Great interview! I have mentioned that Paul seems to be preaching a unique gospel of his own accord and my Christian friends get VERY uncomfortable. It's so sad because I am simply observing what is obviously written in the Bible but they have a deep emotional need to justify everything they are taught in their church no matter how much it contradicts history, the scriptures and most regrettably, the truth.
It’s because they are idol-worshippers, of a particular version of a book & letter compilation (the Bible), and of a man, Paul/Saul of Tarsus, the false apostle who hijacked the ethical Kingdom ministry of Jesus and turned it into immoral/carnist/statist blood worship.
Not just Christian people defend Paul. Even Torah observant followers of Yah defent Paul. It's horrible. I have a bible verse in my head: Mark 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. seems Yah is waking up more and more people to Paul being THE wolf warned about by Yahusha
So the question arises: who was worthy of being followed?: James & the Disciples who actually met, learnt from and were chosen by Jesus to carry his message, or Paul who never met Jesus besides a claimed vision he had, contradicted the teachings of Jesus as understood by his chosen Disciples (even had animosity towards them), and preached a theology contrary to that of the Old Testament Prophets?
Took the words out my mouth buddy. The only thing in common they had was preaching about Jesus but Paul was preaching words Jesus never said . For example . 1. JESUS taught that his followers should follow the Torah (Law). 2. Preached the gospel of the kingdom. 3. Presented Himself as the Messiah and King of the Jews. 4. "kingdom of heaven" as Israel's prophetic earthly kingdom. 5. Preached repentance, keeping the Law & Commandments forgiving others, as necessary for salvation. 1. PAUL taught that the Torah (Law) should be abandoned. 2. Preached the gospel of the grace of God. 3. Presented Jesus as the risen Lord, Head of the Church, the body of Christ. 4. "kingdom of heaven" - heavenly position of the body of Christ 5. Preached faith alone in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as necessary for salvation.
I came to my feeling about saul/paul being a self appointed apostle preaching a different message just thru reading the Bible and NT. As well as reaching that conclusion after being originally raised Catholic and only having access to the nt as we were discouraged from reading the Torah. Well finally reading torah and the Bible was an eye opener. But also i suffer from temporal lobe seizures which can produce vivid hallucinations that seem completely real. I often wondered if that was Paul's throrn. It took paul so long to go meet the true apostles. I would have rushed right to them fallen on my knees and begged forgiveness for percecuting them. To me, he seemed arrogant and full of himself rather than humbled. So after reaching my conclusions about paul I scoured the web to see if others had also reached the same conclusion and was relieved i was not all alone. YESHUA could have left us his direct teachings himself, the fact that he did not speaks volumes to me. Our Father already left His teachings for us. YESHUA came to rescue us from damnation, not to bring a new religion.
This is so interesting. For me its obvious that they did split in Antioch, which we can read in Galatians 2 12 to 14. Acts is not considered reliable. Today every Christian follows Paul. That's one reason I rejected Christianity
@@koreyoneal2623 I rejected Christianity completely. And saying his name in Hebrew doesn't make it more true or more special. The fact is, we know that he was Jewish Christian, but the faith doesnt exist anymore. Their writings are more or less lost. If it would have been preserved fully, I maybe would have followed it. I am a huge fan of James the Just.
@@germanboy14 but James was Yeshua's brother and was left in charge after Yeshua ascended , if you follow the teachings of James you're following the teachings of Yeshua and you can't say that their teachings have been lost , they're in the front of your bible minus the animal sacrifices
@@koreyoneal2623 The problem lies in what Jesus taught in the flesh verses what Paul attributes to his vision. It makes no sense that there wasn't a consistent message...On that note, look at how diverse Christianity is today. 😮 If the message was obvious then Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, ( and Jews for that matter)etc., would have the same path/requirements, imo.
Since i learned a lot the last years about Paul to me he is an imposter, a narcicist who saw the chance to abuse the new Jesus movement to become so influencial. He saw his stakeholders among the pageans, the Greco-Roman establishment. He was a Herodoan and most likely homo sexual why he could not become a high priest in Jerusalem. So he abandonned the Thora and opened his own Hellenistic-Egyptian myth blending with the Jesus ideas and a cracy Real-Fleh-Ressurrection... and always imagine that all his Pauline stories and the Gospel is most likely written under and by Marcin and after him his Material was caoninized as totally anti Thora and anti Jewish. Listen Dr. Markus Vinzent about Marcion and the first Gospels!.
I think you'll appreciate a paper that was written on Paul's homosexuality as it relates to Onesimus and Philemon. I think you can find it by searching for, "The sexual use of slaves and Philemon".
@@edwardmiessner6502 Jesus' disciples travelled around preaching with their wives. Paul travelled with teenage boys like Timothy and Luke... There were certainly rumors of homosexuality/pedophilia
Thank you finally someone else said this. Why all this uproar when Paul comes on the scene. I kept asking Christians this because I noticed this right away. If the disciples are preaching the same thing as Paul why as soon as Paul comes saying the same thing they are on the hunt to k1ll him? It made no sense to me. Unless Paul came preaching something to them no one else was teaching.
Fwiw, one of the things I didn't understand but think I do now is those folks Paul is talking about/countering in his letters isn't the "Jewish establishment," but those following James...What I DO wonder about is how prominent James was at the Temple. Dunno.
@@paulallenscards See Acts 23:12-35...Fwiw, the real question for me is why would the Romans have reason (or care) to whisk him away? Again, I think Dr Eisenman is correct that Paul had Roman citizenship and was friends or family of the Herodians. That's my take.
@@Zen_Traveler also strange, though not implausible, that Paul would be commissioned by the high priest to round up messianic Jews (which was not known to be a crime) in Damascus of all places, when the Jesus movement’s center of gravity is in Jerusalem at the time. So many more questions than we have answers, I suppose. But I do agree that his surreptitiously high status points in exactly the direction that you identified: that he belongs to a family with true Roman citizenship, which was not an easy thing to come by for a Jew and would almost certainly carry with it some sort of link back to the Herodian throne.
I think Paul did actually meet Jesus on the way to Damascus. Etc. Later I believe he was given more insight into the new covenant which was Jesus intended goal. He undoubtedly experienced several NDE/obe interaction with Jesus. More than one .
Thank you so much. I have read Christianity described as the victory of St Paul over Christ, and listening to you certainly clar,ifies the issues and the very human responses to them. Poor Jesus! If only he had known.,
Jesus knew. Mathew 17:22-23 is about them: On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.
I am a huge fan of Dr. Wilson...he's brilliant, I love listening to and learning from him. He really makes the dynamic of the early movement and James, for me, much more digestible.
As someone who definitely thinks that Paul was a false Apostle , I very much enjoyed this presentation , so thank you Jacob for having Barrie on your program . There's just one thing that Barrie was wrong about and it's something that most Christians get wrong also , they don't read past Acts 10 so they think that Peter's vision was about clean and unclean foods but if one continues on to Acts 11 you'll see that it wasn't about food , the unclean animals represented gentiles : Acts 11:18 KJV 18)"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life"
@@koreyoneal2623 We follow Paul's gospel and that is that. Anything else is not Christianity. You are obviously not born again and so don't know how to understand and rightly divide the scriptures.
Paul an evil person reviving a long awaited Greek Myth through Another; Angst-Jesus. Saul/Paul, Pan the Shepard. Goats in with lambs. Yeshua isnt in accord with Saul /Flavian / Denigrating the Beast.
Jacob, thank you for having Barrie on. I have learned from others already that Paul was a liar, a false Apostle and a deceitful worker, a grifter, a scam artist, and a complete narcissist. He seems to be a mid-First Century televangelist!
I can't think of any personal gain for Paul. On the contrary, everywhere Paul went he was met with trouble. Was it worth it if he was knowingly spreading a false religion?
Jesus Christ and his Desciples never heard these names, words and doctrine. 1. Christianity. 2. Church. 3. Holy Bible. 4. Trinity. 5. Redemption. 6. Atonement.
I thumbed-up your comment, but I think you're incorrect. Jesus and James, being Jews, would know "holy Bible" (but in Hebrew, hasefer kadosh), and they'd CERTAINLY know about atonement (Yom Kippur is mentioned in Leviticus, which was finalized during the Persian empire between 538-332 BCE) Nonetheless, the point you're making is 100% valid -- Jesus and James had *no* affinity for word meanings that Paul, etc., gave to these words...
@@sheltr9735 What I mean is that Jesus and James don't have Holy Bible(old & new testament) in their hand and they did't know and never heard Christian doctrine of Redemption and Atonement.
I think there’s some very good points but as I’ve been led to understand it, Jesus preached to Jews with the Old Covenant and Paul preached a different Gospel (revealed by Jesus/New Covenant) to the Gentiles. The question is then does it contradict what Jesus said? We can all probably agree there’s differences because of the difference of audience , but different paths can lead to the same destination - Differences doesn’t necessarily mean contradictions. I think a lot of what Paul says is taken out of context. He explicitly states faith above all else but DOES NOT disregard good works. If the Bible is written and canonised by men with the power of the Holy Spirit, does it not undermine the Holy Spirit with Paul being the New Testaments biggest contributor? Additionally, If the Holy spirit informed Peter of the lies of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts, surely the Holy spirit would have warned them about Paul too? If 13-14 of the 27 New Testament books are attributed to Paul, why is there no backlash of his writings being canonised through the ages? Is Paul being an Apostle ever questioned/accepted by 1-Apostles and 2- by early church fathers? At Council Of Nicea? Council of Constantinople? I think it’s a fascinating topic and a really good discussion. 👏
From my understanding, Martin Luther wanted to exclude James from the scriptures because it involved salvation by works. Imagine, he didn't like the idea of making people accountable for their actions. Not sure what convinced him to reluctantly keep it in the NT.
Salvation is by Faith in Christian belief but not by faith alone.Our works do matter for without them our faith is dead.James 2.24.Paul disagreed with Jesus in many things and so invented the Christ figure more to his made up theology.Jesus had nothing in common with Paul.Nothing!!!
@@rafaelrolino How can you believe in him if you refuse to listen to him. VERSE 27 states do not Labour for food that perishes.....earthly food is necessary to sustain earthly life but because it perishes it does not suffice to give us supernatural life.Only Christ can give us supernatural food that satisfies our spiritual hunger and gives us everlasting life.The subsequent narrative will identify this heavenly food as the Eucharist 6.50-58.
@@rafaelrolino Nowhere did Jesus say that justification is by faith alone. NOWHERE!!! JAMES 2 .24 CLEARLY STATES ONE IS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS AND NOT!!! BY FAITH ALONE!! Don't abuse the word of God even to the point of saying things Jesus himself did not say..Thank you!
Thank you Jacob and Dr Wilson for this content. I follow as much about this timeframe as I can and can't help but think Robert Eisenman is one of the most prominent scholars on this material that most people don't talk about...Gotta admit you REALLY need to be interested to get to the end of his books! Lol. 😊 {Note: I have seen him here and realize he's getting along in age.}
There are NO CONTRADICTIONS between the teachings of PAUL and JAMES... Apostle Paul to the Gentiles teaches the Gentiles and Israelites that by God's GRACE they are SAVED through FAITH in Christ without the "WORK of the LAW" (Mosaic/Moses Law) to boast of... (ref. Rom. 3:27-28 / Gal. 2:1627/ Eph.3:8-9). While Apostle James teaches the True Christians who worship God in Spirit and in Truth that they are SAVED by God's Grace through FAITH in Christ by applying GOOD (righteous) WORKS (Charity of Love) towards their Neighbors/foes alike as commanded by Christ Jesus...For FAITH without WORK is a "DEAD FAITH"... (ref. James 2:1-26). Take Note: ... Apostle Paul's AUDIENCES were Gentiles (atheists) and Israelites... while Apostle James's AUDIENCES were already CHRISTIAN believers... In conclusion, Apostle Paul's letters/Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians that to be SAVED, Gentiles and Jews must need NOT the "WORK of the LAW" to BOAST of... However, Apostle James teaches that True Christians need to apply the Good (Righteous) WORK (Charity of Love) into their Lives taught by Christ Jesus towards their Neighbors/foes alike just as they loved themselves, to justify their FAITH in Christ Jesus... True Christians no longer need the "LAW of Moses/Mosaic" but they need the "LAW of Christ Jesus" to be SAVED... as simple as that... no contradiction between the two Apostles... if we analyze their teachings carefully with the guidance of the Holy Spirit... Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically and Logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Around the 30 minute mark the guy admits his book is a fictitious and his opinion on the “controversy”. The interviewer asks “did Paul kill James?” The interviewee responds there is no evidence and “as a DA i wouldn’t take this to court”. I.E. this is a lie that suits his worldview and would like others to doubt Paul because he presents it as “fact”. Remember in politics you don’t call someone a “goat ducker” because you believe it to be true. But to get the accused to deny and defend his dignity.
Thank you Jacob for having Dr Wilson on. His book would seem to capture a fascinating concept that very few have studied. I just don't understand why if James and his followers were pious Jews would the high priest give Paul a commission to hunt them down? And even after Paul's vision and conversion was he really any less adversarial towards them?
The answers are found in God's word but only if one gives God the right to change the gospel (good news) to whatever He wishes with it. E.g. from Kingdom gospel to Gospel of Grace.
Read what Biblical scholars and others had to say about Paul. A wake up call to the Christians. Soren Kierkegaard, Danish Christian philosopher and theologian, observes in “The Journals:” “What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down; making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ.” Miguel de Unamuno, Spanish essayist, novelist and playwright, writes in “The Agony of Christianity:” “During Christ’s lifetime, Paul would never have followed (Jesus).” Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence; writes in his “Letter to William Short:” “Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” In the book “Christ or Paul?” the Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore writes: “Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught. For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message. That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world. If we apply to Paul the test ‘by their fruits ye shall know them’ it is abundantly clear that he was a false prophet.” Frederick Engels, German philosopher and father of Marxist theory, writes in “On the History of Early Christianity:” “Attempts have been made to conceive all the messages of John’s Revelation/Apocalypse as directed against Paul, the false Apostle. The so-called Epistles of Paul are not only extremely doubtful but also totally contradictory.” Bishop John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, USA, writes in his book, “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism:” “Paul’s words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference.” Rudolf Bultman, a theologian, writes in his “Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul:” “It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his views. When the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus’ teaching is- to all intents and purposes- irrelevant for Paul.” H.G. Wells, famous English science-fiction writer, observes in “The Outline of History:” “It is equally a fact in history that St. Paul and his successors added to or completed or imposed upon or substituted another doctrine for- as you may prefer to think- the plain and profoundly revolutionary teachings of Jesus by expounding a subtle and complex theory of salvation, a salvation which could be attained very largely by belief and formalities, without any serious disturbance of the believer’s ordinary habits and occupations.” Gene Savoy, American theologian and clergyman, declares in his “The Essaei Document:” “Paul’s Christianity is another matter. He taught a different kind of theology than that shared by the original disciples who were schooled under Jesus. Paul was the father of Pagan Christianity; a movement based on a concept completely foreign to Jesus. The teachings of Jesus the Messiah were overshadowed by the teachings of Paul.” Thomas Cosette, a Christian scholar, writes in “Hebrew Prophecies of the Coming of Paul:” “This man Paul hijacked what is called the church. But he can only keep those who do not love the truth. Those who still have conscience and will compare his teaching and his testimony to Y’shva’s and the prophets without granting Paul’s testimony (is) the Word of God but (is) just another man’s testimony in light of Jesus’ teachings. Then they will discover that Paul usurps the truth.” Patrick Henry writes in “New Directions in New Testament Study:” “There remains in the popular mind a strong suspicion that Paul corrupted Christianity (or even founded a different religion). Paul imported into the Christian community a form of religion characteristic of the ‘mysteries’ religious movements of initiation into secret rites and esoteric knowledge.” Walter Bauer, an eminent German theologian and scholar of the development of the early Christian churches, writes in his “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity:” “If one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly the Apostle Paul was the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age.” Michael Baigent, author and speculative theorist declares in “The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception:” “Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he’d begun to regard as his ‘Savior.’ He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus’ teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus.” Paul Johnson, English journalist, historian and author, writes in “A History of Christianity:” “Writings by Christian Jews of the decade of the 50’s AD present Paul as the Antichrist and the prime heretic. The Christology of Paul, which later became the substance of the universal Christian faith, was predicated by an external personage whom many members of the Jerusalem Church absolutely did not recognize as an Apostle.” The last word belongs to Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the United States. He writes in “The Age of Reason:” “Paul’s writing is no better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told.”
@@willempasterkamp862 you do know that the idea behind your last sentence is used by biblical authors and the genealogy of jesus right? also , you eat pork when your god used it as an insult. think about it lol
@@salman13 Paul (saleh) = Drusus germanicus = dhul Qarnain = Cornelius = Andrew the elder = James the Just = the Kwisatz Haderach (simplifier). Peter (hud) is more of the tsaddik (worrier) = LA Seneca = Aaron = Jair = Cephas (chef/shah) = the Padishah = Simon Magus (pope). They met each other on the road (huqoq elephants mosaic) . It are all claudians (people of Aad/height = nazoreans, nicolaitans). make choclate of this and eat your cake.
I think the core problem that is beeing ommited here is that Jesus was preaching of a loving, forgiving and benevolent god, while the jews believe in a jealous, hateful and violent god. The early Christians completly rejected the jewish god, it was only in later centuries that the christians started to adopt the jewish god again and created the current canon in which god kinda had a character growth moment when he became a father, which is really silly if you think about it. Also I think Barrie Wilson greatly overstates the importance of James among Jesus followers, he was not the only disciple of Jesus and there were others that spawned different sects of christianity. Most of them rejected the jewish god or considered him to be the devil. Paul wasn't the "anti jewish" christian.
Paul vs James is a false narrative. It assumes, incorrectly, that the Apostle Paul had been redeemed. from the Law when James wrote his epistle. Actually, the Crucifixion that would accomplish that redemption was still in the future. Both James and Paul talk about faith but from two drastically different perspectives. James from his day to day experiences with Jesus before the Crucifixion, and Paul, decades later, from his supernaturally derived lessons from the Ressurected Savior.
My study of the book "What you weren't taught in Sunday school" made me search this topic because Jerald F. Dirks (a former ordained minister) clearly talks about how Paul went against the elders of Jerusalem church. He has some youtube videos as well.
Ebionites would not eat at the same table with non-Ebionites. James was a vegetarian.” (Prof. Robert Eisenman in, James the Just, The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls) “James, the brother of the Lord, lived on seeds and plants and touched neither meat nor wine.” (Epistulae ad Faustum XXII, 3) “James, the brother of the Lord was holy from his mothers womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh.”(Hegesippus, quoted in The Church History of Eusebius, book 2, chapter 23) “John never ate meat.” “James, the brother of the Lord, lived on seeds and plants and touched neither meat nor wine.” The Apostle Thomas: “He continually fasts and prays, and abstaining from the eating of flesh…” “…The Apostle Matthew partook of seeds, and nuts, hard-shelled fruits, and vegetables, without flesh.” Peter said, “I live on olives and bread, to which I rarely only add vegetables…” “The unnatural eating of flesh meats is as polluting as the heathen worship of devils…” (Peter, Clementine Homilies)
I have seen no evidence of God liking vegans or vegetarians, or it being "holy". Milk & Meat was, in large part, responsible for giving us the intellectual edge over the other animals. Cain was a vegetarian/vegan, Abel was not. After the event, it was told to Adam that is was okay to do, and after Noah, Man was literally instructed - to eat meat. The home of the Hebrew People was literally called, "the Land of Milk and Honey". Elijah, the "greatest prophet of all time", ate meat, as did Jesus. I almost died following a Paleo-Vegan diet a few years back (nuts, seeds, fruits, tubers, gourds/melons and some vegetables), and it wrecked my health, parts of it, irreversably; lifelong Vegans suffer from more maladies than they avoid; so NOT something God would suggest doing. Besides, why would an all-knowing God design Mankind with a need for a nutrient, that can ONLY be processed by the human body through the eating of Red Meat (B12), and then deny us the ability to eat it? But then again, you quoted Historians not Scripture, with their own level and set of knowledge, biases and beliefs, the "opinion" of Humans, not the Truths of God, so to speak. I guess what I'm trying to say is, besides politics, I can not think of a more Luciferian doctrine, than Vegetarian/Veganism.
In the garden of Eden they were vegetarian/vegan. The New Jerusalem will be back in the garden and there will be no more death. Rev_21:4 And YHWH shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. Cain and Abel's sacrifices were switched by lying meat eating scribes. The book of Adam and Eve has Cain raising and sacrificing animals. Isa 22:13 but they engaged in joy and gladness, slaying calves, and killing sheep, so as to eat flesh, and drink wine; saying, Let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die. Isa 22:14 And these things are revealed in the ears of the Lord of hosts: for this sin shall not be forgiven you, until ye die. Hos 8:13 They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of mine offerings, and eat it; but YHWH accepteth them not; now will he remember their iniquity, and visit their sins: they shall return to Egypt. Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
@@fourpoint9 Yeah, anyone can claim something, proving it is the problem, any data to support your "altered sacrifice" claim? Look at ALL of Nature; the Predator does not exist to be population control for the Prey, the Prey exists, to feed the Predator. All life lives off the death of other life, directly or indirectly. The world is not for the plant eaters, you exist to feed me. The weaker and dumber the prey, the better it is for the predator, in every aspect. And if the prey does not compete for food sources, all the better. Plant Eaters die in a drought, Meat Eaters eat the Plant Eaters and survive. We were unthinking animals in the Garden, it is when we decided to rise above that simple status, that we were ejected. Eating plants kept us dumb and docile and in need of adult supervision. Eating meat set us free from this and made us superior to other animals, and we were placed, by God, in Dominion over all other animals. I am a Child of God as an adult being able to process Milk, I would just be a typical animal if I could not. If a vegan/vegetarian diet will ultimately lead to reduced IQ, and if, as you claim, it makes you Holy, does God want or need us to be stupid?
The idea that the Supreme Priest had some kind of authority in Damascus to the point he could order someone arrested there is ridiculous in any context let alone in the Roman Empire 1 century AD context
I appreciate Dr. Wilson's attention to Paul's ethics. If you tell your followers that the law doesn't matter, on what do you base your moral mandates? And how do you expect them to know what you mean with terms like 'sexual immorality'? Ultimately, it seems to me that Paul ends up saying 'because I say so!' It's not like he can defer to the local synagogue, or the church in Jerusalem...
Especially since in Acts 15 Paul is ordered to take a letter to his churches ordering them to observe abstinence from blood, meat sacrificed unto idols, and improper sexual connexions. Paul discards this letter and tells his churches in Galatia at least that James asked him and them to "remember the poor."
Yes, but his vision was his conviction. Just as Paul had a change in mind when he had a vision of Christ. An important encounter in one’s relationship with God. For example, upon my Awakening I began my 40 days fast, and on day 10 I had a vision, a sign was drawn before my eye, a laser red seven in the shape of the Talon of the Dragon. Followed by a pink Sun Cross, it’s own bottom right was Sanctified in laser red. That was 18 years ago and I’m only now discovering the intricate details of our Lord ~
a lot comes down to whether you accept Luke;s accounts as truthful representations or attempts at smoothing over the theological differences. Church tradition really gets in the way of how we interpret obvious passages in the book of Acts.
1) Textual scholars give high marks to Luke's accounts as recounts of in-person witnessing 2) Church traditions lock theological knowledge down so future revelations/clarifications are blocked. Some early Christians called Jews Christ-killers despite the fact that only Romans had the authority to put citizens to death. As textual understanding and archeology continue to expand knowledge, the plans of God are clarified.
PErhaps Dr Wilson can help me my number one question.. "Under James, was the yearly Passover observed " as before Christ's "atonement" That will fill out a lot of blanks... PAUL AND PETER AND ALL THE APOSTLES WERE ONE IN ACTS 15, Until James adds more laws after Peter pushes against his own struggles of law keeping . Anybody else?
You are the 1st individual that I've read who seems to understand that Peter's speech was made possible by his experience with the Gentile, Cornelius, a few years earlier. I.e. that there was a change in the salvation plan of God from law + faith to Faith alone. Read verse 11 of Acts 15 for the fact of this change, "We must be saved as are they" NOT They must be saved as are we. Gods plans move forward not backward. I was prompted by the Berean Bible Society to recognize this change and am so grateful to them. It cleared up serious mysteries.
@@edwardwalsh5477what is paul going to know over james and peter, he didnt even meet jesus, james was the leader in palestine. Turn to muhammed peace be upon him for answers.
In Arabic, a sister language to Aramaic and Hebrew, a similar worx Sadiq, Siddique means honest, truthful, trustworthy. So James (May Allah have mercy on him), the brother of Jesus (peace be upon him) was an honest and trustworthy man. Paul does not come close to James in comparison.
Jacon, Dr. Wilson stuck an important point with his inquiry into second generation perspectives. In a recent video I was alarmed by the student of John, Papias, and Papias's elaboration on the death of Judas. He seems to feel he has some sanctioned privilege to add to the story. This is important as he was acting in honor of John and must have been taught this perspective fifty years after the event. What sort of man [John] carries that kind of visceral hate for someone else, and for decades? There has been no trespass. John wants his hatred to be carried through history. None of the circumstances surrounding the Crucifixion warrant this degree of vengeance.
so they claim that Papius was a student of John. a later tradition, very unlikely. his quotes on Jesus are completely off. he knows nothing about the historical christ.
@@Marabarra1341. Were you there nearly two millenia ago observing Jesus entire ministry to know Jesus did not say what Papias attributes to him 2. One of the more silly to people sounding sayings Papias documents is pretty much a quotation of 2 Baruch implying either it was an existing valid source for Jesus to quote or if its not authentic Jesus accepted a tradition the text derrived from.
GREAT question: Why was Paul the guy picked to track down Christians? Fantastic! Then, "Who were these thugs?" What a fantastic question. Definitely getting this book.
Denial of the Scripture and denial of the deity of Christ. This is anti-Christianity. If Peter and Paul got along, except for that one time where Paul had to rebuke him, how were they against one another? This video makes no sense.
It is amazing to me that how gentile Christianity became what it is. The Jerusalem community which at that time was considered like the Vatican which James as the pope.
i suppose it is a difficult subject as James' (Jacob's) posse remained a Temple centred Jesus movement, whereas the message Paul produced was more like Judaism for the masses (more like the Noachide movement of today).
I do not see how you can use Peter's vision that all foods were on the table given the explanation is given a short while later. nothing about eating forbidden food, just that he could now eat with Gentiles and given the person he went to see was a god-fearer who probably lived a jewish lifestyle anyone, would not have been eating the bottom feeders anyway.
if you pay attention to What God Said,, after He Made the critters,, He Call'd them good,, Jesus Said it's NOT what goes into the mouth but what comes OUT of the mouth that makes a man unclean,, food had NOTH'N to do with it,, in Revelation,, Jesus did NOT rebuke people for eat'n "unclean" animals JUST food sacrificed to idols,,, hence all the critters on the sheet,,,, MAN MADE the food laws,,, the Torah is corrupt as the modern bible,,, the Torah says kill the WOMAN when adultry is found,, NOT the man,, JUST THE WOMAN,, cold blood'd murder,, God Said do NOT kill,,, and if you recall,, Moses did NOT get to enter the Promised Land,,,,,,,,,
but there is another way to interpret Galatians and it is Paul's rant against trying to find covenant membership by conversion (of ethnic status) to being Jewish.
In the book of Acts where Peter has a vision about all sorts of animals coming down from heaven and he can eat all of them. Up till then Peter had been following the dietary laws and all of a sudden… All it does is take a vision…changes his whole attitude and he now becomes comfortable with a non-Jewish diet. That seems so hokey,and so far-fetched that it just makes one roll the eyes. I think Acts is primarily an attempt to impose the Pauline tradition upon everything. (36:00)
The whole Gospel & literal reason why Jesus was put to death was because he didn't follow the supposed "Law" of the Sadducees & Pharisees of his time. He established that it was all based on esoteric understanding. When I start hearing people mentioning that it's wrong to eat shellfish, that's when I walk out of the room.
No he was killed because he said he was the king of the Jews and the son of God. He had conflict with the sadducees etc because they used the law of Moses to persecute others and enrich themselves. They also made man made traditions "law".. If the Bible says you shouldn't eat shellfish.... I would suggest it's probably not healthy to eat shellfish regardless if you believe it's right or wrong..
@AaronBowser Right, thus going against the contemporary Jewish "blasphemy laws." Laws which are still in effect today. Muslims believe the same way. The very surface level, carnal-minded understanding which plagues the world then, & even so today. In this day & age, it seems to me that most Christians carry that same mentality. It really makes no difference to me whether people want to eat shrimp or not, but the point is the spirit behind being so hyper-focused on these details. That's why I understand where Paul/Shaul was coming from when he said such ways of thinking aren't necessary. So when people attack Paul, I take it with a grain of salt because they don't understand where he was coming from. Whether someone wants to observe 613 laws or not; as long as they acknowledge the Divinity of the Son as an emanation of the Father, that's the point. If they don't, then it ceases to matter how meticulous they want to follow a worldly program.
@@VisualizeInside-mt2li well look at it like this... God our father says don't eat shellfish... Why? Just to make up a new rule? Or because it's not healthy? We as the child decide to eat it anyway... Does that mean God now damns you to hell? No, of course not but it shows that you put more faith in your judgment than his because you've decided you've found no reason why you shouldn't eat shellfish and thus it's ok. As a father I tell my son you can't play Nintendo all day... He doesn't understand why but I know the effects of allowing him to do so... He sneaks and plays while I'm not around... I catch him... Am I upset? Yes. Do I disown my son? No... But it does show my son lacks respect for my authority and faith in my judgements even though I only want what's best for him.... Fast forward until he is 25...if he now continues to walk his own path... I have to let him do so... Even if I know it will hurt him... And he can no longer live in my house because he will be a bad example for his little brother... I hope that clears it up... Eating the shellfish is not that big of an issue... But the lack of faith in God's word is...
I can't help thinking that in the ending of this interview there was a feeling of sadness that Jesus' message/movement under the guardianship of James had been hijacked/taken over by the Pauline gentile Catholic Church. The people who had actually been with Jesus and received instructions directly from him, ie. the Nazarenes, had lost to the "Christians" of Paul. As Dr. Wilson says, it was "hokey" the way Peter forsook the Jewish dietary Law (hint, hint: another vision yet again aka Saul becoming Paul). Jesus knew what was to happen to his flock and hence he mentions that in his Second Coming he will dismiss these misled "Christians" as evil doers, workers of Lawlessness.
These "Jewish Bishops" in early second century in Jerusalem that Jacob mentions are only known to exist in the "very unreliable" (according to modern scholars) gentile historian Eusebius' book of "Ecclesiastical history."
Does this mean that Saul (before he became known as Paul) was never persecuting the early Christians? Were the early Christians ever actually persecuted?
My understanding is that early Christians were not persecuted, but rather prosecuted... They were desecrating temples to other gods, and were legally prosecuted for committing those crimes... This is very different from persecution.
I believe that we have a letter from pliny the younger to the emperor asking him what to do with some Christians that the local Jewish authorities had brought before him. He had no idea who they were or why the Jew were making such a fuss.
Prior to Moses receiving the law, people were rendered righteous via faith (Genesis 12:1-3, James 2:23, Galatians 3:6, and Hebrew 11). 2. Jesus asserts that Christians are the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth (Matthew 5:13-16). James emphasizes this when he says, FAITH WITHOUT ACTION IS DEAD (James 2:17-23)... Paul emphasizes this in his behavior and education (1 Corinthians 5:13, Acts 18:3, 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 3:6, among others). In conclusion, a Christian must bear witness and reflect God's light in his or her behavior, speech, and labor (22 Thessalonians 3:10). Until his death, Paul served as an excellent example of a working Christian. James and Paul argued in faith, and neither contradicted the other! 3. If you believe Paul was against the commandments, why would He encourage the church to break away from the evildoers in the church (11 Corinthians 5:13)? Reasons: i. According to Hebrews 10:26, a rescued person lives in light rather than sin. Why would someone require commandments if they're situated in the light? And if one requires commandments, a sacrifice must be offered to atone for his or her sin once more, despite being "saved"! The process will end the Cross's work.
ii. Paul was aware of the Perfect Sacrifice( Christ) & the work of the Holy Spirit that puries and renews( John 15:18-20, 1 Corinthians 6:11,Colosians 3:2, 1 John 5-10 among others). Why else would paul say Wreched man I'm. Paul was aware of the fact that not keeping the commantments is sin. Another assumption is that our fleshly impulses and actions undermine the power of the law (Romans 8:3). As a result, Christ is the only one who can put flesh (sin) to death so that one might be called saved! For example, when the Pharisees imposed regulations on people that they couldn't bear, Jesus had to call them out. An action that shows Paul correct in the sense that it demonstrates that the law was frequently abused, rendering it ineffective( Mathew 23). Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Read no longer under the law) Paul and James are saying the same thing. James speaks about the FRUITS of Faith like Paul does. James 2: 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
I dispute that Paul or the immediate followers of Paul believed Jesus was a pre-existent divine being. That would be a teaching of some Gnostic groups though. - Dr.G.Craig Fairweather.
What i hate about Paul is that he spoke for and against the law, and the messianic Torah obsetvant community does head gymnastics to defend Paul by saying he was speaking against the oral law but he spoke for Yahuah's law. Its so awful that i cannot even create a proper case to show people that Paul is THE wolf prophecied by Yahusha. It sucks on so many levels.
What do you mean? Even Peter declared that Paul's writings were the word of God. How's Paul was a impoustor? He didn't write against the teachings of Jesus, he did write about the grace of God. The Torah law is no longer required because it was a law for an physical kingdom. Now we are living a spiritual kingdom.
The more I learn details about Paul - about how his Christianity was so different form both the words of Jesus and the teachings of the disciples who actually walked & talked with Him during His 3 year mission - the more I see him as a 1st Century Joseph Smith. Smith, who founded the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), took some of the bones of traditional Christianity and used them to flesh out a whole new creature.
Do question who appear to be false teachers but be careful how you study the Word which, in this case shows Paul to be different from but supportive of the Lord Jesus (as Lord and savior) because of his Damascus Road experience and God's changing directions.
The epistles in which Hebrews are the audience cover following the Law because Christ knew they need the Law until they realize no one can follow it, just like the gentiles had to discover they were sinners by learning the Law for the first time. Ask yourself…what is the purpose of the Law? Funny everything thinks they can follow the Good Works Law of James, but I don’t know anyone who can avoid the no lusting law of Matthew. Everyone needs Christ! The Law and the Prophets is Christ.
He didn't say that. He warned people to be mindful about Paul's writing. Peter was being gracious in his rebuke whereas James was direct. Paul was in direct opposition to what Jesus said and did.
@@davidbradberry7637 Saying so doesn't make it so. Why are you not the liar? You might have provided scripture references. He does admit to dastardly deeds prior to his arrest by God and rebirth by the Spirit. But those were not Christian-motivated so do not shape Christianity nor undermine it or Paul.
@gwmcklintock so you believe parts of the Bible are correct and others are not? Jesus taught the Law, very harshly to those who believed they were righteous. Jesus gave the gospel, life, to those that came humbly and knowing their unrighteousness. The fact that you're claiming a majority of the New Testament is not correct teaching shows alot. You're denying Christian Orthodoxy.
Jesus merely said he would return in their lifetimes, which he did, and raised people out of their graves to go with him ! He never said it would be the millenium.
In regards to Yahusha, i do believe He is the Messiah though as we can see this in Daniel, Zechariah 12:10, i saiah, book of John and book of Revelation unless we chuck out all the books of the new testament. But then we have an issue with what to believe in the new testament.... Paul is a definite nono. What about the other books?
ministries by acknowledging that Paul was in the market for more pagan minded gospel recipients while James spoke with an authority on the previously established people of the descendent s of God's chosen people who had been called to action in the day's of the messiah having fulfilled the rites of the covenant made with Adam's initial act of defiance being paid for in full by the blood of The lamb allowing for reconciliation with The Father Perhaps if wewe apply the prerequisites character of The Wisdom of The Lord that comes from above to this debate, we can get some respite of resolve to the matter? Paul Vs James? For us to pick one side or the other is a demonstration of partiality by definition. Perhaps if we can critically ok implement being without partiality(James 3:17-19 I believe) then we can avoid the ok inevitable hypocrisy that comes from choosing sides in such a case. Perhaps if we agree that Faith is a necessary part of the salvation equation then we can proceed to recognize that those with Faith will subsequently be shown to bear the good fruits of said Faith, then we can understand that Faith without works is a n oxymoron as the latter is made evident by the former. Both of the doctrines are correct in that thought exercise and we can attribute the difference in the approach to their respective ministry
@ElcoJohn It seems like a numbers game coupled with them being the only religion actually trying to get converts, especially amongst the poor masses, up until the 4th century. I've seen their rate compared to the growth of Mormanism today. Fwiw, Dr Ehrman explains it by showing how exponentially it grew in Pagan regions, and of course by the time of Constantine it was viewed favorably and then Theodosius made it official. That's my take.
Paul claims that his gospel came from direct revelation from the post-ascension Jesus. Does this place Paul in the same category as other self-proclaimed prophets in history? I am thinking of Joseph Smith and his restored gospel. Paul performed miracles and started the church in Rome, which set Christianity up to become the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century CE. Is this what places Paul above the rest? Or was Paul just another man preaching a new religion?
Two errors here. 1) Paul wrote Romans but the church existed before he was taken there as a prisoner of Rome. So neither Peter (who is not proven to have entered Rome) nor Paul are the head of the Church. That is the Lord Jesus Christ. 2. Who set the church up to be the official religion of Rome was God. The Pax Romana became an effective aid to spreading of the gospel to the known world. Good question about what sets Paul above the rest. 1) His divine instructions were the last from God - Jesus from heaven. 2) His gospel differed from that pedestrian one (Kingdom). 3) His gospel was to the world! 4) the gospel change was to eliminate the law-keeping for salvation (Faith alone) relegating obedience (law of Christ) to a post redemption process that leads to sanctification completed in heaven by God Himself, not man nor church.
9:10 the kingdom of God had not yet come? This man needs to read the scriptures of the Messiah's teachings. _Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:_ _Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you._
Yes, read both books of Peter and James and you can see that Peter clearly calls Paul, our beloved Paul there is no Bible verses that tell you that these men were fighting
Herodian Paul, King Agrippa II (his relative)and the wicked Sadducee High Priest Ananus II plotted against James the Just after Paul nearly was killed in Acts 21 due to James' lack of action to prevent the assault early on. The viewed the followers of James (from Asia) the main ones who hated Paul for his anti-Torah gospel.
Paul saying he spoke Hebrew in front of the Sanhedrin in Acts is a sure fire way of knowing he’s a liar. Hebrew wasn’t a spoken language in the Second Temple era, it was only used for liturgy. Highly unlikely that most of the Sanhedrin wouldn’t even understand what even saying.
There is no battle, james was a jew who christ didnt even think worthy to be an apostle. James wrote to the jews. Paul to the gentiles and church of God. 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
We have to supposed so many things and there are so many contradictions… Until new information is discovered we have 50/50 certainty of everything is in the NT. We do not even know the year of birth nor death of JC… Less of his apostles and Paul 😁✌🏼
If he's a professing Christian, he's got no faith. I've given this considerable thought also, and I don't think there was any great schism between James and Paul, in fact they were likely good brothers. James's book is not about salvation by works, but it's "if you were charged with being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?", which is not works. Works in Christianity are regarded as the natural outflow of a transformed heart. I agree with Paul's teaching, I disagree with Dr. Wilson's teaching.
Matt 5:17 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. A bit different from the teachings of Paul.
You come to a fork in the road you can't step into the same river twice. Paul got hit on the head by ⚡️⛈️but he seemed to stop trying to kill Jesus followers and allegedly shared some fellowship and letters of divergent matters of interpretation concerning conditioned. Jews and the gentiles.
Paul = James (the Just) = Germanicus = zacharias (huqoq mosaic elephant panel) btw Peter is Lucius Anneus Seneca (minor) = ananias ( Festus & Albinus on the road to . . . )
Paul emphesized grace, but not works also as he should have! James taught the dictrine if Christ more, that faith eithout works is dead and can not save you! Christ Himself taught: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commadments." Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:17)!!! The were different, but not as mych as he implied here! Jsmes also believef in the divinity of Christ!!!
In my view this battle did not only create Christianity and Judaism as we know it nowadays. It also created Islam. One can not see these historical events separate form each other. One who wants to understand how Islam came into being needs to understand what happened in Christianity, esp.. in the 4th to the 6th century in the councils in the east. And this process goes back to this struggle. I don't agree that Paul did create Christianity as also Pamela Eisenbaum has pointed out in her fabulous book: Paul was no Christian. She proofs that Paul did not invent Christianity as we know it. That was part of the Gnostic corruption. She proofs that the real Paul was a typical Jewish mystic in the merkavah tradition from the 1th century. This is also pointed out already by Jeremias, a German Lutheran theologian, who was one of the first to point out that there are just 7 genuine letters of Paul. This thesis is now again subject of scientific discussion, were some reduce it even to 4 letters and just parts of it: being Romans, 1+2 (parts) Corinthians, Galatians. I'm not getting into this but is proof how much people are mislead nowadays to think Paul created Christianity. Christianity did not emerge earlier than after the sacking of Jerusalem. This is a historical fact that we also can see in the development of rabbinical Judaism after the year 70. It were the Gnostics who have corrupted the Jerusalem legacy as we also can see in what happened in the Marcion heresy. Marcion was one of those Gnostics who corrupted Paul's letters and the Gospels.
The gospel that is taught by many people today has been reduced down to just "faith alone". This false gospel of "faith alone" has made following the commandments of Christ null and void. Obeying His commandments have been eliminated from the gospel and have been made subsequent and optional to salvation. Walking in the Spirit has been made optional as well. This false gospel of "faith alone" changes what Jesus said in Matthew 7:14 - For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. By teaching that we do NOT need to keep the commandments(plural) of Christ as the gospel, the saving power of the gospel has been neutralized. The end result is that millions of people have been deceived by Satan into thinking that they are saved. They were taught that "faith alone" saved them apart from them having to keep the commandments of Christ. This has become Satan's masterpiece and has deceived millions of people into thinking they have eternal life in Christ when they actually remain lost.
James carried on the teachings and gospel of Jesus of faith without works, is dead. Paul taught grace alone will save you, which Jesus never taught. As a Latter-day Saint, we follow the gospel of Jesus Christ and James of 12 Apostles, a Seventy, Temple worship, and faith without works, is dead.
Grace alone saves you because Jesus by his faith provides salvation and this salvation produces the faith of Jesus in the elect which will produce good works.
It's possible. There are reasons to believe that the Jews of Kumaran were Essenes and that John the baptist was from that community and that Jesus was a disciple of his.
I could just cry because there is not much fellowship when one rejects Paul. All the groups, even Torah groups loooooove Paul. Yahusha was not lying when He said "beware the leaven of the Pharisees". Cant find anything that does not have some Paul in it.
But it's hard for believers in the Kingdom Gospel to give up preaching it even though it's clear that it is now (Since Stephan's stoning) dormant - replaced by Paul's gospel of Grace taught Paul by Jesus.
If you apply Jesus words in John 5:31, "If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true". If you apply this to Paul, his claimed vision and his self proclaimed apostlship, then Jesus is calling Paul a liar....just saying.
Great interview! I have mentioned that Paul seems to be preaching a unique gospel of his own accord and my Christian friends get VERY uncomfortable. It's so sad because I am simply observing what is obviously written in the Bible but they have a deep emotional need to justify everything they are taught in their church no matter how much it contradicts history, the scriptures and most regrettably, the truth.
It’s because they are idol-worshippers, of a particular version of a book & letter compilation (the Bible), and of a man, Paul/Saul of Tarsus, the false apostle who hijacked the ethical Kingdom ministry of Jesus and turned it into immoral/carnist/statist blood worship.
Not just Christian people defend Paul. Even Torah observant followers of Yah defent Paul. It's horrible. I have a bible verse in my head: Mark 13:22
For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. seems Yah is waking up more and more people to Paul being THE wolf warned about by Yahusha
@@serendipidyyou gotta be joking
@objective - for these people there is dire warning - Matthew 7:21-23.
Harsh reality awaits them.
The Bible does not say that Paul had a ‘unique Gospel of his own making’
So the question arises: who was worthy of being followed?: James & the Disciples who actually met, learnt from and were chosen by Jesus to carry his message, or Paul who never met Jesus besides a claimed vision he had, contradicted the teachings of Jesus as understood by his chosen Disciples (even had animosity towards them), and preached a theology contrary to that of the Old Testament Prophets?
@Solemn_G I guess it depends who you were at the time...If you wanted to survive during the Pax Romana after 70 CE, I would suggest Paul.
Took the words out my mouth buddy. The only thing in common they had was preaching about Jesus but Paul was preaching words Jesus never said . For example . 1. JESUS taught that his followers should follow the Torah (Law).
2. Preached the gospel of the kingdom.
3. Presented Himself as the Messiah and King of the Jews.
4. "kingdom of heaven" as Israel's prophetic earthly kingdom.
5. Preached repentance, keeping the Law & Commandments
forgiving others, as necessary for salvation.
1. PAUL taught that the Torah (Law) should be abandoned.
2. Preached the gospel of the grace of God.
3. Presented Jesus as the risen Lord, Head of the Church,
the body of Christ.
4. "kingdom of heaven" - heavenly position of the body of Christ
5. Preached faith alone in the death, burial,
and resurrection of Christ as necessary for salvation.
Exactly
@@Zen_Traveleryes I agree and that is why the scriptures have been corrupted
@@Isaac5123
Not corrupted. I believe words have been added to the scriptures.
I came to my feeling about saul/paul being a self appointed apostle preaching a different message just thru reading the Bible and NT. As well as reaching that conclusion after being originally raised Catholic and only having access to the nt as we were discouraged from reading the Torah. Well finally reading torah and the Bible was an eye opener. But also i suffer from temporal lobe seizures which can produce vivid hallucinations that seem completely real. I often wondered if that was Paul's throrn.
It took paul so long to go meet the true apostles. I would have rushed right to them fallen on my knees and begged forgiveness for percecuting them. To me, he seemed arrogant and full of himself rather than humbled.
So after reaching my conclusions about paul I scoured the web to see if others had also reached the same conclusion and was relieved i was not all alone.
YESHUA could have left us his direct teachings himself, the fact that he did not speaks volumes to me. Our Father already left His teachings for us. YESHUA came to rescue us from damnation, not to bring a new religion.
The Choice: "To follow Jesus, or to follow Paul, that is the Question".
if you follow Jesus, welcome to Islam
This is so interesting. For me its obvious that they did split in Antioch, which we can read in Galatians 2 12 to 14. Acts is not considered reliable. Today every Christian follows Paul. That's one reason I rejected Christianity
I hope that you've only gone so far as to reject Paul's doctrines and have not denied Yeshua Ha'Mashiach
@@koreyoneal2623 I rejected Christianity completely. And saying his name in Hebrew doesn't make it more true or more special. The fact is, we know that he was Jewish Christian, but the faith doesnt exist anymore. Their writings are more or less lost. If it would have been preserved fully, I maybe would have followed it. I am a huge fan of James the Just.
@@germanboy14 but James was Yeshua's brother and was left in charge after Yeshua ascended , if you follow the teachings of James you're following the teachings of Yeshua and you can't say that their teachings have been lost , they're in the front of your bible minus the animal sacrifices
@@koreyoneal2623 The problem lies in what Jesus taught in the flesh verses what Paul attributes to his vision. It makes no sense that there wasn't a consistent message...On that note, look at how diverse Christianity is today. 😮 If the message was obvious then Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, ( and Jews for that matter)etc., would have the same path/requirements, imo.
@@germanboy14 , oh boy : P = J . what now ?
Since i learned a lot the last years about Paul to me he is an imposter, a narcicist who saw the chance to abuse the new Jesus movement to become so influencial. He saw his stakeholders among the pageans, the Greco-Roman establishment. He was a Herodoan and most likely homo sexual why he could not become a high priest in Jerusalem. So he abandonned the Thora and opened his own Hellenistic-Egyptian myth blending with the Jesus ideas and a cracy Real-Fleh-Ressurrection... and always imagine that all his Pauline stories and the Gospel is most likely written under and by Marcin and after him his Material was caoninized as totally anti Thora and anti Jewish. Listen Dr. Markus Vinzent about Marcion and the first Gospels!.
I think you'll appreciate a paper that was written on Paul's homosexuality as it relates to Onesimus and Philemon. I think you can find it by searching for, "The sexual use of slaves and Philemon".
@@edwardmiessner6502 Jesus' disciples travelled around preaching with their wives. Paul travelled with teenage boys like Timothy and Luke... There were certainly rumors of homosexuality/pedophilia
Thank you finally someone else said this. Why all this uproar when Paul comes on the scene. I kept asking Christians this because I noticed this right away. If the disciples are preaching the same thing as Paul why as soon as Paul comes saying the same thing they are on the hunt to k1ll him? It made no sense to me. Unless Paul came preaching something to them no one else was teaching.
Fwiw, one of the things I didn't understand but think I do now is those folks Paul is talking about/countering in his letters isn't the "Jewish establishment," but those following James...What I DO wonder about is how prominent James was at the Temple. Dunno.
Kill him is not accurate. Would be more appropriate to paint their behavior as an attempt to ostracize and delegitimize.
@@paulallenscards See Acts 23:12-35...Fwiw, the real question for me is why would the Romans have reason (or care) to whisk him away? Again, I think Dr Eisenman is correct that Paul had Roman citizenship and was friends or family of the Herodians. That's my take.
@@Zen_Traveler also strange, though not implausible, that Paul would be commissioned by the high priest to round up messianic Jews (which was not known to be a crime) in Damascus of all places, when the Jesus movement’s center of gravity is in Jerusalem at the time. So many more questions than we have answers, I suppose. But I do agree that his surreptitiously high status points in exactly the direction that you identified: that he belongs to a family with true Roman citizenship, which was not an easy thing to come by for a Jew and would almost certainly carry with it some sort of link back to the Herodian throne.
I think Paul did actually meet Jesus on the way to Damascus. Etc. Later I believe he was given more insight into the new covenant which was Jesus intended goal. He undoubtedly experienced several NDE/obe interaction with Jesus. More than one .
I love when people aren't afraid to speculate. It always makes the conversation more interesting. ❤
Thank you so much. I have read Christianity described as the victory of St Paul over Christ, and listening to you certainly clar,ifies the issues and the very human responses to them. Poor Jesus! If only he had known.,
Jesus knew. Mathew 17:22-23 is about them: On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.
I am a huge fan of Dr. Wilson...he's brilliant, I love listening to and learning from him. He really makes the dynamic of the early movement and James, for me, much more digestible.
As someone who definitely thinks that Paul was a false Apostle , I very much enjoyed this presentation , so thank you Jacob for having Barrie on your program . There's just one thing that Barrie was wrong about and it's something that most Christians get wrong also , they don't read past Acts 10 so they think that Peter's vision was about clean and unclean foods but if one continues on to Acts 11 you'll see that it wasn't about food , the unclean animals represented gentiles :
Acts 11:18 KJV
18)"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life"
The church of Jesus Christ is based on Paul's teachings, so your idea that Paul was a false apostle is ludicrous.
@@koreyoneal2623 We follow Paul's gospel and that is that. Anything else is not Christianity. You are obviously not born again and so don't know how to understand and rightly divide the scriptures.
Paul an evil person reviving a long awaited Greek Myth through Another; Angst-Jesus. Saul/Paul, Pan the Shepard. Goats in with lambs. Yeshua isnt in accord with Saul /Flavian / Denigrating the Beast.
@@paulpearce1311 well I would put it the other way around , more like Paul isn't in accord with Yeshua but I get what you're saying
@@koreyoneal2623 Anyone who goes around pretentiously saying "Yeshua" instead of Jesus, doesn't know what he's talking about.
Jacob, thank you for having Barrie on. I have learned from others already that Paul was a liar, a false Apostle and a deceitful worker, a grifter, a scam artist, and a complete narcissist. He seems to be a mid-First Century televangelist!
There must be at least one thing positive about St. Paul. 🤔
yeah. so were all the others.
Paul was a regular Benny Hinn 😅
I can't think of any personal gain for Paul. On the contrary, everywhere Paul went he was met with trouble. Was it worth it if he was knowingly spreading a false religion?
@@salt1956
What was the incentive or personal gain for Muhammad? A false prophet truly believes he's had a vision or calling from God.
Jesus Christ and his Desciples never heard these names, words and doctrine.
1. Christianity.
2. Church.
3. Holy Bible.
4. Trinity.
5. Redemption.
6. Atonement.
I thumbed-up your comment, but I think you're incorrect.
Jesus and James, being Jews, would know "holy Bible" (but in Hebrew, hasefer kadosh), and they'd CERTAINLY know about atonement (Yom Kippur is mentioned in Leviticus, which was finalized during the Persian empire between 538-332 BCE)
Nonetheless, the point you're making is 100% valid -- Jesus and James had *no* affinity for word meanings that Paul, etc., gave to these words...
@@sheltr9735 What I mean is that Jesus and James don't have Holy Bible(old & new testament) in their hand and they did't know and never heard Christian doctrine of Redemption and Atonement.
I think there’s some very good points but as I’ve been led to understand it, Jesus preached to Jews with the Old Covenant and Paul preached a different Gospel (revealed by Jesus/New Covenant) to the Gentiles.
The question is then does it contradict what Jesus said? We can all probably agree there’s differences because of the difference of audience , but different paths can lead to the same destination - Differences doesn’t necessarily mean contradictions.
I think a lot of what Paul says is taken out of context. He explicitly states faith above all else but DOES NOT disregard good works. If the Bible is written and canonised by men with the power of the Holy Spirit, does it not undermine the Holy Spirit with Paul being the New Testaments biggest contributor?
Additionally, If the Holy spirit informed Peter of the lies of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts, surely the Holy spirit would have warned them about Paul too?
If 13-14 of the 27 New Testament books are attributed to Paul, why is there no backlash of his writings being canonised through the ages?
Is Paul being an Apostle ever questioned/accepted by 1-Apostles and 2- by early church fathers? At Council Of Nicea? Council of Constantinople?
I think it’s a fascinating topic and a really good discussion. 👏
From my understanding, Martin Luther wanted to exclude James from the scriptures because it involved salvation by works. Imagine, he didn't like the idea of making people accountable for their actions. Not sure what convinced him to reluctantly keep it in the NT.
Salvation is by Faith in Christian belief but not by faith alone.Our works do matter for without them our faith is dead.James 2.24.Paul disagreed with Jesus in many things and so invented the Christ figure more to his made up theology.Jesus had nothing in common with Paul.Nothing!!!
@@lorenzobianchini4415 John 6:29
@@rafaelrolino How can you believe in him if you refuse to listen to him. VERSE 27 states do not Labour for food that perishes.....earthly food is necessary to sustain earthly life but because it perishes it does not suffice to give us supernatural life.Only Christ can give us supernatural food that satisfies our spiritual hunger and gives us everlasting life.The subsequent narrative will identify this heavenly food as the Eucharist 6.50-58.
@@lorenzobianchini4415 salvation is by faith alone according to Jesus.
@@rafaelrolino Nowhere did Jesus say that justification is by faith alone. NOWHERE!!! JAMES 2 .24 CLEARLY STATES ONE IS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS AND NOT!!! BY FAITH ALONE!! Don't abuse the word of God even to the point of saying things Jesus himself did not say..Thank you!
Thank you Jacob and Dr Wilson for this content. I follow as much about this timeframe as I can and can't help but think Robert Eisenman is one of the most prominent scholars on this material that most people don't talk about...Gotta admit you REALLY need to be interested to get to the end of his books! Lol. 😊 {Note: I have seen him here and realize he's getting along in age.}
Eisenman's book is unreadable, I wish he could rewrite a quarter the size of his James the brother of Jesus
There are NO CONTRADICTIONS between the teachings of PAUL and JAMES... Apostle Paul to the Gentiles teaches the Gentiles and Israelites that by God's GRACE they are SAVED through FAITH in Christ without the "WORK of the LAW" (Mosaic/Moses Law) to boast of... (ref. Rom. 3:27-28 / Gal. 2:1627/ Eph.3:8-9).
While Apostle James teaches the True Christians who worship God in Spirit and in Truth that they are SAVED by God's Grace through FAITH in Christ by applying GOOD (righteous) WORKS (Charity of Love) towards their Neighbors/foes alike as commanded by Christ Jesus...For FAITH without WORK is a "DEAD FAITH"... (ref. James 2:1-26).
Take Note: ... Apostle Paul's AUDIENCES were Gentiles (atheists) and Israelites... while Apostle James's AUDIENCES were already CHRISTIAN believers...
In conclusion, Apostle Paul's letters/Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians that to be SAVED, Gentiles and Jews must need NOT the "WORK of the LAW" to BOAST of... However, Apostle James teaches that True Christians need to apply the Good (Righteous) WORK (Charity of Love) into their Lives taught by Christ Jesus towards their Neighbors/foes alike just as they loved themselves, to justify their FAITH in Christ Jesus...
True Christians no longer need the "LAW of Moses/Mosaic" but they need the "LAW of Christ Jesus" to be SAVED... as simple as that... no contradiction between the two Apostles... if we analyze their teachings carefully with the guidance of the Holy Spirit...
Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically and Logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Around the 30 minute mark the guy admits his book is a fictitious and his opinion on the “controversy”. The interviewer asks “did Paul kill James?” The interviewee responds there is no evidence and “as a DA i wouldn’t take this to court”. I.E. this is a lie that suits his worldview and would like others to doubt Paul because he presents it as “fact”. Remember in politics you don’t call someone a “goat ducker” because you believe it to be true. But to get the accused to deny and defend his dignity.
Thank you Jacob for having Dr Wilson on. His book would seem to capture a fascinating concept that very few have studied. I just don't understand why if James and his followers were pious Jews would the high priest give Paul a commission to hunt them down? And even after Paul's vision and conversion was he really any less adversarial towards them?
The answers are found in God's word but only if one gives God the right to change the gospel (good news) to whatever He wishes with it. E.g. from Kingdom gospel to Gospel of Grace.
Read what Biblical scholars and others had to say about Paul. A wake up call to the Christians.
Soren Kierkegaard, Danish Christian philosopher and theologian, observes in “The Journals:” “What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down; making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ.” Miguel de Unamuno, Spanish essayist, novelist and playwright, writes in “The Agony of Christianity:” “During Christ’s lifetime, Paul would never have followed (Jesus).”
Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence; writes in his “Letter to William Short:” “Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”
In the book “Christ or Paul?” the Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore writes: “Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught. For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message. That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world. If we apply to Paul the test ‘by their fruits ye shall know them’ it is abundantly clear that he was a false prophet.”
Frederick Engels, German philosopher and father of Marxist theory, writes in “On the History of Early Christianity:” “Attempts have been made to conceive all the messages of John’s Revelation/Apocalypse as directed against Paul, the false Apostle. The so-called Epistles of Paul are not only extremely doubtful but also totally contradictory.”
Bishop John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, USA, writes in his book, “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism:” “Paul’s words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference.” Rudolf Bultman, a theologian, writes in his “Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul:” “It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his views. When the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus’ teaching is- to all intents and purposes- irrelevant for Paul.”
H.G. Wells, famous English science-fiction writer, observes in “The Outline of History:” “It is equally a fact in history that St. Paul and his successors added to or completed or imposed upon or substituted another doctrine for- as you may prefer to think- the plain and profoundly revolutionary teachings of Jesus by expounding a subtle and complex theory of salvation, a salvation which could be attained very largely by belief and formalities, without any serious disturbance of the believer’s ordinary habits and occupations.”
Gene Savoy, American theologian and clergyman, declares in his “The Essaei Document:” “Paul’s Christianity is another matter. He taught a different kind of theology than that shared by the original disciples who were schooled under Jesus. Paul was the father of Pagan Christianity; a movement based on a concept completely foreign to Jesus. The teachings of Jesus the Messiah were overshadowed by the teachings of Paul.”
Thomas Cosette, a Christian scholar, writes in “Hebrew Prophecies of the Coming of Paul:” “This man Paul hijacked what is called the church. But he can only keep those who do not love the truth. Those who still have conscience and will compare his teaching and his testimony to Y’shva’s and the prophets without granting Paul’s testimony (is) the Word of God but (is) just another man’s testimony in light of Jesus’ teachings. Then they will discover that Paul usurps the truth.”
Patrick Henry writes in “New Directions in New Testament Study:” “There remains in the popular mind a strong suspicion that Paul corrupted Christianity (or even founded a different religion). Paul imported into the Christian community a form of religion characteristic of the ‘mysteries’ religious movements of initiation into secret rites and esoteric knowledge.”
Walter Bauer, an eminent German theologian and scholar of the development of the early Christian churches, writes in his “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity:” “If one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly the Apostle Paul was the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age.”
Michael Baigent, author and speculative theorist declares in “The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception:” “Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he’d begun to regard as his ‘Savior.’ He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus’ teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus.”
Paul Johnson, English journalist, historian and author, writes in “A History of Christianity:” “Writings by Christian Jews of the decade of the 50’s AD present Paul as the Antichrist and the prime heretic. The Christology of Paul, which later became the substance of the universal Christian faith, was predicated by an external personage whom many members of the Jerusalem Church absolutely did not recognize as an Apostle.”
The last word belongs to Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the United States. He writes in “The Age of Reason:” “Paul’s writing is no better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told.”
Peter = Harun
Paul = Imran
you can't have one without the other : 🐷🐷
cuz Mariam is the spiritual sister of Harun and the daughter of Imran
@@willempasterkamp862
you do know that the idea behind your last sentence is used by biblical authors and the genealogy of jesus right?
also , you eat pork when your god used it as an insult. think about it lol
@@salman13 Paul (saleh) = Drusus germanicus = dhul Qarnain = Cornelius = Andrew the elder = James the Just = the Kwisatz Haderach (simplifier). Peter (hud) is more of the tsaddik (worrier) = LA Seneca = Aaron = Jair = Cephas (chef/shah) = the Padishah = Simon Magus (pope). They met each other on the road (huqoq elephants mosaic) . It are all claudians (people of Aad/height = nazoreans, nicolaitans). make choclate of this and eat your cake.
@@willempasterkamp862 i can feel how your parents were disappointed when the grades came in.
By what you're writing, if this guy was alive today he'd want to make America great again.
I think the core problem that is beeing ommited here is that Jesus was preaching of a loving, forgiving and benevolent god, while the jews believe in a jealous, hateful and violent god. The early Christians completly rejected the jewish god, it was only in later centuries that the christians started to adopt the jewish god again and created the current canon in which god kinda had a character growth moment when he became a father, which is really silly if you think about it. Also I think Barrie Wilson greatly overstates the importance of James among Jesus followers, he was not the only disciple of Jesus and there were others that spawned different sects of christianity. Most of them rejected the jewish god or considered him to be the devil. Paul wasn't the "anti jewish" christian.
This is a great guest. Thank you so much. I really wish his book was on audiobook.
Paul vs James is a false narrative. It assumes, incorrectly, that the Apostle Paul had been redeemed. from the Law when James wrote his epistle. Actually, the Crucifixion that would accomplish that redemption was still in the future. Both James and Paul talk about faith but from two drastically different perspectives. James from his day to day experiences with Jesus before the Crucifixion, and Paul, decades later, from his supernaturally derived lessons from the Ressurected Savior.
My study of the book "What you weren't taught in Sunday school" made me search this topic because Jerald F. Dirks (a former ordained minister) clearly talks about how Paul went against the elders of Jerusalem church.
He has some youtube videos as well.
Ebionites would not eat at the same table with non-Ebionites.
James was a vegetarian.” (Prof. Robert Eisenman
in, James the Just, The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of
Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls)
“James, the brother of the Lord, lived on seeds
and plants and touched neither meat nor wine.”
(Epistulae ad Faustum XXII, 3)
“James, the brother of the Lord was holy from his
mothers womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink,
nor did he eat flesh.”(Hegesippus, quoted in The
Church History of Eusebius, book 2, chapter 23)
“John never ate meat.” “James, the brother
of the Lord, lived on seeds and plants and
touched neither meat nor wine.” The Apostle
Thomas: “He continually fasts and prays, and
abstaining from the eating of flesh…” “…The
Apostle Matthew partook of seeds, and nuts,
hard-shelled fruits, and vegetables, without
flesh.” Peter said, “I live on olives and bread, to
which I rarely only add vegetables…” “The
unnatural eating of flesh meats is as polluting
as the heathen worship of devils…” (Peter,
Clementine Homilies)
I have seen no evidence of God liking vegans or vegetarians, or it being "holy".
Milk & Meat was, in large part, responsible for giving us the intellectual edge over the other animals.
Cain was a vegetarian/vegan, Abel was not. After the event, it was told to Adam that is was okay to do, and after Noah, Man was literally instructed - to eat meat.
The home of the Hebrew People was literally called, "the Land of Milk and Honey".
Elijah, the "greatest prophet of all time", ate meat, as did Jesus.
I almost died following a Paleo-Vegan diet a few years back (nuts, seeds, fruits, tubers, gourds/melons and some vegetables), and it wrecked my health, parts of it, irreversably; lifelong Vegans suffer from more maladies than they avoid; so NOT something God would suggest doing.
Besides, why would an all-knowing God design Mankind with a need for a nutrient, that can ONLY be processed by the human body through the eating of Red Meat (B12), and then deny us the ability to eat it?
But then again, you quoted Historians not Scripture, with their own level and set of knowledge, biases and beliefs, the "opinion" of Humans, not the Truths of God, so to speak.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, besides politics, I can not think of a more Luciferian doctrine, than Vegetarian/Veganism.
In the garden of Eden they were vegetarian/vegan. The New Jerusalem will be back in the garden and there will be no more death.
Rev_21:4 And YHWH shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Cain and Abel's sacrifices were switched by lying meat eating scribes. The book of Adam and Eve has Cain raising and sacrificing animals.
Isa 22:13 but they engaged in joy and gladness, slaying calves, and killing sheep, so as to eat flesh, and drink wine; saying, Let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.
Isa 22:14 And these things are revealed in the ears of the Lord of hosts: for this sin shall not be forgiven you, until ye die.
Hos 8:13 They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of mine offerings, and eat it; but YHWH accepteth them not; now will he remember their iniquity, and visit their sins: they shall return to Egypt.
Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
@@fourpoint9 Yeah, anyone can claim something, proving it is the problem, any data to support your "altered sacrifice" claim?
Look at ALL of Nature; the Predator does not exist to be population control for the Prey, the Prey exists, to feed the Predator. All life lives off the death of other life, directly or indirectly. The world is not for the plant eaters, you exist to feed me.
The weaker and dumber the prey, the better it is for the predator, in every aspect. And if the prey does not compete for food sources, all the better. Plant Eaters die in a drought, Meat Eaters eat the Plant Eaters and survive.
We were unthinking animals in the Garden, it is when we decided to rise above that simple status, that we were ejected.
Eating plants kept us dumb and docile and in need of adult supervision. Eating meat set us free from this and made us superior to other animals, and we were placed, by God, in Dominion over all other animals. I am a Child of God as an adult being able to process Milk, I would just be a typical animal if I could not.
If a vegan/vegetarian diet will ultimately lead to reduced IQ, and if, as you claim, it makes you Holy, does God want or need us to be stupid?
The idea that the Supreme Priest had some kind of authority in Damascus to the point he could order someone arrested there is ridiculous in any context let alone in the Roman Empire 1 century AD context
I appreciate Dr. Wilson's attention to Paul's ethics. If you tell your followers that the law doesn't matter, on what do you base your moral mandates? And how do you expect them to know what you mean with terms like 'sexual immorality'? Ultimately, it seems to me that Paul ends up saying 'because I say so!' It's not like he can defer to the local synagogue, or the church in Jerusalem...
Especially since in Acts 15 Paul is ordered to take a letter to his churches ordering them to observe abstinence from blood, meat sacrificed unto idols, and improper sexual connexions. Paul discards this letter and tells his churches in Galatia at least that James asked him and them to "remember the poor."
@@edwardmiessner6502 good point. 'only,' he says...
Meat sacrificed to idols, particularly, he definitely goes against the decree of the council...
Yes, but his vision was his conviction. Just as Paul had a change in mind when he had a vision of Christ. An important encounter in one’s relationship with God. For example, upon my Awakening I began my 40 days fast, and on day 10 I had a vision, a sign was drawn before my eye, a laser red seven in the shape of the Talon of the Dragon. Followed by a pink Sun Cross, it’s own bottom right was Sanctified in laser red. That was 18 years ago and I’m only now discovering the intricate details of our Lord ~
Eat more next time. 😂
@@allwillberevealed777 then the Lord said, "Peter, Peter eat more food. And try the fried chicken. It's delicious!" 😁
This is excellent. I love how you let guests speak 👍👍 Also the book sounds really interesting
Why didn't he give the scripture reference about Paul saying he wished someone slipped and cut themselves during circumcision? What scripture is that?
This a valuable blog!this gives clarity to true Christianity! Orthodox messianic Jews!
I don't believe Paul. But I also believe Yeshua was the word of God made flesh. The first and the last.
Where did you find the opening bumper music?
a lot comes down to whether you accept Luke;s accounts as truthful representations or attempts at smoothing over the theological differences.
Church tradition really gets in the way of how we interpret obvious passages in the book of Acts.
1) Textual scholars give high marks to Luke's accounts as recounts of in-person witnessing
2) Church traditions lock theological knowledge down so future revelations/clarifications are blocked. Some early Christians called Jews Christ-killers despite the fact that only Romans had the authority to put citizens to death. As textual understanding and archeology continue to expand knowledge, the plans of God are clarified.
PErhaps Dr Wilson can help me my number one question.. "Under James, was the yearly Passover observed " as before Christ's "atonement" That will fill out a lot of blanks... PAUL AND PETER AND ALL THE APOSTLES WERE ONE IN ACTS 15, Until James adds more laws after Peter pushes against his own struggles of law keeping . Anybody else?
You are the 1st individual that I've read who seems to understand that Peter's speech was made possible by his experience with the Gentile, Cornelius, a few years earlier. I.e. that there was a change in the salvation plan of God from law + faith to Faith alone. Read verse 11 of Acts 15 for the fact of this change, "We must be saved as are they" NOT They must be saved as are we. Gods plans move forward not backward. I was prompted by the Berean Bible Society to recognize this change and am so grateful to them. It cleared up serious mysteries.
@@edwardwalsh5477what is paul going to know over james and peter, he didnt even meet jesus, james was the leader in palestine. Turn to muhammed peace be upon him for answers.
Where in the Bible does it state "the kingdom of god returning within YOUR LIFETIME"?
Perhaps the early Christians christened Jesus brother James the Just in contrast to Paul "the not so much". 😮
In Arabic, a sister language to Aramaic and Hebrew, a similar worx Sadiq, Siddique means honest, truthful, trustworthy. So James (May Allah have mercy on him), the brother of Jesus (peace be upon him) was an honest and trustworthy man. Paul does not come close to James in comparison.
Jacon, Dr. Wilson stuck an important point with his inquiry into second generation perspectives. In a recent video I was alarmed by the student of John, Papias, and Papias's elaboration on the death of Judas. He seems to feel he has some sanctioned privilege to add to the story. This is important as he was acting in honor of John and must have been taught this perspective fifty years after the event. What sort of man [John] carries that kind of visceral hate for someone else, and for decades? There has been no trespass. John wants his hatred to be carried through history. None of the circumstances surrounding the Crucifixion warrant this degree of vengeance.
so they claim that Papius was a student of John. a later tradition, very unlikely.
his quotes on Jesus are completely off.
he knows nothing about the historical christ.
@@Marabarra1341. Were you there nearly two millenia ago observing Jesus entire ministry to know Jesus did not say what Papias attributes to him 2. One of the more silly to people sounding sayings Papias documents is pretty much a quotation of 2 Baruch implying either it was an existing valid source for Jesus to quote or if its not authentic Jesus accepted a tradition the text derrived from.
James knew Jesus and followed him, Jesus’ entire life while Paul never met him and taught a different gospel. As a Christian, I mostly ignore Paul.
GREAT question: Why was Paul the guy picked to track down Christians? Fantastic! Then, "Who were these thugs?" What a fantastic question. Definitely getting this book.
Denial of the Scripture and denial of the deity of Christ. This is anti-Christianity. If Peter and Paul got along, except for that one time where Paul had to rebuke him, how were they against one another? This video makes no sense.
Very interesting exposition!
It is amazing to me that how gentile Christianity became what it is. The Jerusalem community which at that time was considered like the Vatican which James as the pope.
i suppose it is a difficult subject as James' (Jacob's) posse remained a Temple centred Jesus movement, whereas the message Paul produced was more like Judaism for the masses (more like the Noachide movement of today).
I do not see how you can use Peter's vision that all foods were on the table given the explanation is given a short while later. nothing about eating forbidden food, just that he could now eat with Gentiles and given the person he went to see was a god-fearer who probably lived a jewish lifestyle anyone, would not have been eating the bottom feeders anyway.
if you pay attention to What God Said,, after He Made the critters,, He Call'd them good,, Jesus Said it's NOT what goes into the mouth but what comes OUT of the mouth that makes a man unclean,, food had NOTH'N to do with it,, in Revelation,, Jesus did NOT rebuke people for eat'n "unclean" animals JUST food sacrificed to idols,,, hence all the critters on the sheet,,,, MAN MADE the food laws,,, the Torah is corrupt as the modern bible,,, the Torah says kill the WOMAN when adultry is found,, NOT the man,, JUST THE WOMAN,, cold blood'd murder,, God Said do NOT kill,,, and if you recall,, Moses did NOT get to enter the Promised Land,,,,,,,,,
but there is another way to interpret Galatians and it is Paul's rant against trying to find covenant membership by conversion (of ethnic status) to being Jewish.
In the book of Acts where Peter has a vision about all sorts of animals coming down from heaven and he can eat all of them. Up till then Peter had been following the dietary laws and all of a sudden… All it does is take a vision…changes his whole attitude and he now becomes comfortable with a non-Jewish diet. That seems so hokey,and so far-fetched that it just makes one roll the eyes. I think Acts is primarily an attempt to impose the Pauline tradition upon everything. (36:00)
The whole Gospel & literal reason why Jesus was put to death was because he didn't follow the supposed "Law" of the Sadducees & Pharisees of his time. He established that it was all based on esoteric understanding.
When I start hearing people mentioning that it's wrong to eat shellfish, that's when I walk out of the room.
No he was killed because he said he was the king of the Jews and the son of God. He had conflict with the sadducees etc because they used the law of Moses to persecute others and enrich themselves. They also made man made traditions "law"..
If the Bible says you shouldn't eat shellfish....
I would suggest it's probably not healthy to eat shellfish regardless if you believe it's right or wrong..
@AaronBowser Right, thus going against the contemporary Jewish "blasphemy laws." Laws which are still in effect today. Muslims believe the same way. The very surface level, carnal-minded understanding which plagues the world then, & even so today. In this day & age, it seems to me that most Christians carry that same mentality.
It really makes no difference to me whether people want to eat shrimp or not, but the point is the spirit behind being so hyper-focused on these details. That's why I understand where Paul/Shaul was coming from when he said such ways of thinking aren't necessary. So when people attack Paul, I take it with a grain of salt because they don't understand where he was coming from. Whether someone wants to observe 613 laws or not; as long as they acknowledge the Divinity of the Son as an emanation of the Father, that's the point. If they don't, then it ceases to matter how meticulous they want to follow a worldly program.
@@VisualizeInside-mt2li well look at it like this... God our father says don't eat shellfish... Why? Just to make up a new rule? Or because it's not healthy? We as the child decide to eat it anyway... Does that mean God now damns you to hell? No, of course not but it shows that you put more faith in your judgment than his because you've decided you've found no reason why you shouldn't eat shellfish and thus it's ok.
As a father I tell my son you can't play Nintendo all day... He doesn't understand why but I know the effects of allowing him to do so...
He sneaks and plays while I'm not around... I catch him... Am I upset? Yes. Do I disown my son? No...
But it does show my son lacks respect for my authority and faith in my judgements even though I only want what's best for him....
Fast forward until he is 25...if he now continues to walk his own path... I have to let him do so... Even if I know it will hurt him...
And he can no longer live in my house because he will be a bad example for his little brother...
I hope that clears it up... Eating the shellfish is not that big of an issue... But the lack of faith in God's word is...
Sometimes the content of what a person wrote is what decides who you follow. I’d rather follow the lofty vision l.
I can't help thinking that in the ending of this interview there was a feeling of sadness that Jesus' message/movement under the guardianship of James had been hijacked/taken over by the Pauline gentile Catholic Church. The people who had actually been with Jesus and received instructions directly from him, ie. the Nazarenes, had lost to the "Christians" of Paul. As Dr. Wilson says, it was "hokey" the way Peter forsook the Jewish dietary Law (hint, hint: another vision yet again aka Saul becoming Paul). Jesus knew what was to happen to his flock and hence he mentions that in his Second Coming he will dismiss these misled "Christians" as evil doers, workers of Lawlessness.
This is so interesting that I'm listening to it twice. Great guest!
These "Jewish Bishops" in early second century in Jerusalem that Jacob mentions are only known to exist in the "very unreliable" (according to modern scholars) gentile historian Eusebius' book of "Ecclesiastical history."
Does this mean that Saul (before he became known as Paul) was never persecuting the early Christians? Were the early Christians ever actually persecuted?
My understanding is that early Christians were not persecuted, but rather prosecuted... They were desecrating temples to other gods, and were legally prosecuted for committing those crimes... This is very different from persecution.
I believe that we have a letter from pliny the younger to the emperor asking him what to do with some Christians that the local Jewish authorities had brought before him.
He had no idea who they were or why the Jew were making such a fuss.
Prior to Moses receiving the law, people were rendered righteous via faith (Genesis 12:1-3, James 2:23, Galatians 3:6, and Hebrew 11). 2. Jesus asserts that Christians are the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth (Matthew 5:13-16). James emphasizes this when he says, FAITH WITHOUT ACTION IS DEAD (James 2:17-23)... Paul emphasizes this in his behavior and education (1 Corinthians 5:13, Acts 18:3, 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 3:6, among others). In conclusion, a Christian must bear witness and reflect God's light in his or her behavior, speech, and labor (22 Thessalonians 3:10). Until his death, Paul served as an excellent example of a working Christian. James and Paul argued in faith, and neither contradicted the other!
3. If you believe Paul was against the commandments, why would He encourage the church to break away from the evildoers in the church (11 Corinthians 5:13)?
Reasons:
i. According to Hebrews 10:26, a rescued person lives in light rather than sin. Why would someone require commandments if they're situated in the light? And if one requires commandments, a sacrifice must be offered to atone for his or her sin once more, despite being "saved"! The process will end the Cross's work.
ii. Paul was aware of the Perfect Sacrifice( Christ) & the work of the Holy Spirit that puries and renews( John 15:18-20, 1 Corinthians 6:11,Colosians 3:2, 1 John 5-10 among others). Why else would paul say Wreched man I'm. Paul was aware of the fact that not keeping the commantments is sin.
Another assumption is that our fleshly impulses and actions undermine the power of the law (Romans 8:3). As a result, Christ is the only one who can put flesh (sin) to death so that one might be called saved!
For example, when the Pharisees imposed regulations on people that they couldn't bear, Jesus had to call them out. An action that shows Paul correct in the sense that it demonstrates that the law was frequently abused, rendering it ineffective( Mathew 23).
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Read no longer under the law)
Paul and James are saying the same thing. James speaks about the FRUITS of Faith like Paul does.
James 2: 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
I dispute that Paul or the immediate followers of Paul believed Jesus was a pre-existent divine being. That would be a teaching of some Gnostic groups though. - Dr.G.Craig Fairweather.
Hello Dr. Fairweather, I'm interested in your views. Feel free to email me at jacobberman553@gmail.com
Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. That was pretty historical.
No
Hysterical
What i hate about Paul is that he spoke for and against the law, and the messianic Torah obsetvant community does head gymnastics to defend Paul by saying he was speaking against the oral law but he spoke for Yahuah's law. Its so awful that i cannot even create a proper case to show people that Paul is THE wolf prophecied by Yahusha. It sucks on so many levels.
What do you mean? Even Peter declared that Paul's writings were the word of God.
How's Paul was a impoustor?
He didn't write against the teachings of Jesus, he did write about the grace of God.
The Torah law is no longer required because it was a law for an physical kingdom. Now we are living a spiritual kingdom.
The more I learn details about Paul - about how his Christianity was so different form both the words of Jesus and the teachings of the disciples who actually walked & talked with Him during His 3 year mission - the more I see him as a 1st Century Joseph Smith.
Smith, who founded the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), took some of the bones of traditional Christianity and used them to flesh out a whole new creature.
Do question who appear to be false teachers
but be careful how you study the Word which, in this case shows Paul to be different from but supportive of the Lord Jesus (as Lord and savior) because of his Damascus Road experience and God's changing directions.
The epistles in which Hebrews are the audience cover following the Law because Christ knew they need the Law until they realize no one can follow it, just like the gentiles had to discover they were sinners by learning the Law for the first time. Ask yourself…what is the purpose of the Law? Funny everything thinks they can follow the Good Works Law of James, but I don’t know anyone who can avoid the no lusting law of Matthew. Everyone needs Christ! The Law and the Prophets is Christ.
My humble request to all please read the Bible and the Qur'an and then ask God Almighty to show the straight path.
Peter ends his epistles telling believers to read Paul. In doing so Peter saved Christianity. Anyone who dumps on Paul is anathema to me.
He didn't say that. He warned people to be mindful about Paul's writing. Peter was being gracious in his rebuke whereas James was direct. Paul was in direct opposition to what Jesus said and did.
Paul was an admitted liar and a myth maker.
So, you actually read the bible and believe it without twisting it as detractors here do. God bless you and straighten out your detractors.
@@davidbradberry7637 Saying so doesn't make it so. Why are you not the liar? You might have provided scripture references.
He does admit to dastardly deeds prior to his arrest by God and rebirth by the Spirit. But those were not Christian-motivated so do not shape Christianity nor undermine it or Paul.
@gwmcklintock so you believe parts of the Bible are correct and others are not?
Jesus taught the Law, very harshly to those who believed they were righteous. Jesus gave the gospel, life, to those that came humbly and knowing their unrighteousness.
The fact that you're claiming a majority of the New Testament is not correct teaching shows alot. You're denying Christian Orthodoxy.
Jesus merely said he would return in their lifetimes, which he did, and raised people out of their graves to go with him ! He never said it would be the millenium.
In regards to Yahusha, i do believe He is the Messiah though as we can see this in Daniel, Zechariah 12:10, i saiah, book of John and book of Revelation unless we chuck out all the books of the new testament. But then we have an issue with what to believe in the new testament.... Paul is a definite nono. What about the other books?
ministries by acknowledging that Paul was in the market for more pagan minded gospel recipients while James spoke with an authority on the previously established people of the descendent s of God's chosen people who had been called to action in the day's of the messiah having fulfilled the rites of the covenant made with Adam's initial act of defiance being paid for in full by the blood of The lamb allowing for reconciliation with The Father Perhaps if wewe apply the prerequisites character of The Wisdom of The Lord that comes from above to this debate, we can get some respite of resolve to the matter? Paul Vs James? For us to pick one side or the other is a demonstration of partiality by definition. Perhaps if we can critically ok implement being without partiality(James 3:17-19 I believe) then we can avoid the ok inevitable hypocrisy that comes from choosing sides in such a case. Perhaps if we agree that Faith is a necessary part of the salvation equation then we can proceed to recognize that those with Faith will subsequently be shown to bear the good fruits of said Faith, then we can understand that Faith without works is a n oxymoron as the latter is made evident by the former. Both of the doctrines are correct in that thought exercise and we can attribute the difference in the approach to their respective ministry
How exactly did Paul and his followers create a Christian movement that eventually conquered the Roman Empire?
@ElcoJohn It seems like a numbers game coupled with them being the only religion actually trying to get converts, especially amongst the poor masses, up until the 4th century. I've seen their rate compared to the growth of Mormanism today. Fwiw, Dr Ehrman explains it by showing how exponentially it grew in Pagan regions, and of course by the time of Constantine it was viewed favorably and then Theodosius made it official. That's my take.
He actively recruited outsiders.
The church of James was primarily a Jewish sect.
Paul claims that his gospel came from direct revelation from the post-ascension Jesus. Does this place Paul in the same category as other self-proclaimed prophets in history? I am thinking of Joseph Smith and his restored gospel. Paul performed miracles and started the church in Rome, which set Christianity up to become the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century CE. Is this what places Paul above the rest? Or was Paul just another man preaching a new religion?
Facts brother.
Two errors here. 1) Paul wrote Romans but the church existed before he was taken there as a prisoner of Rome. So neither Peter (who is not proven to have entered Rome) nor Paul are the head of the Church. That is the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Who set the church up to be the official religion of Rome was God. The Pax Romana became an effective aid to spreading of the gospel to the known world.
Good question about what sets Paul above the rest.
1) His divine instructions were the last from God - Jesus from heaven.
2) His gospel differed from that pedestrian one (Kingdom).
3) His gospel was to the world!
4) the gospel change was to eliminate the law-keeping for salvation (Faith alone) relegating obedience (law of Christ) to a post redemption process that leads to sanctification completed in heaven by God Himself, not man nor church.
9:10 the kingdom of God had not yet come? This man needs to read the scriptures of the Messiah's teachings.
_Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:_
_Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you._
James loved Paul
really?
Yes, read both books of Peter and James and you can see that Peter clearly calls Paul, our beloved Paul there is no Bible verses that tell you that these men were fighting
Herodian Paul, King Agrippa II (his relative)and the wicked Sadducee High Priest Ananus II plotted against James the Just after Paul nearly was killed in Acts 21 due to James' lack of action to prevent the assault early on. The viewed the followers of James (from Asia) the main ones who hated Paul for his anti-Torah gospel.
24:20 the differences
Paul saying he spoke Hebrew in front of the Sanhedrin in Acts is a sure fire way of knowing he’s a liar. Hebrew wasn’t a spoken language in the Second Temple era, it was only used for liturgy. Highly unlikely that most of the Sanhedrin wouldn’t even understand what even saying.
Dates please?
Mr Wilson is not born again, so he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Load of rubbish
Apparently TRUE
Thanks for that revealing observation.
Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus?
There is no battle, james was a jew who christ didnt even think worthy to be an apostle.
James wrote to the jews.
Paul to the gentiles and church of God. 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Just read the scripture and you will see the truth of this commentator.
Good Bible teach you that Paul and James were fighting no
We have to supposed so many things and there are so many contradictions… Until new information is discovered we have 50/50 certainty of everything is in the NT. We do not even know the year of birth nor death of JC… Less of his apostles and Paul 😁✌🏼
If he's a professing Christian, he's got no faith.
I've given this considerable thought also, and I don't think there was any great schism between James and Paul, in fact they were likely good brothers.
James's book is not about salvation by works, but it's "if you were charged with being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?", which is not works. Works in Christianity are regarded as the natural outflow of a transformed heart.
I agree with Paul's teaching, I disagree with Dr. Wilson's teaching.
Matt 5:17
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
A bit different from the teachings of Paul.
You come to a fork in the road you can't step into the same river twice. Paul got hit on the head by ⚡️⛈️but he seemed to stop trying to kill Jesus followers and allegedly shared some fellowship and letters of divergent matters of interpretation concerning conditioned. Jews and the gentiles.
The word Christian was a Greek word originally that the Greek started calling the apostles in the Church
Luke/ACTS written 100 AD ???? RIDICULOUS!! One can tell; that the author(s) is the same man! Disciple of Paul..
Paul = James (the Just) = Germanicus = zacharias
(huqoq mosaic elephant panel)
btw Peter is Lucius Anneus Seneca (minor) = ananias
( Festus & Albinus on the road to . . . )
Was one of his brothers head of the temple at some point ?
The disciples had 3 to 6 MONTHS with Jesus, not 3 years. John is wrong in that Gospel
The book also says the kingdom of God is within didn't you read that part?are you doing confirmation bias and motivated reasoning?
Paul emphesized grace, but not works also as he should have! James taught the dictrine if Christ more, that faith eithout works is dead and can not save you! Christ Himself taught: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commadments." Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:17)!!! The were different, but not as mych as he implied here! Jsmes also believef in the divinity of Christ!!!
Name of the church was the Church of the Nazarene
Christianity is no different today. They still dispute as before like Paul and James!🤣🤣🤣
In my view this battle did not only create Christianity and Judaism as we know it nowadays. It also created Islam. One can not see these historical events separate form each other. One who wants to understand how Islam came into being needs to understand what happened in Christianity, esp.. in the 4th to the 6th century in the councils in the east. And this process goes back to this struggle. I don't agree that Paul did create Christianity as also Pamela Eisenbaum has pointed out in her fabulous book: Paul was no Christian. She proofs that Paul did not invent Christianity as we know it. That was part of the Gnostic corruption. She proofs that the real Paul was a typical Jewish mystic in the merkavah tradition from the 1th century.
This is also pointed out already by Jeremias, a German Lutheran theologian, who was one of the first to point out that there are just 7 genuine letters of Paul. This thesis is now again subject of scientific discussion, were some reduce it even to 4 letters and just parts of it: being Romans, 1+2 (parts) Corinthians, Galatians. I'm not getting into this but is proof how much people are mislead nowadays to think Paul created Christianity. Christianity did not emerge earlier than after the sacking of Jerusalem. This is a historical fact that we also can see in the development of rabbinical Judaism after the year 70.
It were the Gnostics who have corrupted the Jerusalem legacy as we also can see in what happened in the Marcion heresy. Marcion was one of those Gnostics who corrupted Paul's letters and the Gospels.
As I was saving this to Watch Later, I seem to have said, "Oh, spank me!" out loud. My girlfriend wants to talk to you. Much love all around!
The gospel that is taught by many people today has been reduced down to just "faith alone". This false gospel of "faith alone" has made following the commandments of Christ null and void. Obeying His commandments have been eliminated from the gospel and have been made subsequent and optional to salvation. Walking in the Spirit has been made optional as well. This false gospel of "faith alone" changes what Jesus said in Matthew 7:14 - For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
By teaching that we do NOT need to keep the commandments(plural) of Christ as the gospel, the saving power of the gospel has been neutralized. The end result is that millions of people have been deceived by Satan into thinking that they are saved. They were taught that "faith alone" saved them apart from them having to keep the commandments of Christ. This has become Satan's masterpiece and has deceived millions of people into thinking they have eternal life in Christ when they actually remain lost.
James carried on the teachings and gospel of Jesus of faith without works, is dead. Paul taught grace alone will save you, which Jesus never taught. As a Latter-day Saint, we follow the gospel of Jesus Christ and James of 12 Apostles, a Seventy, Temple worship, and faith without works, is dead.
John 6:29
Grace alone saves you because Jesus by his faith provides salvation and this salvation produces the faith of Jesus in the elect which will produce good works.
All speculation, no documentation, have a little faith.
It never would have become a world religion without Paul.
It is your mis-Understanding of what Paul said and what James said that causes you to think they are fighting
Was James an Essene?
It's possible.
There are reasons to believe that the Jews of Kumaran were Essenes and that John the baptist was from that community and that Jesus was a disciple of his.
totally clueless, CUCKIRICOOOHH !
Paul = Scrooge McDuck
Pete = Launchpad McQuack
I could just cry because there is not much fellowship when one rejects Paul. All the groups, even Torah groups loooooove Paul. Yahusha was not lying when He said "beware the leaven of the Pharisees". Cant find anything that does not have some Paul in it.
Amen! He was so right
But it's hard for believers in the Kingdom Gospel to give up preaching it even though it's clear that it is now (Since Stephan's stoning) dormant - replaced by Paul's gospel of Grace taught Paul by Jesus.
You are so talkative. Why not let your guests state their case?
There is no contradiction between the gospel of James and that of Paul. James' teaching is merely misunderstood by those who think this way.
The NAZARENES are the Original.
If you apply Jesus words in John 5:31, "If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true". If you apply this to Paul, his claimed vision and his self proclaimed apostlship, then Jesus is calling Paul a liar....just saying.