Constantine, Religion, and Power

[barnhart]

Those who knew Jesus and Paul closely did not find them oppositional. It's a strange doctrine to claim to know more than they did 2,000 years later.

[JohnL]

Those who knew Jesus and Paul closely did not find them oppositional. It's a strange doctrine to claim to know more than they did 2,000 years later.

I agree.

[Bootstrap]

That we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, plus the Gospel of Thomas - these are all witnesses that say essentially the same thing about Christ.
And they all record different things, just like if you and your siblings wrote their memories of your parents, they would all be different.

But the most important parts of the story of Christ are the same, and recorded by 4-5 recorded witnesses. That is the difference.

Paul is a single witness to many things, including his own Apostleship....

Wait, what?

The Gospel of Thomas does not say the same thing about Christ as the other Gospels. Paul does, and also builds on the Gospels to address things that arose in the church during his time, as the first believers die, certain disputes occur, etc.

The Gospel of Thomas is a completely different gospel, the kind of Gnosticism that Paul speaks against. In the Gospel of Thomas, salvation is about discovering hidden knowledge, not the resurrection and death of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Thomas does not contain the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus' baptism, or his miracles. It's a collection of "secret sayings".

In fact, that's how it describes itself. Here's the opening:

These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas
Thomas wrote down.
(1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience
death."
(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will
become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over
the All."

Not the same Jesus. Not the same Gospel. Exactly the kind of thing the early church warned against.

“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

[JohnHurt]

John Hurt, you seem very sincere but I fear you are wandering off the path of orthodox Christianity. I would warn readers away from your last post.

The Doctrines of Jesus is all I need.

Orthodoxy is from the viewpoint of men. I will let Christ judge me.

[JohnHurt]

The differences that you present are greatly exaggerated and so you fail to notice the similarities. For example, both Paul and Jesus speak of the results of salvation (good works) as fruit - compare John 15:5 with Galatians 5:22. Jesus taught that what goes into a man does not defile him, but what comes out of him - compare that with Colossians 2:16-23. Paul said that those who live after the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21); compare that with Matt. 13:41-42; 25:41, etc.

When Jesus healed people who came to Him, He did not heal them because of their works, but because of their faith. He never said, "Your works have saved you; go in peace." Rather, He said, "Your faith has saved you." In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the Pharisee had the works of the law, but did not go home justified; instead, the tax collector, who humbly asked for mercy in faith, was justified.

Salvation by obedience was preached by Christ (Repent for the Kingdom is here). Or you can have salvation by "faith only" that was preached by Paul. And you can say they are the same thing, as many do. I think you have addressed this point very well from your viewpoint - so I understand that you say they are the same doctrines.

My intent is not to debate the validity of Paul, but if the doctrines of Christ and Paul do not agree, then who is superior?
The reason I am choosing Paul is that his doctrines are the most contrary to Christ. I don't see the other writers contradicting Christ.

There are three other points:

1. Eating meat offered to Idols. Paul supports this in 1 Cor 8, it is condemned by Christ in Rev 2, the 12 Apostles in Acts 15, God in Deut 32:17 and elsewhere. Paul stands alone on this issue, contrary to Christ.
2. The validity of the Law to Christianity - Christ said the law was required to enter the kingdom in Matt 5:17-20, Paul in many of his writings denies the law, and hid his denial of God's Law from James and the Apostles in Acts 21:18-28.
3. Not helping the poor. Christ said assisting the poor was necessary to salvation in the Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matt 25. Paul said not to help a widow under 60 years old in 1 Tim 5, and if a man will not work, then do not feed him.

If we cannot reconcile these doctrines, then who is superior, Paul or Christ?

Does God want the Church to not assist widows under 60 years old? No.
Is Paul wrong in 1 Tim 5:9? Yes.

Does Paul's statement that an elder that "ruleth well" should be paid twice the working man's wage in 1 Tim 5:17 contradict Christ's statement that we should not receive payment for teaching His message in Matt 10:8? Yes. Peter also condemns being paid to preach in 1 Peter 5:2.

Now, maybe someone on this forum can do the mental gymnastics to make all of these doctrines agree between Christ and Paul, just like this example of faith, grace and works is said to be identical doctrines with Christ and with Paul.

But the real question is, "if you do find a difference between the doctrines of Christ and Paul, or anyone else for that matter, who wins?

From my perspective, Christ wins. You don't need any other writer.
From every dispensationalist church's perspective, the doctrines of Christ loses as Christ was "under the old dispensation" and Paul wins.
This is the work of the Church of Constantine. They have replaced the doctrines of Christ with the doctrines of men. This is the anti-Christ, or "in place of Christ."

The creation of the "New Testament" canon was the greatest heresy of Constantine. It appeared to be a "good thing", to bring all of the books together. But these books written by men have now eclipsed the Doctrines of Christ. Just like the Pope speaking "as God." This is the doctrines of men.

We need to teach Christ and His Doctrines only. Not Peter, Paul, John, Jude, or any one else. Just Christ.

Here is how God looks at those that do not put the doctrines of Christ first, with Peter quoting YHVH from Deut 18:

Acts 3:(22) For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

(23) And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

I think I will follow Christ above all. And Christ did follow a different religion than the "churchianity" today.

[ohio jones]

The creation of the "New Testament" canon was the greatest heresy of Constantine. It appeared to be a "good thing", to bring all of the books together. But these books written by men have now eclipsed the Doctrines of Christ. Just like the Pope speaking "as God." This is the doctrines of men.

Without books "written by men" under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, how would you know the Doctrines of Christ?

[JohnHurt]

The Gospel of Thomas does not say the same thing about Christ as the other Gospels. Paul does, and also builds on the Gospels to address things that arose in the church during his time, as the first believers die, certain disputes occur, etc.

The Gospel of Thomas is a completely different gospel, the kind of Gnosticism that Paul speaks against. In the Gospel of Thomas, salvation is about discovering hidden knowledge, not the resurrection and death of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Thomas does not contain the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus' baptism, or his miracles. It's a collection of "secret sayings".

I was trying to find where Paul spoke against Gnosticism, but the references were vague to say the least, if you have a verse, let me know.

Yes, the Gospel of Thomas is just the "sayings of Christ" and could be rejected if they conflict with the Gospels, as could the writings of Paul for the same reasons.

Paul does not teach the same "gospel of Christ" as James and the Apostles, as the Book of James refutes Paul and his doctrines repeatedly.

Christ knew that men like Paul would enter the church, and so "before it ever happened", Christ refuted Paul's claim to have met Christ in the desert in Matthew 24:26. Paul is a single witness to his own conversion, and is preaching a completely different doctrine than Christ.

What is different between Paul and Thomas is that the Gospel of Thomas does not introduce new doctrines, while Paul establishes the doctrines of Predestination, original sin, head coverings, women keep silent, and many other novel doctrines, none of which have ever been stated before in the Bible. Thomas is listing just the sayings of Christ, each stands alone. You can accept what you will, but throwing out all of the Gospel of Thomas is the same mistake as throwing out all of Paul. Paul said some good things (Be Ye Kind, etc.) as did Thomas. I would identify and throw out the bad first.

But Paul has some very serious problems with Gnosticism, much more than Thomas, which I will describe.

Marcion the Gnostic claimed to be a follower of Paul, and created a Gnostic canon with 10 Pauline epistles and his own version of Luke. Why did the gnostic Marcion only pick Paul's writings for his canon? Because Paul had nearly the same doctrines as Marcion.

Paul preaches Gnostic ideas about "The prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2) "weak and beggarly elements" (Gal 4:8) and other concepts, such as "powers and principalities" Eph 6:12.

He uses the word "gnosis" or "knowledge" repeatedly in 1 Cor 8 as the justification for eating meat offered to idols. That is gnosticism.

And if you were to take all of Paul's writings and replace the word "faith" (pistis) - with "knowledge" (gnosis) - you would see a perfect handbook of gnostic teaching.

Faith (pistis) is a state of mind, a collection of beliefs inside your head. You might do works based on your faith, but by itself, faith is just a thought.

Knowledge (gnosis) is also a state of mind, a collection of thoughts or beliefs inside your head. You may act on your knowledge, but it is what you do with that knowledge is what makes a difference.

The idea that you are saved by having a thought inside your head, whether you call it faith or knowledge, that this thought you may have inside your head - a thought cannot save you. According to Christ it is what you do with your faith or knowledge that matters.

The "greasy grace" of Paul through pistis is no different than the "easy religion" of Marcion through gnosis.

Paul's doctrines of salvation through faith alone is closer to Gnosticism than any other writer. He just changed word gnosis to pistis.

[Bootstrap]

John,

I think we may be starting from very different assumptions about apostolic authority and how the New Testament fits together. I also think we have very different understandings of what these texts say at a fairly basic level.

Without some shared ground on that, I’m not sure we can have a productive conversation about Paul, James, or Gnosticism. And it is certainly not the subject of this thread.

[JohnHurt]

The creation of the "New Testament" canon was the greatest heresy of Constantine. It appeared to be a "good thing", to bring all of the books together. But these books written by men have now eclipsed the Doctrines of Christ. Just like the Pope speaking "as God." This is the doctrines of men.

Without books "written by men" under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, how would you know the Doctrines of Christ?

The original "canon" in the first century was just the Book of Matthew, written in Hebrew. That is all the original church had, and all they needed. They knew Matthew and the Apostles, and they knew the Book of Matthew was written by Matthew and that it was a faithful witness of the life and doctrines of Christ.

Mark and Luke are based on Matthew. John wrote his Gospel from a completely different perspective many years later.

How do we know which other books were inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Wisdom of Sirach?
Bel and the Dragon?
Esther, a book that never mentions YHVH, not even once.
Jude, a book that references 1 Enoch.
1 Enoch?
The Book of Jasher, referenced in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Sam 1:18?

Is it because these books are in the Canon or out of the Canon that makes them inspired? Who selected them or not for the canon?

Christ did not say "Only the books selected by Athanasius in his Easter Letter are acceptable to me." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_letter

I don't think Christ ever authorized "Easter" either, much less a letter from a priest of Constantine that created "Easter" to start with.

Here is what Christ Authorized us to teach:

Matthew 28:(20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

Christ only authorized us to teach His Doctrines, no other.

Here is who YHVH through Moses told us to hear:

Acts 3:(22) For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

(23) And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Try teaching only the Doctrines of Christ and the life of Christ every time you teach, and see what happens.

The important thing is for us to hold the word of Christ as supreme. Christ's words are in Matthew, and the Catholic church made some slight changes to the manuscript, but the meanings of the doctrines of Christ are still intact in Matthew, and the other 3 Gospels.

The question is, why don't we teach "just the 4 Gospels"? What would our religion be if we only taught the Words of Christ?

[JohnHurt]

John,

I think we may be starting from very different assumptions about apostolic authority and how the New Testament fits together. I also think we have very different understandings of what these texts say at a fairly basic level.

Without some shared ground on that, I’m not sure we can have a productive conversation about Paul, James, or Gnosticism. And it is certainly not the subject of this thread.

The State Sponsored church of Constantine made following the doctrines of men instead of Christ much worse in the 4th century than it ever was in the 1st Century.

The Church of Constantine and her offspring have never recovered from this heresy, even today.

Thanks for talking to me.
John