Toto

That scene comes from Acts, but Paul was working for the High Priest in that scenario, not the Romans. I doubt that your Catholic school was that confused.

This is a common speculation, with no real evidence for it. And it is hard to find a motivation for the Romans to create a religion and then persecute it for a couple of centuries before letting it take over, even if most of the persecution was not too draconian.

Californian

Don't generalize the entire Catholic education system by one teacher. She regarded the writing of the NT with skepticism, because it sucked up to the Romans to much. What was important to her was Jesus' core teachings.

Neither Paul nor the Empire were clairvoyant. They couldn't possibly see what would happen 400 years hence and beyond.

As far as 'common speculation', I saw it in an old spy novel and found it interesting. Valid? Who knows?

aa5874

I have some major problems with your post, I don't think that the Jesus described in the NT could have had a real human brother, since Jesus is characterised as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and the Son of God.

Jesus in the NT may have had a brother called the Satan as described in Job1.6

Job 1.6 And there is another problem, according to Eusebius in Church History, Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, Mark was in Alexandria and other disciples were preaching at other locations.

I don't think "Paul" is solely responsible for Christianity to the Gentiles when his conversion in Acts appear to be bogus. It seems that there were Gentile Christians long before "Paul". I think Justin Martyr was a Christian long before "Paul" was made a letter writer.

Californian

For a different reason, the Catholic Church agrees with you that Jesus couldn't possibly have had a brother, and of course their were others beside Paul evangelizing. Paul was administrative genius and leader.

But equating James (of the Epistle of James) with the (fictional) Satan in Job is bizarre. Job is to be read as allegory.

aa5874

I thought you claimed "Paul was solely responsible for extending Christianity to Gentiles", now you say that there were others besides Paul.

I think the character called "Paul " was more like a ganster based on the Acts of the Apostles, and more like a con-man in the "Pauline Epistles. And this character may have been created to distort the true history of believers in Jesus, the ascended.

And the Epistle of James is to be read as fiction.

Californian

Sorry about the 'solely'. Maybe 'most responsible' would be more accurate.

I agree with your view of Paul. Con Artist.
His view of mandatory belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, not only distorted the history of believers, but also the future of Christianity.

Touche.
I was thinking of the parts dealing with ethics at a personal and community level. I was told by a born-again that 'James' was heresy. "Paul won. Works are nothing. One only needs to believe." Thus was born 'church on Sunday, cheat, lie and steal the rest of the week.'

aa5874

But, I think it was Constantine that was "most responsible" for extending Christianity.

Constantine could have extended or destroyed any religion when he was alive, neither Jesus, Peter nor Paul had such power.

Californian

As yes. When Church and State got married. I read their were several forms of Christianity around, e.g. Gnostics, Arians. Constantine chose the form with the best organization, not theology.