(work in progress)
What was the Religion of Jesus?
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy them, but to fulfill them.
18 For truly I say unto you, Till heaven and earth perish, one jot or one tittle of the Law shall not escape, till all things be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall observe and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
So, Jesus upheld the Law, preached the Law, and condemned those who either broke or denied the Law.
What Was the Religion of the Disciples ?
29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
Acts 2:46,47 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Acts 3:1 One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer–at three in the afternoon.
So, after the Disciples have learned from Jesus’ teachings, and he has gone away from them, they continue observing Prophetic Law, as Jesus did while he was among them. And they had prescribed fasting (as in Islam), and they had prescribed prayer times daily (as in Islam).
What Was the Religion of Paul?
11 ¶ And when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his [j]face: for he was to be condemned.
So, the DISCIPLE Peter, whom Jesus said would be the Rock of his Faithful Followers, was “to be condemned” by Paul? Wow ! We clearly have quite a dispute here, between Paul, who WAS NOT a disciple, and Peter, the Rock of Christ’s temple. This is an issue !
19 For I through the Law am dead to the Law, that I might live unto God.
(yes, we know that Saul of Tarsus had walked away from the Law of his people long before Christianity came along.)
20 I am crucified with Christ, but I live, yet not I anymore, but Christ liveth in me: and in that I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith in the Son of God(sic), who hath loved me, and given himself for me.
(these sound like the claims of a megalomaniac to me. Claiming to be crucified? Why? Because he did a little jail time? Not the same thing. And Jesus lives “in” him? I’m calling Paul a liar. )
21 I do not abrogate the grace of God: for if righteousness be by the Law, then Christ died without a cause. (and this is a problem that Paul had: as he was a man without guidance, who never heard Jesus speak a single word, all he has is his imagination to depend on. God is Merciful, this we believe. But Mercy is not the only Divine Attribute. God is also Just, Wise, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, and the Judge of humanity. Far more important than what Paul abrogates or doesn’t, is the fact that God did NOT abrogate His Law. There was no need to, there is no evidence for it, Jesus did not teach it, the Disciples did not believe it, and Paul was misguided by his ignorance and delusions.)
So, if Paul allowed the consumption of swine, and the refusal of circumcision, and could utterly abrogate the Law while “not abrogating the Grace of God”, what did he leave intact of the original teachings of Jesus? If that was the state of affairs 50 years after Christ, what happened over the next 250 years leading up to the Ecumenical Councils ?
Who Made Paul a Saint?
Did God reach down and stamp Paul with “sainthood” between his eyes? Did He send an angel delivering a certificate of “Authentic Sainthood”? No?
Surely, NO ! “Sainthood” is a declaration that comes from the Catholic Church, the man-made Church where they believe the Pope is a piece of “God”. It’s purely arbitrary, and basically crap. Much like “canonizing” certain manuscripts that agree with their misguidance, and rejecting other multiple manuscripts that prove them wrong. When the Church or the Roman government wants someone or something to carry authority throughout the land, they grant it official license, hence something becomes “canon”, or someone becomes a “saint”. It’s all part of the grand illusion, the 1700 year old hoax.
Paul may have been the one whom official Roman “Christianity” was based on, but it’s obvious by now that Paul was NOT Jesus, did NOT know Jesus, and taught very different things than were taught by the Disciples. It sounds to me like the “Saint” led the Church to Hellfire, and the Church readily followed because of their own ignorance and corruption.
Did the Christian “God” Blunder, or did Christians ?
How is it that the God of the Old Testament and of Islam has sent over 120,000 Prophets, all calling to the same message and the same general jurisprudence and theology, but right in the middle of it, “God” realizes He made a huge mistake, hadn’t planned on the incapacity of His created humans to be pleasing subjects, and decides to correct Himself by establishing a New Deal ?
Or is it that this “New Deal” was contrived, that it really has nothing to do with Jesus, nor was ever ordained by The Almighty, and that for 1700 years, Christians have been duped by political powers?
What Texts Finally Became “Official”
The Earliest Sources
Biblical scholars agree that the earliest sources that can even be alluded to by the canonized gospels were written decades after Jesus’ mission. It is generally agreed that Luke and Matthew were written from the same source known as Q, however the source itself has yet to be unearthed.
The Burning of Truths and Those who Held Them
Prior to Constantine, many Christians were persecuted by the Roman pagans, sometimes burnt alive. Their books and libraries were also destroyed by fire. After Constantine, the Church then took it upon itself to declare dissenters as “heretics”, have them executed, and their books, churches, and libraries destroyed. Christian Emperor Theodosius stated,
“the doctrine of the Trinity should be embraced by those who would be called catholics; that all others should bear the infamous name of heretics.”
Forgeries in Ten Cities
Some scholars estimate that over half of the New Testament has either been forged, plagiarized, attributed to the wrong author, or inserted centuries after the original authors were dead. One such scholar is Bart Ehrman, Ph.D., distinguished professor of Religious Studies at Chapel Hill. Another is Charles Freeman, history professor at Oxford.
When in Rome, What Do the Romans Do?
What happened during the reign of Constantine? What is the Nicaean Council, who attended, what did they do, what did they create, who was their “God”, what is their Book? What happened in 381 C.E. ? What happened to those who disapproved of what happened in 381 C.E. ? What beliefs were adopted and became “official”? Does God approve of those beliefs? Did he give His seal of approval? What beliefs were rejected? Where are the records of the dissenters? With the 2,000 plus attendees of the Councils, who were at such odds with one another they were ripping apart the Roman Empire, how did they end-up with one religion and one book after a couple of meetings? What kind of deep dark secretive political cesspool did this religion and its book crawl out of ?
The Leaky Bucket
Christian theology doesn’t hold water. For 1700 years, the only solution for people who ask questions is to tie them to a pole and set them on fire. Their dogma doesn’t hold up to the questions of philosophers, the facts of science, the proofs of Muslims, the scrutiny of historians, or the inquisitiveness of the average teenager. Today, you have people like Rick Santorum saying that Christianity and university education are incompatible.
“God gave me a brain, but I apparently don’t need it.” I don’t understand how Christians accept the dogma their Church feeds them. I don’t know how they can be convinced by beliefs that have no supporting evidence, by a book that has no established authenticity, by a political-religious organization that has such a dark history. Is it the nostalgic feelings stirred by Christmas and the hymnal that keeps them attached to their childhood? Is it the enticing offer of “salvation” through blindly and brainlessly accepting Jesus as “savior”? Is it a sense of fraternity and nationalistic brotherhood? Is it the quirky, emotional rhetoric that their preachers have been infamous for since the early years of preaching among the ignorant masses and occasionally being confronted by the challenging arguments of philosophers? Do they have that tragic flaw, the authoritarian-follower personality type where they hunger for a group of conformists and a charismatic leader?