 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Disclaimer: It is important for the reader to understand that in this website, in comparing first century Judaism and their Messiah with later Christianity and their presentation of the Jewish Messiah along with the unveiling of the historical truths concerning the non-Jewish "believer" in the first century, I will use a "literal-historical" approach to the "Jesus Story". If you have studied our other websites then you know that "the Christ" can be interpreted from 3 different perspectives down through recorded history: "mystical", "mythological", and "literal-historical". Only after one has spent a considerable time in dedicated and scholarly studies in such areas as Biblical Judaism, the Jewish Messiah and true Messianic prophecy as taken from the Hebrew Scriptures and not the later forged texts of Rome, manuscript evidences, the history and origin of the Roman New Testament, the Gnostic Paul vs the Roman Paul, the Essenes and their "literal godman", Gnosticism, Egyptian religion and the ancient "Jesus Story", Comparative religion, and Astrotheology can he understand and be certain which two of the above three methods of interpretation of "the Christ" are accurate and factual. Again for purposes of comparing Judaism vs Christianity and the implications that this holds for the non-Jew and "Godfearer" we adopt in this website and for all studies in this website a supposed "literal-historical" interpretation of "the Christ" as well as the Jesus of the New Testament. Only in so doing can we adequately contrast the truths of Judaism vs Christianity theology and by so doing follow the train of these Divine Truths back down the corridors of history to the earlier Divine revelations given to mankind by the Creator which were intended for both "Gentiles" and "Jews" as well. I will let you be the judge of the results of such studies and leave to the reader to draw the necessary conclusions as we attempt to compare Jewish and Christian theological perspectives all the while dealing with the New Testament Jesus in a "literal-historical" manner in order for such an accurate comparison to be done effectively.
I can just hear many of my readers now: "There he goes again,
tearing down my hero Paul". Well it is not my
desire to build up or tear down anyone; only to get to the truth behind
accounts in the New Testament which have been recorded in such a slanted
way as to obscure truth. It is in the spirit of truth and critical
historical study that we investigated great time and research to get the
bottom of Paul's rebuke of Peter.
Identifying forgeries in the Bible often calls for some hard detective work. There is no "royal road." Every clue, every nuance, no matter how subtle or insignificant it may seem, must be followed to its logical conclusion. Sometime the results are ambiguous and frustrating. They remain questionable, and I will point out a couple of examples. But perseverance often pays off, and the data confirm a suspected Bible forgery. So, although some of the suspected Bible forgeries may ultimately be proved authentic, others certainly will be substantiated. The so-called Pauline epistles are a good case in point because modern scholarship today reveals that many that carry Paul's name are outright forgeries; fakes written often to present an anti-Jewish polemic or an anti-Gnostic polemic. This is rather amazing as one does the necessary studies for it is quite evident to the accomplished scholar today that the authentic Paul of the New Testament was Gnostic "Chrestian" through and through although later portrayed in anti-Gnostic tone by Roman writers.
Paul was a Jew born at Tarsus, a city in Cilicia. The year of his birth is not known exactly but scholars put it at about 5 C.E. His Jewish name was "Saul" which he used within the Jewish community with "Paul" being the Greek version. He is believed to have died in Rome around 65 C.E. Paul was a contemporary of the time in which Jesus supposedly lived. Outside the New Testament letters (epistles), there are no reliable sources for his life. In the New Testament the so-called Pauline epistles begin after the Book of Acts and include the next thirteen entries. They all begin with the words "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the . . ."
Answer for yourself: But did he really write them?
According to scholarly analyses (see Attachment), Romans, I and II Corinthians, I Thessalonians and Galatians are genuine. Opinion is divided on the authenticity of Philippians and Philemon. Ephesians, Colossians, II Thessalonians, The Pastorals (I and II Timothy and Titus) are held by most scholars to be forgeries written considerably later than the time of Paul. The story of Paul's conversion to Christianity and his career as a missionary is given in the Book of Acts and was probably written many years after his death. Therefore its authenticity remains highly questionable.
Of the thirteen epistles ascribed to Paul in the Bible, only five to seven can be identified as authentic with any degree of certainty according to modern scholarship. Yet, all thirteen are headed with the bold inscription, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the . . ." which is blatant subterfuge in the face of undeniable evidence to their forgery. This amounts to a most scandalous and irresponsible deception. I know of no minister of the gospel who has ever had the intestinal fortitude go before his congregation and make this revelation. They, instead, proudly promote themselves as paragons of virtue and honesty; purveyors of truth - the only truth. Intellectual dishonesty is their stock in trade.
This issues at stake in such research affects every non-Jewish believer on this planet. This will become crystal clear if you take the challenge and read the forthcoming articles which will strip away many of the lies and half-truths portrayed in the New Testament. Dear one, whether you know it or not, the New Testament you carry in which you hold beliefs concerning "inerrancy and infallibility" is more truthfully understood to be a Roman religious propagandist document in which a "replacement religion" was used as a political glue to hold the crumbling Roman Empire together in the 2nd through 4th century when the Canon of the New Testament was organized.
To examine all the forgeries attributed to the Gnostic Paul would take several books so I have limited our study in this website to the "Antioch Incident". James D.G. Dunn, in Jesus, Paul, and the Law, states on page 2 that: "The Antioch incident was a crucial episode in Paul's career. The question was , How crucial?" He goes on to challenge his readers with such questions as:
One of the issues raised by this study was is the changing relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem church before and up to the Antioch incident. Prior to the Antioch incident Paul had been much less independent of Jerusalem than subsequently-hence the somewhat defensive tone of Galatians 1:10-2:10. Without a doubt Galatians 1-2 reflects a transition in Paul's relationship with Jerusalem and the Jerusalem congregation and its authorities. What you the reader must understand from the outset is that it is this rejection of Paul and "his gospel" by the Jerusalem Church which plays such an integral part in the overall picture of Paul's theology and its development.
Answer for yourself: What was Paul's gospel? Paul consistently mentions his gospel by name. He remarks "my gospel" often in the New Testament. But there is one problem.
Answer for yourself: What is that? Well have you ever read supposed Pauline literature and noticed that Paul often seems schizophrenic and contradicts himself? Well, he does quite often. That is because of this tampering and forgery of epistles that bear his name today. What we find when we look is that Rome will later write quite a lot of "anti-Gnostic" propaganda and use Paul's name for authority for their anti-Jewish and anti-Gnostic propaganda. This, simply said, explains why Paul seems schizophrenic in the New Testament; often contradicting himself on the same page or within two pages of the same epistle. If you have never see this for yourself then you have not read close enough because it is there in the New Testament in abundance.
Answer for yourself: So what are we to do with Paul, especially in light of the large possibility that much of the Pauline corpus in the New Testament is not the expressed beliefs of the Gnostic Paul? Well, for the purpose of contrasting the anti-Jerusalem Church message by the emerging second century Roman Gentile Christian Church where Paul's name, as the leading apostle to the Gentiles, was used as the highest authority for promoting the Roman anti-Gnostic and anti-Jewish theology, we then have to assume that Paul wrote all that carries either his name or assumed to be written by him. Only later will we, in later teachings, vindicate Paul for the true Gnostic that he was but that is a study for another day. So, please forgive my assault upon Paul for truly it is not so much an assault upon Paul but Rome who forged anti-Gnostic and anti-Jewish treatises in his name. Now let us be prepared to read between the lines as we study the following articles.
The Antioch incident marked a crucial stage in the development of Paul's theology (Rome's theology) and his separation from the Jerusalem Church. In Galatians Paul is striving to assert his independence from Jerusalem. I challenge you to read Galatians 1-2 with the understanding that those whom Paul opposes and who opposed him were in reality the famous James and the elders of the Jerusalem Church. This puts a whole new spin on Paul's self-vindication in his epistles. The inner tension should be noticeable by all. The problem is ascertaining whom the adversaries of Paul actually are. You can understand my amazement when I discovered over the years of my study that the adversaries of Paul of whom he characterizes as "Judaizers" in the New Testament are the very one whom the supposed Jesus walked with and taught for 40 days after his resurrection. To assume these "Judaizers" are wrong and that Paul is "right" makes Jesus an incompetent who put the wrong men in charge of the Messianic Movement. To assume these "Judaizers" of Jerusalem, James and the Jerusalem Church are "wrong" in their theology is incredulous considering these same men had been filled with the "Spirit of Truth" on Pentecost. Surely the true anointing of God did not lead these men into error. James no less is the leader and head of the Jerusalem church and Messianic movement in Jerusalem in the first century. This again is the mother church for all missionary activity. It seems to me that if these men at Jerusalem had it wrong then what does that say about God's competency in setting these men in authority especially in light of beliefs attached to Jesus, that he was resurrected from the dead and believed to be the Messiah of Israel by many in this Jerusalem Church. This is the tension we have between these two parties.
This again is the setting we have that confronts our further study: Paul is opposed by James and the church and Paul is opposed to the same. Unfortunately we have only Paul's and Luke's account of the matter in the New Testament. Let it be remembered that this "Luke" was Paul's friend and companion in several of his trips. So if we are to come to the bottom of the matter then everything must be scrutinized for truthfulness. We can take nothing for granted nor shall we.
As we close this brief introductory article in this Antioch Incident Series understand what is at stake here. If James and the Jerusalem Church can be found to be in the right then that means Paul was not observant of the dictates of the Acts 15 Church Council that preceded the Antioch incident. Let us never forget that the Book of Acts attests for us in Acts 15:23 that the church wrote letters of their decision at the momentous Jerusalem Council and attests as well that these letters containing James' decision regarding Gentiles and their grafting into the Israel of God were to be sent to the Gentiles congregations in Asia to inform them of the decision of the mother church/synagogue in Jerusalem. This if anything was to be the "pattern" for Gentiles and their relationship with both God and Jews everywhere. Not only that but verse 28 states that "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things". Take just a moment to notice that the decision of James and the Jerusalem Council was seen by the Holy Ghost to be "good" and "necessary" for the non-Jewish believer.
Answer for yourself: Have you ever stopped to take notice of what is said in Acts 15 and then ask yourself "What things were these that seemed 'good' and 'necessary to the Holy Spirit" concerning Gentiles in their relationship with God and the Israel of God?
It seems certain things were mandated by God and enforced by Godly representatives for the non-Jewish believer to both observe and keep as part of his inclusion into the Israel of God whereby he received the gift of salvation. The seriousness of the matter is underscored by the fact that these "necessary" and "good" things will not be enforced by Paul to his Gentile churches; in fact Paul, or should I say the "Roman Paul" will be seen to be instrumental in casting such things to the ground as if they were not important. This is the whole of the crux of the problem at Antioch. The letters informing of the Jerusalem Church's decision were intended to "strengthen" the Gentile Churches but the information within them had to be implemented among the Gentile converts and Godfearers. Paul, or should I say the "Roman Paul", would make several serious compromises the majority of which today escape the notice of the casual reader.
In the next articles I will point out each area of contention where Paul, or should I say the "Roman Paul", directly disobeyed both James, the Church, and the Holy Ghost and literally broke from being submissive to the Jerusalem authority and preached "his own gospel" in defiance of Jerusalem and the Holy Ghost's decision.
This I know is shocking to most because you have grown up with the positive account of Paul in the New Testament. But understand that this view of Paul is biased to say the least and far from the truth concerning this man. If you find the courage to continue reading I will prove, prove to you that the Paul of the New Testament is not a friend of Jerusalem Church let alone "the Christ" whom you think he followed. But again we are dealing with a false picture of this man whereby he is made to be anti-Jewish and anti-Gnostic by this Roman New Testament. Therefore, this Roman Paul is made to do his own thing and this is what brought him into great contention with the Jerusalem Church and its authorities. And in such disagreements of course this Roman Paul is made to appear as if he not only wins such contentions but is presented in such a way that diminishes the authority and validity of the Jerusalem Church.
But the New Testament is not consistent in the portrayal of Paul or even of the Jerusalem Church. Again such wavering in positions speaks to the inconsistency of the writers of the New Testament documents which are not historically reliable but intended to bolster theological agendas. The censors and redactors of the New Testament often left behind stands of thought that betray their alteration of key ideas in the texts. Take for example where Paul is summoned to Jerusalem twice to answer charges brought against him in his life; the first at the Acts 15 Council and finally in Acts 21 where he would publicly demonstrate under duress his obeisance to the Torah and in so doing complete the Nazarite vow which required of him the offering of blood offerings and sin offerings for atonement.
Answer for yourself: And what is so strange about this? Well, for one thing Paul is found bringing blood sacrifices to the Temple for atonement offerings some 30 years after the supposed death of Jesus; the same Jesus which this New Testament attests is the final offering for sin.
Answer for yourself: That being the case then does it appear that the Jerusalem Church, who commanded Paul to do this, believed that the supposed death of Jesus was a final atonement for sin and does it appear that Paul, by obeying such a command, also believed that this supposed death of Jesus was a final atonement and sacrifice for sin? Well it sure appears not.
Answer for yourself: Understanding this fact which often goes hidden in the text of Acts 21 where it says:
Acts 21:26-27 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. 27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, (KJV)
Answer for yourself: Why is this passage of monumental importance for a Christian? Well, for one thing, hidden in this passage is the fact that the death of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament was not believed to be a death that was the final sacrifice of sin; either by Paul himself or James and the Jerusalem Church. This fact is hidden under the surface of this passage and unknown to Christianity and this fact exposes again Rome's fictional theological creationism in the New Testament where they have passed off to an unsuspecting Gentile world a "replacement religion" for over 1,800 years at present. Contained in this passage is the hidden truth that Paul was ordered by James to take a Nazarite vow, a vow which according to Judaism and the Laws of Moses required he make blood sin offerings and blood atonement in the Temple long after Jesus' death. This was done according to the New Testament as James request and that Paul obliged. What is staggering to the mind of a "thinking believer" is that bringing of bloody sin offerings and bloody atonement offerings was done 30 years after the time of Jesus death as depicted in the New Testament when, as we are taught today, that Jesus' death was supposedly understood and believed to be the final sacrifice for sin. Evidently someone forgot to tell James, the Jerusalem Church, and Paul about this "doctrine". We one begins to look at this event he, maybe for the first time in his life as a Christian, comes to see how true Biblical Atonement operated and how it is impossible in Judaism that one's death, no matter whom, could be an atonement for the sins of others. This has fatal implications when applied to the New Testament's dogma that this Jesus' death was a final sacrifice for sin and a final atonement for all mankind. This fact alone shows us that neither Paul nor James and others in the Jewish Church of the first century interpreted this Jesus' death as a sacrifice for sin and the door for Eternal Life. I ran upon this fact when studying Judaism over 17 years ago and in so doing it only motivated my further study to come to the truth about other things I was reading in the New Testament like this "Antioch Incident" we are dealing with in these articles. It is time to learn the truth about Biblical Atonement and how God gave all mankind various ways to make themselves acceptable to Him.
Answer for yourself: What then should you do knowing this? You should study. Well, for one thing you could begin to study true Biblical Atonement in the link above and learn how it truly worked and only then can you see for certain if atonement could be connected to one shedding his blood for others. This is a big problem that lies at the heart of the "crucifixion" of this Jesus and worthy of your study to find out the truth about true Biblical Atonement and what, if any, relationship it has to the death of this Jesus.
That was a lot to start with and I ask that you ponder what has been said, but above all, let us continue with the second article in this series. But don't forget what I said about true Biblical Atonement. The irony of this whole thing is that I learned the truth about Biblical Atonement not from Jewish writers or Rabbis but through Christian Old Testament scholars and historians who do not have a church to build or an offering to collect. I first learned the truth about true Biblical Atonement from two famous Christian authors who give us today the Kiel-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament. After having been exposed to this I began to read Jewish sources and Rabbis concerning atonement which only confirmed what I had been previously shown by Kiel and Delitzch when reading on Leviticus. You see, like me, you never knew the truth about atonement because you trusted and believed everything in this New Testament and never knew to look into such things having been falsely assured that everything in it is "God-breathed". I was horrified to know that no longer could I casually "read and believe" this New Testament and accept what I was reading as the "truth" without personal study. This was the opening of my theological "pandora's box" for me.
Let us continue our study in the second article in this series.