Who is the founder of Christianity?

[Ramadhan]

I see that this post by YoungCatholic was editted by naidamar. YoungCatholic, I want to know if you wrote what I am reading here, or if not does it at least represent your views? If so, are you asking these questions of naidamar because you believe them or because you believe that he might believe them, or what exactly?

That is exactly the second part of his post. I did not edit, change etc.
I only removed the first part which was not connected at all to the discussion and personal in nature, and which I have personally addressed in previous pages.

Don't worry, GS, I am not like those bible scribes who thought nothing of adding a whole passage (pericope adulterae) to the scripture and attribute them to God.

Gong back on topic, and since the good pastor is quick to the rescue of the young catholic, why don't you also help the young catholic, and tell us how it is that pope was the founder of christianity, since youngcatholic believes so but failed to articulate his conviction.

 

[YoungCatholic]

I see that this post by YoungCatholic was editted by naidamar.

YoungCatholic, I want to know if you wrote what I am reading here, or if not does it at least represent your views?
If so, are you asking these questions of naidamar because you believe them or because you believe that he might believe them, or what exactly?

That post was for me to determine if naidamar's theory is the same theory that several protestants are using aganist catholics, or if it was a different theory made by him or some other person. See below:

1) The geographical center of the Catholic Faith has always been Rome. In order for Romans to become Christians, a Christian missionary needed to go there and preach the gospel. Moreover, for Rome to be the center of an actual ancient Christian church, a bishop would have to preside there. Because history clearly represents Rome as being one of the ancient "patriarchal churches", the seat of a bishop had to be there (i.e., a Christian "patriarch" is a bishop).

2) The NT says that Paul went to Rome. The NT does not say Peter went to Rome (at least not by using such a term).

3) Conclusion: The first bishop of Rome was Paul, not Peter. Hence Paul is the founder of the patriarchal church in Rome, and, consequently the founder of Roman Catholicism.

 

[YusufNoor]

Now for some questions from me. Out of curiosity. As a supporter of the "Paul started the church theory" do you agree the following.
1) Peter was never pope
2) Paul was Christianity's first pope

^o)^o)^o)

how about this:

1) Peter was never Pope
2) Paul was never Pope

Galatians 2:7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Peter, according to Paul, preached "the gospel" to the [circumcised] Jews.
Paul, according to Paul, preached "a DIFFERENT gospel" to the "uncircumcised" Gentiles.

where does Paul claim that "his gospel" was DIFFERENT? and by different, we mean NOT one already being preached? [you know by the followers of Jesus, peace be upon him]

Paul Called by God

Galatians 1:11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

according to Paul, he NEVER EVEN MET Peter until 3 YEARS after he started preaching!!

following up, Paul claimed that Gentiles [THAT would be you laddie] DID NOT have to keep Jewish Law. Peter preached to the Jews who KEPT Jewish Law.

do you keep Jewish Law?

NO, therefore you follow what Paul began, NOT Peter.

question: IN YOUR BIBLE, where is the word Pope?

adios

 

[Grace Seeker]

That post was for me to determine if naidamar's theory is the same theory that several protestants are using aganist catholics, or if it was a different theory made by him or some other person. See below:

Thanks for clarifying, I was very unclear who was saying what. As I understand you know, those are things that you were projecting onto naidamar.

I have to say that I too am having some difficulty with your post:

1) The geographical center of the Catholic Faith has always been Rome. In order for Romans to become Christians, a Christian missionary needed to go there and preach the gospel. Moreover, for Rome to be the center of an actual ancient Christian church, a bishop would have to preside there. Because history clearly represents Rome as being one of the ancient "patriarchal churches", the seat of a bishop had to be there (i.e., a Christian "patriarch" is a bishop).

I am uncomfortable with absolute statements like "always" unless they can be truly substantiated. In this case, it seems to me that there already existed a church in Jerusalem, and then also in Antioch before one ever existed in Rome. And even once the Church had a presence in Rome, it would not have been the "geographical" as I understand the meaning of the term "geographical" as for a time it was the western most extent of Christendom. So, I could not support a term such as "always."

2) The NT says that Paul went to Rome. The NT does not say Peter went to Rome (at least not by using such a term).

No. But Catholic tradition holds that both were martyred in Rome.

3) Conclusion: The first bishop of Rome was Paul, not Peter. Hence Paul is the founder of the patriarchal church in Rome, and, consequently the founder of Roman Catholicism.

The following is what I understand to be taught by the Catholic church with respect to Peter and his role vis-a-vis the Catholic church:

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

With regard to the papacy, I believe the Catholic church teaches:

This term is employed in an ecclesiastical and in an historical signification. In the former of these uses it denotes the ecclesiastical system in which the pope as successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ governs the Catholic Church as its supreme head.

According to the chronological list of popes provided by New Advent Encyclopedia (an arm of the Catholic Church), Peter was the first pope and his time of service dates from AD 32 to 67. Thus he is considered pope from the time of Jesus' ascension, even before there was any church in Rome at all. I may not personally agree with that point of view, but that is what I understand to be traditional Catholic teaching on the subject.

 

[Grace Seeker]

question: IN YOUR BIBLE, where is the word Pope?

adios

You know I seldom consider a question just plain dumb, but this one qualifies. What does it have to do with anything?

But lest you really do think it is important, and not just another of your many impertinent questions, it is an English term derived from the Greek work papa, meaning "father" and used as applied to one's "elders". I'll bet even you will recognize "father" and "elder" to be a terms used in the Bible, though I still don't see its relevance to whether or not it is used as an ecclesiastical title.

The Pope is also the chief bishop of the Catholic Church, another biblical term, this one meaning overseer, which describes exactly what a bishop does in his own given region and what the pope does for the entire Catholic Church.

 

[YieldedOne]

Um...Naidamar. I'ma show you something...

1) Who is Albert Schweitzer?

2) Who is Bishop John S. Spong?

3) What was Thomas Jefferson's take on Christianity generally?

Lemme see something here...

 

[YieldedOne]

Oh, and about Huston Smith and Paul...

God's love is precisely what the first Christians did feel. They had experienced Jesus' love directly, and had become convinced that he was God incarnate. Once love of this proportion reached them it could not be stopped. Melting the barriers fo fear, guilt, and self, it coursed through them as it they were sluice gates, augmenting their previous love for others to th eopint where a difference in degree became a difference in kind, and a new quality, Christian love, was born. Conventional love is evoked by lovable qualities in the beloved, but the love that emanated from Christ embraced sinners and outcasts, Samaritans and enemies. It gave, no prudentially in order to receive, but because giving was it's nature. Paul's famous account of Christian love should not be read as adding some pointers to an energy the world was already familiar with. His words point to the attribute of a specific person, Jesus Christ. They should be read as defining a novel capacity which, as it had been fully realized only in Christ, Paul was describing for the first time.

"Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends." (1 Cor 13:4-8)

Huston Smith
The Illustrated World's Religions
Page 216

 

[YieldedOne]

“There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus.... There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul’s soul upon the soul of Jesus.... It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus... was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith.” (George Bernard Shaw, Androcles and the Lion)


This is a FLAT OUT LIE. I'll show y'all....

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
--Galatians 5:13-14, Paul

This is a DIRECT, UNDENIABLE TEACHING of Jesus!!

 

[Ramadhan]

since some people may not be too happy with the short quotes in my previous post, I am going to post abstracts of books about Saul of Tarsus as the founder of Christianity by bible scholars.

How did Paul begin to have such a major role in the development of Trinitarian Christians? The asnwer lies in reading the history of the early Christians. Recent scholarship is focusing on these issues.

Prof. Bart Ehrman explains how Paul's star rose by inclusion of his letters in what came to be known as the Canonthe New Testament, in his book, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, in the chapter titled, The Invention of Scripture: The Formation of the Proto-orthodox New Testament:

"In some circles, the teachings of Jesus were not simply on a par with Scripture; they far surpassed it. We have seen this already in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, a collection of 114 sayings of Jesus, the correct interpretation of which is said to bring eternal life. In proto-orthodox circles, however, it was not Jesus' secret teachings but those found in apostolic authorities that were seen as au¬thoritative. And just as important as his teachings were the events of his life. Accounts of Jesus' life-his words and deeds, his death and resurrection-were eventually placed in circulation and accepted as sacred Scripture, at least as au¬thoritative for most proto-orthodox Christians as the texts of the Jewish Bible.

Along with these authoritative accounts of Jesus' life were the authoritative writings of his apostles, which were being granted sacred status before the end of the New Testament period. The final book of the New Testament to be writ¬ten was probably 2 Peter, a book almost universally recognized by critical schol¬ars to be pseudonymous, not actually written by Simon Peter but one of many Petrine forgeries from the second century (cf. the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the letter from Peter to James, etc.). One of the striking features of this letter is that it discusses the writings of the apostle Paul and considers them, already, as scriptural authorities. In attacking those who misconstrue Paul's writings, twisting their meaning for their own purposes (some kinds of proto-Gnostics?), the author says:

Our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, saying such things as he does in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which the foolish and unstable pervert, leading to their own destruction, as they do with the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Pet. 3:16)

By grouping Paul's writings with 'the rest of the Scriptures,' this author has made a significant move. Apostolic writings are already being revered and placed into a collection as books of Scripture.

And so, by the end of the New Testament period, we have a movement toward a bipartite New Testament canon, consisting of the words (or accounts) of Jesus and the writings of the apostles. In speaking of this as a "movement" we should guard against being overly anachronistic. It is not that Christians at this time were all in agreement on the matter, as we have seen time and again, and it is not that anyone thought they were in a "movement" that was heading somewhere else. These authors understood that there were certain authorities that were of equal weight to the teachings of (Jewish) Scripture. They had no idea that there would eventually be a twenty-seven book canon. But looking back on the matter from the distance afforded by the passage of time, we can see that their claims had a profound effect on the development of proto-orthodox Christianity, as eventually some of these written authorities came to be in¬cluded in a canon of Scripture."[1]
​

 

[YieldedOne]

Heh. But you didn't know enough about the english language to tell me whether or not Allah was personal or not? Dude...;D

At any rate, not even Ehrman would deny that Jesus taught the Great Commandments, specifically about loving neighbors as yourself or loving one's enemies. And he couldn't deny that Paul taught in that vein, either.

 

[Ramadhan]

Prof. Mark W. Muesse is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. A native of Waco, Texas, he completed his graduate work at Harvard University, where he received a Masters of Theological Studies from the Divinity School and the A.M. and Ph.D. in the Study of Religion from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. He has also been Visiting Professor of Theology at the Tamilnadu Theological Seminary in Madurai, India, traveling extensively throughout Asia. He has been a practitioner of meditation for over fifteen years and has studied the Buddhist discipline at the International Buddhist Meditation Centre, Wat Mahadhatu in Bangkok, Thailand and the Himalayan Yogic Institute in Kathmandu. He writes about the divergence between Jesus, may peace be on him and St. Paul:

The divergence between Jesus and Paul can best seen in their respective proclamations. As we have observed in earlier lectures, the substance of the message of the historical Jesus was the coming of god's kingdom and the necessity to live life in light of this new reality. Paul's gospel was expressed differently:
​

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the 12. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to someone untimely born, he appeared also to me.
​

Many scholars regard the core of this statement as the oldest part of the New Testament, reflecting perhaps the earliest creedal formulation of Jesus' followers. The key elements of this proclamation were incorporated into later Christian creeds: that Christ died for human sins, was buried, was raised from the dead, and appeared to his followers.


The message has clearly shifted. Whereas the historical Jesus promised a new state of affairs centered in god's reign, Paul declared the forgiveness of sin centered in Jesus, who is now called the Christ. Jesus urged his listeners to amend their ways and live in accord with the new reality being enacted a in his words and deeds and coming imminently in its fullness; Paul told his listeners to believe in Christ Jesus to be saved from the wrath of god that would be directed against the ungodly when Jesus returns to earth to establish his kingdom. Paul writes: ‘if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.’[2]
​

Read another very detailed knol tilted: St Paul the 13th Apostle:

http://knol.google.com/k/anonymous/st-paul-the-13th-apostle/2ue5rfjrjflg4/2#

 

[Ramadhan]

YieldedOne, I see that you have shed your lamb skin and started talking like a real christian, instead of peppering every thread about how juedo-christian-islam all worship the shema the word and the spirit

I like the real you!

 

[YieldedOne]

Brother Naidamar:

1) You double posted.

2) Please don't complement me. It sounds worse than when you just regularly berate me. Seriously. +o(

 

[Ramadhan]

1) You double posted.

thanks. removed.

2) Please don't complement me. It sounds worse than when you just regularly berate me. Seriously.

Honestly, I like the real you, I don't like people who are faking or putting in facade.

 

[YieldedOne]

Just pointing out the obvious here...

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the 12. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to someone untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Which is just like this...

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Again, either it's the case that Paul TRULY DID hear from the Ascendant Jesus...or he was just lying. He specifically says that he wasn't taught these things by other disciples. But it doesn't seem like the Disciples has ANY PROBLEM with what Paul was saying. Doesn't that imply something?

 

[YieldedOne]

Naidamar:
Honestly, I like the real you, I don't like people who are faking or putting in facade.

I have not changed in the least. I'm STILL "Judeo-Christian." So, whatever. ^o)

 

[Ramadhan]

Paul has little concern with Jesus' life only an obsession with his death
What Paul does not realize is that if life of someone is non-consequential so is his death.
Mark W. Muesse is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. A native of Waco, Texas, Muesse received his B.A. summa cum laude in English from Baylor University. He completed his graduate work at Harvard University, where he received a Masters of Theological Studies from the Divinity School and the A.M. and Ph.D. in the Study of Religion from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. He has also been Visiting Professor of Theology at the Tamilnadu Theological Seminary in Madurai, India, traveling extensively throughout Asia. He writes about Christology and St. Paul:

Jesus’ death and resurrection were without doubt the most important events of his life according to the New Testament. All four gospels relate detailed stories of these occurrences. The apostle Paul, whom I consider the chief Founder of Christianity, based his entire theology. on Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection without ever mentioning his teachings. For two millennia Christians have followed Paul's example. Although other Christians have certainly given far more attention to Jesus' life and teachings than Paul did, on the whole they have still concurred with Paul's belief in the centrality of the death and resurrection.

The emphasis on this aspect of Jesus' life is directly related to his function in Christianity. Jesus is considered by Christians to be the atonement for human sinfulness and the means by which salvation is made possible. As Paul wrote, Jesus "was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification." That has been the dominant view of the meaning of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection among Christians for centuries.

… I want to develop another understanding of these events, one focusing on what we know of their historicity and their significance for the message Jesus proclaimed: the coming of god's kingdom. I will not suggest that my interpretation and the dominant interpretation of Christians are necessarily incompatible. I simply intend to demonstrate the continuity of the crucifixion and resurrection with the rest of Jesus' life and teaching as we've studied it thus far. From that vantage point, I want to discuss these events in the same manner as we have considered the parables, the healings and exorcisms, the miracles, and his prayers and feasts: as enactments of life in the kingdom. Rather than view Jesus' death and resurrection as a divinely planned transaction conferring the forgiveness of humanity's sin, for a moment, let's think about them in relation to the central message of Jesus' life.[3]
​

 

[Ramadhan]

I have not changed in the least. I'm STILL "Judeo-Christian." So, whatever.

a Judeo-christian who only follows the pauline christianity part, and neglect the judeo part.
yeah, whatever

You christians are sooo concerned with labels....
as if labels are what is going to keep you on the straight path, and safety in this world and hereafter..

 

[YieldedOne]

Naidamar:
Paul has little concern with Jesus' life only an obsession with his death

This is absolute foolishness.

If Paul was "obsessed" with anything, it was with the POWER OF THE RESURRECTION (ala the Holy Spirit) demonstrated in Jesus' death that can live in the believer through faith. He talks about that over and over and over again!

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.


"If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you."

 

[YieldedOne]

Ok. SERIOUSLY. Just try to THINK THIS OUT...

You are one of the actual disciples of Jesus, ok? You've heard his words with your own ears. Then some yahoo who had been killing followers of Jesus says that the Ascendant Jesus has actually TALKED to him, calling him to preach to Gentiles. He comes to you and tells you what he believed Jesus said to him and what he's been preaching to the Gentiles...

Now, if Paul was THAT FAR OFF of what you heard Jesus was teaching, wouldn't you raise a big stink? Wouldn't you AT LEAST say "Nah, man. You couldn't have talked to Jesus. You got that ALL the way wrong!" Of course you would.

So why didn't this happen with Paul and the disciples, particularly Peter and James (Jesus' brother)?

THINK ABOUT IT!!!