Who is the founder of Christianity?

[YieldedOne]

Hmmm...

Reception of Maccoby's view of Paul among mainstream scholarship has generally been negative. John Gager of Princeton University reviewed The Mythmaker (1986) in the Jewish Quarterly Review (1988) describing part of Maccoby's thesis as "perverse misreading" and concluded "Thus I must conclude that Maccoby's book is not good history, not even history at all."Skarsaune (2002), referencing Maccoby's work and the theory that Paul represents a Christianity totally different from that of the early community in Jerusalem, writes that "Acts provides no evidence to substantiate this theory."[8] James D. G. Dunn (2006) describes Maccoby's revival of Graetz' accusations that Paul was a Gentile as "a regrettable reversion to older polemics". The continuity with Graetz is also noted by Langton (2009), who contrasts Maccoby's approach with adherents of a "building bridges" view, such as Isaac Mayer Wise, Joseph Krauskaupf, and Claude Montefiore, even if they shared some details of the polemic critique of Paul.

Let's see if this gets deleted too...^o)

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 2)

Epistles

In stark contrast, the Paul of the Epistles is a bombastic maverick, representing no one but himself and under no one's direction. It is Paul who is doing the directing. Full of his own importance, in all his letters Paul hammers home the point that he is an apostle and that his appointment comes directly from the divine. His "proof" of this is his own success as a missionary (e.g. 2 Corinthians 2,3) – an argument of dubious merit still used by churches today. Look at our success! We must be right!

Paul makes no reference to a "Damascene road" conversion nor to an origin in Tarsus (Jerome reported that Paul was from Galilee!). He makes no reference to Cyprus and the battle with a rival magician, nor does he refer to the edict from James on food prohibitions and fornication. Paul, it seems, owes nothing to any man. A bad-tempered bully, he wastes little sympathy on those who do not accept his point of view. Thus when he loses the support of Peter and Barnabas over eating with Gentiles, Paul rebukes Peter publicly and writes that he has reneged out of "fear" and Barnabas has been naively "carried away" (Galatians 2.12,13).

The Implausible Paul

It is curious that no Jewish rabbinic writings of the 1st or 2nd century so much as mention a renegade student of Gamaliel who, having studied under the master and vigorously enforced orthodoxy on behalf of the high priests, experienced a life-changing vision on an away mission. Not a word emerges from the rabbis about the star pupil who "went bad", a heretic who scrapped the prohibitions of the Sabbath, urged his followers to disregarded Judaism's irksome dietary regulations, and pronounced the Law and circumcision obsolete. Surely such a renegade could not have completely escaped the attention of the scribes?

How likely is it that Paul really studied under the Pharisaic grandee (Acts 22.3)? Paul clearly had difficulty with the Hebrew language: all his scriptural references are taken from the Greek translation of Jewish scripture, the Septuagint.

How likely is it that, as a young man, Paul – supposedly a Roman citizen and from the Hellenised diaspora – even got the job as chief policeman of the ultra-orthodox of Jerusalem? And if Paul really had secured such a position, he surely would have had far bigger fish to fry than a miniscule "Jesus group" in Damascus. We are told in Acts that the apostles continued to preach in Jerusalem even after the death of Stephen ("They all scattered abroad ... except the apostles." – Acts 8.1,2). So why didn't Paul go for the ringleaders, closer to hand?

"Nothing in his letters suggests that Paul had any official standing in his treatment of Christians ... Hence, in opposition to what Luke says, he could not have used arrest, torture or imprisonment as a means of forcing Christians to recognize that they had been misled." – Murphy O'Connor, Paul, His History, p19

Given that the Jewish High Council (the Sanhedrin) had no authority to empower a heresy hunter to operate in the independent city of Damascus, Paul's road trip is even more implausible.

How likely is it that Saul/Paul converted within a year or two of the crucifixion (Irenaeus says eighteen months)? If he truly was a precocious zealot of Judaism and was completely untouched by the perambulations and miraculous deeds of the Savior himself – short of the supposed blinding "miracle" – why would he, of all people, so readily embrace the heresy? The four Gospels neither mention nor even hint at a pioneering apostle called Paul.

There is also a curious parallel between the alleged "persecution" speech spoken by the celestial Christ to the blinded Paul ("Saul, Saul ... ") and the persecution of Dionysius found in Euripides work "the Bacchae" – and both use the word "goads".

If Paul (Saul) really had apostatised to the extent of joining (or establishing) a radical new sect, how is it the rabbis did not anathematize his name? To be sure, Jewish Christians (Ebionites) did condemn Paul and did so in the harshest terms – even suggesting that in reality he had been a malcontented Greek convert, whose ardour had been rejected by the High Priest's daughter! (Epiphanius, Panarion, 16). But that was in the 2nd century, long after any life and death of the apostle.

The "persecution" of the early church seems an extraordinarily unlikely construct because once Saul, the "destroyer of the saints", transforms into Paul the apostle, and is whisked away by the brethren to safety in Caesarea and home to Tarsus, the persecution abruptly stops. The "persecution" is entirely a one man circus.

" Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied." – 9:31

The entire pre-Christian "Saul, the scourge of the church" makes no sense at all as history – but does make a great deal of sense as theology. "Zealous Jew sees the light of Jesus, becomes Christian." The theological purpose is as obvious as the historical vignette is bogus.

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 3)

"Murderous Jews" of Damascus

How likely is Paul's "escape by basket" from the city of Damascus (Acts 9.25) ? Typically, baskets lowered by rope are used by tenement dwellers to buy bread from street vendors, first lowering the basket with payment then raising the basket with their loaf. But man-sized baskets? And why could not Paul just climb down the rope like a normal person?

And just who was Paul escaping from? According to Paul's "own" testimony (2 Corinthians 11.32,33) it was "the governor under Aretas the king". Aretas IV was the Nabataean monarch who ruled a vast area from his capital of Petra, though Paul gives no explanation as to why Aretas was out to get him.

But Acts, consistent with its hostility to "the Jews", tells us it was Jews of murderous intent (Acts 9.23,24). Why were the Jews so murderous? Any reputation Paul had among the Jews of Damascus would have been as an enforcer of Judaism, not as a Christian heretic. The weak explanation offered by Acts is that the converted Saul had "confounded" the Jews in the synagogue with his Christ. Apparently, that was sufficient cause for them to organise the intended assassination and watch the city gates (and there were at least seven of them) "day and night" – a considerable investment of manpower. O'Connor asks the reasonable question:

"Why should the Jews watch the gates, when it would have been perfectly easy to find out where Paul was living and arrange an 'accident' there?" – O'Connor (A Critical Life, p6)

Faced with such hostility from his erstwhile co-religionists, how plausible is it that Paul, having just experienced a life-changing conversion, instead of joining the earthly companions of his newly acquired Lord, instead goes off to "Arabia" for three years – an "Arabia" that has just chased him out of Damascus?!

Surely he would seek safety with fellow Christians? Surely he would wish to speak with his Saviour's still living mother, visit the places where Jesus wrought his miracles, tread the path to Calvary and ponder on the spot where his Lord suffered his passion?

Acts 15 reports that Paul's "long abode" at Antioch which followed his first missionary journey is interrupted by "legalizers" from Judaea who insist that salvation required circumcision. The brethren are alarmed and Paul and Barnabas are chosen to lead a delegation to Jerusalem to meet the apostles and elders. The meeting is the famed "Council of Jerusalem". Conventionally dated anywhere between the years 48 and 52, Acts reports a pretty harmonious get together, with the main issue readily resolved. Paul regales the brothers with tales of "miracles and wonders" among the gentiles (15.12) and James rules that as far as circumcising the Gentiles is concerned, "we trouble them not" (15.19). Back in Antioch, the brethren "rejoiced" (15.32).

Yet Paul's own report on the meeting with "those who seemed to be the pillars" is very different. He goes to Jerusalem as a result of his own "revelation" (Galatians 2.2) and records what is actually a confrontation.

If there really was a "Council of Jerusalem" at which Paul won the argument that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised why did Paul so soon afterward personally circumcise Timothy, a disciple he found in Lystra? (16.3) To be sure, Timothy we are told is a half Jew so an apologetic argument is that it was to "gain acceptance" by the Jews of the region but such an argument presupposes a huge public awareness of poor Timothy's genitals. (There's no hint that Timothy was even asked how he felt about it!) But even more curious is what Paul himself says. Paul specifically declares that, not Timothy, but his other Greek sidekick Titus, was not circumcised!

"Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." – Galatians 2.3,4.

"False brothers", "spies", are trying to make Paul and his entourage "slaves"?!

Such love, such Christian fellowship.

Founder of Churches?

More oddities exist. Paul supposedly established the church at Ephesus (Acts 18.18ff; 19.5,7), spending more time with his acolytes in that city than anywhere else (three months during the second mission, three years during the third). We are encouraged to believe that Paul's first and second "Letters to the Corinthians" were written from Ephesus, and that it was here that Paul received troubled delegates from Corinth and presided over Christianity's first book burning (Acts 19.19).

Yet it was the apostle John, settling in Ephesus after the crucifixion, who was ever after credited as founder of the Ephesian church. At the behest of Jesus himself, the Blessed Virgin had been placed in John's care and it seems off they had traipsed to Ephesus. Here Mary's house had been lovingly built by John with his own hands – a house which is is to be seen to this very day!

John was also said to have been the teacher of the venerable Bishop Polycarp, at nearby Smyrna. Whereas Mary's ultimate fate was not dreamed up for centuries, according to 2nd century Irenaeus (quoted by Eusebius, 23) John remained in Ephesus until the time of Emperor Trajan (98-117) and, according to 3rd century Dionysius of Alexandria, had not one but two Ephesian tombs.

Thus the story has it that the apostle John was a long-term resident in the very city evangelised by Paul on his second journey, "popularly" supposed to have begun in the year 49.

Yet for all the overlap in time and place, Paul neither met Mary nor consulted with fellow apostle John. Curious, to say the least.

Just what is going on here: mutual ignorance, churlishness, hostility – at the heart of the church of love?

Reality Check

What we are dealing with are two distinct (and rival) traditions, one centred on the collective of the apostles and underscoring the leadership of Peter (and hence Roman Catholicism); the other starring the apostle Paul, the pioneering theological genius and founder of churches. And for whom does "Paul" speak? Why, the faction that lost the political struggle – the church of Marcion, the very person who first "discovered" the epistles of Paul in the mid-to-late 2nd century.

In their original form (from the pen of the Marcionites) the Pauline epistles were far too dualistic and gnostic for a "mass market", with a theology which embraced escape from the material world. But they provided useful tales of the Holy Spirit at work among the Gentiles. The core Pauline (Marcionite) theology of individual salvation – "justification by faith" – severed the attachment to an exclusive Jewish bloodline and dispensed with the irksome dictates of Mosaic law. Initially alarming to the Jewish element of Catholicism, geopolitical developments would soon make such a theology very appealing.

The protracted struggle between the pro- and anti- "Jewish" Christian factions of the first half of the 2nd century ended after the Bar Kosiba war of 130-135 and the opprobrium in Rome of all things Jewish. In a half-baked fashion, the two "traditions" came together. The book of Acts was a Catholic triumph, which cut Paul down to size and brought the hero of the Marcionites into the securing arms of would-be orthodoxy.

To be sure, Paul himself was "glorified" and credited with extensive missionary activity, replete with miracles quite unrecorded in the eponymous letters. But in the new story, Paul writes no epistles. Instead, he delivers one from the top dogs in Jerusalem! In a weakly thought out story the "leader" of the Jerusalem apostles is moved to Rome ahead of Paul, and is placed upon the "pope's" chair. Paul, the superstar of a fabricated 1st century evangelical crusade, would ever after stand awkwardly at the shoulder of a far flimsier creature fashioned by the church in Rome – St Peter.

Thus was Paul, erstwhile hero of the heretics, refashioned into the "13th apostle" and assimilated into the Catholic collective, even as the Marcionite churches were being integrated into the greater and universal Roman church. The epistles ascribed to Paul – too useful and too popular to be erased from the record – were expropriated and doctored for the Catholic cause and augmented by others composed by the Catholic ecclesia.

These so-called "pastoral" epistles, addressed to the pastors or "shepherds" of the flock, reined in maverick and independent clergy and underscored episcopal authority. Nascent Catholicism, organizing itself in Rome, was very much of this world, and saw its future glory in accommodation with the imperial order. The approved "canon" followed, closing the door on further creative theology.

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 4)

The fabricated Paul

"As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed ... For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." – Galatians 1.9,12.

A Catholicised sainthood was the ultimate fate of our hero Paul but from where did the super-apostle arise? If, as seems likely, Marcion created what would become the New Testament Paul as a messenger for his own ideas, he almost certainly used biographical material from his own life, particularly the power struggle he waged with the collective in Rome. Marcion, like "Paul", alone knew the truth, a mystery made manifest to him by revelation.

As a shipping magnate from Sinope (a Black Sea port, a hundred miles north of Galatia) Marcion enjoyed financial independence and was able to travel extensively. At one point he even financed the church in Rome before being excommunicated and returning to the east. He would have been familiar with the sea lanes and attendant dangers that figure so prominently in the Pauline story. To give his theology added "authority" it had to be back projected into an earlier "apostolic age". He may have chosen the name Paul (meaning "small" or "humble") as reflective of his own position.

When Catholicism commandeered Marcion's creation, the novelists in Rome would undoubtedly have used the works of Josephus, the all-purpose source books of the Christians, for additional material. And here they found not a Paul but a Saul, an Herodian aristocrat of unsavoury character. This material became the core for the preamble to Paul's story, his "life in Judaism". And the life of Josephus himself certainly was plundered: episodes in the Jewish historian's biography resonate just too closely with the Pauline story, particularly the shipwreck on the way to Rome.

Josephus was not just an historian. Before the war, he had been appointed by the high priest Ananias as governor in Galilee, with a brief that meant suppressing ("persecuting") radical movements. One of the bandit groups he had to deal with in and around Tiberias was led by a bandit chief called ... Jesus. The name Joshua was quite common in those days. – Josephus , Life 12.

 

[YieldedOne]

Oh, come ON, Admins! :heated:

This is ridiculous.

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 1) http://www.usislam.org/66paul.htm

6.6 Paul and the Judeo-Christianity



All historians agree that the existing Christian theology is based on the perception of Paul and not on the true message of Jesus. Paul is called the greatest missionary of Christianity and its first theologian. Yet all Christian preachers attribute Christianity to both Jesus and Paul.



Paul: Evangelist to the Gentiles
In the late 1900s, major attention in the history of Christianity was focused on Paul. This was due to a strong critical examination of his views on Judaism and the Mosaic Law. His position regarding the Law changed completely after his conversion. The book of Acts and Paul’s Epistles have been used as a source of understanding Paul’s early life, conversion, and approach to theology. However, there are problems in reconciling the accounts in Acts with those in Epistles. Gal. 1:15 suggests that, immediately before his conversion and for three years afterwards, Paul lived in Arabia and Damascus. Acts seems to suggest that he lived in Jerusalem (7:58-8:3; 9:1-2; 22:3). Similarly, while Paul’s letters mention two visits to Jerusalem (Gal.1:18; 2:1), and that he hoped to make a third (Rom. 15:25; 1 Cor. 16:4), Acts makes obvious references to five visits (9:26-28; 11:27-30; 15:1-4; 18:22; 21:17-19). Attempts to reconcile these contradictions were extremely difficult; so many scholars accepted their discrepancy and used Acts and the Epistles separately without trying to confuse the public.


Paul was born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia (in present day Turkey) in 4 AD. He became a convert to Christianity after experiencing a vision of Jesus during a journey from Jerusalem to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19, 22:5-16, 26:12-18) about 33-35 AD. It is important to remember the above contradiction relating to his companions during Paul’s vision. After 14 quiet years, Paul began to write his Epistles that took him through Syria, Galatia, Asia Minor, and Rome. Some scholars argue that Paul spent those missing 14 years in Macedonia, Greece. This is probably true if one assumes that he was testing and adjusting his method to present the new religion to Pagans. Though Paul was in Jerusalem at the same time as Jesus, it is doubtful that the two men ever met. His zeal for Mosaic Law led him to persecute the Christian church. First he thought of the church to be a Jewish sect that was untrue to the Law and should therefore be destroyed (Gal. 1:13). Acts 7:54-60 portrays him as a supportive witness to the stoning of St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr. Paul was arrested in Jerusalem after riots heated by his Jewish opponents, and was eventually sent to Rome to stand trial. It is unclear how that trial ended, or if he ever left Rome. Eventually, in 64 he was executed near Rome.



Paul established his credibility by maintaining that Jesus spoke to him after he was raised to Heaven. Paul perceived this revelation to mark the end of all religions, and thus of all religious distinctions. He consistently spoke of God's "call" to him. God has called people and is continuing to call people into the Christian community. Paul recognized Peter’s effort to introduce Christianity to the Jews, but he was convinced that Christianity was God's call to the entire world. Although scholars do not fully understand Paul's motive for this effort, it is certain that he attempted to bring together the churches of his Gentile mission with the Jewish Christians in Palestine.

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 2)

The New Testament contains 13 letters bearing Paul's name as author, and 7 of these were almost certainly written by Paul himself: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon. Christian scholars debate the authenticity of the rest of the letters. The seven letters, attributed to Paul, in which he occasionally speaks of his personal experience and his work, are the major sources of knowledge about the course of his life. Most scholars concentrate on them and consult the Acts of the Apostles as an additional source.
The letters of Paul reveal that his missionary itinerary was focused on three major objectives:

• The expansion of Christian missionary to the Gentiles in areas not approached by other Christian evangelists—hence his plan to go as far west as Spain, (Romans 1:14; 5:24, 28).
• The concern of a preacher to revisit his own congregations as problems arose. This was demonstrated by his several visits to Corinth.
• His constant determination to collect money from his largely rich Gentile churches and to deliver the money himself to Jesus’ Apostles in Jerusalem.

Without a doubt, Paul had remarkable qualities that made him the top evangelist in the history of Christianity:

• He was very active in traveling and propagating his version of Christianity to the Gentiles.
• He had an extraordinary capability for adapting himself to the situation of his audience.
• He was more effective in writing than in speaking.
• He knew very well how to package the new religion, and presented it in an acceptable form to the Gentiles.

After knowing that about Paul, it is no wonder that very many "successful" TV evangelists are adopting Paul’s approach in addressing the Christian public. TV evangelists receive calls from God, and they continually talk about those divine calls. These God’s calls range from requesting money, to God’s revelation to the evangelist of his forgiveness if the evangelist committed a major sin.

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 3)

The Pauline and Judeo-Christianity
In the early stages of Christianity, there were two versions of Christianity: one presented by James, a relative of Jesus, and the rest of the apostles as a mission to the Jews. Paul introduced the second version as a religion for Gentiles. Barnabas introduced Paul, to the other apostles in Jerusalem. But the disciples "were all afraid of Paul and believed not that he was a disciple, but Barnabas took him and brought him to the Apostles", (Act 9:26-27). The apostles had doubtful feelings that Paul was not what he seemed to claim. Paul tried first to preach to the Jews, but he was unsuccessful as some of the Apostles. They understood that the Jesus’ message was for "the black sheep of Israel", and Jesus came not to "destroy but to fulfill." And here was someone, that they did not trust, pushing to steal the show and expand the religion beyond its original boundaries. The apostles were trying to conserve the Jewish law, while Paul was exempting the Gentiles from this law. In Paul’s view, it was very difficult, or even impossible to approach a Greek or Roman with a new religion and then, for example, ask the future convert, to be circumcised. Just imagine a thirty-year old Greek leaning towards Christianity, and then someone tells him: by the way, you need to be circumcised; or if you commit adultery you are going to be stoned to death! What do you expect his reaction to be?


The author of 2 Peter speaks of difficulties in understanding Paul (2 Peter 3:16), and then he said that: "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." Peter was referring to the teachings of Paul. What did Peter mean by that? How were the scriptures explained in a way that was hard to understand? Who was Peter referring to by untaught and unstable people? The Bible does not give any clues to these questions.


The small group of apostles formed a Jewish sect that remained faithful to the form of worship practiced in the temples. Some men went to Antioch in 49 AD, and told the Gentiles"Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1). Paul and Barnabas were against this teaching. When converts from paganism were presented to the apostles, a "special system" was offered to them in the council of Jerusalem in 49 AD that exempted them from circumcision and the Mosaic Law. This council was a meeting of Peter, Paul, and the leaders of Jerusalem's Christians. Many Judeo-Christians rejected this concession. This conservative group was separated from Paul. For Paul, the circumcision, Sabbath, and rituals of worship practiced in the temple were old fashioned, even for the Jews. Christianity was to free itself from Judaism and open itself to the Gentiles. The head of the community at that time was James. James represented the Judeo-Christian camp, which consciously adhered to Judaism as opposed to the Pauline Christianity. Jesus’ family, and certainly the Virgin Mary too, had a very important role in supporting the Judeo-Christian church of Jerusalem.


It was not just in Jerusalem and Palestine that Judeo-Christianity predominated during the first hundred years of the church. The Judeo-Christian mission seemed to have developed everywhere before the Pauline mission. This is certainly the explanation of the fact that the letters of Paul had difficulties in understanding the new religion. The whole Syrian-Palestinian coast from Gaza to Antioch was Judeo-Christian as witnessed by the Acts and the writings of Clement. In Asia Minor, Paul’s letters to the Galatians and Colossians indicated the existence of Judeo-Christians.


It is important to know these facts to understand the struggle between communities that ended up by shaping Christianity. The Gospels began to appear around 70 AD, the time where the two rival groups were engaged in a fierce struggle, with the Judeo-Christians winning this battle. Then the Jews revolted against Rome in 66 AD, and after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD the Pauline version won the victory after his death. From 70 AD to about 140 AD, the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John appeared. They did not constitute the first Christian documents: the letters of Paul dated well before them.
Paul is the most controversial person in Christianity. He was considered to be a traitor to Jesus’ teachings by the family and apostles of Jesus. Paul created Christianity at the expense of those whom Jesus had gathered around him to spread his Gospel. He proved the authority of his mission by declaring Jesus, raised from the dead, had appeared to him on the road to Damascus. It is reasonable to state that Christianity would not be the same without Paul. It is almost certain that if this atmosphere of struggle between Christians had not existed, we would not have had the Bible that we know today. The Gospels started to appear at a time of fierce struggle and political upheaval, when Pauline Christianity won the battle of the Gentiles, and created its own collection of documents. These texts constituted the "Canon" which condemned and excluded as heretical any other documents that were not following Paul’s version of Christianity. The Judeo-Christians were cut off from the church that gradually freed itself from Judaism and the Law. However, they existed in few numbers in the third and fourth centuries, especially in Palestine, Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. They kept the original Christianity in their hearts, and tried very hard to keep it alive. This was demonstrated by the efforts of Arius in Alexandria to revive Judeo-Christianity.


Paul’s Theology
Paul created a theology that was never described by Jesus. He adapted his version of Christianity to the Gentiles, after unsuccessful attempts to join the Judeo-Christians. The fact that each of his letters were written to a specific church with a different approach indicates that he wanted to adjust his teachings to address that church's previous belief. The following is an attempt to summarize Paul's thought:

• Jesus’ Status: Unlike the Fathers of the Church, Paul never called Jesus "God". He called him "the Son of God" in the Jewish sense; Adam, David, and Israel were called sons of God. He never suggested that Jesus had been the incarnation of God. He only suggested that Jesus had the powers of God.
• Rejection of the Jewish Law: After the incident of Antioch in 49 AD, Paul rejected the Mosaic Law "The service that brought death (the law) was written and engraven in stone" (2 Cor. 3:7); "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law" (Gal.3: 13).
• Allegorical Interpretations: Paul was emphatic that by getting the broken bread and wine, the Christian is sharing in the sacrificing of the son to the father in his broken body and shed blood.
• The Cross: According to Paul’s ideology, the cross can be perceived to reveal God's great power, a power made perfect in weakness. God confirmed this power by raising Jesus from the dead, by sending the Holy Spirit, and by establishing the church as the foundation of his New Kingdom.
• Accepting Jesus: Paul emphasized that Jesus died for our sins, (1 Cor. 15:3). The resurrection of Jesus established his victory over our sins. He rejected the prevailing Judeo-Christian emphasis on repentance and forgiveness of sins. Paul did not call upon his audiences to repent of any sin, but rather to accept Jesus and his crucifixion as the only way of salvation. The symbol of the cross was a victory over all sins, and humans do not need to repent or ask God for forgiveness. Paul even rejected the call of John the Baptist to the Jews to repent, which Jesus did not object.

 

[YieldedOne]

Dr. Adel Elsaie:
The small group of apostles formed a Jewish sect that remained faithful to the form of worship practiced in the temples. Some men went to Antioch in 49 AD, and told the Gentiles"Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1). Paul and Barnabas were against this teaching. When converts from paganism were presented to the apostles, a "special system" was offered to them in the council of Jerusalem in 49 AD that exempted them from circumcision and the Mosaic Law. This council was a meeting of Peter, Paul, and the leaders of Jerusalem's Christians. Many Judeo-Christians rejected this concession. This conservative group was separated from Paul. For Paul, the circumcision, Sabbath, and rituals of worship practiced in the temple were old fashioned, even for the Jews. Christianity was to free itself from Judaism and open itself to the Gentiles. The head of the community at that time was James. James represented the Judeo-Christian camp, which consciously adhered to Judaism as opposed to the Pauline Christianity.



This is COMPLETELY FALSE! This directly goes against what Acts 15 SAYS...

--------------------------


But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

“‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’

Therefore my judgment (YO's Note: JAMES is speaking here!) is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words. And after they had spent some time, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

 

[Ramadhan]

A Look at the Bible​

It is a common misconception amongst Christians that Paul and the Apostles of Christ were unanimous in their preaching of a crucified Jesus. Christians think that the apostles and Paul were preaching the same doctrine and everyone believed in the divine Jesus who came to be crucified for the sins of the world. However, if one examines the bible carefully, that person would observe that Paul and the disciples were not preaching the same doctrine and did not believe in the same Jesus.

Galatians 1:6

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
​

It says 'different Gospel', so obviously the disciples were teaching them a different doctrine and it was not just minor issues.

Galatians 3:1-3
1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish?
​

Obviously we have people that are disagreeing with Paul over the crucifixion of Jesus. Notice how Paul says 'Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified', so that means that whoever 'bewitched' the Galatians was preaching that Jesus was not crucified.

2 Corinthians 11:4-5
4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."
​

Paul is accusing the people of following a Jesus that is being preached differently than the Jesus he preached. Now what was the Jesus that Paul preached?...

1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

​

So here we see that Paul preached a crucified Jesus. So if Paul was accusing people of following a Jesus that was different from the one he preached then that means that there were people who believed that Jesus was crucified.

2 Corinthians 11: 22-24

What anyone else dares to boast about?I am speaking as a fool'I also dare to boast about. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
​

Again he is comparing himself to the disciples and we can clearly see that they are teaching a different kind of Jesus than he was.

Conclusion​

So it is clear from the Bible it self that not everyone believed in the Jesus who came to get crucified for the sins of the world and to replace the law. That there were differences amongst the Apostles and Paul. The Apostles stuck to the true teachings of Jesus, which was upholding the law and that the Apostles who lived with Jesus knew him better than Paul who never even saw Jesus except in a "vision". The only deceiver here was Paul and not Allah.​

 

[Amigo]

Brother Naidamar

Many people where preaching Jesus even before his last times. Some good, some bad, others somewhere in between. Everyone who was impressed by him proclaimed him, each according to his understanding and intentions as well as different degree of passion and conviction. Consider the samaritan woman who after chatting with Christ went on and nearly converted a whole town. Others were dissenting while he was still with them, check John 6;66.
'gospel' means 'good news'. It was a common word used in the Roman Empire to announce victories/good tidings from the emperor. Christians started using it to announce the victory of Christ over death, but also even before over suffering as Jesus had done many miracles which were great news for the suffering... But some used it in perverted ways and for perverted purposes...

Paul was approuved by the Church before his ministry, read the story of his conversion and you will notice that he wasn't even capable of seeing anything before a man from the already existing Church had layed hands on him and restored his sight. Notice that the Church authority who 'gave him his ordination' first checked his validity with Christ. We call this apostolic validation. Even today, no Catholic/Orthodox who knows his faith can folllow a priest or a bishop who does not have a valid apostolic order; meaning, known to have received the 'imposition of hand' by the Church. Valid apostolic orders, and valid apostolic succession is very important, and Paul had to receive them.

So when he talks of other people preaching a different gospel, He is not talking about the apostles, he is talking about other self-proclaimed, self-sent preacher wondering around with different hot conviction/agenda/conspiracy theories about the story of Christ without any connection with the Church except enthousiasm for Christ.

In the Church no one can preach unless he is sent by the Church. To confirm this in the case of Paul, Jesus first indicated to Paul that the Church is Him: "why are you persecuting me?"(He didn't say 'my Church', He said 'me') then underlined it by directing someone from the Church to go and deliver Paul so he can start preaching. He also pointed out to Paul that someone will come to him to deliver him. Meanwhile he rested fasting, praying, and waiting.
Paul would never have preached without the Church imposing its hands on him and restoring his sight.

 

[May Ayob]

In the name of God, The Most Compassionate , The Most Merciful

Peace be to you Brother YoungCatholic

First i would like to appologize for saying that you have an Ego , as a muslim i'm not supposed to be doing that.
i would like to also have a respectful conversration

As to your questions:

The Crucification of Christ:

Well , to be honest i don't know very much about this crucification event, but i would like to say that , i wouldn't belive in it either, not only to it not making any sense but also , because it completely goes against the basics of Justice as well as it having absolutely no historical evidence at all , Infact Christ himself peae and blessings be upon him is indeed not a historical figure at all many historian of our day actually question his existance , Thankfully the Qura'n gives us clear proof and evidence that he has existed and this is not through blind faith but with facts as well.

let me explain further , from my point of view , which i hope you respect:

- Now , If we are speaking from the Bible's point of view , as i requested again please go back to the Bible and you will clearly see the contardication that support Disbeleif in God Almighty rather than establishing it
i just wanted to comment on what the Bible claims to be the word's of Christ peace and blessings be upon him when he was told that he was going to be crucified

"Oh Lord , Oh Lord Why have thou Foresaken me?"
Now this is utter of disbeleif , how can God foresake his own "son" ( as you christians claim) are you indicating that God betrays those whom belive in him? Exalted is he.
To me a true beliver never accuses his Lord of betrayal , This shows that he only had doubtfull faith in his Lord , if that was any true.

I know that Christ peace and blessing be upon him was a very brave man , Why was he so frightened the night he knew that he was going to be executed? As the Bible suggests.
And why did his Dispilines fall asleep while he was very scared of his destiny Isn't God supposed to assure him if this is truly what had happened.
Secondly he did not die for anyone's sins , if he was truly crucified it was because the king of jerusulem had ordered to do so.
as i said this is all in the Bible.
From another point of view - your claim that he died for our sin " the Selfless Crucification"

Well well well , it only need simple logic to acknowledge the fact that what truly non sense you people are uttering

This concept of Crucification basically contradict with any type of justice known to mankind.

How can a man who devoted himself to worshipping his Lord be accountable for all the sins of man kind??
This is clearly injustice, How can you Do bad actions and then not be held accountable for and blame the innocent to carry the beurden of your own sins, is this fair to you?? i hope not

2ndly It is only fair that if you did a bad action that you would be held accounatble for it in the eyes of God and for Justice.

No thank you very much i have done many sins in this world and it would be more honorable to me to take full responsibility of my actions than cowardly blame someone who is innocent and say that he has died for my sins so , i'll do whatever i ant i'll kill , i'll steal , i'll eat illicit gains and you Christ has died for me .. Non Sense what so ever clear escape from responsisbilty logic will deny.

point number 2:
The crusaders, Brother i would have taken you more seriously if you have admitted regretfullness and remorse for what these cruel and heartless crusaders have committed of crimes against humanity( Don't you think what they did was out of full pride and arrogance?) Well to me it is , they have killed thousand, of Jews, Muslims and many innocent people for no other reason but because they don't want to follow their faith All i can say that God The All-Just will be the one who will account everyone for every small or big deed they have committed against people. As for your Aposties claim , then know very well that this is untrue it is very clear in the Quran that God Almighty is very Rich and He is not in need of anyone to worshipp Him We are the weak and poor ones and He The most Glorious is the Powerfull and Suffeciant.

It is basically a clear stereotype that Muslims kill aposties , there were many of them in the Prophet's time and they were free to do whatever they wanted because It is Due to God to hold them accountable , The Prophet was only sent to preach and not to force people into Submission to their creator. History Proves that Muslims never conquered a land in which they have burnt a tree , attacked a place of worship, or hurt a child, woman, Elders and people who did not engage in fighting.

As for the Scientific facts in the Qura'n i respect your Question but you have to keep in mind the saying to says : A man who owns a house made of glass should never throw other houses with stones"

The Bible is full of Mythological stories and theories , that the Church considered science to be disbeleif, and used to prosecute respectfull scietists and was completely against any scietific theory or any facts based on Expirement it made the Earth Holy thus no man can touch it or try to discover its secret while in the other hand The Quran encouraged thoughtfull logical explanation and yes truly the Quran is at perfect harmony with Science infact many Westerns give invalueable credit to the islamic civilization and it huge contrubutions to the modern western world, as ia requested again please go back to historical facts and you did not even give me a verse in the Quran to explain further you misconceptions.

As for the Jinn it is clear to me that you have brought these words from a book , which is definately not the Quran or The Sunnah So i am in no need to answer them as they are false claims and they are human words.


Thank you very much

 

[YusufNoor]

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

LMAO ;D;D;D

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.

i'm a father, does that make me the Pope?

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.

please show me the term "chief bishop of the Catholic Church" in the Bible! :heated:

the word Pope refers to the funky dude in the Vatican with all of the bespectacled jewels and trappings of the dunya who turn a blind eye to all of the child molesting priests and who institution is responsible for the rape, torture, enslavement and killing of or the approving the rape, torture, enslavement of MILLIONS & MILLIONS & MILLIONS & MILLIONS & MILLIONS & MILLIONS of human beings. this "institution" DID NOT EXIST in the 1st few centuries of Christianity. PERIOD!

just because your church is thinking of teaming up with the Roman "holy father" doesn't mean Christians can reinvent history, even if they believe it.

please provide 1 historical contemporaneous document that supports the either Peter or Paul was called a Pope. THEY WEREN'T! Christians spread lies trying to authenticate Catholicism and or Christianity. wanting it to be true, claiming it's true DOESN'T make it true!

you may now return to your fantasy world.

adios

 

[YoungCatholic]

Well , to be honest i don't know very much about this crucification event, but i would like to say that , i wouldn't belive in it either, not only to it not making any sense but also , because it completely goes against the basics of Justice as well as it having absolutely no historical evidence at all , Infact Christ himself peae and blessings be upon him is indeed not a historical figure at all many historian of our day actually question his existance , Thankfully the Qura'n gives us clear proof and evidence that he has existed and this is not through blind faith but with facts as well.

The crusaders, Brother i would have taken you more seriously if you have admitted regretfullness and remorse for what these cruel and heartless crusaders have committed of crimes against humanity( Don't you think what they did was out of full pride and arrogance?) Well to me it is, they have killed thousand, of Jews, Muslims and many innocent people for no other reason but because they don't want to follow their faith All i can say that God The All-Just will be the one who will account everyone for every small or big deed they have committed against people. As for your Aposties claim , then know very well that this is untrue it is very clear in the Quran that God Almighty is very Rich and He is not in need of anyone to worshipp Him We are the weak and poor ones and He The most Glorious is the Powerfull and Suffeciant.

It is basically a clear stereotype that Muslims kill aposties , there were many of them in the Prophet's time and they were free to do whatever they wanted because It is Due to God to hold them accountable , The Prophet was only sent to preach and not to force people into Submission to their creator. History Proves that Muslims never conquered a land in which they have burnt a tree , attacked a place of worship, or hurt a child, woman, Elders and people who did not engage in fighting.


The Bible is full of Mythological stories and theories , that the Church considered science to be disbeleif, and used to prosecute respectfull scietists and was completely against any scietific theory or any facts based on Expirement it made the Earth Holy thus no man can touch it or try to discover its secret while in the other hand The Quran encouraged thoughtfull logical explanation and yes truly the Quran is at perfect harmony with Science infact many Westerns give invalueable credit to the islamic civilization and it huge contrubutions to the modern western world, as ia requested again please go back to historical facts and you did not even give me a verse in the Quran to explain further you misconceptions.

I am speechless. You know, I wont even respond to that. :X Thanks about the Jinns though, and in case your asking, that statement came from a long time islam member from another forum.

 

[YoungCatholic]

You know, I really want to post this link, but I can't.

 

[YusufNoor]

You have a mirror? Use it.

hey kimosabe,

don't hurt yourself on those hate sites.

The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically-based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries

you see, they have worked backwards to make the claim. but even if it were a fact that Peter WAS the head of the church, IT DOES NOT MEAN that he began the Roman Catholic Church. THAT'S where the error is.

The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries.

that basically says that IF you want it to be true you can work it out, and it helps if you use stuff NOT in the Bible!

try not to strain yourself with all of your hatespeak. we wouldn't want you to hurt yourself!

adios muchachos

 

[YoungCatholic]

You know, there's a reason why remains of St. Peter (And not St. Paul) are buried under the Vatican.

 

[YoungCatholic]

naidamar come out. if your a mod, then you must know that those posts were definitely not spam. I give you clear cut evidence supporting my belief that Peter founded christianity and you delete it? That is wrong and I insist that you at least give me an explanation on why you deleted my posts. If what I did is considered spamming then I might as well delete your consecutive long posts in the previous pages. Seriously, do you consider everything that contradicts your beliefs as spam? please, as a mod you should know better. by the way, given the fact those posts you deleted were not spam and not offensive in any way. i think i deserve an explanation. and you can't give me a warning for writing this comment, because i have every right to speak my mind here. i PATIENTLY await your reply. other catholics, are you seeing what's happening here? I just posted clear cut evidence proving Peter was the first pope just as YusufNoor dared me too and naidamar deleted it. Naidarmar, if you reply and prove that it was somewhat wrong of me to post all of that I will apologize. but if you wish to ignore these posts of mine and once again refuse to give an explanation then I believe you are abusing your powers as a moderator. even a toddler knows those posts weren't spam.

i eagerly and politely await your response.

 

[Ramadhan]

naidamar come out. if your a mod, then you must know that those posts were definitely not spam. I give you clear cut evidence supporting my belief that Peter founded christianity and you delete it? That is wrong and I insist that you at least give me an explanation on why you deleted my posts.

Long posts taken from anti-Islam sites are spamming.
Go back, formulate your points, and post them again if you wish. Have you read the faq that I sent you in your infractions?
If you don't, don't blame me if your days are numbered.

by the way, given the fact those posts you deleted were not spam and not offensive in any way

A couple of those were personal and offensive, and you know it. And another is an attack on Islam that you did not write yourself. Next time when you take from external source, remember to delete the personal references first kiddo.
Post in appropriate threads/sections.

and read the faq.

 

[YoungCatholic]

Also, if I get banned here, I'd love to hear the reason for it. I did not use any foul words and if i responded in any passion its only because some other user did so before me and you know that. i've also been equally polite to other users except that post containing "do you have a mirror, use it". but you cant blame me for doing that can you? how would you feel if someone called your religion...

the word Pope refers to the funky dude in the Vatican with all of the bespectacled jewels and trappings of the dunya who turn a blind eye to all of the child molesting priests and who institution is responsible for the rape, torture, enslavement and killing of or the approving the rape, torture, enslavement of MILLIONS & MILLIONS & MILLIONS & MILLIONS & MILLIONS & MILLIONS of human beings. this "institution" DID NOT EXIST in the 1st few centuries of Christianity. PERIOD!

just because your church is thinking of teaming up with the Roman "holy father" doesn't mean Christians can reinvent history, even if they believe it.

please provide 1 historical contemporaneous document that supports the either Peter or Paul was called a Pope. THEY WEREN'T! Christians spread lies trying to authenticate Catholicism and or Christianity. wanting it to be true, claiming it's true DOESN'T make it true!

If you're a catholic, how would you feel naidamar?