The Rock...Paul or Peter?

[Guest SerenityNow]

I agree. The 12 were probably the leaders of a Gnostic/Mysticism cult, and Paul came and had his visions of a "real" and physical Jesus instead of the Mythos Jesus the others were teaching.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Catholics say that the Father of the Church is built upon Peter, however, like Han wrote in the "Pagan, Witches are F*cking Morons Too!" thread...

 

HanSolo Wrote:  When Christians started (maybe gnostic/pagan/mystic) was ok, but Paul took it and made a church religion and oppression.

 

I agree that Paul was off on his own thing here. Any thoughts?

[a midnight star]

Wait a minute here. Peter worked with Paul as well as agreed with him. To say that it was only pauls fault is not accurate.

[Guest Son of Belial]

Anybody can claim someone else agreed with you after the fact. Who knows what really happened. Frankly, the only one we have any solid evidence even existed was Paul. The others may as well just be myths.

[a midnight star]

True. But the poster didn't question the existance of the 12. It was stated that paul was off on his own thing. When there is no evidence of that either.

 

I used the only thing that states any of this, the bible ( I am NOT saying that the bible was accurate). According to that Paul was not on his own. The 12 was in coots with him.

[Guest Son of Belial]

True. But the poster didn't question the existance of the 12. It was stated that paul was off on his own thing. When there is no evidence of that either.

 

I used the only thing that states any of this, the bible ( I am NOT saying that the bible was accurate). According to that Paul was not on his own. The 12 was in coots with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didn't Paul have to "convert" them first, though? I recall some serious debates before some of them were willing to believe his tale of dead-Jew-in-the-sky-on-a-sunbeam. The whole story about seeing the clean and unclean animals in a dream, if I recall, was supposed to be a reinforcement that Paul was correct in getting rid of both dietary laws and racial discrimination(depending on how you interpret it).

[a midnight star]

Peter

 

Acts 5

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things

 

Why? Because they didn't wish to give everything they owned to Peter.

 

****The whole story about seeing the clean and unclean animals in a dream, if I recall, was supposed to be a reinforcement that Paul was correct in getting rid of both dietary laws and racial discrimination(depending on how you interpret it).**

 

NO it was peter that had the dream

 

Acts 10:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. 17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, 18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

 

Not being inferior does not always equal being superiour.

[Guest Son of Belial]

NO it was peter that had the dream

 

I understand that. I was saying that the dream was supposedly a way of confirming that what Paul said was true. Paul didn't need confirmation of his beliefs, but the other apostles did.

[Guest Son of Belial]

On my way out of Christianity, one view that I ran across was that Paul is the anti-Christ.  There are sects of "messiah" believers that believe Paul was a false apostle.  Whoever faked up Acts, does kind of a history of Paul and the other apostles.  This is the basis to my debate, also wondering what Christians think. 

 

Looking at Paul's epistles he is the one to have started the whole church leadership, elders, preachers, etc.  It's been months though since I looked at those scriptures though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I saw that on some website a while back myself. They seemed to feel all the descriptions of the Anti-Christ were fulfilled by Paul, especially since there are references to Paul lying and so forth(but then again, so did Jesus, so maybe HE was the anti-Christ... it would make sense...).

[a midnight star]

Acts:

 

9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: 10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

 

He was on his own. They were making dinner ready.

 

Thankful,

I know. I should let them try and debate it themselves, though to be honest I could probably do a better job of it than they.

I should and will stay out of it. It is just that for once I was thinking "I am in my element". I can still debate the bible upside down and sideways, but when it comes to showing the evidence against the bible, I just sit there with a "duh" look on my face because I am lost.

[Guest Son of Belial]

You're misunderstanding me. I know Peter was by himself. However, he recieved this vision later, after having a debate with Paul about what and who was and was not clean. Thus, the vision confirmed to Peter that Paul was correct.

 

That's what I was saying. I've read entire books on the subject.

[a midnight star]

Are we still useing the bible for reference? If so, I have never heard of that nor do I read it anywhere.

[a midnight star]

Lets not forget that Paul was an educated Jew who went out and killed the christians. I would think that eating "unclean" animals would have been just as hard for him. He was a die hard Jew before he had his "visit on the road"

[Guest Son of Belial]

Are we still useing the bible for reference? If so, I have never heard of that nor do I read it anywhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Initially, it was said that Jesus was only for the salvation of the Jews. This was believed until Paul claimed he was an apostle to the Gentiles. The other apostles didn't know what to make of it until the dream:

 

From Chapter 10 of Acts:

 

10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

 

Later he takes this to mean:

 

28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

 

 

If you read any book about Paul you will hear about this story as a major point in the "epic" that is Paul.

[a midnight star]

yes, but it still is not biblical.

[a midnight star]

It's dinner time and my native is restless. Will continue as soon as I can later. Sorry!

[Guest Son of Belial]

In late Judaism(late as in, the time of Jesus), there were two sects: the Jews and the God-fearers.

 

Basically, full Jews were expected to follow ALL of the laws, no matter how minor.

 

The God-fearers were non-Jews that accepted that Yahweh was the one true god. As God-fearers but not full Jews, they were accepted by the Jewish people as allies/faithful, but were not expected to follow the dietary guidelines and other Jew-specific laws. They were expected, though, to follow the most important laws, and not to eat food offered to idols, to pray only to Yahweh and not to other gods, etc. Basically, there were the Mosaic and the Noahide laws. The Mosaic laws were for the Jews; the Noahide laws were for the God-fearers. The God-fearers were not considered more lowly than the full Jews, and could become full Jews, adopting all the laws, if they wished, but were not considered better or worse for having done so.

 

When the early Christians arose, there was a lot of debate about whether the return of Jesus and the subsequent Messianic Times would be limited only to full Jews. The apostles argued a lot about whether the word of Jesus should be preached only to Jews or to non-Jews as well, who could then convert and partake of the Messianic Kingdom.

[Dio]

A couple of opinions here...

 

First, Peter likely wrote neither of the epistles named after him, nor the apocryphal 'gospel'.

 

Second, I think Paul's theology was decidedly gnostic. His writings predate the gospels which attempt to legitimize the story of Jesus in history. Also, Paul claims that his faith was given through a special revelation and not by eyewitness, thus gnostic in origin. Jesus is rarely, if ever, depicted in Paul's writings as having an earthly historic existence, but rather a heavenly presence. He is presented as the 'New Adam', some sort of archetype, and his statement of 'Christ in you, the hope of glory' indicates a mystical indwelling. Sounds fairly gnostic. On the other hand, the crucifixion and the last supper are briefly mentioned, but all in all, Paul is fairly gnostic, being well aware of the existing mystery relgions that existed in hellenistic Palestine of the time.

[Guest Son of Belial]

A couple of opinions here... 

 

First, Peter likely wrote neither of the epistles named after him, nor the apocryphal 'gospel'.

 

Second, I think Paul's theology was decidedly gnostic.  His writings predate the gospels which attempt to legitimize the story of Jesus in history.  Also, Paul claims that his faith was given through a special revelation and not by eyewitness, thus gnostic in origin.  Jesus is rarely, if ever, depicted in Paul's writings as having an earthly historic existence, but rather a heavenly presence.  He is presented as the 'New Adam', some sort of archetype, and his statement of 'Christ in you, the hope of glory' indicates a mystical indwelling.  Sounds fairly gnostic.  On the other hand, the crucifixion and the last supper are briefly mentioned, but all in all, Paul is fairly gnostic, being well aware of the existing mystery relgions that existed in hellenistic Palestine of the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And that's one of the supposed reasons the Jews - and presumably the apostles if they existed - rejected Paul. His religion had too much Paganism in it. SPecifically the last supper and all that.

[Guest Son of Belial]

Thanks for posting that Son of Belial, I enjoy learning some of this history outside of the circles of my deconversion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, that's why I say some of the stuff in the OT is actually more liberal and forgiving than the NT.

 

In fact, the sect of Judaism that really pushed this liberal side was the Pharisees. Paul demonized them because he was NOT a Pharisee, he was a FAILED Pharisee, a God-fearer that just couldn't cut it as a Pharisee. That's why he quotes the Greek and not the Hebrew scriptures! He couldn't read Hebrew! The idea that he was a Pharisee, and couldn't even read Hebrew, is insane!

 

So Paul, not being allowed to become a Pharisee, decided to create his own cult based on the various mystery cults and, as someone else pointed out, probably gnostic cults as well.

 

The Pharisees are the ones that pushed a lot of liberal interpretations. They believed, in fact, that the Law was to be dictated by men for their best uses. They used to argue such things as "If a man with only one eye puts out another man's eye, should he then lose his one good eye, thus being rendered blind?" Different Pharisees argued different interpretations of that and they voted on it in democratic fashion. They could re-convene and re-vote at a later time, but the interpretation they voted on was in effect until then. The vote HAD to remain. The popular saying was that the Law was made for Man, and not Man made for the Law.

 

It was the Pharisees as well that said the Golden Rule, and one book I read pushed the idea that Jesus was a Pharisee himself, as many of his arguments were traditional Phariseeical arguments. Many instances in the Bible has Jesus arguing with Pharisees who give in and agree that Jesus was right - and among Pharisees, this was common. They were EXPECTED to argue and debate different scriptures because then they could hear all sides and make a proper decision.

 

Enough of that, but one story the Pharisees used to tell, because it's funny: This story says that the Pharisees had voted on an interpretation when Yahweh God himself came down and told them they interpreted the scripture wrong. They told him that they had already voted and he had to wait until the next meeting(in 6 months or whatever). Yahweh told them, basically, "But I'm God!" They told him "Yes, but God created the rule that said we couldn't re-vote till next time, so you have to wait." God then purportedly declared "My children have defeated me!"

 

Basically, there was an actual rule that said "even if God comes down, we must abide by the council votes" or something like that. The reason was so that some Pharisee being unscrupulous couldn't say "Wait, God just told me that this interpretation is wrong."

 

So overall, I respect the Phariseeical structure, which was based on the OT, better than all the NT shit.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Son of Belial I have never heard that about the Pharasees. I must admit I really like what I hear, but how can we know this that you give us is true?

 

I would love it if we could prove the pharees as liberal jews and that paul totally ripped off and mollested the teachings of the pharasees.

 

The pharasees liberal?

 

Also, I would think it cool if you shared your knowlege of the pharasees with Amanda. She thinks Paul's propaganda is dreamy......she is a new ager....

[Guest Son of Belial]

Son of Belial I have never heard that about the Pharasees. I must admit I really like what I hear, but how can we know this that you give us is true?

 

I would love it if we could prove the pharees as liberal jews and that paul totally ripped off and mollested the teachings of the pharasees.

 

The pharasees liberal?

 

Also, I would think it cool if you shared your knowlege of the pharasees with Amanda. She thinks Paul's propaganda is dreamy......she is a new ager....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can't guarantee that that information is true, but it was learned from a book called "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity." If I remember correctly, the author is a Jewish historian.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I can't guarantee that that information is true, but it was learned from a book called "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity." If I remember correctly, the author is a Jewish historian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Son of Belial. Appreciate the book!

[Guest aexapo]

Catholics say that the Father of the Church is built upon Peter, however, like Han wrote in the "Pagan, Witches are F*cking Morons Too!" thread...

I agree that Paul was off on his own thing here.  Any thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

ARGGG!!! Neither Peter, Paul nor Jesus built the modern Christian church!!! Constantine did, (well, with a little help from Jan Crouch).

[Ouroboros]

True. But the poster didn't question the existance of the 12. It was stated that paul was off on his own thing. When there is no evidence of that either.

 

I used the only thing that states any of this, the bible ( I am NOT saying that the bible was accurate). According to that Paul was not on his own. The 12 was in coots with him.

Paul did, by his own record and recollection leave the country after he had his vision of Jesus. He left to Arabia (IIRC), for 3 up to 13 years, before he came back, and he even boosts about that he didn't speak to any of the other disciples before he started to preach, and soon afterwards he started to correct Peter and the other in their wrong views.

 

We know Paul existed, and that he wrote letter, and he mentions the "brothers" etc, but we don't know if the disciples were disciples to a real Jesus, or just disciples to a certain cult or school of some kind.

[Ouroboros]

Peter

 

Acts 5

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things

 

Why? Because they didn't wish to give everything they owned to Peter.

 

****The whole story about seeing the clean and unclean animals in a dream, if I recall, was supposed to be a reinforcement that Paul was correct in getting rid of both dietary laws and racial discrimination(depending on how you interpret it).**

 

NO it was peter that had the dream

 

Acts 10:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. 17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, 18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

 

Not being inferior does not always equal being superiour.

 

The problems with Acts (or Acts of the Apostles) is that it is probably written a while after Paul wrote his letters and the church had started to form. The Acts is a very untrustworthy document for historical purposes. The only books in NT that is fairly sure written by a known person are the epistels. The Gospels and Acts are constructed religious work, to give a background (mostly fictious) to the church that had started.

 

There is a possibility that Acts were written in a fashion to paint Paul in a good manner, to give him the support "from God", that he had some sort of authority, when the truth could be that he was the heretic of the early church.