• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I have to literally watch the classes 2-3 times for it to sink in fully. :D It puts me to sleep.

Don't worry about it at least on my account - I can find it a lot faster than that. I was thinking it would be a simple matter of grabbing a notebook or something. I could find it in a few minutes.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Don't worry about it at least on my account - I can find it a lot faster than that. I was thinking it would be a simple matter of grabbing a notebook or something. I could find it in a few minutes.

Ascents of James” (Epiphanius, Pan. haer. 30.16.6-9)


Anonymous [A False Proselyte] (third century?)

They [sc. the Ebionites] invoke other acts of apostles, in which are many

things full of impiety, which they use primarily to arm themselves against the truth. They also produce certain pilgrimages1 and expositibns, namely in "The Ascents of James," pretending that James spoke against the Temple and the sacrifices and against the fire of the altar, and many other things full of empty talk. So also, in the same place, they are not ashamed to slander Paul, using certain charges trumped up y the malice and error of their pseudo-apostles. They say that he was not only a citizen of Tarsus, as he himself admits and does not deny, but also of Greek origin, basing this on the passage in which Paul candidly says, "I am a Tarsan, citizen of no mean city" [Acts 21.:39]. Then they declare that he was a Greek, child of a Greek mother and a Greek father. He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry a daughter of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against Sabbath and Law.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
The Cerinthians (Epiphanius, 28.5.1-3)

(ca. 375)



For they use the Gospel according to Matthew-in part, because of the human genealogy, but not all of it-and they adduce this proof-text from

the Gospel: "It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher" [Matt. 10:25]. What then, they say-Jesus was circumcised; be circumcised yourself. Christ lived according to the Law, they say, and you must do the same. Hence some of these, like men seized by poisonous drugs, are convinced by the specious arguments based on Christ's having been circumcised. They break with Paul because he does not accept circumcision, but they also reject him because he said, "You who would be justified by the law have fallen away from grace" [Gal. 5:4] and "If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you" [Gal. 5:2].
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Ascents of James” (Epiphanius, Pan. haer. 30.16.6-9)


Anonymous [A False Proselyte] (third century?)

They [sc. the Ebionites] invoke other acts of apostles, in which are many

things full of impiety, which they use primarily to arm themselves against the truth. They also produce certain pilgrimages1 and expositibns, namely in "The Ascents of James," pretending that James spoke against the Temple and the sacrifices and against the fire of the altar, and many other things full of empty talk. So also, in the same place, they are not ashamed to slander Paul, using certain charges trumped up y the malice and error of their pseudo-apostles. They say that he was not only a citizen of Tarsus, as he himself admits and does not deny, but also of Greek origin, basing this on the passage in which Paul candidly says, "I am a Tarsan, citizen of no mean city" [Acts 21.:39]. Then they declare that he was a Greek, child of a Greek mother and a Greek father. He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry a daughter of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against Sabbath and Law.

OK, yes - I've read this. Thanks.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Selections of Clementine Recognitions

Anonymous

[Persecutor of the Faith] (date unknown)



[The preceding chapters describe a debate in Jerusalem between the apostles and the leaders of each of the Jewish sects.] * * *And when matters were at that point that they should come and be baptized, some one of our enemies, 20entering the temple with a few men, began to cry out, and to say, What mean ye, O men of Israel? Why are you so easily hurried on? Why are ye led headlong by most miserable men, who are deceived by a magician?' While he was thus speaking, and adding more to the same effect, and while James the bishop was refuting him, he began to excite the people and to raise a tumult, so that the people might not be able to hear what was said. Therefore he began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been arranged with much labour, and at the same time to reproach the priests, and to enrage them with revilings and abuse, and like a madman, to excite every one to murder, saying, 'What do ye? Why do ye hesitate? Oh, sluggish and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces?' When he had said this, he first, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, were carried away with like madness. Then ensued a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him.



But our friends lifted him up, for they were both more numerous and more powerful than the others; but, from their fear of God, they rather suffered themselves to be killed by an inferior force, than they would kill others. But when the evening came the priests shut up the temple, and we returned to the house of James, and spent the night there in prayer. Then before daylight we went down to Jericho, to the number of 5000 men. Then after three days one of the brethren came to us from Gamaliel, whom we mentioned before, bringing us secret tidings that that enemy had received a commission from Caiaphas, the chief priest, that he should arrest all who believed in Jesus, and should go to Damascus with his letters, and that there also, employing the help of the unbelievers, he should make havoc among the faithful; and that he was hastening to Damascus chiefly on this account, because he believed that Peter had fled thither. Apd about thirty days thereafter he stopped on his way while passing through Jericho going to Damascus. At that time we were absent, having gone out to the sepulchres of two brethren which were whitened of themselves every year, by which miracle the fury of many against us was restrained, because they saw that our brethren were had in remembrance before God. * * *

...

Notes



20. This "enemy" is Paul. The same phrase is applied to him in the Letter of Peter to James (above).
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
They had pseudepigrapha in my class that was not early but trashed Paul.

He was a temple guard who was in love with a daughter of someone high up, and all the hate and trimming that go with it.

few others showed no favor for him as well. Sort of a mixed bag of negativity.


But no anti Christ, I thought it was rather laughable.

Ah, I see I misread you. I read "prison guard" for "temple guard." So I've been looking for a temple guard Paul. :sad:

Thanks very much for Epiphan. -- I have used him a lot in my research and remember this passage well.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
OK, yes - I've read this. Thanks.

NP

I don't know how anyone could remember all of these.


I remembered the one above because of how I view Paul as a proselyte, and it matches.

To bad its too old to be really useful. I try and not let some older stuff poison the well so to speak.

Great to reflect and mirror on later aspect of the movement, not so much a tool for revieling Paul himself
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Selections of Clementine Recognitions

Anonymous

[Persecutor of the Faith] (date unknown)



[The preceding chapters describe a debate in Jerusalem between the apostles and the leaders of each of the Jewish sects.] * * *And when matters were at that point that they should come and be baptized, some one of our enemies, 20entering the temple with a few men, began to cry out, and to say, What mean ye, O men of Israel? Why are you so easily hurried on? Why are ye led headlong by most miserable men, who are deceived by a magician?' While he was thus speaking, and adding more to the same effect, and while James the bishop was refuting him, he began to excite the people and to raise a tumult, so that the people might not be able to hear what was said. Therefore he began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been arranged with much labour, and at the same time to reproach the priests, and to enrage them with revilings and abuse, and like a madman, to excite every one to murder, saying, 'What do ye? Why do ye hesitate? Oh, sluggish and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces?' When he had said this, he first, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, were carried away with like madness. Then ensued a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him.



But our friends lifted him up, for they were both more numerous and more powerful than the others; but, from their fear of God, they rather suffered themselves to be killed by an inferior force, than they would kill others. But when the evening came the priests shut up the temple, and we returned to the house of James, and spent the night there in prayer. Then before daylight we went down to Jericho, to the number of 5000 men. Then after three days one of the brethren came to us from Gamaliel, whom we mentioned before, bringing us secret tidings that that enemy had received a commission from Caiaphas, the chief priest, that he should arrest all who believed in Jesus, and should go to Damascus with his letters, and that there also, employing the help of the unbelievers, he should make havoc among the faithful; and that he was hastening to Damascus chiefly on this account, because he believed that Peter had fled thither. Apd about thirty days thereafter he stopped on his way while passing through Jericho going to Damascus. At that time we were absent, having gone out to the sepulchres of two brethren which were whitened of themselves every year, by which miracle the fury of many against us was restrained, because they saw that our brethren were had in remembrance before God. * * *

...

Notes



20. This "enemy" is Paul. The same phrase is applied to him in the Letter of Peter to James (above).

I believe your note 20 is incorrect. In the margin of the original, it says that the enemy is Saul -- that is, a pre-conversion Paul.

Note: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol VIII: Pseudo-Clementine Literature.: Chapter LXX | St-Takla.org
See footnote on this page and the next if needed.
 

Tabb

Active Member
Thanks but honestly, he helped set me straight when I first started.

It was his words that made me see things enough to stop me down the wrong road.


There is quite the knowledge there and if you even 1/4 polite he shares. Its more then most with that education.

I do think he's extremely intelligent. I also think he has a wealth of knowledge on religion particularly Christianity. However I feel that maybe he could be a bit more tolerant of someone disagreeing with him. I don't look at these debates on this forum as a competition to see who wins( He even declared himself the winner of the thread) I see it as an opportunity to exchange views and ideas. And C'mon I'm not the first person that has bought up those points about Paul. He's heard all of it before. I can understand being forceful with your argument but lets be respectful.

I'm not going to let one encounter color my opinion of anyone. I'm quite sure he's a nice guy and he has my respect for his religious conviction. I'm going to continue to debate him in the future and lets hope we will give each other mutual respect.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
NP

I don't know how anyone could remember all of these.


I remembered the one above because of how I view Paul as a proselyte, and it matches.

To bad its too old to be really useful. I try and not let some older stuff poison the well so to speak.

Great to reflect and mirror on later aspect of the movement, not so much a tool for revieling Paul himself

Translating them from the original language helps -- it forces you to think about the text very slowly. Defending the translation to a professor and peers makes it sink in even farther.

This topic is fortunate for me because I'm a Pauline scholar - it's fresh on my mind.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
The Cerinthians (Epiphanius, 28.5.1-3)

(ca. 375)



For they use the Gospel according to Matthew-in part, because of the human genealogy, but not all of it-and they adduce this proof-text from

the Gospel: "It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher" [Matt. 10:25]. What then, they say-Jesus was circumcised; be circumcised yourself. Christ lived according to the Law, they say, and you must do the same. Hence some of these, like men seized by poisonous drugs, are convinced by the specious arguments based on Christ's having been circumcised. They break with Paul because he does not accept circumcision, but they also reject him because he said, "You who would be justified by the law have fallen away from grace" [Gal. 5:4] and "If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you" [Gal. 5:2].

This I think falls in the realm of polemic - a light polemic but an attack nonetheless. Ephiphan. does not present evidence that they rejected Paul -- they merely interpret Paul differently -- and in just a few verses.
 

Tabb

Active Member
Dialogue from my favorite scene in the Last Temptation of Christ:



In addition, in the movie The Last Temptation of Christ, which is based on Nikos Kazantzakis’s novel, there is a fantasy scene in which Jesus hears Paul preaching the crucifixion and resurrection. The following exchange takes place:

Jesus: Now I live like a man. I have a family. I eat, work, have children. Do you understand what I’m saying? Don’t go around the world spreading these lies about me. Because I’ll tell everyone the truth.

Paul: Look around you! Look at these people. Do you see the suffering and unhappiness in this world? Their only hope is the resurrected Jesus. I don’t care whether you’re Jesus or not. The resurrected Jesus will save the world; that’s what matters…

I created the truth. I make it out of longing and faith. I don’t struggle to find truth; I build it. If it’s necessary to crucify you to save the world, then I’ll crucify you. And I’ll resurrect you too, whether you like it or not…

You don’t know how much people need God. You don’t know what a joy it is to hold the cross, to put hope in the hearts of men, to suffer, to be killed—all for the sake of Christ. Jesus Christ. Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God. Messiah…

I’m glad I met you. Now I can forget you. My Jesus is much more powerful.4
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Defending the translation to a professor and peers makes it sink in even farther.

.

Oh I bet.

I know debating here keeps me sharp for Family Law :p

And some of the stuff I like is verbatim. Adding to it is slower then I like.

I work way too much.

This topic is fortunate for me because I'm a Pauline scholar - it's fresh on my mind.

I still have quite a bit to finish the class, but what I have completely removed and bias I had towards Paul being able to place him in proper context.

Why people pervert this is beyond me, its human nature not rocket science or conspiracy
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I love catching professors in error to :D


Gives you a smile that last all day.

I don't think it's an error. I can understand why a prof wouldn't want to remind the students that Saul is Paul. But given the context - it is talking about pre-conversion Paul - I would think that the scribe would have written it in correctly. Now sometimes scribes don't, but in my experience with the context running in the right direction and the penchant for teachers to avoid inane questions, it seems to me that Saul would be original here.

Unfortunately the original edition isn't available online but I'll keep an eye out for it next time I'm in the library.

Thanks again for going through the trouble to look it up.
 

Shuttlecraft

.Navigator
Paul got wind that some people in the eartly churches didn't think he was much to look at-
"For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful, but his appearance is unimpressive, and he speaks poorly" (2 Cor 10:10)

No doubt they were hoping for a Charlton Heston lookalike, so he had to sit down and write a letter warning that he was coming to bust their a$$es-
"I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent: On my return I won't spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others" (2 Cor 13:2)

REL-Paul.jpg
 
Top