https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch
>be in Judea in the 1st century
>Jews are in a crisis, all kinds of weird prophets arise that aim to reform Judaism
>Jesus comes around and forms his own sect
>we have no reliable sources on what he preached, but it must have been quite radical, because the Romans arrested and crucified him
>his disciples, all practicing Jews carry on his cause to reform Judaism
>romanized Jew called Paul comes along, starts to co-opt the movement
>he never met Jesus in person, just claims to have had a vision
>"you guys, if we want or company, I mean faith to be succesful, we need to branch out and start preaching to pagans."
>"turns out that the goyim don't like the idea of circumscision and not eating pork, let's get rid of that, trust me, I have spoken to Jesus in a vision, that's what he would want"
>Paul starts to teach his interpretation of Christianity to gentiles
>Peter, James and the other disciples finally have a big falling out with Paul in Antioch, with them wanting to keep Jewish laws and just stay as a Jewish sect
>Paul leaves and starts to preach his version of what Jesus said
>Peter and his pals are all killed by Romans during the Jewish wars.
>the theology of those who actually knew Jesus is lost for ever
>Paul's version of Christianity spreads
The Bible is basically built on Paul's teachings, but we know that the people who actually knew Jesus in person (Peter and James) disagreed with him. How can people justify in believing in what we today know as Christianity, when it's a fact that even the original disciples of Jesus disagreed with it?
>tfw we will never find out what the authentic Jewish Christian faith was like.
>>1214260
>he never met Jesus in person, just claims to have had a vision
Why do we take this guy seriously but not Mohammed or Joseph Smith.
>>1214260
Jews demanded j the c pinned or they would chuck jewy tanty, quite the spectical.
Paul is escorted out of jew town by roman cohorts then later disappears in to witness protection
>>1214267
the other disciples apparently didn't take him seriously. it must have been frustrating for them to see him convert a lot of people to what they thought of as a misinterpretation of Jesus' message.
> implying Christianity is a myth
Christianity is the only story where sacred violence does not withstand. God reveals Christ's innocence.
Rather than God approving of the death and disappearance of Christ, Christ is risen and even more present.
Sacrificing Christ did not make him go away. God did not agree and say "Yes, Christ is guilty, you may kill him and forget about him."
>>1214315
Christianity is legit.
Paul on the other hand belongs in the trash.
Explain to me (noob in theology) how christianity makes sense if you are not a jew?
>>1214324
tips turban
>>1214324
but we have no idea what real Christianity is, what Jesus actually wanted. his message is lost, it was only written down much later, after Paul already converted a lot of people and the disciples were not around anymore.
>accepting the physical existence of Jesus Christ the man as an undisputed fact
I don't even own a fedora, but come on.
>>1214260
AYO LOOK AT ST PAUL
LOOK AT THE SKIN COLOUR
NOW DAT OBVIOUSLY AND UNDENIABLY A BLACK MAN
SO HERE YA SEE IT FOLKS
ST PAUL WAS A BLACK MAN
>>1214523
But we do.
>>1214315
Nobody is arguing about the legitimacy of Christianity. I think we are more interested in the apparent disparity between Paul's beliefs and the beliefs of the people who actually knew Jesus.
To me it's just a curiosity, something interesting to read about and discuss. I promise not to use it to debate the innocents of my city and convert them to my degenerate ways.
To you this should be a discussion of existential importance though, right? Why side step it?
>>1214595
It's generally accepted - there is certainly as much evidence for him as other ancients that we don't question the existence of.
He may not have existed, but of course, this can be said about other secular figures.
>>1214260
Nice summary. Mohammed and Joseph Smith (and the guys that founded Sikhism and the Baha'i faith) only did what they saw Paul pulling off easily with Christianity.
B-but the difference is that Paul's vision was true and theirs wasn't. I-I swear guys!
Fuck off.
>>1214260
Gee, i wonder who's behind this post?
>>1214523
Can someone explain to me what this whole Paul thing being so different than the rest? Idk anything about it, how was he different, what were the differences, what is the scripture differences and all that. It would be much appreciated
>>tfw we will never find out what the authentic Jewish Christian faith was like.
Let's go one further.
>tfw we will never who Jesus Christ actually *was*
>>1215511
Paul is a self-proclaimed apostle that admittedly never saw Jesus (oh yes, except that one time, in that "vision") and had differences with the other, chosen apostles such as Peter. In his epistles Paul never mentions the resurrection and he opts for a more "mystical" approach to Christianity, sometimes bordering the Gnostic and using Gnostic terms such as archons, spiritual and carnal types person, etc. He also seeks to convert Gentiles rather then Jews, opting to do away with, against Jesus and the apostles, Jewish practices and Jewish law as a proselytizing strategy. His doctrine that the law of Moses was abolished and the new law of grace was in effect would be a corner stone of Christianity and even more so of Protestantism.
IMO he was a crafty Jew who took elements from the apostles, rabbinic Judaism, Gnosticism and even Greco-Roman mystery religions ("behold I tell you a mystery..."? I mean come on!) and formed a synthetic religion highly effective in the conversion of Gentiles, that would later become "orthodox" Christianity.
>>1215633
The world is such a weird place.
>>1214315
>Christianity is the only story where sacred violence does not withstand
What is book of revelations?
In Islam, this shit wouldn't fly. The sayings of the people who knew the prophet in question would always supercede the sayings of those who didn't. You can talk a lot of shit about the hadith sciences, but Islam doesn't have a Paul coming around, wrecking shit. He would've been discarded ASAP.
>>1215681
Yes, notice how Muslims waste no time in rebuking the hell out of Baha'i for trying to pull a Paul.
>>1215633
Interesting thanks for the input. Didn't Jesus die before he saw him and then the whole vision thing happen
>>1215696
No, no wait. I'm having a vision from Jesus himself, he says Paul's a dumbass and the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh) are the truth and the light.
Not convinced? Then you shouldn't be convinced by Paul either.
>>1215681
What about the Shia thing with the imams.
>>1215706
Or Muhammad.
>>1214260
>turns out that the goyim don't like the idea of circumscision and not eating pork
So Paul removed all the shit from Judaism, that's based, Europeans would be living like in fucking middle east without him.
>>1215721
That's right. Good thing I'm not Muslim.
>>1215633
I know Paul's theology is somewhat Gnostic but I never heard that he has some theory of archons. Could you elaborate on this?
>>1214314
>The other disciples didn't take him seriously.
Galatians 2:1-10 and 2 Peter 3:15-16 suggests otherwise
So what's up with the gospels meme?
We have four "canon" ones making the new testament, how many more were there? Are they fanfiction? Who had the right to decide what is and what's not fit for being in the bible?
>>1214314
The only major differences between what Paul preached and what the other apostles believed were about Jesus' divinity and whether the gospel applied only to Jews or not.
>>1214260
Did Paul come up with the Trinity BS?
>>1215771
>how many more were there?
A fuckton. At the very least there were dozens more, but in all probability there were hundreds of non-canon ones, which we don't know about either due to them being lost or suppressed.
>Are they fanfiction?
Depends on who you ask. According to orthodox Christians, absolutely. According to weird esoteric revivalist Christian groups, they're the official ones, and the canon gospels are the fanfiction. According to secular historians, they're all fanfiction but the non-canon ones have been more or less relegated to fanfiction in the public conscious.
>Who had the right to decide what is and what's not fit for being in the bible?
Multiple Church councils over several centuries held between debating and opposing groups of early Christians who wanted their view of Jesus over the others.
>>1215772
The nature of God is a HUGE THING so is whether half the entire new testament is still relevant
Also don't forget
*Whether Jesus died for your sins
*Whether his death was nessiary for salvation
*Whether his message is relevant at all for non-jews
*Everything Paul ever said being relevant (if Paul isn't an apostle than everything he ever wrote on ethics and conduct is thrown out, that's half the new testament)
Also there is very good reason to think all non-Paul parts of the bible were written by Gentile Christians. Since literally all Gentile Christians would have gotten Paul's version of it, it would stand that 100% of the New Testament is Pauline Theology. And if Paul is wrong than it means that we could be risk declaring the entire New Testament a fake.
>>1215792
He came up with the idea of the divinity of Jesus and possibly the holy spirit.
>>1215792
The Trinity came later than Paul's teachings.
>>1215771
The basis of Christianity is what Paul taught and preached, since his idea of the messianic cult of Jesus became Christianity.
What is and isn't canon is based off what Paul said (and the writer of the gospel of Luke also wrote Acts, which is an account of Paul's life as well).
>>1215811
Essentially, what the apostles preached was messianic Judaism. What Paul preached was Christianity.
>>1215811
>Since literally all Gentile Christians would have gotten Paul's version of it
What do you mean by this?
>>1215825
Before Paul came along not a single follower of Jesus really cared about preaching to the gentiles. If a gentile really wanted to join the religion they might be able to if they jump through a ton of hoops (get circumcised, eat kosher food, get approved by the Rabbi, memorize the Torah and even than they might not let you). So no one was really telling the Gentiles about Jesus, it was only for the Jews.
Paul comes out of nowhere and starts his own ministry and focuses pretty much entirly on Gentiles. So every single Gentile Christian would either
a) Have gotten their understanding of the religion from Paul
b) Would have gotten from someone from another Gentile from category A
Even the other parts of the Gospel are subject to this. They are not first hand-accounts, they are collections of stories compiled by annonymous sources. From what we know all them were written in Greek, no native Jew would write in Greek, they were written by Gentiles (Pauline perspective).
Than there is a theological clash with Paul's ministry vs the old standard. Paul's theology wins and the old theology is declared heresey.
So literally everything we know about Christianity today is from the Pauline line of thinking.
>>1215866
so can we scrap the term xianity for somethung more aprop:
PAULISM aka saulism
>>1215921
Christianity relies mostly on Paul's teachings, but only on the behalf that he only repeats what is the one true gospel. The 4 canon gospels are chosen because they fall the most in line with what Paul said.
Paul is to Christianity what Muhammad is to Islam.
>>1216105
Pretty much.
Theologically speaking it's actually argued by Paul that the ressurected, immaterial, spirtual Jesus has provdes the authentic, secret, teachings the pre-ressurection Jesus didn't. In a truely bizzare twist this made it so that the people that actually knew Jesus, were eye eyewittnesses, were regarded as having understood while someone claiming to have a vision of him (such as himself) would be regarded as knowing more.
Why should I listen to a Jew's opinion on the Word of God?
>>1215706
>>1215681
The issue in question was decided at the Council of Jerusalem. Saint James, Christ's own brother, chaired the proceedings..
>JUST reform your empire bro, I'm not even mad about roman's conquering Judea
>>1216403
We musn't forget that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus though, even if they never met. It's not like Muhammad making claims about Judaism and Christianity hundreds of years after the facts (or "facts"). Paul had access to oral gospels, was in touch with the original apostles themselves, and had a vision of Jesus himself. So it's not like he just came up with a bunch of retarded shit all on his own. What he taught was either his own interpretation of the gospel he learned from the original apostles, or what he received directly from God (which is the explanation he gives).
>>1216438
and yet there are other records that say James never accepted Paul and was the leader of a church of "Heretics"
>>1215681
Here is the thing. The guy who is supposed to be setting the rules is Jesus. Jesus wrote nothing and he didn't appoint anyone to write on behalf of him. When Paul was going around doing this there was no such thing as an official cannon his own writings ended up becoming the oldest parts of the New Testament. The other cannon writings do not even get put to paper until decades after Paul.
Call yourself a bishop, say that you knew some guy who is long dead that knew Jesus. Than start picking your favorite texts and declare it cannon 200 years after anyone that could have ever known Jesus is dead.
>>1215758
>Galatians
>A Pauline Epistle
Yeah no shit.
>2 Peter
Depends on what dating you want to take I guess.
If it wasn't actually written by Peter it might be less useful to your position.
>>1215811
I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that they were all written by Gentile Christians.
Matthew at the very least is rather jewish in its adaptation of Mark.
>>1216473
>and yet there are other records that say James never accepted Paul and was the leader of a church of "Heretics"
Saint James probably kept the Jewish law for his whole life, because he was a Nzerite, which is sort of the Jewish equivalent to monastic views. So he had a great deal of respect from pro-Jewish Christians, but it's unlikely he was an antagonist of both Paul and Peter, and (according to Josephus) he was put to death by the Pharisees through a kangaroo court. Any works that say James was a Judaizer postdate Acts anyway.
>>1216458
Whatever oral tradition he had was not accepted by the people that knew Jesus, hence the despute.
Oral traditions never preserve things accuratly. It's a giant game of telephone. I can go to a town that has never heard of Jesus, tell the story but remove certain aspects and than add other aspects. Than everyone in the village will tell my story.
We do know there were competing stories about what Jesus's life was like and Paul's theology does sound somewhat like proto-Gnostism and very Hellenized. Personally I think Paul and the Gentiles were vehicles by which pagan ideas became cannon.
>>1215383
None of those people were mentioned, especially not in any comparison to Paul. Who are you talking to?
(btw, I just had a vision of your mom throating me. She really knows how to swallow some dick. And since visions are so true and all, I'm gonna say I had a pretty good time. )
>>1216505
>Josephus
Isn't that the forgery document?
The question of James vs Paul isn't a matter of simple things like Kosher. Basic concepts such as the divinity of Jesus, whether or not he died for your sins, whether Jesus even cared about Gentiles are at stack.
If Paul indeed did not meet Jesus (and without invoking the idea of the supernatural perspective there is no reason to think he would) than the conclusion is that he co-opted the movement and what we call the New Testament has little to do with the historical Jesus.
>>1214260
>jewish
Just as Romans were Europeans right?
Jews were not a nation or race, in fact Jews are not even real and is largely a Talmudic construction of diaspora people from the middle east.
>>1216553
No. Some parts are contested as interpolations but that isn't.
>>1216553
>Basic concepts such as the divinity of Jesus, whether or not he died for your sins, whether Jesus even cared about Gentiles are at stack.
If Saint James denied all this, I seriously doubt the Pharisees would have put him to death.
>Paul could literally have just made it all up
bit awkward desu
>>1216557
"Jews" are a Talmudic race and not Hebrews.
>>1216574
In their own language, as well as many languages (like French and Russian), they're still called "Hebrews"
>>1216574
Hebrews are a lingustic group
>>1216584
In many languages French are called Franks, a different Germanic race.
>>1216601
If Frankish were still spoken in parts of France and they adhered strongly the Frankish identity, those people would probably be seen as Franks.
>>1216610
You can't adhere to an identity, you either are or are not.
friendly reminder that islam is the light
>>1214260
>"it's a fact that even the original disciples of Jesus disagreed with it"
>does not provide the source to this fact
>>1216619
If you share an unbroken ethnic line, then you are.
>>1216620
go fuck your goats
>>1216566
How the hell do the Pharisee put someone to do death anyway?
Paul himself claimed to be a special task-force police of the Pharisee that went around killing Christians.
This story really doesn't make sense. Rome never really go any sort of authority like this to the Jews, and if they did it would be the Sadducee. There is no historical evidense to back up this ridiculous conspiracy theory you have, the only document you have is a known forgery.
Don't you think this looks pathetic? Here we are with a historical problem that threatens to destroy the credibility of the entire New Testament and pretty much all theology. The best you can come up with is to bring up a known forgery and tell me "Certain parts might be true". I don't even think you could resort to supernatural explanations to explain this, there is no way any sort of magical entity would allow his teachings to be so poorly preserved and suspetable to corruption.
In general Christianity is filled with stories about the Pharisee turning everyone into matyrs to fufill their death-fetish. They even do it with Jesus, he's being executed for being a political enemy against Rome but theology insists it was about the Pharisee. What you are saying is just another example of this sort of thing, Nietzsche was right that the early Christians had a longing for their own death and persecution.
>>1216620
>>1215792
>>1215817
>>1215823
This triune God (or Trinity) began to allude to this aspect of His nature right in Genesis 1:26–27. There we read that “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image’ . . . God created man in His image.” Here God is a plural noun, said is in the third-person singular verb form, and we see both the plural pronoun our and the singular His referring to the same thing (God’s image). This is not horribly confused grammar. Rather, we are being taught, in a limited way, that God is a plurality in unity. We can’t say from this verse that He is a trinity, but God progressively reveals more about Himself in later Scriptures to bring us to that conclusion.
In Isaiah 48:12–16 we find the speaker in the passage describing himself as the Creator and yet saying that “the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.” This is further hinting at the doctrine of the trinity, which becomes very clear in the New Testament. There are many other Old Testament Scriptures that hint at the same idea.
In Matthew 28:18–20 Jesus command His disciples to baptize His followers in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John’s Gospel tells us that “the Word” is God who became man in Jesus Christ (John 1:1–3, 14). Jesus was fully man and fully God. Many other verses combine together to teach that God is triune.
As a start on a thorough discussion on this topic, the chart in pic related is an accumulation of many of the passages that show the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
>>1214627
NIGGA WE WUZ ROMANS 2 YANAWMSAYN? JULIUS CAESAR WAS BLACK, MAN. WE BUILT DEM AKWADUCKS N SHIT WHITEY CANT DO NUNNADAT
>>1216622
The Incident at Antioch is the source, retard.
>>1214260
>How can people justify in believing in what we today know as Christianity, when it's a fact that even the original disciples of Jesus disagreed with it?
we can justify it by saying we don't want to cut off our foreskins
>>1220128
not even for J?
