from "Babylon" thread; Pauline detraction

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by mee

The designation "Babylon" for the false religions of the world is appropriate, since it was in ancient Babylon that false religion got its start. From there it spread to the four corners of the earth. (Genesis 11:1-9) Religious doctrines that originated in Babylon, such as the immortality of the soul, hellfire, and the worship of triune gods, are shared by virtually all religions, so being false religion would make sense to me.
Modern-day religions have perpetuated many of ancient Babylon’s doctrines. so,the world empire of false religion is well named Babylon the Great. (Revelation 17:5) i think babylon the great is already here , and i think she has already fallen
(Revelation 14:8; 18:2)
That fall, however, was just a precursor to the ultimate destruction of false religion.
many true christians haveshook off the religious influence of Christendom, a dominant part of Babylon the Great. Since then Christendom has lost considerable influence in many lands where it was formerly strong. yes i do believe that a person can be a christian and not be a part of the mainstream known as christendom ,they have shook off these babylonish teachings, and stick to true christianity that christ taught. so she (babylon the great) no longer has any power over true christians

It seems pretty clear--to me, at least--that John meant Rome. Following is a glib, not-to-be-taken-too-seriously, excursion on this subject:


Rome


Has anyone wondered why the supposed center of Christianity, from the fourth century to the sixteenth, has been in Rome, of all places? The "Roman Catholic" church is a contradiction in terms. What else was both "Roman" and "catholic"? The Empire, of course!

A guy named Jeshua shows up sometime around 30 CE (I dunno what this is in the Jewish calendar). He mostly hangs around an out-of-the-way province in a corner of the Empire. He gathers around himself some teenaged thugs—dagger-wielders and sword-carriers. The Romans, for some reason, perceive him as an enemy and execute him in an excruciating (literally), humiliating way.

But his followers continue to practice his brand of Judaism in both Galilee and in Jerusalem. But soon they find their movement being taken over by an epileptic Pharisee who wants to broaden the movement to his fellow citizens of Rome. Now, some Jews (eg, Josephus) as well as some "Xtians", (e.g., Saul/Paul), begin to toady toward Rome. But the Xtians are much better at it, and in a couple of centuries – after some unpleasantness -- they find themselves in control of the Empire! Now, they are in a position not only to persecute Jews, but also Pagans and "heretics." Wow! God must be really smiling on their enterprise!

Meanwhile, back in Palestine in the first century..... James and his followers, the Ebionites, etc., who continue to worship in synagogues find themselves outmaneuvered and outgunned by the Paulists. All they have going for them is that they actually knew Jeshua—James as his own brother. But Paul, an enthusiast who never knew Jeshua, knows somebody more powerful, a figure he calls "Christ Jesus" who has appeared to him in a vision.. Being an assiduous letter-writer, and an indefatigable travelling administrator, Paul sets up his "church" (ekklesia) far and wide.

The Jamesians (Jacobites) go into underground mode, particularly after the smashing of the Temple in 70. (James himself had been executed in 62) The canonical "gospels" are now written (actually, given their final edit) in the light of Paul's letters and influence, so they are anti-Jewish, pro-Roman, and feature a Jeshua who has become Christ Jesus. The Jamesians attempt to preserve their own traditions in things like THE GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES and perhaps the Gnostic GOSPEL OF THOMAS. The latter, for example, has the following exchange:

THE DISCIPLES (to Josh): "After you are gone, who will be great over us?"

JESHUA: "In the place where you are to go, go to James the Just for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into existence." (!!!)

Hmmmm. No Peter. No Simon. No Cephas. (Gradually, Paul seems to have won "Cephas"—Peter—over to his side)

We all know that the most commonly accepted version of history is usually written by the victors. And the 3rd-4th century historian (and bishop to Constantine) Eusebius, tells us that the Temple was destroyed as a punishment for the Jews' rejection of Josh. Neat move! Now, not only are the Jews demonized, but the Romans are seen as doing God's will.

And so we were on our merry way, with pronunciamentos from Christ's Vicar on Earth in the center of Roman pomp and power. This Vicar speaking for an itinerant Galilean rabbi.

Tacitus

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jeannot, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by Jeannot

Following is a glib, not-to-be-taken-too-seriously, excursion on this subject:

Is this a work of your own? If not, would you be kind enough to credit the author, not least for reasons of plagiarism.

While it may be glib, and not to be taken seriously, it would seem a great many around here do hold views not at all unlike that portrayed:

Has anyone wondered why the supposed center of Christianity, from the fourth century to the sixteenth, has been in Rome, of all places?

Could it be because Rome was the capital of the "greatest" empire ever to exist on the face of the planet, from something like 500 B.C. until around 410 A.D.? After that, the focus shifted to the Eastern half of the Roman empire (after Rome was sacked), and the Byzantine empire rose to the fore until Constantinople was sacked during the Crusades. The Eastern orthodox "branch" or "denomination" stems from here. It is also of the influence of the Byzantines that the Pope, for a time, was Greek (the great schism). Rome has long been a center of influence, politically and culturally. Why would a religion not gravitate to the center of such a mass of power?

The "Roman Catholic" church is a contradiction in terms. What else was both "Roman" and "catholic"? The Empire, of course!

I fail to see the point. What has the Christianization of the empire to do with contradiction? Besides, you are neglecting the "Holy Roman Empire" under Charlemagne.

A guy named Jeshua

No "J" in Hebrew, none in English either until 1555 +/-. So his name could not begin with a "J." Iesus, or Yeshua, take your pick. Either way, proper translation (not transliteration) would be in modern English: "Joshua," meaning "salvation is of G-d."

shows up sometime around 30 CE (I dunno what this is in the Jewish calendar). He mostly hangs around an out-of-the-way province in a corner of the Empire. He gathers around himself some teenaged thugs—dagger-wielders and sword-carriers. The Romans, for some reason, perceive him as an enemy and execute him in an excruciating (literally), humiliating way.

Teenaged thugs? Sword carriers? I don't buy it. Take a look for yourself (rather than taking the author of this at his/her word). John could be said to be a "teenager," but hardly a thug or sword carrier. Some of the disciples were married, and it is presumed with children. Which would make them comparable in age with Jesus, in some cases older. And who wouldn't carry a sword on a desolate stretch of highway where travelling by foot at the blinding speed of 4 miles per hour you are an easy mark for brigands and highwaymen? The only disciple noted to have used a sword was Peter in the garden, and Jesus fixed what Peter mucked up. This author has some serious issues, not least with following text and translating correctly.

But his followers continue to practice his brand of Judaism in both Galilee and in Jerusalem. But soon they find their movement being taken over by an epileptic Pharisee who wants to broaden the movement to his fellow citizens of Rome. Now, some Jews (eg, Josephus) as well as some "Xtians", (e.g., Saul/Paul), begin to toady toward Rome.

Just want to be certain I am following correctly: is this saying Paul is a Jew, or a Christian? The way it reads, it is two different people. BTW, epileptic? I have heard migraines, I have heard a number of different medical proposals presented, by this is the first I had heard of Paul (I presume Paul is the Pharisee being spoken of as taking over the movement) being stricken with epilepsy. Frankly, I don't buy it, but hey, to each their own. Besides, there were already Jews in Palestine "toadying" to Rome since about 50 B.C. when the other J.C. (Julius Ceasar) conquered the area and annexed it to the empire.

But the Xtians are much better at it, and in a couple of centuries – after some unpleasantness -- they find themselves in control of the Empire!

Much better at what? Surviving the onslaught of the Romans? Ask a Jew, and I think he may disagree, the Jews are still with us today. It is a great miracle, and significant mark of time, that the nation of Israel was reinstated after 1900 odd years.

The only reason the Christians came to power is through Constantine, who granted them assylum for helping him gain victory over Maxentius.

Now, they are in a position not only to persecute Jews, but also Pagans and "heretics." Wow! God must be really smiling on their enterprise!

You mean like how you now here are in position to mock and persecute Christians, so G-d must now be smiling on your enterprise? I am not understanding your point. It is not OK for Christians to mock and persecute others (which I agree with) but it is perfectly OK for you to do so (which I very much disagree with)? Looks to me like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?

Meanwhile, back in Palestine in the first century..... James and his followers, the Ebionites, etc.,

Proof, please?

who continue to worship in synagogues find themselves outmaneuvered and outgunned by the Paulists. All they have going for them is that they actually knew Jeshua—James as his own brother. But Paul, an enthusiast who never knew Jeshua, knows somebody more powerful, a figure he calls "Christ Jesus" who has appeared to him in a vision.. Being an assiduous letter-writer, and an indefatigable travelling administrator, Paul sets up his "church" (ekklesia) far and wide.

Of course, there is no possible way the Creator of the universe(s) could have had anything at all to do with any of this, right? [/sarcasm] Assuming, (and that's a pretty BIG ASSumption) that G-d had nothing to do with His son, His son's work, the spread of Christianity, etc., implies that Christianity in particular, and religion in general, are merely creations of humanity. Leaving G-d out of the equation implies that there is no value in religion at all, with the possible exception of consolidation of political power. This flies in the face of the personal experiences of countless millions across the centuries, not just Christians.

The Jamesians (Jacobites) go into underground mode, particularly after the smashing of the Temple in 70. (James himself had been executed in 62) The canonical "gospels" are now written (actually, given their final edit) in the light of Paul's letters and influence, so they are anti-Jewish, pro-Roman, and feature a Jeshua who has become Christ Jesus.

If this is the interpretation you prefer, more power to ya! How does it manifest in your life, in how you relate to others?

The Jamesians attempt to preserve their own traditions in things like THE GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES and perhaps the Gnostic GOSPEL OF THOMAS.

Proof, please?

The latter, for example, has the following exchange:
THE DISCIPLES (to Josh): "After you are gone, who will be great over us?"
JESHUA: "In the place where you are to go, go to James the Just for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into existence." (!!!)

I see...the acknowledged canonical texts have no value, but the spurious apocryphal texts do have value...but G-d doesn't exist anyway, so...what?

]Hmmmm. No Peter. No Simon. No Cephas. (Gradually, Paul seems to have won "Cephas"—Peter—over to his side)

Which, of course, is a bad thing?

We all know that the most commonly accepted version of history is usually written by the victors. And the 3rd-4th century historian (and bishop to Constantine) Eusebius, tells us that the Temple was destroyed as a punishment for the Jews' rejection of Josh. Neat move! Now, not only are the Jews demonized, but the Romans are seen as doing God's will.

More support for the human manufacture of religion? Then religion is a waste of time, there is no heaven, there is no G-d, there is no reason to believe anything by anyone...so why bother?

And so we were on our merry way, with pronunciamentos from Christ's Vicar on Earth in the center of Roman pomp and power. This Vicar speaking for an itinerant Galilean rabbi.

Interpretation is a subjective thing. Many have interpreted the teachings of Jesus, some invoking "speaking in Jesus' name," but not all. But since the author of this seems "hell bent" on interpreting the end result of Jesus' work on behalf of all of Christianity as being pointless, it does raise some serious issues in my mind as to the motivation behind it.

Of course, all of this is just my "glib, not-to-be-taken-too-seriously, excursion on this subject."

*Moderator hat on* While we have tried to open the door a bit for alternate views in Christianity, I want to make it clear that posts denigrating Christianity, or otherwise casting an unfavorable light on it, are not appreciated. This specifically is the type of thread that would be better suited to the Alternative section. *Moderator hat off*

[wil]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Jeannot, and welcome to CR!

*Moderator hat on* While we have tried to open the door a bit for alternate views in Christianity, I want to make it clear that posts denigrating Christianity, or otherwise casting an unfavorable light on it, are not appreciated. This specifically is the type of thread that would be better suited to the Alternative section. *Moderator hat off*

Namaste 123, just a question on rules of order....I'm just a little confused....as to the respect an 'alternative' christian must use on the christian board and a 'conventional/fundamental/conservative/mainstream' christian or moderator must use on the alternative board...appears a little quid pro quo is in order.

ie While your response seems entirely appropriate should you have left this thread on the Christian board....as you moved it to alternative...you should have deleted 90% of it as it appears to be an imposition to discsussion.

I've been told I am completely wrong before and at this juncture expect that I may be told so again.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Namaste 123, just a question on rules of order....I'm just a little confused....as to the respect an 'alternative' christian must use on the christian board and a 'conventional/fundamental/conservative/mainstream' christian or moderator must use on the alternative board...appears a little quid pro quo is in order.

ie While your response seems entirely appropriate should you have left this thread on the Christian board....as you moved it to alternative...you should have deleted 90% of it as it appears to be an imposition to discsussion.

I've been told I am completely wrong before and at this juncture expect that I may be told so again.

If you would prefer I remove my responses, then I will ask the Mod of this board to do so.

I do find a bit curious though, that I am being asked as a representative of mainstream Christianity to refrain from posting in the non-mainstream forum. Particularly when my response was point by point and legitimate, and not denigrating, merely disagreeing. Aside from some very small scale sarcasm, which you are correct, could have been done without. I too, am emotional, and tend to response "quid pro quo." I am not perfect, and do not pretend to be.

However, why is it OK for non-mainstream to post in the mainstream section, but not mainstream to post in the non-mainstream section? If one wishes to get, then they should expect to also have to give, should they not?

[wil]

As I indicated I am confused and I question...

As we've discovered our nomenclature is lacking....but those who have christian thoughts that are not deemed christian by some as they do not follow stay on the right side of a wavering line in the sand...have been asked to go over an play in another sandbox.

Now by definition that other sandbox is exploratory, crhistians who like to look at all sides of an issue, deeper meanings in scriptures, and are willing to listen, be exposed to potentially inflamatory, blasphemous remarks...take them in stride and discuss them.

So if we have an old testament question in this regard we could go to the Judaic board...or if we need some more info from an Eastern perspective we could go there....and should we require a dogmatic litteral orthodox opionon we also know where to look.

I am not saying it is not appropriate for mainstream christians to post in the alternative section...As like it or not...I think I am right at the edge of mainstream...as the stream has meandered....but I am inquiring...it appears what the christian board has issues with is contemplations that go against the grain...so you move it over here...and then jump in with responses that have been used repeatedlly as our reason for not being over there...

I see...the acknowledged canonical texts have no value, but the spurious apocryphal texts do have value...but G-d doesn't exist anyway, so...what?

waste of time, there is no heaven, there is no G-d, there is no reason to believe anything by anyone...so why bother?

again, it is likely that I have misinterpreted everything....and am inquiring...
I don't think anyone thinks the canon has no value....I am a christian, it is the book I use the most....but as the poll suggested....it isn't the be all and end all....and over here....that is ok. We don't believe there is no heaven or no G-d...we just are exploring our various interpretations of what that is... and is not.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

we just are exploring our various interpretations of what that is... and is not.

I have no problem with this. I continue to explore. I guess a lot hinges on where you focus your emphasis. Mine is on the Canon. It would seem that to many, the focus is not on the Canon, the focus is on undermining the Canon. Such as the post above. In my humble opinion as a poster, there is a great deal of difference between considering in addition to the Canon, and tossing the Canon in favor of other scriptures. The post above sure sounds to me like the latter.

Prefacing the subject matter, which can only be described as controversial, with being "a glib, not-to-be-taken-too-seriously, excursion on this subject," does not make it so. Many people take this subject seriously. And many others are just as seriously offended when this subject is used to attack their beliefs.

The Mods here have to walk a fine line. I will not please everyone all of the time. It just ain't gonna happen, no matter how hard I try. I am an umpire, I call 'em as I see 'em. I made a call, I am sticking to it. You are welcome to take the matter to Brian if you like, and if he agrees my call will be overturned. No harm, no foul, no hard feelings on my part.

[wil]

Your point is well taken...

And as you indicated your filter is the canon...seems totally appropriate for the mainstream board....and possibly just as inappropriate for this one? As a reference sure....but as a be all and end all? Not.

Quite possibly need a different perspective for a mod over here...I don't know...again, maybe I am outta line. My hijacking this thread over this conversation is...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

And as you indicated your filter is the canon...seems totally appropriate for the mainstream board....and possibly just as inappropriate for this one? As a reference sure....but as a be all and end all? Not.

As equally your point is well taken. I have long tried to encourage non-mainstream views on the Christianity board, but there is a line I dare not cross. And while Canonical views should not be the driving force overriding this board, they should be welcome with the caveat that they are here as guests and should conduct themselves accordingly. "Quid pro quo" seems to be the order of the day, if a challenge is made with sarcasm, one should expect a sarcastic response. I am bad about this, and need to work on improving. Ideally, the "walled garden" should be respected, those here as guests need to conduct themselves as guests. Just like on the Christian forum.

Quite possibly need a different perspective for a mod over here...I don't know...again, maybe I am outta line. My hijacking this thread over this conversation is...

My moderating abilities are limited to the Christianity board, although I have ready access to the other mods. If you take the time to notice, most of my posts are not on the Christianity board. I usually spend my time there putting out fires. I do not want my views to seem like they are the only ones allowed. That is my thing, nothing at all to do with how things are, or supposed to be, run around here. Brian has the final say in everything. If I am out of line, I will hear about it. And I expect that is right and correct.

I very much enjoy posting, and I don't want my moderating to get in the way of that. All the more reason to bring a subject such as this here...it is out of my reach.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I gather this thread started life on the Xtianity board?

Look, isn't there any place on this large forum where anyone can say anything they like? Surely with all the anal nitpicking about what is appropriate for the Xtianity board we wouldn't want to duplicate such an intollerant atmosphere here...would we? Two wrongs don't make a right...do they? Let the mainstreamers make asses of themselves if they want, but let's walk the talk and do what we know is right.

Chris

[wil]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Look, isn't there any place on this large forum where anyone can say anything they like? Surely with all the anal nitpicking about what is appropriate for the Xtianity board we wouldn't want to duplicate such an intollerant atmosphere here...would we? Two wrongs don't make a right...do they? Let the mainstreamers make asses of themselves if they want, but let's walk the talk and do what we know is right.

Chris

doh, always thankful for the nudge or 2x4 upside da head to get back on the path...apologies all around and 123 in particular.

[I, Brian]

On the points raised by Jeannot's post, check out the writings of fellow member Victor on the main site:

The Pauline conspiracy:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ne_conspiracy/

Faith of the Apostles:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...postles_faith/

An Affair on Golgotha:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/golgotha/

[I, Brian]

Moved to the comparative board, as it probably serves it's purpose better there.