Biblical view of women - are they inferior to men? - Page 8

garysher · 02-28-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

Have you been taking snark lessons from PN?

I taught that lad everything he knows

knot_e_lady · 02-28-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

I taught that lad everything he knows

That must not have taken very long....

Ralph · 02-28-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

And the second portion of the article:

Paul in fact created a religion of his own and attached it to Christianity. His faith was based on the old mystery religions with their concepts of a dying, rising, redeeming Saviour-God. D. C. Somervell describes in his book "A short history of our religion" the main tenet of one of these old Mystery faiths:-
"The offer of happiness in this world and salvation in a world to come to all who by initiation into their sacraments joined in the risen life of a Redeemer God, such as Horus the son of Isis who died and rose again.."
The similarities between this concept and the religion of Paul are too obvious to need emphasis, but we find no shade of such beliefs in the recorded stories of Jesus. To the above Somervell adds:-
"Saint Paul seizes on the Crucifixion and shows it as no mere martyrdom. Christ sacrificed Himself to redeem us. This idea of redemption by sacrifice is, of course, familiar in every religion in which animals are sacrificed to secure Divine favour for man. The Christian doctrine of redemption through Christ grows naturally out of the doctrine of redemption through animal sacrifices. But the idea of the voluntary, human, self-sacrifice of the man-god, who bows before Death, only to rise again and break Death's fetters, not only for himself, but for all of us, is also the idea which the popular mystery religions were trying to express."
As I have already argued, the concept of the afterlife beginning with the sacrifice of the Saviour-God is not consistent with the reported views of Jesus. It is a view, however, which Paul took over from the mystery faiths and made one of the keystones of his teaching.
So we see that a very different view of Christianity is presented in the writings of Paul from that set out in the Gospels. This creates a great problem. It is generally conceded that the Gospels are later than the Pauline writings. If this is so then the Gospels appeared at a time when the Pauline viewpoint was well established, for even in some of the earlier letters of Paul we find evidence of well-established churches taking their cue from Paul in matters of faith.
Three possibilities face us:-
1) The Gospels were produced to counter the words and influence of Paul.
2) There was a stronger than suspected branch of the Faith which did not accept Paul's ideas and were closer to the Church of Jerusalem. The Canonical Gospels were their devotional and inspirational books.
3) The Gospels were in fact much earlier than has been believed and represent the position of primitive Christianity.
I find it difficult to be convinced in favour of possibility one. If the Gospels were consciously anti-Paul then it is highly likely that this fact would have been specifically referred to, or at least intimated. There is no such indication. Option two has more to recommend it. However, in view of the difficulty in dating the works it is well worth looking at the possibility that they may be, against all tradition, earlier than the words of Paul. Let us explore this option.
Writing in 1976 John Robinson was struck by
" ---- how little evidence there is for dating ANY of the New Testament writings."
This is generally true. There is one glaring exception to the rule, as I have indicated earlier in this article, and this lies in the first two chapters of Galatians where Paul outlines a history of his visits to Jerusalem which make it clear that at least seventeen years had elapsed between the commencement of his mission and the writing of this letter. Even this does not give us anything like an exact date, but it at least points us in the direction of the early fifties CE , give or take a few years, as a probable date. However the uncertainty surrounding even this good clue serves to emphasise the poverty of guidelines as to the actual dating of these ancient documents.
In researching this article I have come to the conclusion that the Gospels could not have been produced at a time when Paulianity was fully established. By then the Church had chosen the road it was to go down, and that highway was the way of Paul. I have referred above to the degree of organisation exhibited by some of the early churches established by Paul. There can be no doubt that this degree of organisation existed, and with the passage of time we would expect this factor to increase in strength as Paul's successful mission gained ground. With each passing month the likelihood of the Gospels being produced in an atmosphere that did not immediately reject them as heretical to the established position decreased. From this we may conclude that the Gospels were written before the air became poisoned against them. In other words, they were very early. I submit that any of the Gospels, if produced at the generally-conceded dates, would have shrivelled up in the alien theological atmosphere as soon as it saw the light of the unfriendly day of publication. This I call Probability Theonomy. It falls far below certainty, but that is true of all attempts to date the Gospels, as the quotation from John Robinson, given above, makes clear. In this regard I would refer the reader to an excellent recent work "The Jesus Papyrus" by Carsten Thiede and Matthew D'Ancona. This book by two serious academics argues cogently that the most recent evidence points to the Gospels being much earlier than has been believed. The arguments again fall into the realm of probility rather than proof, but in such an historically and theonomically grey area Probability might at least set up a clue as to which direction it is best to proceed in.
One more argument points, in my view, to an early date for the Gospels, based again on Probability Theology, and it is this. Is it likely that such works would not have been produced early in the history of the Church? The glaring need for some documentary evidence as a basis for evangelism and for the inspiration of those already safely in the fold would have dictated that somebody should put pen to papyrus. Much is sometimes made of the argument that the early Christians believed the end of the world was just around the corner and therefore they would not bother to put things down in writing. However, the opposite can equally well be argued. With the shortness of time the young faith would need every resource at its disposal to spread its message. Surely the lack of time would give even more urgency to the task of setting down the things that Jesus did and taught?
We see, then, how on the historical stage of the Apostolic era, a drama was played out in which the followers of the teachings of Jesus were challenged by the faith invented by Paul. Paul's religion was easier to embrace than the difficult and challenging path of Jesus and had its roots in the older Mystery Religions, faiths already widely accepted by the people of the Near East. Perhaps the main reasons for the success of Paulianity were the "Easy Pathway" concept and the link with familiar ideas and practices - for there is often a resistance in the human spirit to change. Whatever the reasons, Paul's theology triumphed and the teachings of Jesus faded away into an obscurity in which they were represented by only a tiny handful of the faithful. Paul had triumphed, his faith became known as Christianity, something which it was not. The convert of Damascus Gate had hijacked the faith of Jesus and his ideas smothered the faith of the Jerusalem Christians.
Here and there, like islands showing above the surface of the sea, the Jerusalem theology shows through. Among the epistles of the New Testament the letter of James represents that viewpoint, and among other works the Gospels proclaim the Spirit of Jesus to a church which casts them aside, ignores their significance, and embraces to itself the teaching of Paul. Here and there organisations like the Society of Friends (Quakers) and the Free Christians (A branch of Unitarianism) keep the flag flying, but for the most part Paul rather than Jesus presides over the church. The vision outside Damascus Gate was to transform history.

Again, you are sadly "IGNORING" God's words and promises, and attempting to claim that He does not have the ability to stop MAN from corrupting HIS WORD. IF He does not have this ability, we all worship in vain, for we have found God to be a liar, despite His promises. Believe how you will, but anytime one must stay away from the written word of God in an attempt to endorse what practice "they have chosen" to worship, the RED FLAGS of deception automatically deploy in warning. The only "valid" point to come from this article is the fact that the "DEAD SEA" scrolls points out HOW "incorruptible" the word of God truly is.

Up until the discovery of the scrolls the most recent complete works of the Old Testament that man had access to was found around 600 AD. The finding of the scrolls validates the CANNON Process by proving that over a span of some 1000 years, the time the scrolls were dated and the actual date of the most recent confirmed copies of the Old writings, NONE OF THE TEXTS WERE FOUND TO BE DIFFERENT, in the whole books found, and some fragments, such as the book Isaiah, found in the scrolls and compared to the modern copes AD. Thus, this contradicts this whole secular theories that some want to validate "false doctrine" as inspired writings. Ralph

Jzyehoshua · 02-28-2008, 02:45 PM

Hmm... I don't have much time for a long post now, unfortunately, but I will provide a quick note from the Scofield concerning the allegation that Paul and James contradicted on faith and works (it's really good

):

Quote:

James 2:26 Justification By Faith

On the basis of this passage (2:14-26), James has been charged with contradicting the doctrine of justification by faith as set forth by Paul (see Rom. 4:1-5). But the supposed contradiction is merely in words rather than in underlying truth.

James in this passage uses the word "faith" in the sense of intellectual orthodoxy (compare v. 19); Paul, when he uses "faith" in a person sense, means trust in the atoning work of Christ to the extent of full commitment to Him.

For James, the word "works" means the believer's works, the outward evidence of a saved life. On the other hand, Paul sometimes employs "works" to denote the deeds of the unsaved person whereby he vainly hopes to gain acceptance with God, while at other times he speaks of "good works," by which he means the fruit that the justified man must produce.

Moreover, the word "justify" is for Paul a legal, positional term (see Rom. 3:28, note) describing a once-for-all act of God appropriated by faith alone and relating to the initial moment of the Christian life. But for James "justify" is employed of any subsequent moment of the Christian life and proves the reality of a man's life before his fellow men.

Thus in their views of justification Paul and James complement one another (2:23); Paul stresses acceptance with God wholly by grace through faith, whereas James presents the continual evidence before men of the initial transaction. For the definitive N.T. statement on faith and works in which both views are brought together, see Eph. 2:8-10.

I shall go more in depth later when I have time, but Paul was not against women. He said all are the same in Jesus Christ, male and female, bond and free, Jew and Greek. There is no difference before God.

Paul was not at odds with the apostles. Peter in one of his letters refers to Paul's writings as Scripture and Paul as a blessed brother in Christ. Luke in Acts of course speaks highly of Paul and his impact on the early church.

And finally, Paul was DEFINITELY not anti-Jewish. Multiple times in his letters he emphasizes that God has NOT cast away His people, the Jews, whom He first knew (Rom. 11). He emphasizes several times how he himself is a Jew.

Ralph · 02-28-2008, 10:51 PM

It is most "ridiculous" to assume that Paul and James are "contradicting" one another concerning the teaching of 'FAITH'. Look at some of the statements concerning faith that each has taught. Paul, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on HIM(JESUS) that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness" (Romans 4:5) James says, "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith" (James 2:24). Paul also states, "For if "Abraham" was justified by works, he hath wereof to Glory" (Romans 4:2). James says, "Was not "Abraham" our father justified by works, in that he offered up Issac his son upon the altar?" (James 2:21).

Some are trying to teach that there is "conflict" between the teaching of Paul and James. But, when the "entire" context is rightly considered there is not even a "seeming" discrepancy, given consideration to Paul's contextual language. The trouble comes from misunderstanding Paul or mis-applying James, or perhaps even both.

Paul was referencing the "works" of the Old Law. James was referencing works of "faith". Two completely and distinct types of works.

Paul was showing the "Judaizing" Christians, those that came from the under the Old Law that "no one" could be righteous or justified by the works of the OLD LAW. For, as he was pointing out, not one, excepting the Christ, had kept the entirety of the Law "perfectly", and in order to be justified or made righteous for enternity, a person must believe in Christ, as the OLD LAW, merely carried over one's sin from year to year by "blood sacrifice", thus there was no "justification" offered in the Law, as there is in the Grace of Christ. Paul was arguing that works without faith would not, could not justify, if one made just one breach of the Law.

James was arguing that "faith" without "works" would not justify independent of one another. That just believing was not sufficient to stay in GRACE.

Thus both Paul and James "both" referred to "Abraham" to simply illustrate their "respective" points. Abraham was justified without works of Law, but he was justified by works of "FAITH", in the fact that he trusted the command of the Lord to offer his son up to the alter. This is "ALL" that God needed to see....the FAITH of Abraham, as such we may be asked to demonstrate our faith by certain works thereof. Thus, Abraham was "saved" exactly the same why the thief on the cross was saved before the New Testament come into effect at the death of Christ, when He declared that IT IS FINISHED, he was saved "directly" by the grace of God, as God Himself saw both mens FAITH and this justified this direct salvation. But, unless we expect God to come down and "directly" save us, we had best do as we are taught, by the ones that were commissioned to bring us the truth that would save us after the death of Christ....the Apostles, (John 14:16-31, 16:13).

James laid down the principal that "faith" without works is "DEAD", and it, independent of works could not possibly justify one's salvation in staying in Grace. He then drew the conclusion that a man---ANY MAN----is thusly justified by both works , and faith, not by faith alone.

An effort is made in attempting to explain Paul and James in conflict, by saying that Paul was talking of justification of "alien sinners" or those that had not yet accepted the Christ as their Lord and savior. And that James was talking only of the justification of a Christian, which was the point he was trying to draw, but he did use the same argument as Paul, thus there possibly can be no "conflict", just two completely different contextual topics. It then is argued that an "alien sinner" must be justified by "Faith" only, in order to try and point out that it is Grace that saves. And they try to argue that if the alien sinner has to perform any condition to gain entry into the safety of the church, this would prove that his salvation is by works and not grace. Without even given consideration that by scriptural example there are two kinds of works, the works of the old law, as there was no product "perfect" enough to offer as a sacrifice of GRACE, and the works of faith, such as baptism that the New Testament Covenant clearly requires. As there is no example of anyone gaining entrance into the kingdom of Christ, aka the church, without first being baptized, after the New Law of Grace came into effect, upon the death of the perfect sacrifice "Christ Jesus", in the entirety of NEW TESTAMENT teaching, if there is please present the book, chapter and verse were it is located.

By the cognation of reasoning that some wish to implement concerning the teachings of these two apostles, there indeed is a "paradox" presented. In the scriptural fact that if an "alien sinner" has to do any works, there can be no grace at all, yet by command of Christ we are to be "baptized", if we are to be saved.(Mark 16:16, Matthew 28:19) Is this not a work? If not, why not? It is a work of faith. Completely different than a work of trying to justify ones self under the old law. For the fact that, one can be baptized a thousand times until he knows every fish's name by heart....but if he first does not believe....WHAT GOOD WILL IT DO? How are we to come into contact with the blood of Christ in representing His death burial and resurrection....if we do not believe that our "symbolic death" is representing our death to this sinful world, and a NEW BIRTH? (Romans Chapter Six), which is "clearly" a work of Faith, as demonstrated by both the Apostles, Paul, and James. There is no conflict, except the attempt to draw a conclusion that is NOT SCRIPTURAL. (R)

Jzyehoshua · 02-29-2008, 03:34 AM

Alright, well, here's that more in depth reply I promised:

Concerning Christianity being similar to mystery religions, there's a lot of misinformation out there about how such religions were similar. Mithraism and Egyptian mythology (Horus) for example has been alleged to have all sorts of similarities but when examined there is no evidence many were ever a part of the religion. Horus and Osiris have been alleged to be similar in all kinds of ways to Jesus, but many appear to be bogus and not a part of the actual legends:

Osiris. Horus. Jesus. Not Triplets!

Upon closer examination of the actual Horus legends, the alleged parallels fall apart.

Horus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Horus being portrayed as sitting on his mother's lap might show similarities to Catholicism, but the Jesus of the Bible shows no such dependence on His earthly mother.

You would be justified in pointing out that stuff like Christmas trees, Easter, confession, and transubstantiation all have pagan origins, some from Egypt, and others elsewhere. However, none of those things are taught in the Bible and are Catholic-related and controversial because many Christians disbelieve them. In fact, the early pre-Reformation Christians earlier spoken of were declared heretical by the Catholic Church for rejecting just such non-Biblical issues. In fact, the Bible actually records possible proof that such doctrines were pagan in origin and condemned by God! To see a possible condemnation of Christmas trees as having roots in idol worship, see Jeremiah 10:2-5. To see condemnation of an Old Testament deity called "The Queen of Heaven" who was worshiped by the sacrificing and devouring of wafers and drink offerings, see Jeremiah 7:18-22 and Jeremiah 44:15-30.

I think you're definitely right that such things do have pagan origins, I just don't think they're Biblical to begin with even if they are mistakenly associated with Christianity. The books of Genesis are a different story. Rather than being proof the Bible borrowed from other beliefs, the fact that the early histories and legends of so many other cultures mirror in many ways what the book of Genesis says including the creating of human beings by God from dirt and a world-wide flood is proof that such things actually happened! You see, Genesis is a history of the whole human race, not just Israel. Therefore, one would expect them to be mentioned in historical accounts and legends world-wide, and not in the Bible only, which is exactly what we see.

If anything, the Bible could be said to be anti-holidays, or at the least making an emphasis that they are unnecessary:

Quote:

Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

I would be interested in seeing how you think other religions show a man-God sacrificing Himself for the sake of humanity, and then breaking the power over death to redeem others. I have yet to see any real proof for a religion being so similar in its premise to Christianity. However, even if you could show it, it would not be proof Christianity borrowed, since this was prophesied with many other prophesies hundreds if not thousands of years before Jesus was ever born!

The Messianic prophecies List

Some of the more clear examples:

Quote:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. [Immanuel, literally interpreted "God with us."

Isaiah 59:15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.
16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.
17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.
18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.
19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Psalms 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Psalms 22 is completely about the Messiah and even prophecies the manner of death by crucifixion hundreds of years before the Romans invented it! Daniel 9:25-27 prophesied the exact year that the Messiah would be annointed. Psalms 16:10 is only one of the many places it's predicted the Messiah would be resurrected, as it is referenced all throughout the Psalms. In Zechariah 11:12-13 it was prophesied the Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver which would afterwards be returned to the temple, just as Judas did with it. In Psalms 41:9 and Psalms 55:12-15 it was predicted how the Messiah would be betrayed by a close friend who would afterwards be condemned by God and sent down into Hell. There are hundreds of prophecies about where He'd be born, how He would act and live, what others would say of Him, etc. What's more, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint show those prophecies to have existed hundreds of years before Jesus was born or Christianity existed.

Concerning the Gospels, at least one, the Gospel of Luke, couldn't have been written to counter the words of Paul. You see, it was by Luke, Paul's young student and associate who apparently received his instruction from Paul! Furthermore, Luke is part 1 of a 2 part discourse, the 2nd being Acts, where Luke speaks highly of Paul and his impact on the early Christian church. It would make no sense for Paul to teach Luke so Luke could reject his teachings, and then for Luke to speak so highly of Paul in the writings!

Concerning the dating of the Gospels, it was once alleged by critics that they were written later than 100 A.D. However, recent manuscript finds have showed those allegations to be completely false. As Josh McDowell writes in "More Than A Carpenter" (pgs. 41-42):

Quote:

While I was lecturing at Arizona State University, a professor who had brought his literature class with him approached me after a "free-speech" lecture outdoors. He said, "Mr. McDowell, you are basing all your claims about Christ on a second-century document that is obsolete. I showed in class today how the New Testament was written so long after Christ that it could not be accurate in what it recorded.

I replied, "Your opinions or conclusions about the New Testament are twenty-five years out of date."

That professor's opinions about the records concerning Jesus found their source in the conclusions of a German critic, F.C. Baur. Baur assumed that most of the New Testament Scriptures were not written until late in the second century A.D. He concluded that these writings came basically from myths or legends that had developed during the lengthy interval between the lifetime of Jesus and the time these accounts were set down in writing.

By the twentieth century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri manuscripts (the John Ryland manuscript, A.D. 130; the Chester Beatty Papyri, A.D. 155; and the Bodmer Papyri II, A.D. 200) bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Millar Burrows of Yale says: "Another result of comparing New Testament Greek with the language of the papyri [discoveries] is an increase of confidence in the accurate transmission of the text of the New Testament itself."1 Such findings as these have increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible.

Also, McDowell in the next few pages points out that William Albright, the world's foremost biblical archeologist, and Sir William Ramsey, widely regarded as one of the greatest archeologists to have ever lived, both concluded very early dates for books of the New Testament. McDowell also points out that the flaw made by the Form Critics, those saying the Bible evolved via legends over time, is that the accumulation of folklore among primitive traditions takes many generations, as does the growth of mistakes in an oral tradition. However, these early manuscripts from as early as a century after the original events occurred, show there was far too little time between the writings and the events for such errors to occur. What's more, since these were manuscripts, or copies, the originals were even earlier!

The methods of proof used by historians, as pointed out by McDowell, show the New Testament Gospels far more reliable in their accurate transmission, than any other ancient documents in antiquity! Many people do not realize just how truly great a wealth of manuscript evidence there is for the Bible:

The Bible's Manuscript Evidence

Jzyehoshua · 02-29-2008, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

Here is a very informative, but long article which stresses the points that I have been trying to make here. It is from Theologia.net

The Saul who walked away from his Damascus Gate experience is sometimes said to have been a totally changed character. He was not. His personality remained the same as it had been, rigid, uncompromising, intolerant. Saul had merely changed the objects of his hatred. Becoming a Christian of a particular kind he was frighteningly intolerant of other branches of the young faith - for, as we shall see, there was at least one other mainstream Christian body which grew up alongside, and in opposition to, Paul's idea of the faith.
This other form of Christianity was the Jerusalem Church, presided over by the surviving Apostles of Jesus. After his conversion Saul, as Paul, claimed to be an Apostle, but in fact he was not. His was a self appointment and had no validity, in spite of the spirited defence of his title made in the opening verses of the ninth chapter of the first letter to the Corinthian Church, a response which was clearly instigated by the fact that his credentials on this point had been challenged by some at Corinth.
The existence of two conflicting Christian Churches is clearly seen in the New Testament, although with that spiritual myopia which has been a hallmark of Christianity over two millenia, the great significance of the point is usually ignored. The young Church at Jerusalem dated from the days of Jesus and may be said to have continuity with him, whereas the Church of Paul is a later invention. Having said that, we must note that it was not very much later. Paul must have commenced his ministry very soon after the crucifixion, for in Galatians chapters one and two he mentions having made two visits to the Jerusalem Church over a period of seventeen years, meaning that at least that period of time had elapsed since the Damascus Gate incident. Probably it was longer as we do not know how much time elapsed between the second visit and Paul's mentioning it to the Galatians. There is much dispute over the date of this epistle, but even the latest date which I can find, 55 AD, would place Paul's conversation not later than 38 AD.
The attitude and theology of the Jerusalem Christians is perhaps best seen in the Epistle of James. This letter is quite out of line with the Pauline church, proclaiming that salvation is based not on faith but on deeds, a concept supported by Jesus but denied by Paul. The Epistle of James is very close in theology to the Gospels, but if anything presents the concepts more vigorously. It is surprising that this letter was ever admitted to the Canon of Scripture, still more surprising that it has remained there. Martin Luther wanted it removed, describing it as "an epistle of straw," but by his day the idea was well intrenched that the New Testament was inspired by God, and this made removal impossible without a major volte face. The response of the church has been to almost totally ignore it.
Although the Jerusalem church was loyal to the spirit and teaching of Jesus as regards social and behavioural matters, it held a firm adherance to Judaism, seeing Christianity as a branch of the Jewish faith and insisting on circumcision and the keeping of the Law. It appears from the Gospels that Jesus, while a Jew, was very broad in his outlook, and indeed displayed in his theology a marked Buddhist influence. Paul, although originally a rigid and extreme Pharisee, broke away totally from Judaism and roundly condemned the Jerusalem Church for remaining within it. In the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians Paul tells of how he spoke bitterly to Peter, condemning him because after his conversion at Joppa (modern day Jaffa) to the idea of allowing non-Jews to become Christians, he had reverted at the instigation of James. Paul virtually accuses Peter of cowardice. The bitter dispute between Paul and Peter was ongoing, and in the light of that fact it is surprising that many episcopal churches today have joint dedications to these two saints - yet another example of Christianity ignoring history.
In the second Letter to the Corinthians, chapter eleven, Paul refers to people who came and preached "another Jesus." As he identifies these preachers as "superlative apostles" it is apparent that he refers to the Jerusalem Church. The bitterness seems to increase with the passage of time and eventually Paul met with the Apostles in Jerusalem in an attempt to sort out the matter once and for all. It was James who placed before this meeting a compromise proposal, to the effect that Paul's converts should obey only certain essentials of the Jewish Law, and be free of the greater part. The issue of circumcision was apparently dropped. While one can applaud James' attempt at a compromise for peace, there can be no doubt that the Jerusalem Church had conceded almost everything and Paul very little. It was a mighty victory for the Damascus convert, and may well have given the final push to the movement to make Paulianity the official "Christian" religion - a movement which was to be very successful.
Paulianity took over as the orthodox Christian faith and the Church at Jerusalem gradually sank in the shifting sands of time. So completely did Paul's ideas dominate the coming centuries that Professor G. G. Findlay, writing in the 1920 edition of Peake's Commentary on the Bible could say that the Epistle to the Romans "signalises the victory of Christianity over the Judaistic reaction." Such a view will simply not hold water. What was signalised was the triumph of Paulianity over Christianity.
How did the ideas of Paul differ from the teachings of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels? In many ways. I shall attempt to outline the main ones.
A very vital point was in Paul's doctrine of salvation. As I have argued in another article (THE ATONEMENT), the idea that the death of Jesus had power to wash away our sins is simply not viable. It contradicts the Gospels, in particular Matthew chapter 25, and defies all logic and reason. Yet Paul made it a central plank of his theology, probably borrowing the idea from old Pagan concepts of the Saviour - Gods. These elements were present in Greek theology, and Paul was clearly influenced by this. It has to be said, however, that the Epistles do not give a totally consistent message on this point, for in two places, Romans chapter 2 verse 6 and Philippians chapter 2 verse 12 Paul seems to be advocating the doctrine of salvation by deeds. This contradiction is puzzling, to say the least, and can best be explained by asserting that Paul had not worked out a consistent theology.
Paul places a great value on the Resurrection of Jesus, so much so that in Romans 10.9 he offers belief in the Resurrection as, along with a verbal confession of faith in Jesus as Lord, the sole basis of human salvation. This clearly comes into conflict with his atonementalist ideas mentioned in the last paragraph, but we must face up to further contradictions at this point. In Philippians 3.11 Paul states that only those who have achieved a certain spiritual status are given the gift of resurrection, the rest simply cease to exist. A quite different concept is put forward in Romans 2.8 where Paul states that all survive death but are divided in the afterlife into those who are destined for happiness and those marked out for eternal punishment. In this Passage Paul's hatred of the Jews is apparent - he has the Children of Israel leading the marching column through the gates of Hell! However, whichever concept of the afterlife is in vogue Paul continues to lay a great emphasis on the resurrection of Jesus, a point which the Master himself did not make. With regard to the afterlife Jesus was consistent in his belief that all human beings survived death. He also implied that the afterlife had been in existence before his time, whereas Paul states that there was no resurrection before Jesus. If Paul were correct on this point it would be impossible to make sense of the story of the Transfiguration, where the long-departed pre-Christian spirits of Moses and Elijah manifested. Finally on this point, whereas Jesus believed in the survival of the spirit, a concept very similar to modern-day Spiritualism, Paul opts for a bodily resurrection, albeit with a new kind of body. This is outlined in I Corinthians 15, although Paul does not make it at all clear what the renewed body is like.
The communion service is central to most forms of Christian worship, and many Christians think of it as being instituted by the Lord himself. It was not. The words of the Institution were given by Paul in I Corinthians 11, and in an astonishing subtext Paul gives an idea which is totally and completely at variance with the Spirit of Jesus. In verse 30 of that chapter he states that some cases of sickness and death among the Christian community are punishments for taking the Holy Communion in the wrong spirit. Jesus, on the other hand, regarded sickness as an evil to be cast out. Healing formed a major, perhaps the major, part of his ministry.
This leads us to another point. The life and ministry of Jesus was socially oriented. He was a healer, comforter, carer. The feeding of the five thousand came about because Jesus expressed concern that the people were hungry, and when he healed Jairus' daughter his first instruction was to give her something to eat. This caring spirit with its emphasis on the social gospel finds no echo in Paul's epistles, although there are some traces of it in the Acts of the Apostles, where Luke presents a picture of Paul's character somewhat at variance with that which we derive from the direct evidence of the epistles. The warm humanity of Jesus is replaced in Paul's writings by a mystical religion which appears to fly high above the heads of ordinary mortals and looks down on them from a great height without caring about their needs.
There is a hymn which is very popular in our churches and is often regarded as an epitome of the Christian faith. One verse of it goes like this,
"His dying crimson, like a robe
Spreads o'er his body on the tree.
Then am I dead to all the globe
And all the globe is dead to me."
Blasphemy! Pure, unadulterated blasphemy! The warm-hearted, caring, concerned figure of the Nazarene would surely have recoiled at words which imply that adoration of him would lead to a divorce from the world, a shutting of the door of the mind to the cries of our race. Yet the words are very typical of the distant, divorced attitude of Paul - a fact not easily recognised in the Church, for the Church follows Paul, not Jesus, and often appears blind to his shortcomings. Perhaps we should not be surprised at this. The Gospel of Paul, with its inturned emphasis on personal salvation and its inturned attitude offers a much easier path than the socially challenging and hard-to-follow Gospel of Jesus. It is much easier to base our lives on the Epistles of Paul than on the Epistle of James - and how often does one hear the Epistle of James read in a Christian church?
Closely allied to this social concern is the attitude of the two faiths towards people. Jesus was known to have a tolerant attitude to sinners and outcasts of society, and to have no bias against women. The compassion towards the outcasts is lacking in Paul, and his attitude to women is remarkable. It is due to Paul that we do not have women priests in the Catholic church, and have only very recently introduced them to the Church of England and the Church in Wales. It is down to Paul's attitude to marriage, outlined below, that many priests in the episcopalian churches, and all in the Catholic church, are unmarried. Paul carried his misogynist ideas to the point of stating that no woman should have full membership of the church, an opinion which he sets forth in the First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 14. His attitude to women is seen all too clearly in his views on marriage, which, to say the least, do not place that scared institution in a very good light. Paul thinks that marriage is best avoided because it gives both partners responsibilities which detract from their spiritual work. This is set forth in I Corinthians chapter 7, and in the same chapter Paul states his belief that sex is undesirable, but because we are human marriage can be tolerated as a sexual outlet. There is another peculiar concept in the theology of Paul which has no echo in the words of Jesus. It is an idea which lacks any trace of logic and presents God in a very bad light. This is the belief that God makes us disobedient, if necessarily against our wills, in order that He can redeem us! The view is set out in Romans 11.32. The idea of God conveyed in this theological position leaves the reader with a vision of a Deity who plays about, creating a situation in which He can make use of His toy. We may well ask why it is necessary for the Deity to do such a thing. Surely there is sufficient disobedience in the world due to the normal course of events, so creating more and forcing it upon the human race is superfluous - as well as showing a contempt for human freewill and choice.

Concerning the accusation that Paul was intolerant, that does not seem at all compatible with his words:

Quote:

Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Continued:

Jzyehoshua · 02-29-2008, 04:42 AM

Continued:

In the book of Acts we do not see a guy who shouts down others intolerantly, but who reasons with them based upon what they accept as truth. With the philosophical Greeks he quoted their own poets and philosophers, reasoning with them on broad philosophical terms; with the Scriptural-minded Jews he reasoned with them based on their own Scriptures and prophecies!

Quote:

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath daysreasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

As for the existence of 2 Christian churches, that is recorded in the book of Acts. The reason for it wasn't Paul, but Peter! You see, the early Jewish Christians did not even believe Gentiles (non-Jews) could be saved. God had to show them otherwise through Peter, as recorded in Acts 10.

Much of the book of Acts speaks of how after the revealing of this truth, even before Paul became a believer, there were 2 groups, the Jewish Christians, and the new Gentile believers who were forsaking the pagan beliefs of Greek mythology. Galatians and much of Acts is written about the divides which occurred as a result of some legalistic Jews wanting to force these new Gentile believers to accept the old rituals and ordinances of the Mosaic Law such as circumcision and the observance of holidays.

Peter and the other apostles met to discuss this issue and concluded just as Paul did in Galatians, that by the Law the Jews hadn't been justified, but only by the blood of Christ. They shouldn't place any restrictions on the new believers except what was absolutely necessary, which as they concluded in Acts 15:5-29 and mentioned again in Acts 21:25, was to avoid four things: eating meat with the blood, eating food sacrificed to idols, committing fornication (sexual sin), and eating meat which had been strangled.

Furthermore, this author accidentally misquoted the Scriptures about why Paul and Peter disagreed. It wasn't because Peter thought the Gentiles (non-Jews) couldn't be Christians anymore. It was because Peter made the mistake of getting carried away with the legalistic Jews in agreeing to set restrictions on the Gentile believers of circumcision and other fleshly rituals that were unnecessary, as Paul points out:

Quote:

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

As Paul says there , Peter's fault wasn't in saying non-Jews couldn't be Christians, but in compelling them to live like the Jews in physical ordinances and commandments that were unnecessary (v. 14). The whole rest of the book of Galatians is written on the subject of how we are not under the Law, but under grace, and such ordinances are unnecessary.

Concerning Philippians 2:12, it is the same as Ephesians 2:8-10.

Quote:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

You see, we are saved by faith, not works. However, in being saved we are created in Jesus to DO good works, and God wants us to walk in them. Therefore, it is evidence to ourselves as well as to others that we do good deeds towards our fellow men. We are not saved by those deeds, but it is outward evidence that there is a new life inside us. That is what James in James chapter 2 focuses on, this outward evidence of new life within.

Furthermore, it is very clear that Jesus expected to be the Saviour of His people, as did the writers of the Gospels. This author is making a mistake in saying Paul was the only one claiming this.

John claimed it:

Quote:

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

Matthew claimed it:

Quote:

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke claimed it:

Quote:

Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Luke 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

Peter claimed it:

Quote:

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

The writer of Hebrews claimed it:

Quote:

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

But most importantly, Jesus Himself said He came to save His people and that whoever believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life.

Quote:

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 2:10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

There are numerous other instances of Jesus saying this, including John 6:47, 7:38, 11:25-26, and 12:44-46.

Paul did not hate Jews. A common misconception occurs because the New Testament, as with Paul here, sometimes speak of Jews when referencing Pharisees specifically. If you look at Romans 2:19-21 you'll see it was specifically speaking to the teachers of the people, i.e. the Pharisees or religious instructors.

That is where those accusing the New Testament of anti-Semitism make their mistake. The Gospels speak negatively of the Pharisees, but positively of the Jewish people. They record how the Pharisees often feared to move against Jesus or John the Baptist because they feared the Jewish people who considered both prophets, and revered them.

Furthermore, Jesus was not socially oriented. He pointed out His main mission wasn't to give physical food:

Quote:

John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Jesus did not come to give truth of this life only. He pointed out this life is not what matters, but the next:

Quote:

Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Luke 13:1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

As for Jesus and Paul differing about the afterlife, that is not the case. The article's author makes the mistake of saying Jesus emphasized an afterlife before He came which is true but use that to say Paul in emphasizing a Resurrection only after Jesus comes was false. The problem is both are not mutually exclusive. There could be an afterlife yet no ultimate Resurrection until Jesus returns. The Jews recognize the concept of Sheol or the grave, a waiting place where those who die go until the Resurrection. This is what both Paul and Jesus referred to.

Quote:

1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Paul specifically addressed this misconception that those who'd died in the past wouldn't be able to be resurrected by pointing out that Jesus would bring them with Him, meaning there had been an afterlife already!

Furthermore, Theologia.com's author makes the mistake of assuming that saying we should "divorce" ourselves from the world means we shouldn't care for the weak and needy. Paul said both, as did Jesus. The two are not mutually exclusive concepts, yet again the author treats concepts as though they are when they're not in making his/her claim of "blasphemy."

The author claims in 1 Corinthians 14 that Paul said women couldn't be members of the church. Where? Paul at the end of the chapter says wives should keep silent in church, but that in itself implies they are members of the church!

And finally, Paul does not forbid marriage. In the very chapter the author references, 1 Corinthians 7, Paul specifically says the following:

Quote:

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Right there, Paul says everyone should marry to avoid fornication, or sexual sin, and that they shouldn't stop having sex unless it is for a short time with one another's consent for the purpose of fasting and prayer.

waitingtables · 02-29-2008, 11:22 AM

There are 22 mentions of Paul's Apostleship in the Bible, and in all of them save 2, it is Paul referencing himself. And the other 2 are referenced by Luke, his faithful companion and student. Paul is the single greatest contributor of the New Testament, and branded himself as the Apostle to the Gentiles. And before Paul, no one had heard of the notion that the Law had been superseded in any way. Jesus and his followers abided by the entire Law of Moses, including burnt offerings. There is a quote by Peter that would seem to show that he didn't support Paul, it states, "Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he brings from Jerusalem, the testimony of James, the Lord's brother." Paul lied about his training as a Pharisee, lied about the mission of Christ, and taught that the Law of the Jews was not important. Ebonite writings show that Paul had no Pharisaic training or background, he was a convert to Judaism, born of Gentile parents in Tarsus. As an adult he came to Jerusalem as a henchman of the High Priest. He gained no advancement, and he split with the High Priest and created his own new religion. Paul recognized that there were two branches of of Christ's mission that were opposing, the "false" teachings of James, the brother of Jesus, and his own Hellenistic mystery romance that disregarded the very core beliefs of Judaism. See 1 Corinthians, 9:20-25 where he himself reveals himself as a liar. He was not a popular figure he was with the people of Jerusalem is clear when you read Acts chapter 21, where he is to sure of his authority and enters the temple, only to be drug out to be lynched by the crowd, who recognize him as the man who taught against the Covenant community and the Law, when he was at Ephesus. And it can be argued that Jesus, in the Book of Revelation, commended the Ephesian church for rejecting someone who claimed to be an apostle, and Paul is the only person other than the 12 original apostles, who had claimed to be an apostle, and that he made this very claim to the same Ephesian Church. Paul himself says in 2Timothy 1:15, "This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me." And that it is the 7 churches in Asia, that Jesus is referring to in the Book of Revelation.

The notion that what is in the Bible is correct because God would not allow his word to be misrepresented is what I call circular reasoning.

We could argue the term Messiah and what that meant to the Jerusalem church, and the changing of the word to the Christ in the New Testament. Messiah in the Jewish community of that time, did not mean saviour in a spiritual sense at all. It meant the king who would come and save them from the Roman oppression. It is a political term, and was viewed as such at that time, with no connotations of the supernatural. The term Christos is entirely different in meaning and is Greek, far from unique, and not restricted to one individual. The Greek translation of the word took on tones of a Hellenistic mystery cult with the supernatural power to save souls and redeem the world. Which must be very disturbing to for modern Jewish scholars when they see that their heritage has been used to lend credence to a Roman mystery cult, largely of ancient Persian origin. Early Christians enlarged the Old Testament to create a "bumper" Old Testament, supporting their new religion, while accusing the Jews of deleting these scriptures from their own texts. It is now widely recognized that the original 22 books of the Old Testament are the only components of the tr