A
adrift
Guest
I am not sure what you mean by this statement that Paul “began”. Are you saying that this preaching originated with Paul?
- Status
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Not sure but from what I read, thats how it seems.
C
Carlan
Guest
Good, but then not so good, Oh well, we never give up hope, maybe someday.
Peace, Carlan
A
adrift
Guest
I have heard this speculation before that Paul is the one that corrupted the faith. I believe that this is the belief of the Muslims. I don’t believe that Paul originated that Jesus is God. The apostles especially Thomas acknowledge Jesus as God. The teaching did not originate with Paul. He taught it because it is the truth not because he made it up.
Paul spoke about faith but I do not know of anywhere that he said faith alone.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is not actually God who "sends " people to hell, but sin. People choose to go to hell, by not availing themselves of the grace that is available to avoid it. God desires that everyone be saved.
I think you will have to provide some quotes from Augustine to support this, u-gal. The Aposltes taught that God hates, sin, but loves the sinner. His wrath is against the stain of sin that separates us from Him, because we are made by Him for fellowship with Him.
If His wrath were against humanity, then it could not be said of Him that “He so loved the world that He gave His only son…”
I don’t think you will find any Catholic apologists claiming this. Catholics embrace the One Faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles. In that faith, we are taught that humanity was created in the image and likeness of God. Sin wounded our nature, but we are not “inherintly evil”. On the contrary, we are designed to seek Him and to be in union with him. But, since we are wounded by sin, we cannot, of ourselves, seek and find Him. We can only return to fellowship with Him by grace, through faith.
It is true, though that all who fail to take advantage of that saving grace are destined for hell.
There are some aspects of salvation that are completed, and permanent. For example, at baptism, we are transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. We are sealed with the promised holy spirit. There are some aspects of salvation that are in process, and continue throughout this life, and some that do not occur until the end of this life. Personally I don’t like the phraseology of “lose salvation”. It does not make sense to “lose” something you have not yet attained. We can fail to be united withou our heavenly inheritance.
We can also have confidence in our salvation as we walk by grace, through faith.
These are all the children of the Reformation that have been influenced by Calvanism. The theory is that it was meant to be “easy” to get saved. However, any faithful Calvanist will tell you (as some on this thread have) that a Christian is obligated to walk in faithfulness and obedience, and that the Christian walk is not necessarily “easy”.
No, but their views on original sin are not that difference. They are not influenced by Western philosophy, and they don’t believe that God has “wrath against humanity”.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, Paul never preached that.Or it might be more accurate to say that for Paul, 'simply believing" meant being “in Christ”- living according to His commandments, and obeying Him in all things. Saving faith is faith that works.
There is no salvation apart from Christ.
Christ is the Head of His One Body, the Church.
All who are members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church.
G
guanophore
Guest
Wow. I never knew you thought that. Is this a common belief in your faith community?
How do you reconcile that with the fact that when Paul checked his gospel with that of the other apostles, there was no conflict/difference?
S
Sherry_G
Guest
Since you are speaking from a Baptist perspective, I want to ask you to clarify this point for me as my sis-in-law is a Baptist. She was going to church regularly, but got into a battle with the new pastor and now she has quit going to church altogether. I am very concerned for her spiritual welfare and have tried to discuss with her what she is doing by not giving God worship on Sunday. She doesn’t seem to think that it matters as she is already saved. Can you explain her point or do you disagree?
S
Sherry_G
Guest
Monkeys???what do we need to be “saved” from to begin with
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Then Paul, formerly Saul, a Roman citizen and persecutor of the early followers of Jesus, began publicizing Jesus widely. Paul never met Jesus and knew about him only through the stories that were being circulated. Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem church, Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, were at odds over whether converts must first convert to Judaism before becoming followers of Jesus.
Paul’s teachings about Jesus were very different from those of James, Peter, and the others in the Jerusalem group. It is striking that Paul’s letters never quote Jesus, rarely refer to Jesus’ teachings, and never mention Jesus’ life. Paul taught his own version of Jesus’ teachings and created his own rules. The Christian Church throughout the 2,000 years since Jesus has been formed by Paul’s teachings, not the teachings of James, the brother of Jesus, and, some say, not the teachings of Jesus himself.
The fact that Paul did not present Jesus’teachings in his epistles or his own preaching has been acknowledged for centuries. Only the Church, built around Paul, fails to admit that fact.
**The Central Difference **
The central difference between Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s church was in justification by faith. Paul believed the statement in Ephesians 2:8: “You have been saved by God’s love and kindness because you believed. It was not because of anything you did, but it was a gift from God.”
And as a baptized Christian in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, I along with other Christians who have been baptized in their name are a part of Christs Church.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
How do you get that I thought that and that its a common belief in my faith community from: Originally Posted by rev kevin
**Not sure but from what I read, thats how it seems. **
R
rev_kevin
Guest
I found this to be interesting.
Types of Christianity in History
Who Were the First Christians?
***In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.”
“Lost Christianities” by Bart Ehrman (2003)1***
‘Christianity’ as a single religion is not 2,000 years old. A series of varied different religions, flowing on from one another, have all called themselves “Christian”. Rightly so. But the beliefs and form have changed so much from time to time that it is best to consider Christianity a series of religions and the word “Christianity” to be an umbrella term for multiple faiths all of which have the same name but different beliefs. Unfortunately for hundreds of years until the Enlightenment, it was thought that modern-day Christianity in its various forms, represented early Christianity. It hardly does. Christianity now is quite varied, but in history the varieties were much more exotic.
***“The historian, in speaking of Christianity, has to be careful to recognize the very great changes that it has undergone, and the variety of forms that it may assume even at one epoch.”
“History of Western Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell (1946)2
“In the first few centuries CE there really was no such thing as ‘the Church’, only competing factions, of which the Literalists were one.”
“The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999)***
Types of Christianity in History
Who Were the First Christians?
- Christianity was Massively Varied
Christianity is not a single, ancient religion. It is a series of religions all given the same name. Many assume that only modern Christianity to be what Christianity is. Some historical forms of Christianity have made more sense, and some have made less sense, than the Christian mythology that is common today.
***In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.”
“Lost Christianities” by Bart Ehrman (2003)1***
‘Christianity’ as a single religion is not 2,000 years old. A series of varied different religions, flowing on from one another, have all called themselves “Christian”. Rightly so. But the beliefs and form have changed so much from time to time that it is best to consider Christianity a series of religions and the word “Christianity” to be an umbrella term for multiple faiths all of which have the same name but different beliefs. Unfortunately for hundreds of years until the Enlightenment, it was thought that modern-day Christianity in its various forms, represented early Christianity. It hardly does. Christianity now is quite varied, but in history the varieties were much more exotic.
***“The historian, in speaking of Christianity, has to be careful to recognize the very great changes that it has undergone, and the variety of forms that it may assume even at one epoch.”
“History of Western Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell (1946)2
“In the first few centuries CE there really was no such thing as ‘the Church’, only competing factions, of which the Literalists were one.”
“The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999)***
R
rev_kevin
Guest
continued
What Was the Original Christianity?
3.1. Who Were the First Christians?
**Who were the original Christians? **The Pauline Christians, Greek-speaking and with Roman power, rose to power and eliminated the others in the most un-Christian way. These were the late-comers to Christendom of these four groups. The methodical historian Bauer has studied this question at great length:
“Bauer proceeds by looking at certain geographical regions of early Christendom for which we have some evidence - particularly the city of Edessa in eastern Syria, Antioch in western Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Rome. For each place, he considers the available Christian sources and subjects them to the closest scrutiny, demonstrating that contrary to the reports of Eusebius, the earliest and/or predominant forms of Christianity in most of these areas were heretical (i.e., forms subsequently condemned by the victorious party). Christianity in Edessa, for example, a major centre for orthodox Christianity in later times, was originally Marcionite; the earliest Christians in Egypt were various kinds of Gnostic, and so on. Later orthodox Christians, after they had secured their victory, tried to obscure the real history of the conflict. But they were not completely successful, leaving traces that can be scrutinized for the truth.”
"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)9
I will now summarize some contenders and explain if they could have been the true source of Christianity:
Ebionite Christians were the true Christians: Aramaic-speakers like Jesus and his apostles, they would have been the Jewish witnesses to Jesus’ ministry and preaching. From this starting point, Jesus’ teachings spread. They also, however, spread from Saul of Damascus, who renamed himself Paul and who preached an anti-Ebionite version of Christianity for the gentiles, which was much easier to follow and more popular.
**
The Marcionites were converts to Christ**, who believed truly that he had been adopted by God at his baptism, and that he had come to abolish the laws of the Old Testament, thereby defeating the evil god of the old testament. Such gnostic beliefs may be the original form of Christianity as we shall see, but Marcionism itself can only be a later re-expression of it, and no historian thinks that the Marcionites were the original Christians.
Gnostic Christians: With stories, myths and beliefs that are exactly the same as Christian ones in many of the little details, gnostic beliefs manage to pre-date Christians ones by over 200 years. They understood what the stories of the NT really meant. Jesus didn’t really exist, but was a collection of such earlier stories, rewritten in Greek, with Greek names. This is the approach taken by historians such as Freke & Gandy.
Pauline / Roman Christians: When the Roman-backed instance of Christianity went in search of the ancient centres of Christianity, they discovered to their horror that the Ebionites and Gnostics pre-dated them. Their un-Christian answer was to edit verses, burn books, invent doctrines such as the Trinity, arrest and harass the other poverty-stricken Christians until no opposition was left. The form of Christianity that we have inherited from the Roman Empire is far from what Christianity originally was, yet most modern denominations took Cappadocian-Nicene Pauline Christianity as their starting point (and few have moved far from it).
What Was the Original Christianity?
3.1. Who Were the First Christians?
**Who were the original Christians? **The Pauline Christians, Greek-speaking and with Roman power, rose to power and eliminated the others in the most un-Christian way. These were the late-comers to Christendom of these four groups. The methodical historian Bauer has studied this question at great length:
“Bauer proceeds by looking at certain geographical regions of early Christendom for which we have some evidence - particularly the city of Edessa in eastern Syria, Antioch in western Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Rome. For each place, he considers the available Christian sources and subjects them to the closest scrutiny, demonstrating that contrary to the reports of Eusebius, the earliest and/or predominant forms of Christianity in most of these areas were heretical (i.e., forms subsequently condemned by the victorious party). Christianity in Edessa, for example, a major centre for orthodox Christianity in later times, was originally Marcionite; the earliest Christians in Egypt were various kinds of Gnostic, and so on. Later orthodox Christians, after they had secured their victory, tried to obscure the real history of the conflict. But they were not completely successful, leaving traces that can be scrutinized for the truth.”
"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)9
I will now summarize some contenders and explain if they could have been the true source of Christianity:
Ebionite Christians were the true Christians: Aramaic-speakers like Jesus and his apostles, they would have been the Jewish witnesses to Jesus’ ministry and preaching. From this starting point, Jesus’ teachings spread. They also, however, spread from Saul of Damascus, who renamed himself Paul and who preached an anti-Ebionite version of Christianity for the gentiles, which was much easier to follow and more popular.
**
The Marcionites were converts to Christ**, who believed truly that he had been adopted by God at his baptism, and that he had come to abolish the laws of the Old Testament, thereby defeating the evil god of the old testament. Such gnostic beliefs may be the original form of Christianity as we shall see, but Marcionism itself can only be a later re-expression of it, and no historian thinks that the Marcionites were the original Christians.
Gnostic Christians: With stories, myths and beliefs that are exactly the same as Christian ones in many of the little details, gnostic beliefs manage to pre-date Christians ones by over 200 years. They understood what the stories of the NT really meant. Jesus didn’t really exist, but was a collection of such earlier stories, rewritten in Greek, with Greek names. This is the approach taken by historians such as Freke & Gandy.
Pauline / Roman Christians: When the Roman-backed instance of Christianity went in search of the ancient centres of Christianity, they discovered to their horror that the Ebionites and Gnostics pre-dated them. Their un-Christian answer was to edit verses, burn books, invent doctrines such as the Trinity, arrest and harass the other poverty-stricken Christians until no opposition was left. The form of Christianity that we have inherited from the Roman Empire is far from what Christianity originally was, yet most modern denominations took Cappadocian-Nicene Pauline Christianity as their starting point (and few have moved far from it).
R
rev_kevin
Guest
continued
2. The Earliest Christianities
2.1. Mithraism and Christianity (200BCE +)
Many have realized that as Christianity copied, re-named and inherited many Pagan myths, such as those of Mithraism, that it is hard to pin down a “start” date for Christian ideas. If you go back far enough, Christian history is actually pagan history.
“Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. …] The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity.”
"Mithraism and Early Christianity" by Vexen Crabtree (2002)
2.2. The Therapeutae (10CE)
Early Christians were criticized for copying Pagan ideas and stories and simply re-telling them. By the 4th century, the founders of the Christian Church sought evidence and historical proof to back up their mistaken opinion that Christianity was a new religion, derived from the new revelations of Jesus. Eusebius failed to find much evidence at all, except in the book of the first century author, Philo, who described a group of people who were clearly practicing Christian rituals:
“Eusebius, the fourth-century Church propagandist, could find little evidence from which to construct a history of Christianity, so he eagerly seized upon a description in one of Philo’s books, of a group of Jews called the Therapeutae. Philo’s description of their spring festival is reminiscent of the Christian celebration of Easter and Eusebius, therefore, claimed that he had discovered the earliest Christians in Alexandria. … but] the spring, of course, was also the time when Pagans celebrated their festival of the dying and resurrecting godman, so Eusebius is unjustified in his assumption. Philo wrote about the Therapeutae in 10 CE, which would be 20 years before the supposed date of the crucifixion …]. The Therapeutae are a group of Jews clearly practising a Jewish version of the Pagan Mysteries. …] We can tell that the Therapeutae were Jews because they celebrated the Jewish festival of the Pentecost and kept sacred the Sabbath. …]”
**“The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999) **
Eusebius didn’t know that Philo was writing 20 years too early, and he had therefore uncovered additional evidence that turn-of-the-millennium Jewish Paganism was almost identical to Christianity in terms of rituals and beliefs - if Jesus arrived and preached a New Testament, it seems he really didn’t have anything new to say that wasn’t already being practiced in a Christian way by pagans. The fact that “Philo can, in one sentence, compare the Therapeutae to both initiates of the Mysteries of Dionysis and the followers of Moses on the banks of the Red Sea shows just how integrated Pagan and Jewish traditions had become”. They lived “near that great melting-pot pf Pagan and Jewish cultures, Alexandria”.
Today when we trace the source of modern Christianity, we find that Christianity was codified in the 4th century. But in the fourth century, they didn’t know what the source of Christianity was although critics said it was re-hashed paganism. So in the fourth century, they too searched in history to find the source of Christianity. They found the history of their religion to pre-date the actual founding of their own religion. The ancient history of Christianity is merged with the history of Paganism and the Church Fathers in the 4th century, so much closer to original Christianity than us, even mistook a group of pagans for early Christians. It wasn’t the only time that they done this either, for when Bishop Melito in 160CE when in search of the ancient center of Christianity, he discovered only a group called the Ebionites, another ancient group that 4th century Christianity rejected as heretical.
2. The Earliest Christianities
2.1. Mithraism and Christianity (200BCE +)
Many have realized that as Christianity copied, re-named and inherited many Pagan myths, such as those of Mithraism, that it is hard to pin down a “start” date for Christian ideas. If you go back far enough, Christian history is actually pagan history.
“Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. …] The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity.”
"Mithraism and Early Christianity" by Vexen Crabtree (2002)
2.2. The Therapeutae (10CE)
Early Christians were criticized for copying Pagan ideas and stories and simply re-telling them. By the 4th century, the founders of the Christian Church sought evidence and historical proof to back up their mistaken opinion that Christianity was a new religion, derived from the new revelations of Jesus. Eusebius failed to find much evidence at all, except in the book of the first century author, Philo, who described a group of people who were clearly practicing Christian rituals:
“Eusebius, the fourth-century Church propagandist, could find little evidence from which to construct a history of Christianity, so he eagerly seized upon a description in one of Philo’s books, of a group of Jews called the Therapeutae. Philo’s description of their spring festival is reminiscent of the Christian celebration of Easter and Eusebius, therefore, claimed that he had discovered the earliest Christians in Alexandria. … but] the spring, of course, was also the time when Pagans celebrated their festival of the dying and resurrecting godman, so Eusebius is unjustified in his assumption. Philo wrote about the Therapeutae in 10 CE, which would be 20 years before the supposed date of the crucifixion …]. The Therapeutae are a group of Jews clearly practising a Jewish version of the Pagan Mysteries. …] We can tell that the Therapeutae were Jews because they celebrated the Jewish festival of the Pentecost and kept sacred the Sabbath. …]”
**“The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999) **
Eusebius didn’t know that Philo was writing 20 years too early, and he had therefore uncovered additional evidence that turn-of-the-millennium Jewish Paganism was almost identical to Christianity in terms of rituals and beliefs - if Jesus arrived and preached a New Testament, it seems he really didn’t have anything new to say that wasn’t already being practiced in a Christian way by pagans. The fact that “Philo can, in one sentence, compare the Therapeutae to both initiates of the Mysteries of Dionysis and the followers of Moses on the banks of the Red Sea shows just how integrated Pagan and Jewish traditions had become”. They lived “near that great melting-pot pf Pagan and Jewish cultures, Alexandria”.
Today when we trace the source of modern Christianity, we find that Christianity was codified in the 4th century. But in the fourth century, they didn’t know what the source of Christianity was although critics said it was re-hashed paganism. So in the fourth century, they too searched in history to find the source of Christianity. They found the history of their religion to pre-date the actual founding of their own religion. The ancient history of Christianity is merged with the history of Paganism and the Church Fathers in the 4th century, so much closer to original Christianity than us, even mistook a group of pagans for early Christians. It wasn’t the only time that they done this either, for when Bishop Melito in 160CE when in search of the ancient center of Christianity, he discovered only a group called the Ebionites, another ancient group that 4th century Christianity rejected as heretical.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Kev, if you really believe this stuff then I don’t know what to say.
First of all the early Christians, including Paul himself, were already dealing with the gnostics and identifying them as false teachers.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 6:19-21[/BIBLEDRB]
The Ebionites were likewise identified as false teachers by the Apostles themselves (see Acts 15).
And the notion that the (Catholic) Christians “arrest[ed] and harass[ed] the other poverty-stricken Christians” is baloney. Even after the Council of Nicea the Arians flourished to the point that they eventually took down the Roman Empire itself. If Constantine or whoever was supposedly a martial-law doctrinal enforcer, he/they surely did a poor job.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Soooooooo you reject St. Paul’s epistles rev?
God bless
God bless
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Posts 72, 73, 74 were for another thread. Sorry.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Not saying I reject it. That is what I found.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
So you don’t believe the info you posted? What was your reasoning for posting it?
God bless
R
rev_kevin
Guest
You asked Originally Posted by Roman_Catholic
Soooooooo you reject St. Paul’s epistles rev?
And I answered you with: Not saying I reject it. That is what I found.
This is the last I will respond to about this subject because the posts were meant for another thread not this one.
- Status