Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 09-02-2009, 02:17 PM

It seems odd to me that the Pillars in Paul's letters have a church in Jerusalem. According to the gospel narrative, the only time anyone from Jesus' entourage entered Jerusalem was upon his death.

The supposed Pillars were all from Galilee, right? Why would they set up a church in Jerusalem?

show_no_mercy · 09-02-2009, 02:18 PM

Oops, I thought this was BC&H... I must be getting senile in my old age - can someone move it?

motorhead · 09-03-2009, 05:57 PM

Could it have been the significance of Jerusalem for the imminent return of Jesus?

hylidae · 09-04-2009, 07:02 AM

Moved to BC&H.

dog-on · 09-04-2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

It seems odd to me that the Pillars in Paul's letters have a church in Jerusalem. According to the gospel narrative, the only time anyone from Jesus' entourage entered Jerusalem was upon his death.

The supposed Pillars were all from Galilee, right? Why would they set up a church in Jerusalem?

It is a misunderstanding based on the editing of the Pauline epistles.

There was no "church" in Jerusalem during the assumed time of the writings of Paul.

aa5874 · 09-04-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

It seems odd to me that the Pillars in Paul's letters have a church in Jerusalem. According to the gospel narrative, the only time anyone from Jesus' entourage entered Jerusalem was upon his death.

The supposed Pillars were all from Galilee, right? Why would they set up a church in Jerusalem?

It is a misunderstanding based on the editing of the Pauline epistles.

There was no "church" in Jerusalem during the assumed time of the writings of Paul.

You must mean "mis-leading" information once it is admitted that there was no church in Jerusalem.

It is almost certain that the Pauline account about the "Pillars" was fictitious. There was no real character called the apostle Peter or Cephas or any real brother of Jesus called James, even the Jesus in the Pauline letters was not real.

And based on "Church History", the information about the Jerusalem Church is blatant fiction.

It must be noted that just before the assumed death of James who was supposed to be the first bishop of Jerusalem, the Scribes and Parisees did NOT appear to know that James was a Jesus believer and a bishop of a church of Jesus believers.

This is Church History on James circa 62 CE or just before he was stoned and clubbed to death.

Church History 2.23.12-13.

Quote:

The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: 'You just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.'

13. And he answered with a loud voice, 'Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sits in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.'

This anecdote appears to be friction. The Scribes and Pharisee must have known for years that it was James who had led the people astray after Jesus and that James was a follower of Jesus for years unless there was no church in Jerusalem.

And the reply from James appears to be similar to words found in the Gospels from Jesus and, Acts of the Apostles from Stephen, written long after James was supposed to be dead.

Mr 14:62 -

Quote:

And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Ac 7:56 -

Quote:

And [Sephen] said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

There was no Jerusalem Chiurch and no bishop called James in the 1st century before the death of Nero.

Minimalist · 09-04-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motorhead

Could it have been the significance of Jerusalem for the imminent return of Jesus?

Apparently not as it is 2,000 years later and he still hasn't come "back."

09-02-2009, 02:17 PM	#1
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	The Jerusalem Church It seems odd to me that the Pillars in Paul's letters have a church in Jerusalem. According to the gospel narrative, the only time anyone from Jesus' entourage entered Jerusalem was upon his death. The supposed Pillars were all from Galilee, right? Why would they set up a church in Jerusalem?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-02-2009, 02:18 PM	#2
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Oops, I thought this was BC&H... I must be getting senile in my old age - can someone move it?

09-03-2009, 05:57 PM	#3
motorhead Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Land of Make Believe Posts: 781	Could it have been the significance of Jerusalem for the imminent return of Jesus?

09-04-2009, 07:02 AM	#4
hylidae Contributor Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Virginia, US Posts: 14,435	Moved to BC&H.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.