Is Paul the Founder of Christianity?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
It has long been said among historical scholars that Christianity is not the religion of Jesus but the religion about him. In this view, Jesus was a Jewish preacher who urged his fellow Jews to repent of their sins and turn back to God by observing what he demanded of them, so they could enter the coming Kingdom. But Christians did not think repentance and obedience could bring salvation at all. It was the death and resurrection of Jesus that mattered. Moreover, it is often said that Paul was the one who transformed Jesus' gospel about the coming Kingdom into a gospel of Jesus' death and resurrection. Is that true? Wouldn't that mean that Paul and Jesus had different religions? And if so, then isn't Paul, rather than Jesus, the Founder of Christianity?
In this episode, Megan asks Bart about:
-Jesus’ religion was Judaism. Would it be reasonable to say that his teachings aren’t attempting to construct a theology, but to explain how Jewish law should be followed, and to prepare for the immanent kingdom of the Jewish god?
-Was Paul attempting to construct a new theology?
-Did Paul know that he was participating in the formation of a new religion? Would he have identified himself as a Christian?
-Paul saw himself as an apostle to the gentiles, and made it clear that non-Jewish followers of Jesus did not need to convert to Judaism. How much did this contribute to the formation of Christianity as a new and distinct religion? If Paul had either focused on the Jewish community, or required conversion, do you think that followers of Jesus would have remained an offshoot of Judaism?
-Because Paul insisted on gentiles and non-conversion, and this is what pushed Christianity away from being a Jewish sect, doesn’t that make Paul the founder of Christianity?
-Does the importance of the death and resurrection of Jesus appear in his own teachings?
-Is Paul responsible for putting together writings that would be used to create a comprehensive Christian theology?
-How did so many texts associated with Paul come to be included in the NT?
If we -only have 7 actual letters, why is Paul so important?
-As apostle to the Gentiles, Paul deliberately traveled to cities without a church in order to introduce Christianity and found churches. How much of an impact did he have on the spread of the religion?
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/n.gif)
Imagine creating a religion about a person you never met but only hallucinated meeting them?
I remember thinking Paul was some sort of disciple that met Jesus and whatnot but then I looked into it and... Yeah
@@fin5494 I think that’s pretty common. I was brought up in a mainstream Protestant church and Paul was an apostle which seemed almost interchangeable with disciple and it sort of seemed they were all one big happy family. It was like all the events were compressed into this very short time frame. One of the better books I’ve read is Marcus Borg’s “Evolution of the Word.” It’s an attempted chronological New Testament and reading through in that order is very different than the standard NT order. When you read in chronological order the time gaps are much more apparent and you can see the theology evolving.
I was once on a mission to try to find what might be the most authentic version of the Gospel in the first century. But I’ve come to the conclusion that it was never static so finding the authentic version isn’t really possible - the authentic versions in the first century were multiple dynamic narratives undergoing constant revisions and refinements. Barts book and podcasts are very helpful in studying early Church history.
But did he?
He certainly influenced its direction, but the movement already existed.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 well the version he adopted became the dominant. And he also established many major churches too. So he had a lot to do.
@@fin5494 yup literally never physically met Jesus. Pretty convenient. Says he only saw a blinding light.
I think its fair to say that Paul the MAIN founder of SURVIVING Christianity.
I have followed Bart Herman on UA-cam for years. I found this particular offering especially informative.
Bar Terhman is the bible G.O.A.T.!
Bart Therman is great
Art Berman has opened up a world of knowledge to me.
I too, feel that Art Garfunkle is the true founder of Simon & Garfunkle, and that there is no distinction between their teachings. They are easily harmonized.
Fart Boreman
A personal thank you to Bart Ehrman for his amazing work in making Biblical scholarship accessible to a mainstream audience. I am an MA student in theology and your books were among my main primers into the subject, your work and that of J.D Crossan is what I recommend everybody as great introductory texts into early Christianity and New Testament studies!
Always eager for the next MJPodcast! Megan and Dr. Ehrman are a great team!
so am i bruh
Obvious agenda of the rainbow coalition
Megan’s glasses are great!! Bart is always giving super information.
The famous Dame Edna Everage passed away last week, so her spectacles might become available to Megan.
They make a perfect scholarly couple in academic sense.
It takes an agnostic atheist to explain Paul's gospel better than I ever heard explained in church, and he doesn't even believe it! 😂
That's why he can explain it so well. You need a certain degree of distance to the text that you just don't get through a Christian lense.
That's because, he wasn't always an atheist
@@a-train3503 What death means? and why have we given a death a meaning it never had?
Death = out from existence? - what proves it? Bible gives another meaning to death.
Biblical meaning for DEATH = existence without GOD in the lake of fire.
Souls, do not place REALITY into the box of “religions”, for these have nothing to do with one another.
(How can light, which expose the darkness, be in the same box with the darkness? Or can a friend and enemy work together?).
I am not in "Christian-ism ", i am in the reality.
As getting saved IN SPIRIT is real thing.
As going to heaven or hell after death = also reality.
Being found worthy to be RAPTURED out from here (without tasting the death, souls going to heaven in the blink of an eyes)
Tribulation - the 7 final years for the kingdom of satan, whom son of dearth this whole world waits for. - also reality.
The Last Christians shall be BEHEADED and going to heaven - also reality.
The parts which "religious"?
And as it is clear that CHRISTIANITY is not a religion, then why is it tried to be found among the religions?
Was not CHRIST also tried to be found among the dead and was not found?
Look around and see The whole WORLD has turned SODOM AND GOMORRAH 2 - We deserving FIRE again and the FIRE shall come again, this time not just for a 1 city, but to the WHOLE WORLD.
As it was with the FLOOD, where 8 souls were left alive, the same yet little different shall be with FIRE, leaving no soul alive.
That's because he's a Christian scholar and historian.
@@RashidMBey ua-cam.com/video/I1dppMprqyc/v-deo.html
I love these, thanks for posting them
I sometimes almost don't watch some of these because the answer seems so obvious. "Is the Gospel of John Anti-Semetic?" YES. "Is Paul the Founder of Christianity?" YES. But Bart's degree of insight always sheds new light on things I've taken for granted. I appreciate how he looks beyond the knee-jerk answer to provide a broader, fairer answer.
Except Paul did nothing of the kind. That would have been the Emperor Constantine.The early church fathers like Atthanasius wouldnt have not had anything to do with Paul the apostle.
@@zapkvr
I think if Athanasius explained his views to Paul he would at least mostly agree, and they would get to some sort of mutual understanding. Though being a Christian, Athanasius would almost certainly defer to so great an "Apostle" if any true disagreements actually remained after a full exposition so that no misunderstandings remain from the use of certain language.
Jesus is Lord
Paul is not the Founder of Christianity. Paul is what Ray Kroc is to the establishment of Mcdonalds. Ray Kroc did not found Mcdonalds the Macdonald brothers did but Macdonalds would not be the popular worldwide restaurant chain without Ray Kroc. Paul was also gatekeeping Judaism becuase he wanted to stop mass populations of foreign Gentiles taking over Judaism but at the same time make converting to Christianity easier.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
Thanks Megan and Dr Bart E. to enlighten us.
This helps answer so many questions I have had about Paul ever since I was a little kid raised in the Fire & Brimestone type of Baptist church. Very interesting, since I have always sensed there was 2 different " "religions" being taught between Paul & Jesus. Very different!
Perhaps they should have removed the church from the volcano's edge to reduce the burning sulphur smell.
Yes. True. Think of how many sermons you have heard about Paul's Roman Road as the way to salvation and how *few* sermons you probably heard about the Sermon on the Mount.
Paul is the false Apostle in revelation 2:2
The Pauline Epistles are the only observations we have of the original Christ followers. There is no evidence (no accounts, records, or mentions) of a physical and historical Jesus in any writings of Paul or in writings before or contemporary to Paul. The earliest Christianity, according to this limited evidence, is perfectly in line with Docetist theology and Gnostic religion. As for the Gospels, they were a later invention when the oral tradition of sayings and narratives was written down.
ua-cam.com/video/u3PnD1TScw4/v-deo.html&lc=UgzzCEhRuvTYqseWKKx4AaABAg
@onejohn2.26 but he helped spread the church
Great topic! I've thought about this a lot and it's good to hear the good Dr's opinion.
I come from a religious tradition (Ebionites) where we reject the beliefs and teachings of Paul. We accept James the Just as the leader of Yeshua's movement after his death. We focus solely on the Jewish teachings of Yeshua, and as a result, our outlook on the world, and towards people of other religions, is completely different to that of mainstream Christianity, especially of Evangelicals
interesting
Not likely. Wikipedia: 'The Ebionites are still attested, if as marginal communities, down to the 7th century. Some modern scholars argue that the Ebionites survived much longer and identify them with a sect encountered by the historian Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad around the year 1000.'
@@zed91 I don't know what to tell you my friend, you say I don't exist, not likely an Ebionite, well, here I am, and my fellow Talmidis, Ebionites and Followers of the Way exist, whatever you want to call us. I have followed this faith alongside others since 1987. If you do a search on the internet for modern Ebionites, or Talmidis, then go ahead. But if you don't think I exist, then that's fine by me, I don't have a problem with that😄
Can you tell me more about where I can find information about Ebionite teachings? I’m curious
@@shayalynn I don't know if UA-cam will automatically delete this comment (it usually deletes weblinks), but you can go to talmidi£co£il (replace the £ with a dot, I've had to do this to stop UA-cam deleting my comment) Or search google for the word Talmidaism
Doc, one of your most enthusiastic listener from Pakistan 🇵🇰👍
pakistan zinderbad!
I have enjoyed all of these podcasts but this was ,for me, far and away the most interesting .Paul's influence (for better or worse),not only on Christians, but on all of us has been immense. I say that as an atheist. We all live in a world which bears his stamp. Ta for this.
I think the answer is certainly yes, as you point out with influence, he founded Christianity. There is a threshold question to be answered though. Did Paul KNOW he was founding Christianity? Was it an intentional act or did he remain nominally at least Jewish in his own mind?
I’d say it’s a tie between Paul and Constantine, since he decreed Christianity to be the religion of Rome.
And exactly what should be be grateful for to this superstitious sexist?
Over a millennia of living under the yoke of the catholic church?
@@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός Constantine did not declare the religion of Rome to be Christianity, he made it legal, and converted on his deathbed, this then opened the floodgates for proselytization and other emperors policies would more directly lead to its dominance
@@PasteurizedLettuceIn summary, thus declaring Christianity to be the religion of Rome. 😆🤣
A god who sacrifices himself (temporarily) to himself, to save his creation from himself. Can’t get much more ridiculous than that.
I'm thrilled to see this - as an Ehrman blog subscriber I always wanted to ask him this. As I was evolving away from Christianity I sort of thought, if there's anything attributed to Jesus that felt actually prophetic, it was his talk about "false prophets" - and then here's Paul, changing the fundamental teaching of Jesus: instead of "walk this way," Paul's teaching is "you just have to repent and acknowledge." It infuriated me that people could do horrible acts and then just wash their guilt away - it's like an organized crime gateway drug. Anyway - valuable topic. Thank you!
I think it was added like the "no suicide" because it gains subscribers and keeps numbers from dropping
Thumbs up. Here is another valuable topic. Jesus was announced as king of Israel in that choice between Jesus and Barabbas. Quickly said, Pilot dressed Jesus up as King, Pilot presented Jesus to the Sanhedrin and high priest among the crowd as "their King". Told the crowd to choose to crucify "their King" or Barabbas. The Saducees and High Priest chose "their king" Jesus to be crucified and instigated the Jewish crowd to choose "their King" to be crucified..... and so the Priesthood anointed Jesus as their king in order for him to be executed. And Pilat published this fact above Jesus head at a time when Jerusalem was most crowded of Jews from all over the realm.
What this accomplished was to legalize according to Torah law Jesus' amended covenant and make irrelevant all burdensome Talmudic rules.
I think Jesus and Pilat planned it together. Neet trick on the Sanhedrin huh.
@@termination9353 pilate tried to free Jesus by appealing to the crowd,nice fanfiction tho
@@termination9353 well, I'm no bible scholar, lol - but being that there were no witnesses to actually transcribe these events (I don't think they're in the earliest stories), it makes more sense to me that this is all fiction, added later to sort of "tie the whole room together" in terms of laying at least partial responsibility for the crucifixion on Jews themselves. I'd recommend joining Bart's blog and submitting that question.
I think one thing to point out on you last point is, why should people be punished infinitely for a finite act?
Many pastors want to keep their flock blind and ignorant, then Bart Ehrman come to enlighten. I am a Christian yet these help me to see wider. Thanks
This was such a great listen. Thanks Bart for actually addressing these topics.
He addressed no topics. he created false topics out of thin air. It never ocured to him to read the history of the Catholic Church, and to discover the proof that its saintly children displayed century after century of its credentials as the only Church founded by the Incarnate Son of God furnished by their countless miracles and prodigies and the endless record of its charitable institutions, and I may add the only true and completely successful communistic way of life in the world - the monastic orders.which endures into the present; It is just uninformed or willfully ignorant windy blather; And if this Bart wants to learn what some of the greatest present day scientists think about the existence of God - that is, the certain proof of His existence they bring forward from the latest modern biochemical and astrophysical science, just look it up on the internet. . This sort of agnostical/atheistical pap has become old hat. He and you need to address head on the real questions of the meaning of human existence, of our innate desire for enduring happiness which we never attain in this life, and in particular of universal suffering in the human race.
"I do not believe that GOD plays dice sith the universe" - Albert Einstein.
43:47 Matthew 11:11 Suggests that Jesus who has foresight, didn't mention anyone of future importance, felt that John was quite important. In fact, John was the first person in the Christian Greek Scriptures to mention Jesus.
👏🙂
Yay, another episode.
Great video
Paul’s conversion from a persecutor of Christians to one of the greatest believers who ever lived is one of the most compelling narratives in the Bible.
If it is true. There is no evidence that it is. The most probable explanation is that it is another legend. A vision while traveling along a road? Highly unlikely.
@@newnoggin2 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching for reproving, and setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness. ( So God’s spirit guided the author’s of the Bible what to write and everything written in the Bible is the Truth (because it is impossible for God to Lie Hebrews 6:18) So then don’t ever let anyone lead you to believe that the Bible is false because it is God’s Word !!
Megan + Bart = Dream team! 😊
Ehrman is very intelligent teacher, I admire his abilities.
Awww sweet, I didn't know if we would have any while Bart was gone
I’m so glad you have an internet presence. Thank you for this fascinating content.
Idea/suggestion: How about an encyclopedia of Christianity based on the teachings of Mr. Ehrman? How about if Mr. Ehrman writes an encyclopedia of Christianities? Should his students undertake such a project? How about a detailed time-line on the history of Christianity, including the versions of Christianity that were defeated?
I like hearing Bart say that Paul probably wrote hundreds of letters over his lifetime, and all we have are seven authentic ones. I've thought that for a long time. What has been missed from Paul's full view since we only have a tiny glimpse into his thinking, but created a whole religion on this sliver.
Although 2 Corinthians and Philippians look like composites of multiple letters; so we probably have more than seven letters, at least in fragmentary form. But presumably a lot of what we've lost probably makes 2 Corinthians 9 look positively enthralling. We naturally don't have the letter Paul wrote to the church in Aniaropolis about washing the meeting house steps.
The apostle Paul knew that he was nothing but dust. The only one who matters is Jesus Christ.
Also, even the letters aren't really his full view, since they're just focused on specific problems and controversies. Imagine if instead of some of that, we had his pitch to new converts.
It is irrelevant whether Paul wrote "hundreds" of letters and Ehman did not claim he did, he only supposed it. We don't actually know if Paul wrote any letters, we only have texts that claim to be letters if taken at face value. We know that some were forgeries. For that matter, we don't even know if Paul ever existed. We know that people attempted to create a new belief system and can see evidence of its aftermath, nothing more.
@@craigjones9372 Scepticism can go to far. We don't "know" Paul existed, but if we apply those standards to history we "know" almost nothing, even where we have documentation.
I see Paul as the Brigham Young of Christianity. He didn't found it, but after the original founder died prematurely, he expanded it into the religion we know today.
Wondering if you've ever read, "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God"? The subtitle is a little cheesy and it kept me from reading the book for some time, but boy when I did, I found it very interesting and illuminating! I highly recommend it. Too often Christians and their teachers are staring at Jesus' finger pointing to the moon, rather than the moon to which Jesus was pointing. I think Professor Ehrman's kind of thing is studying the finger, too, but that's OK as that is his area, Biblical history, rather than theology or Christian mysticism. Thoughts?
i'd say he is just straight up the founder. Jesus didnt have much intentions of necessarily establishing some new doctrine, and a lot of his teachings can be rounded to companion and love over strict legality and be prepared cause god is coming soon. Paul fleshes out a lot of tenants of the faith that are kind of more than jesus's ideas, especially the growing tradition of jesus being god and the significance of resurrection and what his death means
Brigham Young was a deceiver and so was Joseph Smith.
@@jimyost2585 Are you sure Paul wasn't? Most of these religion promoters seem like they are pretty dicey.
Why don't you see Paul as the Joseph Smith of Mormonism?
Also, the existence and popularity of the "red letter bible" (since 1899, with the words of Jesus printed in red ink) attests to the fact that many Christians consider the words of Jesus far more important than anything else in the NT, including Paul's words.
Yes.
And I think this goes back to the beginnings of Christianity.
Even if we reject Q as purely hypothetical The Gospel of Thomas does indicate that early Christians carefully preserved The Sayings of Jesus.
It would be odd if they hadn't.
They were literally the sayings of a living God.
I think the New Testament's reliance on Pauline works indicates that the church of Christ (as we know it) was founded by gentiles, not Jews, and so they looked to Paul for their right to exist. Jewish proto-Christians may not have considered Paul authoritative at all (which would open up a realm of possibilities), but eventually they were out- numbered by gentiles, so Paul's letters won out (perhaps long after Paul was gone).
Yes. I agree.
As "The Apostle to The Gentiles" Paul was especially valued by Gentile Christians, who soon became the majority of Christians.
This is fascinating. I look forward to the course.
I love Megan's voice and Bart's rationale. Grettings from Chile, South America
thanks Megan and Bart another fine episode.
He is the founder of todays Christianity
As a former Christian, I just can't express how much the preponderance of Paul in modern "Christianity" had to do with that outcome - the more preachers preached to me about Paul, the more repellent I found him. Paul was the serpent in the Garden, to put it in biblical terms. The architect of the modern world's deeply flawed Christianity. And, of course, an "apostle" who never met Jesus of Nazareth... Huh?
What always trips me up, is salvation for what/from what? And I know he went over this but at least for me it’s a difficult point to remember. Why do they all need salvation in the first place? Especially before hell theology.
This is great because we heard about Paul from Dr Tabor last time
Amazing work, thank you sooooo much. God bless you both
How important was Paul in his own time, and how important was his mission?
Three of the most important churches in Antiquity were Antioch, Rome and Alexandria. Neither of them had been founded by Paul.
When is the christian church going to finally admit that Saul called Paul was wrong about almost everything?
Considering the authors of the New Testament never met Jesus, and largely told the story they wanted to tell rather than something that is historically accurate, as the Johannine community shows, I think it is fair to say the authors of the New Testament are the Founders of Christianity. Since Paul wrote most of the books of the New Testament, I think it is fair to say that Paul and maybe Luke are the Founders of Christianity. Paul seems to be more like a modern Televangelist than an accurate story teller. His account of meeting Jesus sounds like Oral Roberts meeting a 900 foot tall Jesus who told him to build the City of Faith Medical and Research Center.
I'm not a mythicist, but since the only things that remain of Jesus' life were those things written down in the New Testament, I'm not sure the actual historical Jesus, a poor Jewish preacher who was preaching to Jews who somehow ran afoul of the Romans, had all that much to do with modern Christianity, a largely Gentile religion that seems to be based more on Greek and Roman ideas than Jewish ideas. I don't think the real life Jesus is any more relevant to the New Testament or Christian Religions than the real life Abraham Lincoln is to Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
Paul did not talk about meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus (at least not in any writings we currently have that are attributed to him). The Damascus road stories all appear in Acts of the Apostles, a work not attributed to Paul and currently dated by the majority of scholars to have been written decades after Paul's death.
What Paul does talk about in the letters attributed to him is that 'the Christ' appeared to him in a vision as a bright light and revealed things about the coming kingdom of god to him.
WRONG - The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own.
The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story.
It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
Wondering if you've ever read, "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God"? The subtitle is a little cheesy and it kept me from reading the book for some time, but boy when I did, I found it very interesting and illuminating! I highly recommend it. Too often Christians and their teachers are staring at Jesus' finger pointing to the moon, rather than the moon to which Jesus was pointing. I think Professor Ehrman's kind of thing is studying the finger, too, but that's OK as that is his area, Biblical history, rather than theology or Christian mysticism. Thoughts?
Yes I think you're right on with this. The historical Jesus (assuming he existed, and I think he probably did) became sort of a mascot for Christianity. His name is in every prayer, but his life and teachings are mostly either lost or irrelevant. Paul, on the other hand was smart, but he was also clearly a charlatan and his teachings, dubious as they are, are deeply important to modern Christians.
@@sunburstrose7860 "Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God"?" NO - But Paul and the Catholic Church perverted Jesus doctrine into pagan idolatry and Orwellian trained the public to be unaware of the difference.
I like the conversion of Paul in Acts 22:16 After he was struck down by the bright light. Paul did’t eat or drink anything for three days. A disciple named Ananias told him what he must do : he told him to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord.
Do you know what causes the symptoms Paul describes? Methanol poisoning. He had too much of poorly brewed spirits. ;-)
I love & follow Jesus because i'm muslim 😊
You just acknowledge jesus as a senior guy sent to this planet before mo.
You can't follow jesus if you follow mo 'cos they preached different way of living.
Btw am neither kristian nor Quslim
yes we love prophet jesus peace be upon him, but dont be anywhere near paul on judgement day!
@@Endrin911your ignorance on muslims and islam is apparent!
Another banger of a topic, great work!
There's a great scene in the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" where Jesus has a conversation with Paul. It's during the period when he's dying on the cross and he experiences his "last temptation". I won't ruin it by saying more, but it's a great scene in a very interesting movie that focuses more on Jesus' human experience than his divinity.
Yes! That scene stayed with me, too. Great movie. Fundamentalist “Christians” railed against something they didn’t see. I found it very moving.
@@melissalittle4369 Yeah, in my country some hardcore Catholics picketed the cinemas. I think their complaint was "Jesus was perfect, therefore he was never tempted and never experienced doubt". They didn't get it at all. If Jesus wasn't having a human experience, with all that entails, then his sacrifice is meaningless. If he was God merely APPEARING as a human then there was no actual suffering, the whole thing was just theatre. Without that human experience, including pain, doubt, and desire, the whole premise of God as a Trinity (and Jesus being God) falls apart, IMO.
@@Pushing_Pixels - Exactly.
Definitely unhistorical, since Paul indicates pretty clearly that he never met the living Jesus, only the ascended one.
But I'll forgive it.
Dramas follow the rules of drama.
@@alanpennie8013 - It was Satan who was doing the tempting in the movie.
Paul had Luke for biographer. Luke's Gospel shows how creative he can be. How many Founders didn't have biographers? When missionaries came to India, they found a Christian Church already there. That Church attributed its foundation to Doubting Thomas.
Enjoyed this discussion, supporting my personal thoughts on the importance of Paul. Interesting insight in the Soapbox.
Excellent presentation 🙏
Thanks for watching. - Social Media Team
Was Paul the founder? Well, it depends what you mean by founder. Clearly there was a church/group before Paul.After all, he was persecuting them!
On the other hand… the original church was not evangelizing gentiles…. And gentiles eventually exclusively dominated the church. So, effectively Paul DID found what ultimately became the church
Well put.
Good logic
I think the point is, Xtianity, as we know it today, is primarily outlined, spread and defined by Paul. No one literally founded it,
@@ihatespam2
Yeah, I mostly agree… but I think there is also a maximalist mythicist contingent who think that there was no Jesus and that Paul totally invented Christianity
@@ihatespam2 Paul was Elvis Presley. Jesus was Arthur Crudup.
I love this channel. It helps me understand Christianity and serves to make my faith stronger!
Sure, sure. ;-)
Thank you for another illuminating talk. I grew up a Catholic and attended a Jesuit University but have learned more about the authentic roots of Christianity from your Teaching Company lectures and books than anywhere else. I will have to look up that Exodus passage and use it in my next abortion debate with a pro-lifer!
Not only that, but the passage where if a husband thought his wife's pregnancy was another man's, the priest was to give her a potion which would abort the fetus if she was guilty, but not if she was innocent.
I'm pro life! You can argue with me! :-)
@@timandmonica Are you kidding, bro?
most apologetic and polemic christians would not touch that passage in exodus
That would be fitting as most times it is the pro-choice side that brings up religion and/or the bible most often. Secular points are usually what get mentioned by the pro-life side. Points such as human life has value, and should not be ended lightly. A fetus is human life. There really is no way to say it isn't.
You guys are so awesome!
Finally! Say, would the term "Pauline Heresy" be considered a strong opinion?
I have a copy of Jefferson's Bible. I also have a Red Letter Bible.
Worth watching, even if only to hear Megan speak the word "Bart"! Also, worthwhile discussion on Pauline History & Theology.
Great discussion as always, I would also be interested in a comparative analysis of each of your disciplines.
🔥 *Missing Questions*🔥
✨1-Did Jesus warn his followers from person who will destroy the Law and will be called least?
See Matthew 5 17-20
✨ 2-Did Saul be called Paul? Did Paul means the least?
Is Paul derives from the Roman family name Paulus or Paullus, from the Latin adjective meaning "small", "humble", *"least"* or "little"?
✨3-How did Jesus describ his enemy's work plan in Matthew 13 24-30? The enemy who sowed bad seeds in Jesus's good wheat field, Is Paul that enemy who corrupted teachings of Jesus Christ.
Loved the soapbox! I dislike anyone using a tiny snippet, out of context, to make a point. Pick up any book, and use the same method to make any point that one wants. I think the same can be said for trying to use one line from a movie and using it to explain the message of the entire movie. And don’t get me started on rating a book based on what one heard was the message. Read the book first… end of my rant
Most “Christians” are actually “Paulists
I have been following Bart Ehrman for a few years now and have learned so much about Christianity. He is geniune and teaches about the bible from the perspective of one who was a very dedicated follower of Christ. The Soapbox discussion was enlightening, I knew about the command regarding a fine be paid if a man caused a woman to lose a baby, fetus, child in her womb. Not given the same value as the life of the mother. The verses in Numbers (5: 11-31) were a bit of a shock. God will end a pregnancy if the woman concieved a child with someone other than her husband, also put the woman under a curse. So much in the bible that is easy to read over without really thinking about what is says. Per these verses in Numbers God is good with killing an illegitimate child in the womb, it does not have a right to life in God's eyes. My thoughts regarding life in the womb kind of comes down to how far along is the child developed? Seems any logical person would consider that a baby one day before its birth can suffer the same as that same baby the day after its birth. So for me, I don't want that pain capable creature to suffer any more than I want a puppy or kitten to suffer. A late term abortion requires the baby to be born, seems we as civilized people would make arrangements to allow that life to continue and not condone the torture it will feel when it is dismembered, this has nothing to do with the bible.
Agree with you completely on the abortion stuff. As with so many contentious issues, it's not black and white, and we need a reasonable moderate approach that considers the facts. Too many people want to either ban abortion completely or allow it for any reason even up to birth. Neither solution makes sense.
The Bible contains many doctrines that are unacceptable in today's times, although many things happening today are unacceptable as well. Ex. Save the puppies, kill the babies. God did not write this book. Man did.
Either you think about what you read or you don't. How is it easier to not think about some things than others?
The DIDACHE specifically forbids ABORTION and INFANTICIDE.
I do not think that Numbers 5 mentions "abortion" as we know it. It refers instead to the "jealousy" of her husband, and a punishment for her having sex with someone else. I would have to wonder with this and other such curses, how many people have taken the test and passed it, and so have gotten away with what otherwise would be considered sinful behavior. In the case of men harming a pregnant woman or causing the death of her baby, it is clear that her husband decides the punishment. Like other commandments, the situation is a bit too connected to a story (e.g., what if the men weren't fighting, or what if a husband pushed his own wife down a flight of stairs?) but it seems the societal norms & the judges would decide. It still concludes at the end that if harm is done, the payment will be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. Forgiveness & grace are always an option, but if the punishment is not there, people can get away with all sorts of crime.
I've been giving the example from Exodus (concerning a miscarriage) for years. People's eyes glaze over and they act as if I have not said a word.
I see Paul as the most successful early promoter.
This entire theory is based off a modern interpretation of the Scriptures without regard for the fact that the Church has ALWAYS seen the Scriptures to be in harmony. There isn’t a single source that indicates that anyone in history considered Saint Paul to be at odds with Jesus Christ. None. Furthermore, this view requires looking at the Bible as distinct from the Church. As “data.” They are not. They are part of the Church and cannot be understood outside of that context.
Thank you. Watching from Alaska.
Fascinating subject. Excellent video. Thank you for explaining everything so clearly.
Paul had so many enemies, yet Paul's variant of Judaism became orthodox Christianity. Was Paul successful because he was more persuasive than all the others? Or was it because Paul performed miracles and miracles happened wherever he went? Did signs and wonders differentiate Paul from his opponents? Did the miracles convince believers that Paul had been taught directly by Jesus? (that Paul was more than a Muhammad or a Joseph Smith, merely asking people to believe he was given messages from a supernatural being?)
I note the Marcionites were a variant of Paul's Christianity, but it seems that the leading second century Christians in Rome were not ready to take Paul's Christianity one step further and ditch the OT.
Being a Spiritualist, from my research I’ve come to believe that the real historical figure that existed during that timeframe, and responsible for the many myths of “Christ” was Apollonius of Tyana, not Jesus. Jesus Christ was merely a manufactured allegorical figure created much later at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE where they combined IESU (Hesus from the Druids)-which was a reference to the sun and illumination (knowledge) applied to many spiritual men, to the term Christos (from the east), another reference to the same things (Christos was an early translation of Chrishna). Hence, Hesus Christos was born which was merely a combination of two titles. Before that council meeting, one of the the primary and best myths (for there were many) of Christ was both Apollonius and Chrishna, who’s gospel-along with Buddha and Brahma-Apollonius brought back from India, which he combined with Essene practices and which laid the foundation for the Christian religion and Gnosticism. Apollonius was a superior medium and writer; and this is why so many “religious men” from the first century robbed him.
When Apollonius died around 99 C.E., Marcion- who was St. Mark-discovered Apollonius’ epistles, altered them, and took them to Rome around 130 C.E. He particularly exchanged the original names Apollonius wrote under: Apollo, Apollos, Pollo, Paulus, and Paul to focus only on the name Paul to hide and distort the records and further rob Apollonius of Tyana. Hence, Apollonius is the Apostle Paul of the Ezra-Constantine bible. Pollo is a shorten version of Apollo and in Latin is a diminutive form of Paul. Apollonius was referred to as the second coming of Apollo.
The early Catholic Church appropriated some of Apollonius’ epistles through Marcion (Mark); the Book of Hebrews and the Book of Revelation later. The Book of Acts is a history of the works and actions of Apollonius, as he establishes many colonies in the area to the Hindu god-man, Christos-Chrishna. The church merely replaced Chrishna with Jesus Christ and Apollonius with the Apostle Paul, (he was also St. John and St. Thomas), with shades of details of the history of Apollonius (his miracles, timeframe of his birth, etc.) which were later given to Jesus as well.
Will Apollonius ever get his due? Will true history come to light? Will anyone speak up in Apollonius’ defense? I will, and so did Sossianus Hierocles, the Roman aristocrat and office-holder, who around 303 CE, accused the Christians of stealing from Apollonius. Though history records Hierocles as being anti-Christian, it doesn’t record that he had good reasons to be, for he knew the Christians had appropriated Apollonius’ history and work, and the true prophet of the first century was Apollonius of Tyana himself and not Jesus! We have Eusebius reply to Hierocles, but what Hierocles said or his proof, did not come down to us. I wonder why? Constantine and Eusebius made sure of that!
It’s clear from a historical examination that Jesus Christ was a composite and eclectic figure taken from legendary tales, prophets, philosophers, mediums, and god-men as Christianity itself was. This is explained in the new age bible Oahspe, where it claims 2,231 books were brought to the Council of Nicea and used to create this composite, allegorical personage.
This in no way suggest the Christians were the only religion to do this. The Buddhist did the same thing with Buddha at the Council of Ashoka. However, because the Roman Empire had the Library of Alexandria at their disposal, the Christians were able to create a more detailed and powerful fabrication than the Buddha, even though any knowledgeable person can clearly see many elements of Buddha’s story in the matrix of the creation of the god-man, Jesus Christ.
Another point: whereas Buddha actually existed and merely had elements added to his matrix, Jesus Christ never existed and was created from scratch.
Many are further under the impression that Jesus was the Jewish messiah Yeshu or Yeshua, but that’s not possible as he lived 150-100 BCE and was stoned to death in 110 BCE. The church merely moved him forward in the future to link Christianity to Judaism, and further rob Apollonius of Tyana, who was the true sage, prophet and miracle worker of that period in the first century.
For a detailed history of Apollonius and the true beginnings of Jesus and Christianity, read Antiquity Unveiled by J.M. Roberts along with portions of Oahspe. They expose the entire story of this incredible distortion and hijacking of history.
Hello michael
Thank you very much for sharing your well written, heartfelt and independent thinking and some sources.
All the best to you and yours
sincerely
d
@@davidfenton3910 You’re welcome!
I've jut thought its interesting that we only have 7 of Paul's letters, given the significance of the number 7 in Christianity.
I wonder why those were chosen in particular? and by whom?
They were chosen by a council of Bishops. The stated reasoning was that they were written before 100 A.D. and were associated with a Saint. The actual reason was that they were all ready popular.
@@Sewblon oh interesting!
Thanks.
@@Purwapada
Let's hope they chose wisely.
I think of Paul as the guy who took over McDonald's. He really saw the potential more so than jesus who described non Jews as dogs
I hope that Bart will at some point explain what “salvation” could possibly have meant to Jews, but more especially to Pagans. What exactly would his converts think they were being “saved” FROM?
Jews would, I suppose, be hoping for the establishment of God’s kingdom, a new and perfect Israel that would encompass all Torah-observant Jews under the rule of His Anointed; Pagans wouldn’t be expecting or hoping to be “saved” from anything, would they?
Would anybody in the Empire have any sense at all of the later Christian notion of being “born in sin” or “living in sin” and needing “salvation from sin”? That seems completely anachronistic. Did Paul make that all up from scratch?
Or is he saying “You can be “saved” from death - you can live forever in a perfect world?
It’s confusing. I try to imagine an Evangelical preacher of today telling a crowd of first-century Jews or Pagans that “salvation” can be theirs if they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and them being completely puzzled. Salvation? What from? 🤔🤔🤔
It's a question that always confuses me as well. Pagans didn't show homage to their gods because they had sinned in some way. It's my understanding worship was what a pagan god required simply because he/she was a god (and could grant favors). The worshipers' sins, as we understand it, wasn't part of their thinking or world view. I would also appreciate a video from Bart on this concept.
@@quij7ote222 Right! The basic concept underlying all Pagan sacrifices is summed up in the famous Roman saying, “DO UT DES” - I (the worshipper) give [to you, the god] so that you [the god] may give [to me, your worshipper.] That’s why the Romans demanded ritual sacrifice as a universal civic duty - almost like Americans saluting the flag or singing the National Anthem - we have to keep the gods happy or else they’ll get angry and turn our great blessings into curses.
I think the same motivation underlies Jewish temple sacrifice too: You keep Yahweh in a good mood by taking your cattle or sheep and killing them because it’s a SACRIFICE - it COSTS you something - it re-establishes the balance sheet between God and the people - He gave, you’re in His debt, so you give back. So I can understand Paul saying that Jesus is the Lamb of God - His sacrifice settles all accounts for everyone who “participates” in it. Jesus is God’s universal “debt relief program.” But “SALVATION”? How would a Pagan even begin to understand that?
Is it all down to a kind of universal bartering system? Is that what “salvation” is for Paul? For yesterday’s Pagans? For today’s televangelists?
Remember most Greek religions thought that the afterlife was a dreary place for most people. Only the important people wound up on Mount Olympus.
So Jesus was offering to prevent people from going to a boring afterlife
@@nosuchthing8
I think that's part of it.
I think a lot of people wanted a more personal relationship with their gods.
The mystery religions offered that and Christianity offered it too.
Also Christianity flattered human vanity by asserting that humans are cosmically important.
Paganism didn't really do this.
@alanpennie8013 wow, I think you nailed it!
My memory of the Greek and Roman religions is that unless you were some big shot hero like Hercules, you had no chance of making it to Olympus or heaven. Normal folk went to the underworld which was just boring, mainly.
Christians accept Paul… a man who never met Jesus and merely claimed to have a “vision” of him.
But those same Christian’s reject the founder of Mormonism, Joseph smith…. A man who never met Jesus and merely claimed to have a “vision” of him.
At least Paul knew the disciples and although they had their differences in relation to whether the Gentile Christians should keep the Jewish law or not, they accepted Paul as a brother in Christ.
Joseph Smith? Don’t make me laugh.
There was a teaching of Jesus that was pre-crucification and a teaching of Paul that was post-crucification. Jesus taught being born again from water and spirit and Paul taught salvation from the blood of the lamb of God on the cross. It would seem to me that the crucifix would be the image of the Beast.
Thanks for the soapbox today - excellent video.
There is a huge question mark concerning Paul's integrity as a whole, not mentioning his claims of being a born and raised Jew.
The ideas he puts on top of his superficial supposedly "Jewish" faith are completely pagan.
The whole idea that he "figured out how salvation works" for instance (as Bart suggested), is completely non Jewish.
We, as Jews, do not look for a way to be saved by God, but for our role in mending the world and serving his will.
So the basic prospective is off.
The whole notion of human sacrifice and of the cannibalistic practice remnants as they appear in the Sacrament, are, will forever be, and have always been, an abomination to the Jewish belief and way of thinking.
Therefore it is completely logical that Paul was not accepted by the Jewish disciples.
Their faith was, most likely, fundamentally different from what he came up with.
He was a power craving, ill- tempered, manipulative, dishonest man (to say the last).
And he had, most probably, a bundle of complexes and personality issues that he had to deal with.
He was however more educated and apparently more intelligent then those simple galilian men who were the original deciples.
Yes. Jesus was NOT EVER a Christian. In fact, even Peter was not a Christian, nor any of the close associates of Jesus (whoever they were) were "Christian".
Further, the idea of Christianity was not completed with Paul, but later extended and refined by others, such that people often confuse pseudepigrapha with Paul's apparently original writings.
Be careful what you all call "Christianity". Some of it is nothing more than christianISM.
It's wierd to think of all Christians and Jews for Jesus, but that's closer to what we are.
Jesus was the only Christian ever in history
Paul spent the first part of his life vigorously opposing Christianity and the church, then he became a convert and became one of the greatest champions of the church.
Paul is to Christianity what Ray Kroc is to McDonald's
I sense sarcasm... heh
Uncle Pauls secret recipe of 13 herbs and spices..
“Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, but it is the religion of Paul. If Christians really followed Jesus, they would have been Muslims.” - Ahmad Deedat
Such a STUP*D statement by one of the most deluded men who ever lived.
No wonder God shut him up for years for his continues blasphemy.
Yes he is. Paul was the true founder of Christianity. Paul was the one who got Christianity rolling. Paul is the reason Christianity became a European religion.
I say the Roman Empire started Christianity, Paul never started a new religion, as he used Romans and Galatians to preach the Torah given to Abraham, and set aside the Torah given Moses.
I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity' which proves my point from the words of Paul and Jesus.
Constantine was the reason why it became a 'European Religion'. But certainly Paul made it attractive to Pagans
@@amayoka I don't quite get the attractive, except many thought grace was alliance to sin, hence Romans and Galatians. Paul directed the Gentiles to the Torah of Abraham away from Moses, not a new religion but a revert to his own lost one as a lost sheep of Israel.
You may be interested that I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
@@simonskinner1450 It was attractive as it gave dignity to the "least of us" at a time when that wasn't really a thing.
@@amayoka Christianity was already a European religion before Constantine. Most Christians were Greeks and Romans.
I'm not getting something here, these "teachings of Jesus", they mean the stories of teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels written by unknown authors much later right?
I was a bit surprised that Bart, at minute 14, says Paul's contribution to Christianity is largely that it was available to Gentiles and not that Paul promoted "death, burial and resurrection". Seems to me that Paul, above all others, promoted just that. If Paul didn't, who do we attribute the death, burial and resurrection message to?
Bart's claim is that that basic idea is what Jesus's disciples turned to after his death, but before Paul's conversion. It's how they dealt with the reality of their Messiah being executed. They assigned meaning to the death. We don't know who came up with it, since we don't have any writings from before Paul, but Paul treats it as the accepted gospel already. That's not what he has conflicts with James and Peter about.
Bad math, Bart!
If Paul's ministry lasted for around 30 years, and he founded, say, 20 churches, and wrote each church, say, 2 letters per year, that does not mean he wrote a total of
30 X 20 X 2, or 1200 letters.
After all, he didn't found 20 churches all at once, in the first year of his ministry.
Twenty churches in 30 years is an average of one church every 1.5 years. He devotes a year and a half to Church #1, then goes off to preach elsewhere. At that point, he begins sending 2 letters/year to Church #1. So Church #1 gets 2 letters/year over the remaining years of Paul's ministry, i.e., over 28.5 years. That would be 57 letters for Church #1.
Following that pattern, Church #2 would get 2 X 27, or 54, letters. Church #3 would get 51, #4 48, #5 45, and so on, until #20, which didn't get any at all.
All that means the total would be more like 570 letters.
Sorry, but I love math!
P.S. I wrote the above before listening to the entire podcast. Loved, loved, loved this week's Soapbox. Thanks, Bart.
❤🎉
There’s a lot of ifs in that sentence
Its really quite simple: Jesus founded Christianity, Paul founded Churchianity.
Please make that Soapbox section into a quick UA-cam Short!
The Jesus story began in 48 AD with the first of the Pauline Epistles (which comprise nearly half of the New Testament books) when Paul realized the Daniel 9:25 prophesy of a messiah expired without fulfilling so he made one up decades later and set the story decades in the past matching Jewish expectations of the messiah to make the prophesy seem true.
The fulfillment of the Daniel 9:25 prophecy written in 444 BC was the test of the true messiah. By 48 AD it was known that the prophecy of a messiah coming in "seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" had not occurred on the prophesied date. It was the 69th Week and the 70th Week was soon to come. The prophesied messiah was expected and the anticipation set off a messiah craze.
"Seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" is, 7 plus 60 plus 2 equals 69 total weeks. One prophetic week equals seven biblical years of 360 days (the Julian calendar was created centuries later), so 7 times 69 equals 483 total biblical years beginning with Artaxerxes' decree in 444 BC. Those 483 biblical years equal 173,880 days, or 476 Julian years. Therefore the Messiah would come and be "cut off" in AD 33. One prophetic week equaling seven Biblical years is something “Daniel” invented in about 165 BC, effectively an admission that Jeremiah 25:11-12 failed.
Paul made up the entire Jesus story and added historical figures, locations, and events to add authenticity.
In the Galatians "road to Damascus" conversion vision tale written in 48 AD he claimed to have gone to the Arabian desert to study the Old Testament for 17 years to align with the Daniel 9:25 prophecy.
Paul's goal was to garner support for the insurrection against the Romans which began in 46 AD led by two brothers, Jacob and Simon, in the Judea province. The revolt, mainly in the Galilee, began as sporadic insurgency until it climaxed in 48 AD when it was quickly put down by Roman authorities. Both Simon and Jacob were executed.
He created the fiction of having witnessed the risen messiah. He wanted to show that the messiah had come as prophesied but was murdered by the Romans. This was to entice the Gentiles to aid in the Jews' rebellion against the Romans.
Instead, he created one of the world's most popular religions that is based on the literal worship of ritual human sacrifice, rape, and cannibalism.
The Gospel authors copied, and embellished, Paul's fiction. None of the Gospel authors, or any other writers, were witnesses to the Bible figure known as Jesus.
Whatever you say, mate
@@KorKhan89
Are you disputing that the first mention of the prophesied messiah is by Paul in 48 AD?
And that the Gospels followed decades later and were written by non-witnesses to Jesus?
This is very similar to making mental leaps to interpret the Bible in favour of the christian faith, with the exception that you mean to discredit it.
@@unsiliquaria
Which of my assertions are you disputing?
@@unsiliquaria
_"This is very similar to making mental leaps to interpret the Bible in favour of the christian faith..."_
Like the assertion that God walked around town for thirty years and then died and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" and all of that happened without any of the locals noticing.
:-))
Jesus: “I’ll die, resurrect and salvation for the forgiveness of sins would be preached in my name.”
Paul: “Jesus died and resurrected and the world can only be saved through Him.”
How did Paul contradict Jesus?
You heard how Jesus said that? Or did you read what people wrote about Jesus AFTER Paul had begun preaching? :-)
Thank you for this wonderful talk and explanation
So, if Paul did not originate the idea that it is the death and resurrection of Jesus that effects salvation, who did?
Excellent information. Very logical and put things in perspective. Great job.
Bart felt like chocking by trying to openly say Paul invented Christianity thought he has to openly say it but it's emotional effects could be greater!
Theologians seem to me to get the social status of the disciples of Jesus wrong. Yeah, most of them worked with their hands, but that doesn't make them poor. Fishing needs capital in the boat and the nets, and skill in knowing where to fish, and a sense of markets in knowing where best to sell their catch. If Joseph was a carpenter, that's not a labourer: that is a builder, a contractor. I have a PhD in a fairly recondite area of the Humanities, and I have, frequently, interesting conversations with tradies. This is especially important if one wants to insist that Christian (or, indeed, Jewish) belief is NOT a question of scoring high on the exam. A lack of the intellectual finesse that surplus wealth can buy does not mean a lack of capacity for intellectual enquiry; and religious belief is not a question of intellectual enquiry, anyway.
Also, although Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, he wasn't starting from nothing. The religion of Israel doesn't proselytise, but there were the Godfearers, gentiles attracted to the specifically religious aspects of Hebrew practice. The centurion who asks Jesus for help (Mat: 8, Luke 7) (if we assume that that's a reliable story) presumably was somewhere in the Godfearer region, to take notice of a Jewish teacher and healer.
Hard-hitting reality check with that Amos reference
Everybody go read it! And quote the appropriate verses whenever someone tries to get you to go to church
Paul's place in history (and even the Bible and Christianity) owes a lot to Marcion, who forced the hand of the forming early Christian church to consider Paul front and center in defining the mission of Christ. Christianity would be completely different without Marcion's Paul.
The real historical figure that existed during that timeframe, and responsible for the many myths of “Christ” was Apollonius of Tyana, not Jesus.
When Apollonius died around 99 C.E., Marcion- who was St. Mark-discovered Apollonius’ epistles, altered them, and took them to Rome around 130 C.E. He particularly exchanged the original names Apollonius wrote under: Apollo, Apollos, Pollo, Paulus, and Paul to focus only on the name Paul to hide and distort the records and further rob Apollonius of Tyana. Hence, Apollonius is the Apostle Paul of the Ezra-Constantine bible. Pollo is a shorten version of Apollo and in Latin is a diminutive form of Paul. Apollonius was referred to as the second coming of Apollo.
The early Catholic Church appropriated some of Apollonius’ epistles through Marcion (Mark); the Book of Hebrews and the Book of Revelation later. The Book of Acts is a history of the works and actions of Apollonius, as he establishes many colonies in the area to the Hindu god-man, Christos-Chrishna. The church merely replaced Chrishna with Jesus Christ and Apollonius with the Apostle Paul, (he was also St. John and St. Thomas), with shades of details of the history of Apollonius (his miracles, timeframe of his birth, etc.) which were later given to Jesus as well.
If Paul wrote so much about Jesus' death and resurrection then why did he not write about Jesus' ascension into Heaven and even nothing about his second coming back to Earth.! 🤔
I like to think of Paul as the coagulator or compiler of Christianity. He tied many of the varying early sects of Christendom into a more cohesive theology through his epistles.
As a Christian, I highly value Barts knowledge. Gives me at least some extra insight, different view point.
After Jesus there have two group of believers headed by Paul in one hand and the one group headed by James,One headed James they called themselves Mukmin and one headed by Paul by Paul the Christian, they are not friendly to each other .Mukmin have own Gospel that the christian would not read.The Mumin gospel is Gospel of Barnabas which Muslims see as a holy book.
Paul was visited by Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. 4 years after Jesus was crucified on the cross. Jesus Christ founded Christianity.
he meet him when he was dead?? Paul admitted he was a lier
I don't think I would go so far as to say that Paul's theology 'makes sense'...
Man, I just read Amos 3-5 and wow, that's some words I've never heard people really echo before, maybe bits and pieces, but wow. It makes me wonder how many church people see choirs as a detestable thing.
Steve Wozniak "invented" the Apple computer. And Steve Jobs sold it. Paul is Steve Jobs.