permitted to none of them to touch the holy body, standing like a statue in prayer. At this juncture a violent and vast hailstorm poured down all at once with a great rush, and shattered the heads of many men and beasts as well, and shore off the ear of Hieronymus himself. And thereafter, with his followers, he came to the God of Paul and received the baptism of salvation. But the lion escaped to the mountains.

In this verse above they’re calling it the “God of Paul”, they are clearly prasing Paul and his teachings for being that which saves them…what type of anti Pauline text would do that…answer…NONE….

There’s tons more examples within the text where Paul is teaching, the “word of God”, in some rightoues

If he wanted you to think he was lying he would have called them liars. Since he doesn't there is no reason to believe that they were lying and no reason to doubt that the author wants to paint this picture of Paul.
[/quot

Originally posted by Malocchio
He is clearly a coward who doesn't save Thecla TWICE and let's her be arrested TWICE.

They arrested Thecla because she was following Paul te

And like I said before, the text wants to give the Glory to God, so that woman will come to believe that chastity is a great trait in the eyes of God…

Continued...

You just don't get it, just because an author pretends to take a position doesn't mean he does and I have pointed out all the instances where the writer is not flattering but condemning Paul as a false teacher.

Did you miss ''No ressurection without chastity"? and Hermogenes absolutely correct explanation of the ressurections meaning?

I am afraid that because the meaning of the teachings of ressurection have been obscured by the Church literalists who envision zombie Apocalypses, being not taught the meaning themselves.

But our author knows it, and that Paul was a notorious rabble rouser and didn't baptize, I gather he was drawing attention to this part of Paul and using misdirection to make you think he is a supporter, though he is not.
Paul absolutely does teach no ressurection without chastity, you are missing quite a bit, I'm afraid, and trying to deter me from what I see clearly because you don't see it.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Paul was also cozy with the family of Herod, he mentioned a Herodion and I believe an Aristobulus, a name also linked with Herod.

He enjoyed a cozy stay in Rome and his ''prison letters" are a joke as he was connected to Rome, worked for Rome and was rescued from death by hundres of Roman soldiers from men who sought to kill him, possibly Pharisees maybe Nazarenes but not Romans or Sadducees, the Herodian sympathizers.

I think it's safe to say Paul was a spy and agent provocateur who hastened the collapse of Judea by MURDERING JAMES.

Saul the Pharisee, a Roman sympathizer and go between for the parties of Rome and Judea, a friend of the Herodians, murdered James.

Saul/Paul murdered James, in history and not mythology, the story of Stephen is cloaking the murder of James by Saul.

It's fascinating what you learn when you read other books besides the mad rantings of a treacherous devil.

a reply to: Malocchio

You have no real proof only conjecture and opinions, verses out of context, misapplication of scriptures and private interpretation based on wrong division and pretextual ideas that scriptures don't support.

You basis is that scriptures are corrupt and you are god saying what is truth and what is not.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

You have no real proof only conjecture and opinions, verses out of context, misapplication of scriptures and private interpretation based on wrong division and pretextual ideas that scriptures don't support.

You basis is that scriptures are corrupt and you are god

How do you go from scripture is corrupt (only if you fall for the false prophet Paul, otherwise you are good):

TO I AM GOD?

Are you just a nitwit and think anyone who doesn't like, trust or believe Paul, who is nobody at all of any importance in reality, thinks that they are GOD?

You have to be the most ridiculous person I have ever had the pleasure of witnessing try and argue that Paul was everything he and his pseudepigraphers say he was.

saying what is truth and what is not.

This from a guy who thinks that not believing Paul's bogus theology equals a person who thinks that they are GOD.

You have never met the truth, have no truth and for a Pauline Christian you are an extremist. No different than any fanatic really, full of crap and out of knowledge.

You truly are oblivious and state nothing of a factual nature, AGAIN, same old statement over and over, "out of context" and you don't address specifically one of the (correct) points that I made.

Basically your argument is, "Nuh, uh" using a few more words.

I came with facts and your go to "out of context" argument is absolutely not going to work because I know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about what the Bible says and don't take anything out of context whatsoever, and you know this and it's why you don't like to quote me, because I am correct and all you can do is pretend otherwise and make the usual standard rhetoric of a typical Christian removed from all reality.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Romans 3:7

But if through my falsehoods God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

Because Paul, God doesn't need or want you to lie for his "truthfulness" to "abound his glory."

Because lying or falsehoods don't glorify God.

Because it is a sin to tell falsehoods, especially falsehoods about God, Jesus and secret revelations.


Not only does that confirm that Paul was accused of lying (along with other passages in other letters), but that he believes lying can be and is necessary to glorify God and that he himself admits that he lies for "God's glory."

The topic of discussion in Romans 2:16-3:8 is the Jews and the Law, so that you can't say "out of context" like you do about everything you can't explain. You can't explain this because no explanation is possible that isn't a lie built on a liars confession of lying.


Paul admits to telling falsehoods and thinks it will serve God, claims it will abound his truthfulness to His glory.

"Thou shalt not lie."

If you believe in keeping the commandments or that lying about God related issues is a sin then you understand.

Common sense really, Paul admits to lying and people just say "Eh." And CHOOSE to believe him anyway. So you aren't alone and are just like most Christians.

Subliminally you use this passage to justify telling falsehoods because Paul said it's OK if it abounds his truthfulness to his glory and you probably think something profound is being said when it's actually simple.

A lie is a sin, it does not do anything for God. Admitting to lying as Paul is doing should be enough to disqualify him from prophet status but people don't care because they are brainwashed by generations of tradition into believing the Bible is the word of God.

They make up all kinds of reasons why it's no problem that Paul boasts of lying in Romans 3. It's pretty hilarious to listen to people explain away following an admitted liar, because it's in a magic book.

Sorry but everyone may lie at some point, but we don't follow them as prophets if they lie about meeting God or Jesus. And admit it for that matter.

It's why Pauline Christians are always doped up on soteriology, they think they have found a sure path to heaven by believing in the words of a Church and/or Paul and his one man "gospel."

They don't tell you that it conflicts with what Jesus taught and nobody can verify that Paul is isn't lying, that he admits he does lie. They probably never discuss that passage and have a manufactured answer to relieve questioners if anyone mentions it.

And use it as justification to lie themselves. Pastors are liars, it's their job to lie in reality and they all do it at least once a week when they pick up the book and quote it and rant for an hour about hellfire.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Orthotomounta, rightly dissect/cut translated to "rightly divide" in the KJV is also translated to "rightly explain" in the more modern, scholarly and accurate NRSV.

Because he is not talking about the New Testament as it didn't exist in his lifetime and he obviously never read it, he must be talking about the Tanakh.

He offers no consent for and curses any gospel preached other than his and Jesus doesn't preach Paul's nonsense at all or visa versa regarding Jesus true and sensible teachings. He knows nothing of the New Testament because it didn't exist. But he curses the teachings of the Apostles because they preach ''another Gospel", i.e. Jesus Gospel.

He means to properly explain, "cut" is a metaphor that doesn't mean divide up the Tanakh between parties, he never mentions anything about who gets the divided individual portions, and why?

So you are home free to assume he means something he doesn't, although you have not once said what you think ''rightly divide the word of truth" actually means you just accuse everyone of not doing it without saying what it is.

But I think you mean that Paul is the sole authority for non-Jews and that Jews are under Jesus Gospel and the Apostles writings, since you have not denied it so far I gather I guessed correctly.

I don't need to comment on how absurd that is since Paul knows nothing about the New Testament or Jesus teachings he must be talking about the Tanakh.

But your particular theory that applies it to a Jew/Gentile division because you know that the teachings of Paul are opposed to those of Christ is the most absurd interpretation of that passage I have heard, I couldn't find anyone who agreed with you online.

Usually they say he means interpret or handle and just translate it that way, I think explaining is the best translation based on what he means as the metaphor doesn't translate with the word. He doesn't mean get a knife and cut or divide by race though.

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Paul was also cozy with the family of Herod, he mentioned a Herodion and I believe an Aristobulus, a name also linked with Herod.



I think it's safe to say Saul/Paul was a spy and agent provocateur who hastened the collapse of Judea by MURDERING JAMES.

I forgot to mention but according to Josephus James was murdered by Saul the Pharisee, and I am pretty sure it's the same Saul as how many Roman sympathizing Pharisees with connections to Herod and the Sadducees could there have been?

Saul was by no means a popular or common name then and whenever the early Church historians mention James death they leave out that it was Saul the Pharisee.

A noteworthy omission, unnecessary were it a different Saul the Pharisee as they could have just said it was a different Saul. They avoided it because they knew is my educated guess and didn't really care.

Saul the Pharisee, a Roman sympathizer and go between for the parties of Rome and Judea, a friend of the Herodians, murdered James.

Saul/Paul murdered James, in history and not mythology, the story of Stephen is cloaking the murder of James by Saul.

It's fascinating what you learn when you read other books besides the mad rantings of a treacherous devil.

Once again this is in Josephus and Homilies and Recognitions although in that he is called ''the enemy" which is what Paul was as Saul and Paul.

a reply to: Malocchio

Conjecture, opinion and private interpretation. Error on every front.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

Conjecture, opinion and private interpretation. Error on every front.

Accusations without evidence are worthless.

What is conjure, specifically?

And opinion, private interpretation or error?

Because those words mean nothing without specifics which if you were right would be easy, but you can't do it because you are making untrue allegations and don't have the evidence to support it.

It's your m.o. and only strategy, anyone can say the 9 words you used and not provide a single example, I gave you plenty to work with but you didn't address ONE THING.

Accomplishing absolutely nothing other than showing you got nothing.

a reply to: Malocchio

all your claims out side of the preserved Bible you do not believe. Therefore Conjecture, private interpretation and error about Paul/Saul of Tarsus, the Servant of Jesus Christ.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

all your claims out side of the preserved Bible you do not believe. Therefore Conjecture, private interpretation and error about Paul/Saul of Tarsus, the Servant of Jesus Christ.

All your claims are lies.

I just told you accusations without specifics, when I gave many opportunities to address specifically what I said if you would quote what it is you are specifically saying that I am wrong about, are WORTHLESS.

But you keep saying different forms of ''your wrong" without saying what I am wrong about, I keep mentioning it and you do it some more.

Your claims are worthless because you have no specific examples to back them up with, they are empty accusations that mean nothing.

You refuse to address a specific instance of me doing what you allege because you are making false allegations.

Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;...

This is disturbing because it endorses slavery and there is nothing honorable about that ever but was the backbone of the Roman Empire.

But putting them on equal footing with Christ is just outrageous, they are slave owners not Messiahs and don't deserve to be obeyed as though they were the Messiah. He goes on:

7 Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women.

So treat your slave masters like God and not like men and women.

Christians need to read this nut job and stop pretending like he was a godsend, he was pro Roman and anti Jerusalem/Judea.

He worked for the new Babylon, enemy of the Jews and killers of Christ as rulers of Judea they had to order execution, the Pharisees under Gamaliel and Nicodemus didn't want him dead it was the Herodians and Rome.

Pro slavery and says to treat your slave masters as the Lord.

You don't have to be a genius to see the absurdity of this being considered the Word of God!

I have to correct myself, Josephus does not have Saul killing James he just mentioned a Saul the Pharisee who is too similar to Saul/Paul to be anyone else. I made a mistake.

BUT Saul IS mentioned in the Homilies and Recognitions of Clement of Rome, disciple of Peter, a MS. exists that is about as old as the oldest Bible, attacking James with a club and thinking he has killed James, who recovers while "The Enemy" as Saul is called outside of the heading which is based off a note in a MS. and retained in the translation as a heading with footnote, goes to the high priest to get papers to arrest all who believe in Christ.

And that is obviously Saul/Paul, who also got the same permission from the same high priest, which is known to scholars today and agreed that it is the same Saul these anti-Pauline followers of Christ are talking about and named Book 1 ch. LXX "Tumult raised by Saul."

Ironically, if not on purpose, Saul calls James and his people followers of ''Simon the magician." Ironic because the story tells about a theological debate between Peter and ''Simon" who scholars have long thought for sure is a stand in for Paul, whose words are put in the mouth of Simon thinly veiled.

The Epistle of Peter and James also talks about Paul, without naming names, and his alterations to the teachings Peter teaches, from Christ, and passing them off as his.


The Pauline -Petrine "war" is neither new or a myth, even if myths were told it's historical fact that the Ebionites and at least the early Nazarenes and the Jewish Messianics didn't believe, like or associate with Paul and his heresy that became Orthodox and persecuted the originals as heretics.

It's a shame that Christianity is so dishonest about its scripture and history and pretends they were all on the same team and that Paul's story isn't absurd.

a reply to: Malocchio
It adressed a normal cultural issue of his day. It would only be applicable to say and employee employer relationship.

Saul was a common name and very possible there were more than one Saul who was a pharisee.

There are three James who are of the original 12. the brother of John wrote the book of James before he was martyred. James the less was the brother of Judas not Iscariot, and later the step brother of Jesus named James became and elder of the church in Jerusalem.

there were tons of Jesuss, Peters, Josephs, Johns, James,Simions, Sauls, Pauls, Judas, Marks, Matthews, Simons and Levis who were believers at the time of Christs Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension. The writer of the gospel according to Mathew is Levi the publican, the writer of the gospel according to Mark is John Mark, The writer of Luke is the Physician Luke who also wrote Acts of the apostles was a follower of Christ during his earthly ministry, Jude is Judas the brother of James the less as mentioned above, Peter is Simon Peter also known as Cephas. As there were at least five Marys and many more undoubtedly, Annas, Salmones etc etc etc. These many names and many of them being followers of Christ did good works in his name and have mention in books and some of which Josephus may mention could be followers that are not really mentioned in scriptures.

Could a follower with the name Jesus have married Mary Magdalene and went a did an mission work in India or another place?

Yes of course but it does not mean it was my ascended Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Host, Almighty God.