The fictional Pope Peter
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2015, 09:59 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(23-05-2015 09:45 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 09:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I knew about "filioque" (Latin for "and the son"). That is so interesting and one of the most interesting arguments from the councils ... as they cooked up what became "Christianity" ... and SO different from it's Hebrew roots. I think Fordham University has links to all the counsilar proceedings, if you want to read them making up all the BS.

The truth is that original christianity don't exists anymore since a very long time ago. Orthodox christians see the Roman Catholic Church as a medieval modification of christianity and they are right. Protestants aren't the original christians. Protestantism came from Roman Catholism . And the " orthodox " church is also a modification of Yeshua teachings. Orthodox christianity is based in the Paul teachings.

All versions of Christianity are made up. There is no core of truth, nothing real.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
23-05-2015, 10:04 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(23-05-2015 09:59 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 09:45 PM)Leo Wrote:  The truth is that original christianity don't exists anymore since a very long time ago. Orthodox christians see the Roman Catholic Church as a medieval modification of christianity and they are right. Protestants aren't the original christians. Protestantism came from Roman Catholism . And the " orthodox " church is also a modification of Yeshua teachings. Orthodox christianity is based in the Paul teachings.

All versions of Christianity are made up. There is no core of truth, nothing real.

Of course . That's my point. All religions are made up. Most religions are modifications of previous religions. Most religions came from previous religions. Christianity isn't the exception.

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
23-05-2015, 10:08 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
Mark, one thing that I am thinking of is that if Paul was apparently so prolific, why did James never mention him in his letter? You would think that if he was as "in tune" with god as Paul portrays himself, James would have been more likely to say something about him as if he was a man they could listen to. I am aware that according to Gal 2, Paul did not think highly of James or Peter, but they did not see eye-to-eye, do you think that they may have passed around letters denouncing him or his teachings? I know that the letters of John and James may have not been authored by them per se but the more I read the different texts of these passages, the more it looks like your case is even more interesting. I had to read several translations of Gal 2 because many of them paint a very different picture by the English they use.

Also, do you think it is possible that when the NT was being assembled, if there was a letter from James or John that was speaking out against Paul, that they may have ignored it because it could complicate things? I am interested to hear you thoughts on this.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2015, 10:27 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2015 10:50 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(23-05-2015 10:08 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Mark, one thing that I am thinking of is that if Paul was apparently so prolific, why did James never mention him in his letter? You would think that if he was as "in tune" with god as Paul portrays himself, James would have been more likely to say something about him as if he was a man they could listen to. I am aware that according to Gal 2, Paul did not think highly of James or Peter, but they did not see eye-to-eye, do you think that they may have passed around letters denouncing him or his teachings? I know that the letters of John and James may have not been authored by them per se but the more I read the different texts of these passages, the more it looks like your case is even more interesting. I had to read several translations of Gal 2 because many of them paint a very different picture by the English they use.

Also, do you think it is possible that when the NT was being assembled, if there was a letter from James or John that was speaking out against Paul, that they may have ignored it because it could complicate things? I am interested to hear you thoughts on this.

"Mark, one thing that I am thinking of is that if Paul was apparently so prolific, why did James never mention him in his letter?"

First thing to realise is that are there is no way the church fathers would have allowed any direct criticism of Paul in James' letter to have survived. It would've been edited out.

Secondly, what James wrote in his letter directly and and unambiguously contradicts Paul's teachings...

- Paul taught that faith in Christ had replaced obedience to the Jewish law, which was now redundant. Yet James wrote...

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2;10)"

- Paul taught that all that was now required to achieve salvation was faith in Christ's atoning death. Yet James wrote that faith was pointless without good works...

"14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
"

(James 2;14-26)

It is fairly obvious (to me anyway) that James had heard Paul's contrived nonsense and rejected it outright.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
23-05-2015, 10:36 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(23-05-2015 10:27 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 10:08 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Mark, one thing that I am thinking of is that if Paul was apparently so prolific, why did James never mention him in his letter? You would think that if he was as "in tune" with god as Paul portrays himself, James would have been more likely to say something about him as if he was a man they could listen to. I am aware that according to Gal 2, Paul did not think highly of James or Peter, but they did not see eye-to-eye, do you think that they may have passed around letters denouncing him or his teachings? I know that the letters of John and James may have not been authored by them per se but the more I read the different texts of these passages, the more it looks like your case is even more interesting. I had to read several translations of Gal 2 because many of them paint a very different picture by the English they use.

Also, do you think it is possible that when the NT was being assembled, if there was a letter from James or John that was speaking out against Paul, that they may have ignored it because it could complicate things? I am interested to hear you thoughts on this.

"Mark, one thing that I am thinking of is that if Paul was apparently so prolific, why did James never mention him in his letter?"

First thing to realise is that are there is no way the church fathers would have allowed any direct criticism of Paul in James' letter to have survived. It would've been edited out.

Secondly, what James wrote in his letter directly and and unambiguously contradicts Paul's teachings...

- Paul taught that and have been replaced by faith in Christ obedience to the Jewish law was now redundant, as it had been replaced by faith in Christ. Yet James wrote...

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2;10)"

- Paul taught that all that was now required to achieve salvation was faith in Christ's atoning death. Yet James wrote that faith was pointless without good works...

"14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
"

(James 2;14-26)

It is fairly obvious (to me anyway) that James had heard Paul's contrived nonsense and rejected it outright.

*sigh* if only I had a Delorian..... Sadcryface2

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
23-05-2015, 10:36 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2015 01:50 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(23-05-2015 10:08 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Mark, one thing that I am thinking of is that if Paul was apparently so prolific, why did James never mention him in his letter? You would think that if he was as "in tune" with god as Paul portrays himself, James would have been more likely to say something about him as if he was a man they could listen to. I am aware that according to Gal 2, Paul did not think highly of James or Peter, but they did not see eye-to-eye, do you think that they may have passed around letters denouncing him or his teachings? I know that the letters of John and James may have not been authored by them per se but the more I read the different texts of these passages, the more it looks like your case is even more interesting. I had to read several translations of Gal 2 because many of them paint a very different picture by the English they use.

Also, do you think it is possible that when the NT was being assembled, if there was a letter from James or John that was speaking out against Paul, that they may have ignored it because it could complicate things? I am interested to hear you thoughts on this.

"do you think that they may have passed around letters denouncing him or his teachings? I know that the letters of John and James may have not been authored by them per se but the more I read the different texts of these passages, the more it looks like your case is even more interesting."

I strongly suspect James and Yeshua's genuine followers hated Paul with a passion. He was the enemy. He was a heretic. He was allied to the Gentile world, and Gentiles had murdered John the Baptist and Yeshua. Paul's "kingdom of God" was not theirs. Paul's Messiah ( his Christ ) was not their Messiah. Paul undermined the central tenets of Judaism. He downplayed the importance of the Temple. He reckoned Gentiles were just as special as Jews, whereas Jews liked to think they were the world's most favoured people. Paul didn't think circumcision was important. He said that a kosher diet was unnecessary. These ideas would have been repugnant to fundamentalist Jews.

Did they pass around letters badmouthing Paul? It is possible, but don't forget Jerusalem was a dangerous place if you were anti-Roman. They wouldn't want that sort of literature falling into the wrong hands.

Thanks for realising that my opinions may have merit.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2015, 10:57 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2015 11:14 PM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(23-05-2015 10:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 10:08 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Mark, one thing that I am thinking of is that if Paul was apparently so prolific, why did James never mention him in his letter? You would think that if he was as "in tune" with god as Paul portrays himself, James would have been more likely to say something about him as if he was a man they could listen to. I am aware that according to Gal 2, Paul did not think highly of James or Peter, but they did not see eye-to-eye, do you think that they may have passed around letters denouncing him or his teachings? I know that the letters of John and James may have not been authored by them per se but the more I read the different texts of these passages, the more it looks like your case is even more interesting. I had to read several translations of Gal 2 because many of them paint a very different picture by the English they use.

Also, do you think it is possible that when the NT was being assembled, if there was a letter from James or John that was speaking out against Paul, that they may have ignored it because it could complicate things? I am interested to hear you thoughts on this.

"do you think that they may have passed around letters denouncing him or his teachings? I know that the letters of John and James may have not been authored by them per se but the more I read the different texts of these passages, the more it looks like your case is even more interesting."

I strongly suspect James and Yeshua's genuine followers hated Paul with a passion. He was the enemy. He was a heretic. He was allied to the Gentile world, and Gentiles had murdered John the Baptist and Yeshua. Paul's "kingdom of God" was not theirs. Paul's Messiah ( his Christ ) was not their Messiah. Paul undermined the central tenets of Judaism. He downplayed the importance of the Temple. He reckoned Gentiles were just as special as Jews, and Jews likes to think they were the worlds most favoured people. He didn't think circumcision was important. He said that a kosher diet was unnecessary.

Did they pass around letters badmouthing Paul? It is possible, that Don't forget Jerusalem was a dangerous place if you were anti-Roman. They wouldn't want that sort of literature falling into the wrong hands.

Thanks for realising that my case may have some merit.


Biblegateway is great for seeing different translations for the scriptures. I like to see different translations because I feel that they write different "versions" to suit different denominations' theology and the verbage is different and that can, in turn, paint a very different picture of a situation.

Back on topic.
I was familiar with that Gal passage but I never thought about it in that sense. My wife has a life application bible (which has TONS of BS notes in it but I won't get into now) and they say of Gal 2:4:

"These false brothers were most likely from a party of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5). These were the strictest religious leaders Judaism, some of whom had been converted. We don't know if these were representatives of well-meaning converts or of those trying to pervert Christianity. Most commentators agree that neither Peter or James had any part of this conspiracy"

That commentary never sat well with me but I never could quite put my finger on it. I saw that Paul took a swipe at them by saying their opinions mattered not to him. As you pointed out that if Paul's Christos was James' brother, then why did he not care of his opinion (or John's or Peter's for that matter)? They only were there when jesus was alive and knew him personally (according to the story anyway) and Paul simply had "revelation." Facepalm I never thought of it from the angle that Paul was actually talking about them. That makes so much more sense that he was talking about the Nazarenes. I really never understood why they made that special note at the end about Peter and James, (it always seemed out of place) but it makes a hell of a lot more sense now. It also makes sense that Acts 15:5 may have been an attempt to place the blame for contradiction theology elsewhere. Like a bit of biblical damage control.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
23-05-2015, 11:13 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2015 11:17 PM by DLJ.)
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(23-05-2015 09:22 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 09:02 PM)Leo Wrote:  The schrism happened because of the filioque and the roman claim of the Pope supremacy. Apparently in early christianity each patriach was the leader of their area or jurisdiction. The idea of Pope supremacy ( one person ruling over the whole church) was odd to the rest of christianity.

Thanks! I learned a new word....filioque

I didn't know it either.

Nice one Leo. Thanks.

[Image: proceeds.bmp]

Mark,
I'm still reading through the OP. So far, I'm nodding along. It all seems to fit nicely with memetic evolution.

Yes

Footnote: Went to +rep Leo for teaching me new stuff... found I already had. Damn! That's annoying when that happens.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
23-05-2015, 11:21 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2015 01:51 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(23-05-2015 10:57 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 10:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "do you think that they may have passed around letters denouncing him or his teachings? I know that the letters of John and James may have not been authored by them per se but the more I read the different texts of these passages, the more it looks like your case is even more interesting."

I strongly suspect James and Yeshua's genuine followers hated Paul with a passion. He was the enemy. He was a heretic. He was allied to the Gentile world, and Gentiles had murdered John the Baptist and Yeshua. Paul's "kingdom of God" was not theirs. Paul's Messiah ( his Christ ) was not their Messiah. Paul undermined the central tenets of Judaism. He downplayed the importance of the Temple. He reckoned Gentiles were just as special as Jews, and Jews likes to think they were the worlds most favoured people. He didn't think circumcision was important. He said that a kosher diet was unnecessary.

Did they pass around letters badmouthing Paul? It is possible, that Don't forget Jerusalem was a dangerous place if you were anti-Roman. They wouldn't want that sort of literature falling into the wrong hands.

Thanks for realising that my case may have some merit.


Biblegateway is great for seeing different translations for the scriptures. I like to see different translations because I feel that they write different "versions" to suit different denominations' theology and the verbage is different and that can, in turn, paint a very different picture of a situation.

Back on topic.
I was familiar with that Gal passage but I never thought about it in that sense. My wife has a life application bible (which has TONS of BS notes in it but I won't get into now) and they say of Gal 2:4:

"These false brothers were most likely from a party of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5). These were the strictest religious leaders Judaism, some of whom had been converted. We don't know if these were representatives of well-meaning converts or of those trying to pervert Christianity. Most commentators agree that neither Peter or James had any part of this conspiracy"

That commentary never sat well with me but I never could quite put my finger on it. I saw that Paul took a swipe at them by saying their opinions mattered not to him. As you pointed out that if Paul's Christos was James' brother, then why did he not care of his opinion (or John's or Peter's for that matter)? They only were there when jesus was alive and knew him personally (according to the story anyway) and Paul simply had "revelation." Facepalm I never thought of it from the angle that Paul was actually talking about them. That makes so much more sense that he was talking about the Nazarenes. I really never understood why they made that special note at the end about Peter and James, (it always seemed out of place) but it makes a hell of a lot more sense now. It also makes sense that Acts 15:5 may have been an attempt to place the blame for contradiction theology elsewhere. Like a bit of biblical damage control.

"As you pointed out that if Paul's Christos was James' brother, then why did he not care of his opinion (or John's or Peter's for that matter)? They only were there when jesus was alive and knew him personally (according to the story anyway) and Paul simply had "revelation." Facepalm "

Thank you for commenting on this. Paul's Christ wasn't Jeebus! I do feel as though I have rabbitted on about this a lot on this forum, yet I was never really sure whether anyone saw the significance of it. You obviously do, so it is nice to find a kindred spirit.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2015, 12:18 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2015 12:29 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(23-05-2015 10:36 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 10:27 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Mark, one thing that I am thinking of is that if Paul was apparently so prolific, why did James never mention him in his letter?"

First thing to realise is that are there is no way the church fathers would have allowed any direct criticism of Paul in James' letter to have survived. It would've been edited out.

Secondly, what James wrote in his letter directly and and unambiguously contradicts Paul's teachings...

- Paul taught that and have been replaced by faith in Christ obedience to the Jewish law was now redundant, as it had been replaced by faith in Christ. Yet James wrote...

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2;10)"

- Paul taught that all that was now required to achieve salvation was faith in Christ's atoning death. Yet James wrote that faith was pointless without good works...

"14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
"

(James 2;14-26)

It is fairly obvious (to me anyway) that James had heard Paul's contrived nonsense and rejected it outright.

*sigh* if only I had a Delorian..... Sadcryface2

"Delorian" Huh
Damn.... Thought I was going to learn another new word, but my computer can't help... Please fill me in
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: