Orthodox church of St. Elizabeth in NJ

[helenazar]

Yes, the major argument between Peter & Paul - which only goes to show that things haven't changed much in 2000 years!

 And most likely never will  .

[Dashkova]

Well, Paul never even met Jesus, while Peter and James knew him well, so can you blame them for assuming that they were more "qualified" to judge and interpret? The story I learned about this went something like this (I hope I get it right): in order to get more recruits for the new Christian sect, Paul decided to "ease" the requirements by first starting to accept gentiles, which wasn't done before. In order to attract even more new recruits, Paul cancelled the dietary laws and the circumcision laws ( from what I understand that one was a big deterrent! ) among some other original rules, and generally tried to taylor the new rules so that they appealed to the general public more. After he adjusted these things, a lot more people started to flock to him. The other apostles, like Peter and James, were none too happy with this - they felt that Paul is only adjusting things in order to be popular/get more people in, so this is why they renounced him. So according to this view, although orthodoxy may be the oldest out of the three sects, it is by no means the original, since even Jesus himself did not seem to follow the current version (his was pre-Paul)...  

I am not by any means an expert on any religion, I just happen to remember this story I once read.  I hope this doesn't offend anyone as it is meant purely for discussion purposes. But for me, finding out things like this makes me wonder about the authenticity of any religiouos sect...

Yes, seems that  we could use a section on religion here!  

I've got just an undergrad minor in religion but it continues to fascinate and I try to keep up on the new scholarship.  Paul's whole point in "easing" the restrictions had to do with his belief that Jesus himself wanted it that way.  I do believe that Peter, James, et al were behaving like silly twits, Peter was beyond a shadow of a doubt a huge hypocrite and James only joined in the "show" when he realized there was something in it for him (in this world, that is ).  During Jesus' lifetime he was opposed to his brother's ministry to the point of (along with other family members, including Jesus' mother) attempting to basically have Jesus committed or at least keep him from continuing to make a bad name for his family.

As for the original faith, Jesus cannot be the originator of the religion since (at least according to the gospels, which are at the VERY least, highly suspect) he never intended to start a new religion of any type.  As far as any officially organized Christian religion, Orthodox *is* the earliest example and it was based on the practices of the "house churches" established around the region by Paul.

[Georgiy]

Didn't Peter have the dream which revealed that all foods were clean? (I can't remember off the top of my head who had the dream, but I am sure it was Peter).

[helenazar]

I've got just an undergrad minor in religion but it continues to fascinate and I try to keep up on the new scholarship.  Paul's whole point in "easing" the restrictions had to do with his belief that Jesus himself wanted it that way.  I do believe that Peter, James, et al were behaving like silly twits, Peter was beyond a shadow of a doubt a huge hypocrite and James only joined in the "show" when he realized there was something in it for him (in this world, that is ).  During Jesus' lifetime he was opposed to his brother's ministry to the point of (along with other family members, including Jesus' mother) attempting to basically have Jesus committed or at least keep him from continuing to make a bad name for his family.

As for the original faith, Jesus cannot be the originator of the religion since (at least according to the gospels, which are at the VERY least, highly suspect) he never intended to start a new religion of any type.  As far as any officially organized Christian religion, Orthodox *is* the earliest example and it was based on the practices of the "house churches" established around the region by Paul.

 Well, I figured there has to be another side to the story  . How did Paul know that this was what Jesus wanted? He never spoke to him or met him. I know that he supposed to have had a revelation, but suppose for one second that he was wrong ? Why do we want to base everything on one man's revelation (possibly delusion  :-/) ?

[bluetoria]

A very wise person once told me to judge everything 'by its fruits' - the fruits of St. Paul's ministry (& I'm not by any means a St. Paul fan!) was the bringing of Christianity to places beyond Israel. It worked!

[Dashkova]

Didn't Peter have the dream which revealed that all foods were clean? (I can't remember off the top of my head who had the dream, but I am sure it was Peter).

Yes, exactly.  Then Paul caught him in the act of being a hypocrite because it was all fine and dandy to eat previously forbidden foods (and in the company of ...gasp...the uncircumcised, another former no-no) until one day James and his posse came to visit.  As soon as Peter saw James coming he left the table Paul called him on this, but the two never did really see eye to eye.

[Dashkova]

 Well, I figured there has to be another side to the story  . How did Paul know that this was what Jesus wanted? He never spoke to him or met him. I know that he supposed to have had a revelation, but suppose for one second that he was wrong ? Why do we want to base everything on one man's revelation (possibly delusion  :-/) ?

Of course he could have been wrong, because, like you said, he never met the man.  He did apparently have access to the "J" scroll, which was probably a collection of the sayings of Jesus and from which Matthew, Mark, and Luke borrowed heavily.  This is what Paul based his beliefs upon and added to that massive amounts of classical Greek philosophy (which is apprently what Jesus based his teachings on, but we don't know any of that for sure because unless Jesus spoke Greek -- and he likely did -- we have not a single word directly from him) and this is how the Christian "doctrine" was formed.  The basic tenets upon which were built Western Civilization came from Paul, not Jesus.
And that civilization comes with a lot of good and a lot of bad baggage.

[helenazar]

Thanks, Dashkova, that's very interesting!

[Dashkova]

A very wise person once told me to judge everything 'by its fruits' - the fruits of St. Paul's ministry (& I'm not by any means a St. Paul fan!) was the bringing of Christianity to places beyond Israel. It worked!

It worked, but I wouldn't say it was necessarily a good thing.  Islam spread a great deal more quickly.  

Christianity is built upon pretty much all of the great ancient religions, its themes really weren't anything new, just in a new garb.  Paul, by travelling the Roman roads in the near east, was able to spread the faith (remember at the time "mystic" faiths were quite the fashion among the well-to-do) in the urban centers along those highways.  So, Christianity was very much a citified religion, patronized by wealthy individuals, and in particular, wealthy *women* (Mary Magdalene was very likely one of the earliest).  The interest held by the wealthy naturally got the attention of Constantine (didn't hurt that his mother and daughter converted, as well) and it was he that made the religion "official" which led to the even more rapid growth.  But his decision to make it the official faith of the empire had nothing to do with his personal beliefs, and when he held the council to determine the canon of what would become the New Testament, he made sure the focus was on the "imperial" aspects of Christ, and he ditched most of the books that were of a more mystical quality, including those that clearly spoke of human (particularly, female) equality.

[Dashkova]

Thanks, Dashkova, that's very interesting!

The study of religious scholarship is one of my greatest passions.  If only it were profitable, I would have taken it up in grad school.  History is impoverished enough, but positions as religion scholars are as rare as those for art historians (another passion that unfortunately must remain a hobby!)

[helenazar]

Yeah, that's a shame, because I think it is one of the most interesting subjects. I also really like biblical archeology, which is along the same lines. And I have all the episodes of the "Mysteries of the Bible" on A&E taped .

[Dashkova]

Yeah, that's a shame, because I think it is one of the most interesting subjects. I also really like biblical archeology, which is along the same lines. And I have all the episodes of the "Mysteries of the Bible" on A&E taped .

Oh yes, I confess to tuning in (sadly, only during breaks) to those shows and others...though sometimes they can get a little too cheesy, my favorite in that category is the one where they talk about UFOs in the Bible...sheesh...talk about mixing mythologies.  But then again, if one is going to buy much of what is written about in the Bible, why not throw in alien involvement with the ancients as well?

[helenazar]

Oh yes, I confess to tuning in (sadly, only during breaks) to those shows and others...though sometimes they can get a little too cheesy...

Yes, sometimes cheesy, but so much fun to watch!    There are some others on A&E along those lines that are great! What is the one with Avery Brooks called? I forgot.

...my favorite in that category is the one where they talk about UFOs in the Bible...sheesh...talk about mixing mythologies.  But then again, if one is going to buy much of what is written about in the Bible, why not throw in alien involvement with the ancients as well?

Yes, sooner or later, those UFO's must show up, don't they?  

[Georgiy]

Ah, the "Chariots of the Gods" school of history!