Saul of Tarsus. The first heretic?

SubjectSean · 17-12-2007 6:14am #1

The thinking of Saul of Tarsus as witnessed in his letters, is more significant to the Christian faith than that of any other New Testament author. In discussions here I have been frequently surprised to learn that those who profess to be followers of Jesus are mostly ignorant or in denial of the great rift that existed between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem. As Michael Beignet and Richard Leigh (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception Corgi Books, London, 1991) have said;

"... Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic, and his teachings, which become the foundation of later Christianity, are a flagrant deviation from the 'Original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership. Whether James, the 'Lord's brother,' was literally Jesus' blood kin or not (and everything suggests he was), it is clear that he knew Jesus...personally. So did most of the other members of the community or 'early Church,' in Jerusalem, including of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he'd begun to regard as his 'Saviour.' He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus' teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimise it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus."

"As things transpired, however, the mainstream of the new movement gradually coalesced, during the next three centuries, around Paul and his teachings. Thus, to the undoubted posthumous horror of James and his associates, an entirely new religion was indeed born, a religion that came to have less and less to do with its supposed founder."

A coherent presentation of the facts of the case can be found at http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html If anybody is in disagreement with the general thrust of this argument I'd be curious to know why.

kelly1 · 17-12-2007 11:37am

Do you actually believe this nonsense!??? The guy is an atheist!

This is from the homepage of the same site:

Hello, welcome to my website. This site presents the "fruits" of my intellectual journey from being a believing Christian into a convinced atheist. The journey was tumultuous, sometimes exasperating, but always interesting. The journey started in 1988, and it continues to this day. The freedom to think for yourself, to live life to the fullest, to be a happy and moral human being have been the rewards of this journey.

Perhaps this website is the beginning of your own quest of self-discovery.

Be God Free.

The main thesis of this website is that Christianity is both untrue and harmful.

PDN · 17-12-2007 11:45am

SubjectSean wrote: »

The thinking of Saul of Tarsus as witnessed in his letters, is more significant to the Christian faith than that of any other New Testament author. In discussions here I have been frequently surprised to learn that those who profess to be followers of Jesus are mostly ignorant or in denial of the great rift that existed between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem. As Michael Beignet and Richard Leigh (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception Corgi Books, London, 1991) have said;

"... Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic, and his teachings, which become the foundation of later Christianity, are a flagrant deviation from the 'Original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership. Whether James, the 'Lord's brother,' was literally Jesus' blood kin or not (and everything suggests he was), it is clear that he knew Jesus...personally. So did most of the other members of the community or 'early Church,' in Jerusalem, including of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he'd begun to regard as his 'Saviour.' He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus' teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimise it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus."

"As things transpired, however, the mainstream of the new movement gradually coalesced, during the next three centuries, around Paul and his teachings. Thus, to the undoubted posthumous horror of James and his associates, an entirely new religion was indeed born, a religion that came to have less and less to do with its supposed founder."

A coherent presentation of the facts of the case can be found at http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html If anybody is in disagreement with the general thrust of this argument I'd be curious to know why.

Yes, I would be in strong disagreement with the general thrust of your argument.

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are conspiracy theorists who are on a par with The DaVinci Code when it comes to peddling speculative ahistorical twaddle (at least Dan Brown had the honesty to admit his book was fiction).

The Scriptural evidence is that the Jerusalem Church, headed by James, was supportive of Paul's preaching and his ministry to the Gentiles. According to Acts 15 they endorsed Paul's mission, while asking him to observe a few basic niceties that would avoid inflaming hard-line Jews.

Also, the earliest known Christian document clearly states that the Jerusalem Church extended the right hand of fellowship to Paul and his mission (Galatians 2:9).

Paul's letters suggest that there were tensions with a minority in Jerusalem (the Judaisers who wanted to force Gentiles to be circumcised if they converted) but that he maintained friendly relations with the Church leadership in Jerusalem. For example, in Romans 15:25-31 Paul asks the believers to pray that his trip to take financial aid to the church in Jerusalem will go well and that he will not be harmed by the unbelievers (ie non-Christian Jews) there who were opposed to him. Also, in 1 Corinthians 16 Paul refers to a financial collection that he was arranging among the Gentiles to give to the Jerusalem Church.

Run_to_da_hills · 17-12-2007 11:46am

Satan will do anything in his power to try to get us to discredit the word of god. We need to be aware of Satan’s schemes and tactics. The sad truth is that many people are woefully ignorant of the Bible

JACK BE NIMBLE · 17-12-2007 12:26pm

Subject Sean, is this information from the same authors who stated that the priory of sion originated in 1099, with people like isaac newton and leo da vinci as their grandmasters when in fact it was an invention of a man named pierre plantard in 1961. There is alot of BS out there!

Zombrex · 17-12-2007 12:43pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Satan will do anything in his power to try to get us to discredit the word of god. We need to be aware of Satan’s schemes and tactics. The sad truth is that many people are woefully ignorant of the Bible

Its all Satan this, and Satan that with you Run isn't it

Do you believe anything ever happens without involving Satan?

Run_to_da_hills · 17-12-2007 12:48pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Its all Satan this, and Satan that with you Run isn't it

Do you believe anything ever happens without involving Satan?

Satan is the God of this world. "has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel of the Glory of Christ" ( 2 Corinthians 4;4)

kelly1 · 17-12-2007 12:57pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Satan is the God of this world. "has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel of the Glory of Christ" ( 2 Corinthians 4;4)

I think you mean "prince" of this world? He's no god.

JimiTime · 17-12-2007 1:03pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

The thinking of Saul of Tarsus as witnessed in his letters, is more significant to the Christian faith than that of any other New Testament author. In discussions here I have been frequently surprised to learn that those who profess to be followers of Jesus are mostly ignorant or in denial of the great rift that existed between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem. As Michael Beignet and Richard Leigh (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception Corgi Books, London, 1991) have said;

"... Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic, and his teachings, which become the foundation of later Christianity, are a flagrant deviation from the 'Original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership. Whether James, the 'Lord's brother,' was literally Jesus' blood kin or not (and everything suggests he was), it is clear that he knew Jesus...personally. So did most of the other members of the community or 'early Church,' in Jerusalem, including of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he'd begun to regard as his 'Saviour.' He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus' teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimise it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus."

"As things transpired, however, the mainstream of the new movement gradually coalesced, during the next three centuries, around Paul and his teachings. Thus, to the undoubted posthumous horror of James and his associates, an entirely new religion was indeed born, a religion that came to have less and less to do with its supposed founder."

A coherent presentation of the facts of the case can be found at http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html If anybody is in disagreement with the general thrust of this argument I'd be curious to know why.

Again, if we are to assume you are right, could you detail as much as you can, where Paul contradicts Jesus' teachings.

Run_to_da_hills · 17-12-2007 1:07pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I think you mean "prince" of this world? He's no god.

When the Bible says that Satan is the "god of this world" it is not saying that he has ultimate authority. It is conveying the idea that Satan rules over the unbelieving world in a specific way. In the case of 2 Corinthians 4:4, the unbeliever follows Satan's agenda.

If we read in 2 Corinthians 4:4, the "god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ." Satan's agenda includes pushing a false philosophy onto the unbelieving world

Satan has many different titles, ie.

Abaddon Rev 9:11
Accuser of the Brethren Rev 12:10
Adversary 1Pet 5:8
Angel of the Bottomless Pit Rev 9:11
Apollyon Rev 9:11
Beelzebub Mat 12:24, Mk 3:22
Belial 2 Cor 6:15, 2 Sam 23:6
Devil Mat 4:1
Dragon Rev 20:2
God of This World 2 Cor 4:4
Lucifer Isa 14:12
Murderer Jn 8:44
Prince of Devils Mat 12:24
Prince of the Power of the Air Eph 2:2
Prince of the World Jn 14:30
Roaring Lion 1 Pet 5:8
Ruler of Darkness Eph 6:12
Serpent Gen 3:4, Rev 20:2
Tempter Mat 4:3
Unclean Spirit Mat 12:43
Wicked One Mat 13:19

kelly1 · 17-12-2007 1:56pm

Thanks RTDH, you're right, I wasn't aware that Satan was referred to as "the god of this world" in 2 Cor 4:4. I learn something new every day!

Zombrex · 17-12-2007 2:14pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

When the Bible says that Satan is the "god of this world" it is not saying that he has ultimate authority. It is conveying the idea that Satan rules over the unbelieving world in a specific way.

Interesting. Is this what the Mormons mean when they say Jesus was a "god"

SubjectSean · 17-12-2007 2:24pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you actually believe this nonsense!??? The guy is an atheist!

This is from the homepage of the same site:

Noel clearly I believe it or I wouldn't have posted it. My opinion is a minority one but I think that most Christians are not true to the person they claim to follow. Instead it seems they prefer to rely on the teachings of somebody who never met him.

The fact that the author of the argument is an athiest should be of no concern whatsoever to a person dealing in reason and logic.

PDN · 17-12-2007 2:29pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks RTDH, you're right, I wasn't aware that Satan was referred to as "the god of this world" in 2 Cor 4:4. I learn something new every day!

The Greek is literally "the god of this age". The Greek word for age aionos is where we get our word 'aeon'.

SubjectSean · 17-12-2007 2:36pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The sad truth is that many people are woefully ignorant of the Bible

No offence but it seems like a great many Christians are woefully ignorant of the fact that Jesus did not write the Bible and nor did any of the people who knew him. It also seems that many Christians are wholly ignorant of the history of the first decades of their religion.

As is states in a well known open source encyclopedia "the followers of Jesus composed an apocalyptic Jewish sect during the late Second Temple period of the 1st century. Some groups that followed Jesus were strictly Jewish, such as the Ebionites, as were the church leaders in Jerusalem, collectively called Jewish Christians. Paul of Tarsus, however, had better success proselytizing among the Gentiles, and persuaded the leaders of the Jerusalem Church to allow Gentile converts not to follow all Jewish law. Jews who did not convert to Christianity and the growing Christian community gradually became more hostile toward each other."

You are from the Church of Gentile converts but no such Church, with doctrines that are blasphemous to Judaism, would ever have been sanctioned by the Jews who knew Jesus.

Zombrex · 17-12-2007 2:40pm

Sorry, everyone hold it for a sec .. just let me get my pop corn ...

Ok ... go!

SubjectSean · 17-12-2007 2:44pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, if we are to assume you are right, could you detail as much as you can, where Paul contradicts Jesus' teachings.

Ya Jimi I robbed this from the site I linked to

Firstly Pauline doctrine is not in evidence in the Gospels. That the central theme of Pauline theology is not to be found in the authentic teachings of Jesus is not the only disturbing thing about it. We find that in some cases Paul's teachings were actually diametrically opposite to Jesus'. As an example Jesus, believing in the imminent coming of the kingdom during his lifetime, taught his followers not to worry about what tomorrow would bring and to first seek the kingdom of God:
Matthew 6:25-34
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink, or about your body, what you will wear...So do not worry, saying 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'. For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself."

Whatever we may feel about the merits of such teachings, its message is obvious: Jesus is telling his followers to eschew the normal everyday life of working for a living and to live the absolute ethic straight away while looking for the kingdom of God. But Pauline theology (written probably by one of Paul's disciples) opposes this and calls for believers to work for a living:

II Thessalonians 3:6,10
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us...For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

The most significant difference in the teachings of these two men, however, lies in their attitude towards the Law of Moses. In fact one of the fundamental tenets of Pauline theology is that Jesus' death actually abrogated the law. This is expounded clearly in the passage from one of his epistles:

Galatians 2:15-16
We who are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners" know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one is justified.

This teaching of Paul's is, of course, familiar to Christians today. Yet tradition preserved a saying of Jesus which stated the complete opposite of what Paul taught above. Jesus:

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses those of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Note the complete contradiction in the two passages above. The sentence italicized showed the contradiction even more clearly: Paul is saying "we are not justified by observing the law" and Jesus is saying, in contrast, that "whoever practices the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

It is worth mentioning that the tradition Matthew was drawing from is probably authentic as there is an analogous passage in Luke, the gospel imbued most with Pauline theology:

Luke 16:17
"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law."

As Christianity ultimately accepted the Pauline view with regards to the law, there had been numerous attempts by later Christian theologians to reconcile the passage in Matthew with their dogma, Jesus statement that he has come to fulfil the law is translated (read: twisted out of all context) as: "I have come to exceed the law, to go beyond it to make it superfluous." Using this interpretation, the passage in Matthew can be made to fit, albeit rather uneasily, into Pauline theology.

The question is this: are the theologians justified in making that interpretation? Many scholars have shown that the Greek word used by Matthew, pleroun, can mean to "fulfil", to "deepen", to "perfect" but never in the sense of going beyond it or making it superfluous. In a nutshell, the Christian theologians has ascribed a meaning to the Greek word which it never had. The only accurate interpretation of Matthew's passage is that Jesus believed his task to be to establish and defend the eternal validity of the law.

We have further historical evidence that the eternal validity of the Torah and its precepts, and not its abrogation (as Paul taught), was what Jesus actually preached; we know that the early "Jewish-Christian" community in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus was led by his brother, James. The evidence show that both James and the original community were thoroughly Jewish in practice. We also have strong evidence that this community led by James, sent out emissaries to oppose the "law-free" mission of Paul. Indeed despite making a huge collection for the Jerusalem Church, Paul was never accepted by the original community of Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem.

The conclusion we can draw here is simple: Paul taught doctrines that were never expounded by the earthly Jesus and doctrines which were in complete contradiction with what Jesus actually taught.

PS: James was an Essene Priest at the high temple, he celebrated Yom Kippur the feast of Atonement. Why would he be making an Atonement if Pauline theology is ciorrect?

PDN · 17-12-2007 2:56pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

No offence but it seems like a great many Christians are woefully ignorant of the fact that Jesus did not write the Bible and nor did any of the people who knew him.

I've never met a Christian who believed that Jesus wrote the Bible. I presume you are using the term 'Christian' in a cultural sense rather than referring to those who have any real belief in, or commitment to, Jesus Christ?

Matthew, John, Peter, James and Jude all knew Jesus and wrote books of the Bible.

Run_to_da_hills · 17-12-2007 3:02pm

PDN wrote: »

Matthew, John, Peter, James and Jude all knew Jesus and wrote books of the Bible.

These people were all inspired by God when putting pen to paper. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" 2Tim 3:16.

SubjectSean · 17-12-2007 3:02pm

JACK BE NIMBLE wrote: »

Subject Sean, is this information from the same authors who stated that the priory of sion originated in 1099, with people like isaac newton and leo da vinci as their grandmasters when in fact it was an invention of a man named pierre plantard in 1961. There is alot of BS out there!

With regard to the priory of Scion they fell for Plantards elaborate hoax. The quotes from them above that you commented on are there because they express my opinion succinctly. The argument that underpins the assertion is at http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html I don't know if you will be able to dismiss it as BS but if you can I would like to know why.

PDN · 17-12-2007 3:03pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

James was an Essene Priest at the high temple, he celebrated Yom Kippur the feast of Atonement. Why would he be making an Atonement if Pauline theology is correct?

James was not of the house of Aaron or of the tribe of Levi so no Jew would ever have recognised him as a priest.

Pompey Magnus · 17-12-2007 3:27pm

PDN wrote: »

Matthew, John, Peter, James and Jude all knew Jesus and wrote books of the Bible.

As far as I am aware it is generally accepted that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses who attributed the names of apostles to give authority to their writings. Mattew's was basically heavily copied from the Gospel of Mark and the illusive Quelle Gospel, while John is quite different in content to the synoptic gospels and Jesus is portrayed as bringing the Greek philosophical "Logos" to his followers.

SubjectSean · 17-12-2007 3:29pm

PDN wrote: »

The Scriptural evidence is that the Jerusalem Church, headed by James, was supportive of Paul's preaching and his ministry to the Gentiles. According to Acts 15 they endorsed Paul's mission, while asking him to observe a few basic niceties that would avoid inflaming hard-line Jews.

Acts was written by somebody in the Gentile movement. They'd hardly admit openly that Pauls ministry was not approved of. However there is plenty said in omission. For instance when Paul returns to Jerusalem with the collection and is arrested in the Temple who goes to help him? Nobody from the Jerusalem Church. Where were the people you think were his freinds?

PDN wrote: »

Also, the earliest known Christian document clearly states that the Jerusalem Church extended the right hand of fellowship to Paul and his mission (Galatians 2:9)..

This would be Pauls own version of events. As I have indicated I believe him to be dishonest.

PDN wrote: »

Paul's letters suggest that there were tensions with a minority in Jerusalem (the Judaisers who wanted to force Gentiles to be circumcised if they converted) but that he maintained friendly relations with the Church leadership in Jerusalem. For example, in Romans 15:25-31 Paul asks the believers to pray that his trip to take financial aid to the church in Jerusalem will go well and that he will not be harmed by the unbelievers (ie non-Christian Jews) there who were opposed to him. Also, in 1 Corinthians 16 Paul refers to a financial collection that he was arranging among the Gentiles to give to the Jerusalem Church.

At the meeting of the Jerusalem Council Paul is told by James "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and fornication, and things strangled, and blood."

After the Council Cephas is in Antioch sharing food with Gentiles. Along come the emmisaries from James and Cephas refuses to eat with the Gentiles any longer. That is to say that all the Jewish Christians in Antioch, including Barnabas refused to eat with the Gentiles. Paul, who you say maintained 'freindly relations' with the Apostles calls Cephas a hypocrite and parts ways with Barnabas. From this it can be seen that the Jewish Christians did not consider the Gentile Christians to be their equals. When Paul does return to Jerusalem with the collection, in order to try and patch things up, there is no indication it was ever accepted.

In both Corinthians and Galatians Paul rails against Judaizing Apostles who are belittling him to the congregations and preaching a different Gospel than the one he has given them. These Judaizing Apostles are none other than representatives of the Jerusalem Church who are so concerned by Pauls mission that they come after him to try and convince his congregations that he is wrong.

SubjectSean · 17-12-2007 3:44pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

These people were all inspired by God when putting pen to paper. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" 2Tim 3:16.

Who inspired all the redactions?

SubjectSean · 17-12-2007 3:45pm

PDN wrote: »

James was not of the house of Aaron or of the tribe of Levi so no Jew would ever have recognised him as a priest.

The early Church Fathers must be making things up in that case. Who would have thought?

PDN · 17-12-2007 4:06pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

Acts was written by somebody in the Gentile movement. They'd hardly admit openly that Pauls ministry was not approved of. .....
This would be Pauls own version of events. As I have indicated I believe him to be dishonest.

So you reject the historical sources and accounts because you believe them to be liars. Then you propose an alternative theory of events for which there there are no historical sources or events.

However there is plenty said in omission. For instance when Paul returns to Jerusalem with the collection and is arrested in the Temple who goes to help him? Nobody from the Jerusalem Church. Where were the people you think were his freinds?

Arguments from silence are generally unreliable, and this one more so than most. The Christian Church was subjected to terrible persecution. Are you really suggesting that the leaders of the persecuted Jerusalem Church would come to Paul's aid and say, "Actually chaps, he's OK because he's one of us. Remember us? We're the guys you've been throwing in jail."?

After the Council Cephas is in Antioch sharing food with Gentiles. Along come the emmisaries from James and Cephas refuses to eat with the Gentiles any longer. That is to say that all the Jewish Christians in Antioch, including Barnabas refused to eat with the Gentiles. Paul, who you say maintained 'freindly relations' with the Apostles calls Cephas a hypocrite and parts ways with Barnabas.

Let's get our facts right. Paul separated from Barnabas over the issue of whether John Mark should accompany them on a missionary journey (Acts 15:36-40), not over the incident in Antioch.

As for Paul rebuking Peter as a hypocrite, there is no basis for asserting that implies a bad relationship between Paul and Peter. I have often been in ministers' conferences where people debate matters of principle upon which they feel deeply. I have often heard people say much stronger things to each other and then travel together on ministry a few months later.

PDN · 17-12-2007 4:21pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

The early Church Fathers must be making things up in that case. Who would have thought?

So you are quite happy to say that Paul, Luke and the writers of the contemporary documents and historical records and wrong or liars, but now you want to argue for the veracity of passing statements by people who adhered to Paul's 'heresy' and lived 250 years after the events in question. Don't you think that's a little inconsistent?

SubjectSean · 17-12-2007 4:38pm

PDN wrote: »

So you reject the historical sources and accounts because you believe them to be liars.

I cannot take the words of a single source in isolation and increasingly so if I consider that source extremely biased.

PDN wrote: »

Arguments from silence are generally unreliable, and this one more so than most. The Christian Church was subjected to terrible persecution. Are you really suggesting that the leaders of the persecuted Jerusalem Church would come to Paul's aid and say, "Actually chaps, he's OK because he's one of us. Remember us? We're the guys you've been throwing in jail."?

That you think this attests to the impression that is given in Acts. Close examination reveals that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were not persecuted. On the contraty James their leader was highly respected and when he was murdered for political reasons it was protested by Jews from across the spectrum.

PDN wrote: »

Let's get our facts right. Paul separated from Barnabas over the issue of whether John Mark should accompany them on a missionary journey (Acts 15:36-40), not over the incident in Antioch.

This is indeed the reason given by the author of Acts gives but the real root of the matter is given in the writings of Paul. After the incident at Antioch Barnabas no longer accompanies Paul. The author of Acts was hardly in a position to give the real reason and so invented one.

PDN wrote: »

As for Paul rebuking Peter as a hypocrite, there is no basis for asserting that implies a bad relationship between Paul and Peter. I have often been in ministers' conferences where people debate matters of principle upon which they feel deeply. I have often heard people say much stronger things to each other and then travel together on ministry a few months later.

Of course it implies a bad relationship. The whole incident does. It shows there was not one but two communities of followers who thought very differently about things. The two forged letters of Peter where he is at pains to show his love for Paul demonstrate that at least some person in the early Church was aware of this.

SubjectSean · 17-12-2007 4:42pm

PDN wrote: »

Don't you think that's a little inconsistent?

I'm not arguing for the veracity of the statement, I take your word that the tradition of James being a Priest is an invention.

PDN · 17-12-2007 4:52pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

That you think this attests to the impression that is given in Acts. Close examination reveals that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were not persecuted.

Close examination of what? Are you seriously denying that James the brother of John was killed in Jerusalem? Or that Peter was imprisoned? Can you cite even one piece of documentary evidence to support your claim that the Jewish Church in Jerusalem was not persecuted?

SubjectSean · 17-12-2007 5:23pm

PDN wrote: »

Close examination of what? Are you seriously denying that James the brother of John was killed in Jerusalem? Or that Peter was imprisoned? Can you cite even one piece of documentary evidence to support your claim that the Jewish Church in Jerusalem was not persecuted?

James was killed in around 62CE in Jerusalem. Josephus notes that the Pharisees protested the killing most strongly and the High Priest responsible was removed from office. This hardly sounds like persecution by 'the authorities', more like a personal vendetta against James. When Stephen is stoned and his followers persecuted and run out of Jerusalem the people who had known Jesus were not amongst these followers. This is because they were not persecuted. In turn this was because in Jewish eyes they were not apostate lawbreakers and blasphemers.

Saul of Tarsus. The first heretic?

Comments