Alla and Mark Fulton about Paul
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2015, 05:09 PM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2015 06:47 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Alla and Mark Fulton about Paul
"when you say that James fundamentally opposed to Paul, what do you mean? could you please name those fundamental[/b[] things.

Alla, thank you for showing an interest.

The following answers your question....happy reading....Thumbsup

[b]Paul’s Relationship with the Nazarenes


At the so-called “Jerusalem council,” of about 49 CE, James convened a meeting to discuss tactics for promoting the Nazarene’s beliefs. 2 Galatians, written by Paul, describes this meeting. It is a truly enlightening passage from the Bible:

“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safe- guard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circum- cised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was mani- festly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I sawthey were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB.)

Each sentence, written by Paul, reveals a facet of a very strained relationship. Paul was clearly intimidated by James,’ John’s and Peter’s authority. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and “leading men,” and he writes that he was well aware that they might not accept his proclamation of “Good News:”

“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.”

Moreover, Paul barely concealed the fact that he begrudged them their authority. He wrote:

“...not that their importance matters much to me.”

Can anyone imagine Paul writing that about someone (James) he thought was the half brother of the Son of God? This is more compelling evidence that Paul’s Christ was not Yeshua, James’ brother.

Paul quite clearly regarded the three Pillars, including Jesus’ brother James, as competition:

“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”

Paul mistrusted “such people,” the Nazarenes, the family and disciples of Jesus. They did not “belong to the brotherhood.” Paul accused them of spying on “...the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” Paul said they had “...nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” Paul believed they “...want to reduce us all to slavery.” Paul thought that he was freeing people from the “...slavery...” of the Judaic Law. Paul thought that the “Good News” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to “...belong to the brotherhood...”

Then, Paul and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement, (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together) bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter did not respect his “Good News.” Paul claimed he publicly challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy.

What an intriguing snippet of the Bible! A churlish, hostile Paul, who was probably the first founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with Jesus’ brother and disciples! Paul was angry and frustrated that the Nazarenes had been undermining him, and he did not hold back his vindictive retort. Paul and the pillars obviously were not preaching the same message! (As claimed in Acts.)

The historical reality revealed (in part) in this passage probably is that devout Jews (such as the Nazarenes) despised Paul and rejected his ramblings. The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ (as per Paul) was unthinkable to them. They could not imagine there was any basis to Paul’s claim that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed man’s sins. For the Nazarenes, the kingdom of God promised in Scripture never was in a hypothetical heaven, but was to be on earth in the here and now. Their Messiah was not some savior of souls, but a leader of the Jews who was to herald in a glorious age in which Israel triumphed and pagans recognized the glory of their god, Yahweh. This Messiah was to build the temple, (Ezek. 37:26–28) gather all Jews back to Israel, (Isa. 43:5–6) bring an end to Roman rule, and was supposed to end all exploitation, corruption, famine, disease, and war. Paul’s fictional Christ had done none of this!

Paul claimed:

“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” (Gal. 2; 16, KJV) and

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13, KJV) and

“Before faith came, we were allowed no freedom by the Law; we were being looked after till faith was revealed. The law was to be our guardian until the Christ came and we could be justified by faith. Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian, and you are, all of you, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All baptized in Christ, you have all clothed yourself in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:23–28, NJB.)

Paul quite clearly thought that faith in his Christ made the Jewish Law redundant. Jews, however, did not buy this. They would not be Jewish if they did. James’ letter in the Bible directly contradicts Paul’s assertions. The Jews believed - and still do - that the way to find favor with God was to obey “the Law” - that is, the Torah, as allegedly taught by Moses. There is no mention in their Scriptures about an end to the covenant God made with their ancestors on Mount Sinai. Jews regarded the Law almost as a gift from their God, not a curse, or an imposition on freedom. No Jews, including the Nazarenes, recognized a “new covenant.” Why would they give up centuries of tradition to believe a renegade such as Paul?

Imagine a hypothetical modern analogy; a fanatic from a small cult, such as the “branch Davidians,” grabbing a microphone during a Catholic mass at the Vatican, and proclaiming that David Koresh was Jesus’ son, and that Koresh’s teachings replaced the sermon on the mount. Paul was behaving like a deluded fanatic.

Paul had an ambivalent attitude to Jewish Scripture, which varied with the audience he was writing to. At times Paul used Scripture to justify his own ideas, such as when writing to “Hellenized” Jews in the Diaspora. Yet when writing to Gentiles he claimed large parts of Scripture (such as “the law”) were redundant.

Yeshua had died over a decade before Paul appeared on the scene, and had Yeshua been alive, there is little doubt he would have been at first perplexed and then seriously offended by Paul’s idea that the Law was no longer important and that his death could somehow give Gentiles a ticket to heaven. Yeshua must have hated the Romans, (they did nail him to a cross!) and would never have imagined that Yahweh, whom he never regarded as his temporal sire, would grant Gentiles a place in heaven!
Jesus said,

“Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but complete them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved” (Matt. 5:17–18 JB.)

Paul and Jesus contradicted each other! So much for Biblical infallibility!

Many Christians today insist that Jesus came to do away with the Jewish Law. In believing this, they are not considering Jesus’ words, but Paul’s.

Most Jews (the Samaritans were an exception) believed God dwelt in the temple, in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. Paul made a cavalier dismissal of the importance of Israel by suggesting that all believers become a temple for God:

“And that is what we are—the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:15, NJB) and

“Didn’t you realize that you were God’s Temple” (1 Cor. 3:16 JB.)

Paul was trying to expand God’s seat of power out of Jerusalem and into the whole known world. Yet for most first century Jews, this downplayed the importance of the temple, the geographical pivot of Judaism.

Jews thought they were Abraham’s descendants and God’s special people. Yet Paul claimed:

“Those therefore who rely on faith receive the same blessing as Abraham, the man of faith.” (Gal. 3:9, NJB,) and

( http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm )

“Merely by belonging to Christ you are the posterity of Abraham, the heirs he was promised” (Gal. 3:29, NJB.)

Paul wanted believing Gentiles to consider themselves God’s chosen, so that they too were special, and at the same time weaken the patriotic fervor of Jews by downplaying their exclusivity.

Throughout Paul’s travels, it is clear from the book of Acts that Paul was initially welcome in synagogues because he masqueraded as a traditional Jew, but after Jews heard what he had to say, Paul was rejected, sometimes even beaten and pelted with rocks. Most Jews liked to think they were part of a chosen race, superior in all ways, and in God’s eyes, to the pagan hordes. These Jews must have imagined Paul was upsetting their God, and the whole Jewish community would suffer as a consequence. Is it any wonder the Jewish people lashed out at Paul?

Jesus’ own people attacked Paul because he was promoting Christian ideas, a fact that should raise eyebrows in today’s Churches.

In the decades Paul was preaching, the Nazarenes were expanding into a significant force under James’ leadership in Jerusalem. The Nazarenes also enjoyed a strong membership among Jews throughout the Empire. They most definitely did not preach the divinity of Christ, nor did they intend to start a new religion.

Paul, when he was not pretending to be one of the Nazarenes, considered them to be competitors. Paul got very upset when he encountered rival missionaries, who were probably Nazarene, and complained bitterly about them hijacking “his” converts. He condemned them, using the undeniable truth of his own Gospel as justification, in his letter to the Galatians:

“I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News. Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some trouble makers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one that we have already preached to you, whether it be ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is condemned” (Gal. 1:6–9, NJB.)

Paul sounds like an upset child whose best friend has gone off to play with someone else. It is ironic that he was accusing his adversaries of the very thing he was guilty of - preaching a fabrication! Paul clearly undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. Paul was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. The Nazarenes were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews promoted subversive fantasies about a militaristic Messiah, but God had revealed to him something he thought much more appropriate - his Christ! He, not they, was plugging the “Good News.”

Paul was sure he knew what the flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. Paul thought of himself as an educated, savvy sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion than the old fashioned anti-Roman bumpkins from Jerusalem!

Paul probably tried to ingratiate himself with the Nazarenes when in their company, but they became implacably opposed to him, as verified by the verbal confrontation described in Galatians chapter two, and the adamantly anti-Pauline assertions in James’ letter.

Paul knew that he was not popular amongst traditional Jews. In his letter to the Romans he expressed his nervousness that the Nazarenes in Jerusalem might reject him, which, if the story in Acts is true, is precisely what happened. James summoned Paul to Jerusalem when it became apparent that Paul was preaching against the Torah, and James sent Paul to the temple to be purified so as to prove that he was still a true Jew. (See Acts 21,120) This led to Paul’s so called arrest and eventual transportation to Rome. James, Jesus’ brother, effectively terminated Paul’s missionary career!

When Romans arrested Paul he was forced to admit that he was a Roman citizen, and his cover, that is his masquerade as a Nazarene, was well and truly blown. Nazarenes were implacably opposed to Rome, and they would not have taken kindly to finding out there was a spy in their ranks. According to Acts, Roman authorities had to dedicate considerable resources (500 soldiers) to protect Paul from angry Jews. That is about the same number of soldiers who arrested Jesus. It appears as though Rome was looking after one of their own.

Paul was not deterred. He kept writing letters from Rome.

Paul’s modern-day reputation as an honest evangelist, and the implication that Paul taught Yeshua’s message, have no foundation, yet they have become part of Christian tradition, largely because of Acts, written some time in the early second century. To bolster Paul’s legitimacy, the author of Acts had Jesus’ ghost appear to Paul on the road to Damascus, which was obviously fiction, as was the story of Paul becoming best friends with Jesus’ disciples. The author of Acts even tried to shore up Paul’s status by having him (and his handkerchief) perform a number of miracles. Yet in Paul’s writ- ings there is no mention of Jesus’ ghost or his own miracles. Paul most certainly would have written about these events had they been true. Paul revealed many personality traits in his letters, but genuine modesty definitely was not one of them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
06-11-2015, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2015 06:04 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Alla and Mark Fulton about Paul
(06-11-2015 04:42 PM)Alla Wrote:  Thank you for the information. I have read your post but I will read links later. I need more time.

MARK:
James may well have been the brother of Jesus. He was a devout Jew, and fundamentally opposed to Paul.
ALLA:
when you say that James fundamentally opposed to Paul, what do you mean? could you please name those fundamental[/b[] things.

MARK:
The book of Acts also portrays James as the leader of the disciples.
ALLA:
yes, James was one of the leaders of the Church of Christ in the 1st century(according to the Bible)
But Christ didn't give to James what He gave to Peter
Christ gave to Peter keys of the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 16: 19) (according to the Bible)

ALLA:
yes, James was one of the leaders of the Church of Christ in the 1st century(according to the Bible)
But Christ didn't give to James what He gave to Peter
Christ gave to Peter keys of the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 16: 19) (according to the Bible)


Hello Alla... I'm glad you bought up Matthew chapter 16 verse 19.

I happen to have a little spiel on this which you will probably find interesting....

[b]The Catholic Church Invents Peter’s Papacy

In the mid years of the second century the proto Christian churches of the Mediterranean world were autonomous entities, with little doctrinal agreement among them. Churches in Asia Minor, Palestine, Egypt, Armenia, Rome and Syria had their own idiosyncratic interpretations of Christianity. Modern historians know most about Christianity in Rome, but Alexandria, Ephesus, and Antioch all had larger Christian communities.

There was no universal canon to define doctrine other than the Old Testament. Each community wrote accounts affirming the correctness of their own beliefs. The Churches of the biggest cities manufactured succession lists of their own bishoprics. These lists allegedly proved that each bishop had consecrated his successor, and each list went back to one of the apostles. For example, Paul had supposedly lived in Antioch, and John, it was said, had lived in Ephesus. Caesarea, near Jerusalem, was where “Philip the evangelist” had lived. Eusebius reproduced these lists; however, many of them are proven forgeries and the others are very dubious.

Roman bishops were disappointed that Rome was not deemed the primary Christian authority in the empire. Their problem was that no one had manufactured Rome’s link with Jesus’ original apostles. They needed their own apostle, and someone chose Peter.

Peter was, in fact, an authoritative figure in the Nazarene movement, but content to firstly be under Yeshua’s leadership, and later under James’. Peter never became a purveyor of Paul’s philosophy (proto - Christianity.) Peter remained a Jew, a Nazarene, and a married travelling evangelist who respected the Torah. This much can be gleaned from the Gospels, and from Paul’s writings.

That is not how the Vatican portrays Peter. Those in the Vatican claim Peter was a Christian and that Peter became the first bishop of Rome, the first pope, and that Peter lived in Rome for

“...a long period.” (Catholic Encyclopedia.) They say Peter

... was recognized as the Prince of the Apostles and the first Supreme Pontiff; his See, Rome, has thus enjoyed the position of primacy over the entire Catholic Church” (Catholic Encyclopedia.)

They contend Peter was crucified in about 64 CE and buried on Vatican Hill and that they now have his bones. They say that Peter’s authority has been passed on to all subsequent popes, (the so-called “apostolic succession”) who therefore represent the original Church as established by Jesus. I think all of this is rank fiction, and so does Dr Hugh Schonfield...

“According to the view which prevailed, the Catholic Church of the new orthodoxy was the inheritor of the true tradition of the Apostles, an assertion which illustrates the power of a lie if it is a thumping big one.”

To justify this “thumping big lie,” some “evidence” needed to be fabricated, preferably a ringing endorsement from Christ himself. It seems likely that someone inserted the following verses into the sixteenth chapter of Matthew:

“But you, he said ‘who do you say I am?’ Then Simon Peter spoke up, ‘You are the Christ,’ he said ‘the Son of the living god.’ Jesus replied, ‘Simon, son of Jonah, you are a happy man! Because it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. So now I say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven. Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to tell anyone that he was the Christ” (Matt. 16:15–20, NJB.)

According to the Vatican, this was how Peter became the successor, the boss, and the man who stepped into Jesus’ shoes. The same section from Mark’s Gospel (which Matthew copied) does not contain this church/rock/key statement. No one can prove this was an interpolation, yet the founding of a new (Christian) church hardly sounds like something Yeshua, a first century Jewish peasant, would say. What is more, the Nazarene leaders were chosen on the basis of blood ties.

Many Protestant scholars go to great length trying to prove that Jesus did not want Peter to be pope, and their arguments have much merit. Yet these Protestants usually are reluctant to put the above passage in perspective by admitting that it sounds like an unconvincing interpolation, as that would compromise their stance on the Gospels being the word of God.

( http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html )

An abridged version of the same idea that Jesus handed Peter a leadership role is also found in John’s Gospel, (this time moved forward to the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry) and with subtle differences:

“And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone. One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, we have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone” (John 1:40–42, KJV.)

John’s Gospel says nothing about the founding of a church.

Vatican insiders claim the whole New Testament is the inspired word of God. So if New Testament writings contradict the Pope Peter story, the Vatican has some explaining to do.

It is pertinent to consider what the Bible has to say elsewhere about Peter.

Paul, who probably wrote in the 50s and early 60s, wrote nothing about Pope Peter. Paul implied Peter was a hypocrite, (Gal. 2:14172) hardly the sort of remark a devout Christian makes in passing about a pope.

Paul sent his famous Epistle to the Romans in the year 58 CE, in which he greeted more than twenty people, but Paul, the architect of Christian theology, sent no greetings to Pope Peter.

Paul went to Rome in 61 CE, and in 62–3 CE wrote to the Philippians, to the Colossians, the Ephesians, and to Philemon, yet he, once again, failed to mention Pope Peter.

Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians contained a list of Christ’s res- urrection appearances, the first of which is to “Cephas,” (Peter) so Paul did credit Peter with some status.

Paul wrote that James determined that Peter should act as a teacher, evangelizing to Jewish groups outside Jerusalem (Gal. 2:7.) There are an awful lot of places outside Jerusalem other than Rome.

In another letter Paul mentioned that Peter regularly travelled, with his wife, to various parts of the Roman Empire (1 Cor. 9:5.) So Paul portrayed Peter as a married travelling evangelist, and nowhere does Paul once mention anything about Peter being a Roman pope.

What about Peter’s story in the Gospels? Matthew’s “Peter /rock/ church” statement is not repeated in any of the other Gospels or epistles. Peter did not always understand Jesus, (John 13:7) and was hotheaded and impulsive, as when he allegedly cut off a servant’s ear in the garden of Gethsemane (John 18:10.)

All four Gospels have Peter deny an association with Jesus three times, which Peter later regrets.

All the Gospels depict Peter as a frequently fallible character, not a charismatic leader. Irrespective of whether Peter was or was not a “rock” in real life, if he were meant to be Jesus’ successor, the Gospel authors would have presented him in a more positive light.

What is more, nowhere, in any of the Gospels, did the other apostles acknowledge Peter as leader.

In Luke, Jesus said he did not credit any individual apostle with any particular status:

“A dispute arose also between them about which should be reckoned the greatest, but he said to them, ‘Among pagans it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title benefactor. This must not happen with you. No; the greatest among you must behave as if he were the youngest, the leader as if he were the one who serves’” (Luke 22:24–26, NJB.)

The occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal—the last night of Jesus’ life—and Jesus specifically stated that no one was to be in charge.

Acts, which is widely regarded amongst historians as largely fictional, portrays Peter as a Christian, a purveyor of Paul’s philosophy. Peter is said to have had a vision in which God instructed him to eat non-kosher meat, which might be seen as an amateurish attempt to make Peter not observationally Jewish. Peter was depicted as decisive and a miracle worker, quite different to the equivocating man in the Gospels. Peter delivered a significant sermon during Pentecost and took the lead in selecting a replacement for Judas Iscariot. Peter was twice arraigned, with John, before the Sanhedrin, directly defied them, and escaped from their clutches with the help of an angel. Peter undertook missionary journeys to Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea, (Acts 9:32–10:2) and was instrumental in the decision to evangelize the Gentiles (Acts 10) at the Council of Jerusalem. About halfway through Acts, the author turned his attention away from Peter, and the Bible says nothing more about him. There is no bishop, prince or pope or Roman Peter in Acts. It seems probable that the portrayal of Peter in Acts as a Christian is fiction, written after Peter passed on by someone promoting Christianity, but not late enough to incorporate the Pope Peter myth.

Nowhere in the epistles of Peter did the author, an early Christian who wrote in fluent Greek, claim any special role, authority, or power in a church, yet he signed himself as Peter.

A Roman Pope Peter does not fit with what was originally written about Peter. Peter was a Galilean fisherman who could not speak Greek or Latin. It is plainly ridiculous to imagine an uneducated Jewish peasant from the backwater of Galilee who hated the Romans setting up shop in the capital of the Roman Empire. Peter would have been like a fish out of water.

James, not Peter, was the undisputed leader of the Nazarenes until his death in 62 CE. This is confirmed in Paul’s writing and in Acts, as well as many other non-Biblical sources such as the writings of Josephus, (who lived in Rome in the late first century) Jerome, and Eusebius.

Peter was clearly subservient to James. Peter was not a descendent of David and not a relative of Yeshua or John the Baptist, so he did not have the proper pedigree for leadership. Between 62 CE and 135 CE, there was a succession of Jewish leaders of the Nazarenes who were all related to Yeshua and who ruled from Jerusalem, not Rome. Peter was not one of them.

If Yeshua existed, he was a Jew, and first-century Judaism was built around the temple. There were no Jewish churches. The idea that a hierarchy of pagans in Rome portrayed Jesus and his followers as Christians and then used Jesus’ name to decry Judaism, acquire power, money, and property, would have been repugnant to Yeshua.

A Pope Peter is not in accordance with what is known about the historical development of the Christian church hierarchy. Elders (Greek: presbeteros) led early Christian congregations; it is from them our modern words “presbyters” and “priests” are derived. As congregations grew larger, more presbyters were needed, and someone needed to be in charge. Bishops first appeared in some cities only around the end of the first century. As genuine records are so incomplete, it is not clear who first acted as bishop presiding over Rome.

The first explicit mentions of Peter ever having been in Rome only appeared after 170 CE, over one hundred years after Peter was supposed to have been there!

The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

“We may conclude that Peter labored for a long period in Rome. This conclusion is confirmed by the unanimous voice of tradition which, as early as the second half of the second century, designates the Prince of the Apostles the founder of the Roman Church.”

An objective reading of this quote reveals that there is no documentary evidence that Peter worked in Rome until “as early as” at least one hundred years after his death!

How “unanimous” is this “voice of tradition?” This voice is never heard anywhere in the New Testament, most of which was written after Peter’s death.

St Ignatius of Antioch, (35–110 CE) a church father, never stated that Peter was considered Rome’s first Christian leader.

Polycarp, (70–~155 CE) bishop of Smyrna, (in modern Turkey) visited Rome. Polycarp is said by “tradition” to have known disciples of the original disciples of Jesus, yet he too failed to mention the existence of Prince Peter, or that Peter went to Rome.

Papias, (70–163 CE) bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, (modern central Turkey) also neglected to mention that Peter ever went to Rome.

Clement, who the Vatican claims was the fourth pope, says nothing in his letter about a Roman Prince Peter, nor does he mention that there was an established bishopric in Rome. Clement appears to have not known he was a pope!

Justin, (100–165 CE) a key Catholic apologist, church father, and prolific author who lived in Rome in the mid-second century, never once even hints that Peter lived in Rome, or that a papal position even existed.

The “unanimous voice of tradition” is a fiction!

The Catholic encyclopedia is basing its claim mainly on evidence from four authors—Dionysius of Corinth, (who wrote in 165 CE–174 CE, as quoted by Eusebius) Clement of Alexandria, (c. 190 CE, as quoted by Eusebius) Irenaeus of Lyons, (who wrote c. 177 CE) and Tertullian, who each state that Peter and Paul founded the Roman Church. These men wrote one to one and a half centuries after the probable time of Peter’s death. Their statements about Peter are only one or two lines in length. For example, Tertullian wrote:

“For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (Praescr. 1:22 [ANF 3:258]).

Irenaeus wrote:

“By indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bish- ops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been pre- served continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3.)

Irenaeus was writing a little over one hundred years after the “glorious” Peter and Paul allegedly founded the “very great and very ancient” Church in Rome. Irenaeus, a man who actively promoted episcopacy, had to rely on “tradition” as a “matter of necessity” to explain Peter in charge in Rome. Irenaeus could not name any genuine source or facts about this so-called tradition, so his expletives were meaningless, other than that they suggest he was desperate to promote baseless assertions and the power of his own Church.

Paul himself wrote nothing about founding a Church in Rome in any of his letters and clearly tried to introduce himself to the already existing community in Rome in his letter to the Romans!

These four authors were fervent Catholic Christians and prolific writers. If they had known some genuine facts about a Roman Pope Peter, they would surely have documented them. Interestingly, these men may not have even written what is claimed, because gross interpolations and complete fabrications in the earliest writings of the Church Fathers commonly occurred in the second, third, and fourth centuries. Eusebius has been frequently discredited as a reliable recorder of other’s writings and of events.

This means later (than the second century) claims of Peter’s sojourn in Rome are also almost worthless.

The evidence presented, questioning the authenticity of a leader Peter in Rome, leads one to question why such a fabrication may have occurred. By the second half of the second century, Christianity, in various forms, was a small, fragile, but empire-wide movement. Its organizational framework, and its central location, were not yet defined. The Roman Catholic Church felt threatened by prominent competition, particularly from Gnostics and Marcionites (neither group claimed there was a bishop Peter in Rome.) Other large cities in the empire with their own hierarchies and growing Christian populations were also a threat to Rome’s authority, so the Roman Church copied what most Christian communities in large cities did - contrived a list of bishops in an unbroken chain back to an apostle – in their case Peter. Peter’s presence in Rome was nothing more than a late second century fabrication designed to give the Roman Catholic Church precedence, prestige, and authority.

The first three “bishops” of Rome listed by “tradition” are no more than names. The Catholic Church lists Clement I, who was probably a presbyter (not a bishop) from 91 CE to 101 CE, as the fourth bishop of Rome (despite the fact that Tertullian claimed Clement was ordained by Peter, which would make Clement the second pope.) Who then, were the Vatican’s second and third “bishops” of Rome, Linus (67–79 CE) and Anacletus? (79–92 CE.)175 Nothing is known about these two, other than their names, because like Peter, their supposed role as “pope” was fictional.

How long did “Bishop Peter” allegedly rule from Rome? We must move three hundred years forward to find out. St. Jerome (342–420 CE) wrote, without citing any evidence, that Peter ruled in Rome for twenty-five years. The Catholic encyclopedia does not advertise that Jerome wrote this in their carefully worded discussion about Pope Peter, presumably because it is such a difficult claim to

( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm )

defend, yet admit it elsewhere. It is much easier for the Catholic encyclopedia to call Peter’s Roman sojourn “a long period.” The encyclopedia does not give a start date or say for how long Peter’s bishopric lasted.

The early Catholics tried to further elevate Prince Peter’s status. Versions of Mark’s Gospel were in wide circulation and no one knew, or admitted they knew, who Mark was. This opened the door for the creation of another “tradition;” that Mark was the “companion of Peter.” Mark’s Gospel became, effectively, “the gospel that Peter would have written.”

Peter was never a Christian, never in charge, never a bishop in Rome, and had no connection with Mark’s Gospel. As best as can be ascertained, Peter remained true to his roots, a faithful Nazarene under the leadership of James. One of the world’s largest and wealthiest institutions, which has always claimed authority over the world’s Catholics, and sometimes the whole world, is founded on a fabrication that became a tradition. People deserve to know this, not just because the Church Fathers were dishonest, but also because today’s papacy continues to promote an untrue myth about its own exalted beginnings.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
06-11-2015, 05:49 PM
RE: Alla and Mark Fulton about Paul
(06-11-2015 04:14 PM)Alla Wrote:  MARK
Paul repeatedly reminds slaves to be obedient to their masters...
Ephesians 6:5-8 King James Version (KJV)
"5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
6 Not with eye service, as men pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free."


ALLA:
Yes. Paul did say this.
Did he say that those masters have power from God? No. But another Apostle of Jesus Christ Peter explains why saints of God have to be obedient to their masters:

15 it is will of God that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men
16 as free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as servants of God
18 servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward
19 for this is thankworthy, if a man with conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully
21 ..because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps


Neither Paul nor Peter say that those masters were ordained of God/have power of God. But they say followers of Christ should endure every trial exactly the way Christ endured His trials .

P.S. God doesn't send us here to Earth to endure trials. He sends us here to endure trials well. This is the point. To endure well and gain experience.

But they say followers of Christ should endure every trial exactly the way Christ endured His trials .

P.S. God doesn't send us here to Earth to endure trials. He sends us here to endure trials well. This is the point. To endure well and gain experience.


Your naivity, your ignorance and your imagination are kinda sweet.

But sorry, you don't get away with posting shit on TTA forum.

"God" doesn't send anybody anywhere because he doesn't exist. As explained to you, "he" is fictitious creation of ancient Jewish priests invented to control gullible people like you.

There is no "point" to anything in Scripture other than getting naive people doing what priests command.

I hope you don't eat McDonald's hamburgers just because you see them advertised on TV. Thumbsup Your brain can do without the toxic shit. Same goes for the Bible. Don't buy the bullshit.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
06-11-2015, 07:02 PM
RE: Alla and Mark Fulton about Paul
(06-11-2015 03:43 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(06-11-2015 02:07 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Says who?
Another Apostle of Jesus Christ James. James 2: 10 for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Alla: if someone is guilty of all, this someone can not have favor with God. He is not justified by law.
(06-11-2015 02:07 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  And what do you mean by "justified?"
What do I mean?! According to the Bible Paul said this, not me. I only quote what Paul said, not scholars.

P.S. So what did Paul mean? Ask Paul Big Grin

or ask scholars-shmolars. Smartass May be they understand what Paul meant. Tongue

P.S. So what did Paul mean? Ask Paul Big Grin

or ask scholars-shmolars. Smartass May be they understand what Paul meant. Tongue


Alla, I suggest it's not admirable to bad mouth scholars. You may be too lazy or not smart enough to do some research, a fact which becomes clear when you put those down who do.

I think Paul was trying to create theology in which he made up of the idea that a god needed to be pleased. So when he said that people became "justified" I think he meant that they could consider that God approved of them.

Remember the ancient Jews had been brainwashed with the rather ridiculous idea that the (fictional) creator of the universe was particularly interested in their behaviour.

Paul made out he was "specially chosen" by god to deliver his message. Priests and preachers also pretend today, like Paul, that they have a hotline to God.

It's all nonsense... none of us have a hotline to God because God doesn't exist... and if you were honest and real enough to seriously think about this you would realise that is true. Big Grin SmartassThumbsup
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
06-11-2015, 09:45 PM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2015 09:50 PM by Alla.)
RE: Alla and Mark Fulton about Paul
(06-11-2015 04:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Alla, I'm not sure why you keep saying this.
I will explain below
(06-11-2015 04:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Also, you are plainly wrong. I will highlight the relevant parts of the quotes for you
"5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Yes, Paul says to be obedient to masters as unto Christ. I don't see Paul saying that their power comes from God. You assume (or scholars assume) that if Paul says to obey masters it is because their power is of God.
May be Paul says this because this is what Jesus would do. To be slave is trial. Jesus didn't resist trials. Jesus would SERVE GOOD even if He was slave. This is what God's people have to do - TO SERVE OTHERS. TO LOVE ENEMIES.
But HOW would you know why it is important to be obedient to masters? Or WHY would you even know this?
(06-11-2015 04:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  6 Not with eye service, as men pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
"22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;
23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
Yes. Where does Paul say here that masters power is of God? Being obedient to master is a trial. But even in trial we can be as best as we can. We can grow and progress spiritually. If Jesus was slave He would be good and obedient servant. His master would learn a lot of good from servant Jesus. Master could even become a Christian.
It is important what we are and what we become no matter what trials we have. This is what Paul was teaching.
Even when we are slaves we can do GOOD BY SERVING even those who hate us and do evil to us.
So, Paul did not say masters' power is of God. You say this and scholars say this.
(06-11-2015 04:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted,"
In this particular verse Paul talks about authorities among God's covenant people and not among secular people.
(06-11-2015 04:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  How can you possibly claim "Paul did not say that Roman or any secular government is power from God(of God)" ?
See above, please

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
06-11-2015, 10:48 PM
RE: Alla and Mark Fulton about Paul
(06-11-2015 09:45 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(06-11-2015 04:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Alla, I'm not sure why you keep saying this.
I will explain below
(06-11-2015 04:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Also, you are plainly wrong. I will highlight the relevant parts of the quotes for you
"5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Yes, Paul says to be obedient to masters as unto Christ. I don't see Paul saying that their power comes from God. You assume (or scholars assume) that if Paul says to obey masters it is because their power is of God.
May be Paul says this because this is what Jesus would do. To be slave is trial. Jesus didn't resist trials. Jesus would SERVE GOOD even if He was slave. This is what God's people have to do - TO SERVE OTHERS. TO LOVE ENEMIES.
But HOW would you know why it is important to be obedient to masters? Or WHY would you even know this?
(06-11-2015 04:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  6 Not with eye service, as men pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
"22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;
23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
Yes. Where does Paul say here that masters power is of God? Being obedient to master is a trial. But even in trial we can be as best as we can. We can grow and progress spiritually. If Jesus was slave He would be good and obedient servant. His master would learn a lot of good from servant Jesus. Master could even become a Christian.
It is important what we are and what we become no matter what trials we have. This is what Paul was teaching.
Even when we are slaves we can do GOOD BY SERVING even those who hate us and do evil to us.
So, Paul did not say masters' power is of God. You say this and scholars say this.
(06-11-2015 04:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted,"
In this particular verse Paul talks about authorities among God's covenant people and not among secular people.
(06-11-2015 04:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  How can you possibly claim "Paul did not say that Roman or any secular government is power from God(of God)" ?
See above, please

Alla, you write

I don't see Paul saying that their (the masters') power comes from God.

Paul writes

"The authorities that exist have been established by God."

If you claim you can't see an obvious dichotomy between these two statements, I suspect you are lying.

Also, who are you referring to when you say "covenant people?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
07-11-2015, 03:00 PM
RE: Alla and Mark Fulton about Paul
(06-11-2015 10:48 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Alla, you write
I don't see Paul saying that their (the masters') power comes from God.
Paul writes
"The authorities that exist have been established by God."

If you claim you can't see an obvious dichotomy between these two statements, I suspect you are lying.
Paul was teaching about God and kingdom of God. Paul was teaching about things that Saints have to do be saved.
What makes you to think that in this verse Paul was not teaching about kingdom of God? In God's kingdom all authorities that exist have been established by God.
(06-11-2015 10:48 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Also, who are you referring to when you say "covenant people?"
House of Israel, of course. Who else is God's covenant people according to the Bible?
Paul was teaching about kingdom of God and that all authorities in God's kingdom are from God. Paul was not talking about world and secular governments.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
07-11-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Alla and Mark Fulton about Paul
Summary of some things we discussed

MARK claims:
Paul said that Roman government has power of/from God
ALLA says:
Paul said no such thing. Paul said that "the authorities that exist have been established by God".
That's all he said. But Mark and scholars assume that Paul was talking about the things pertaining of the world and not about the things pertaining of God's kingdom on Earth. In God's kingdom on Earth all powers that exist have been established by God.
Paul was teaching about God and kingdom of God on Earth and Heaven. Paul was teaching that authorities in God's Kingdom are from God. Paul was not teaching that in the world authorities come form God.

MARK claims that Paul was saying that Jewish Law has to be replaced by faith in Christ.
ALLA says:
Paul said no such thing. Paul said that nobody can be justified by Jewish Law.
But neither Mark no scholars have a slight idea what it means "to be or not to be justified by Jewish Law". It would be great if Paul explained it to them. But Paul is not available.


MARK claims:
that Paul was teaching that masters have power of God.
ALLA says:
Paul said no such thing. Paul said that servants have to be subject onto masters. But did Paul say that it is because masters have power of/from God?
If yes, please show me at least one verse.

If Jesus was slave what would He do? He would do what He always did - He would be subject onto trial and He would serve(helped, healed) His master like He hilled the ear of a man who came to arrest Him. and He would love His enemies(masters). He would do what Joseph of old did when he was slave.

To be subject to master is an opportunity to LEARN to love evil master, to love enemy. Paul was teaching that in any situation we are (even slavery) we can learn TO BE LIKE CHRIST. This way even if we are slaves we can learn how to be better people. Not because master have power of/from God.

Joseph of old was a slave. But because he was like Christ he became one of the most important people.
It doesn't mean that all slaves end up like Joseph ended up. He also had important mission to save house of Israel. But it means that we can have opportunities in any circumstances to be like Christ. Even slaves have opportunity to love, to serve, to forgive, to go on perfection, to be like Christ.

This is what Paul was teaching, but neither Mark no scholars would ever understand it. Of course, they don't have the most important Scholar - Spirit who teaches and testifies about all truth.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
07-11-2015, 03:56 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2015 04:03 PM by Alla.)
RE: Alla and Mark Fulton about Paul
"MARK claims:
Paul said that we can work on Sabbath
ALLA:
No, he didn't say that we can work on Sabbath."
MARK provides quote:
Colossians 2:16-17King James Version (KJV)
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.

ALLA:
I don't see Paul says to work on Sabbath. He says : let no men to judge you... of the Sabbath days. Did you notice word "days". Paul didn't say "of the Sabbath" but "of the Sabbath days"
May be Paul was teaching that from now on the Sabbath has to be observed on the first day of the week(when Christ resurrected) instead of the seventh day of the week.
Meaning of the Sabbath doesn't change because of the change of the day of the week.
Sabbath symbolizes freedom from the bondage. Before Christ was born on Earth house of Israel was saved from slavery in Egypt. But 2000 years ago God saved people from sins and hell(death) which is bondage. This is the most important liberation. Sabbath is on the first day of the week now. The same meaning, different day of the week. Meaning of the Sabbath is important, day of the week not so much.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
07-11-2015, 05:00 PM
RE: Alla and Mark Fulton about Paul
(07-11-2015 03:27 PM)Alla Wrote:  Summary of some things we discussed

MARK claims:
Paul said that Roman government has power of/from God
ALLA says:
Paul said no such thing. Paul said that "the authorities that exist have been established by God".
That's all he said. But Mark and scholars assume that Paul was talking about the things pertaining of the world and not about the things pertaining of God's kingdom on Earth. In God's kingdom on Earth all powers that exist have been established by God.
Paul was teaching about God and kingdom of God on Earth and Heaven. Paul was teaching that authorities in God's Kingdom are from God. Paul was not teaching that in the world authorities come form God.

MARK claims that Paul was saying that Jewish Law has to be replaced by faith in Christ.
ALLA says:
Paul said no such thing. Paul said that nobody can be justified by Jewish Law.
But neither Mark no scholars have a slight idea what it means "to be or not to be justified by Jewish Law". It would be great if Paul explained it to them. But Paul is not available.


MARK claims:
that Paul was teaching that masters have power of God.
ALLA says:
Paul said no such thing. Paul said that servants have to be subject onto masters. But did Paul say that it is because masters have power of/from God?
If yes, please show me at least one verse.

If Jesus was slave what would He do? He would do what He always did - He would be subject onto trial and He would serve(helped, healed) His master like He hilled the ear of a man who came to arrest Him. and He would love His enemies(masters). He would do what Joseph of old did when he was slave.

To be subject to master is an opportunity to LEARN to love evil master, to love enemy. Paul was teaching that in any situation we are (even slavery) we can learn TO BE LIKE CHRIST. This way even if we are slaves we can learn how to be better people. Not because master have power of/from God.

Joseph of old was a slave. But because he was like Christ he became one of the most important people.
It doesn't mean that all slaves end up like Joseph ended up. He also had important mission to save house of Israel. But it means that we can have opportunities in any circumstances to be like Christ. Even slaves have opportunity to love, to serve, to forgive, to go on perfection, to be like Christ.

This is what Paul was teaching, but neither Mark no scholars would ever understand it. Of course, they don't have the most important Scholar - Spirit who teaches and testifies about all truth.

Alla, I have spent literally years studying this stuff, and I've shared some of my conclusions with you.

I've given you some very interesting information about James, the brother of Jesus, Paul, the Nazarenes and the birth of Christianity. You have, apparently, barely even read any of it, because you don't comment.

Rather, you keep repeating a wrong assertion about what Paul was writing about, and you claim you have an imaginary friend, a "Spirit who teaches and testifies about all truth," someone who doesn't talk to me, as your authority. This in laziness, Alla. You are hiding your own credulity behind a wall of woo.

As a consequence, it is almost impossible to teach you anything new, and none of our readers can take anything you say seriously, because you live in an imaginary world that is outside the borders of decency, rational thought and common sense.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: