Jesuism

[Ronin Truth]

Jesuism, also called Jesusism or Jesuanism, is the philosophy or teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and adherence to those teachings.^[1] Jesuism is distinct from and sometimes opposed to mainstream Christianity.^[2] In particular, the term is often contrasted with the theology attributed to Paul of Tarsus and mainstream Church dogma.^[3][4] Jesuism is not opposed to the Christian Bible or Church doctrine, but rather it does not affirm their authority over the teachings of Jesus. As a philosophy, Owen Flanagan characterized Jesuism as naturalistic and rationalist, rejecting the conflict between faith and science.^[5] Though not specifically associated with Jesuism, the red letter Bibles are one method of studying the teachings of Jesus. Another is the Jefferson Bible. Many New Testament scholars have tried to identify Jesus' authentic sayings and actions. Géza Vermes, in particular, in his The Authentic Gospel of Jesus identifies what elements of the synoptic gospels are attributable to Jesus.^[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism

[BuddyRey]

Wow, very interesting. I always knew that such a philosophy must exist, since I've believed it myself for years, but I had no idea it had a name.

Thanks for sharing this!

[heavenlyboy34]

So, how do Jesuists resolve (seeming) conflicts in the red letter texts-which militant atheists are famous for criticizing? And what about application of Jesus' doctrine/teachings? (your link offers no detail about this)

[erowe1]

Probably the most famous and influential Jesuist was the apostle Paul.

[ClydeCoulter]

Seems that it is not often that a good conversation can be found in the "Peace Through Religion" forum. This is one example of that problem.

Questions? Do some research.
Sarcasm? Yes.

[edit] @BuddyRey had a good comment though.

[GunnyFreedom]

Any apparent contradictions between the teachings of Yeshua and the teachings of Paul, arise from a lack of understanding Paul.

I tend to not hold it against people, however, as Paul is kind of hard to understand at times. If someone wants to think that Yeshua and Paul are in contradiction, and they appear entrenched in that position, I say "Fine, obey Jesus and you will do well." If someone rejects Paul but obeys Yeshua, they may be missing some depth, but they will come out OK.

Paul's theology and Yeshua's theology are the same, but Paul is easily and often misinterpreted.

[Ronin Truth]

Jesuism versus Paulinism

Jesuism does not affirm the spiritual or scriptural authority of the Christian Bible (with the exception of the Gospels). Jesuism is particularly contrasted with Pauline Christianity or Paulinism, the theology of Paul of Tarsus.^[24][25]

Ludwig Wittgenstein described the following differences between Paulinism and Jesuism:

The spring which flows quietly and transparently through the Gospels seems to have foam on it in Paul’s Epistles. Or, that is how it seems to me. Perhaps it is just my own impurity which sees cloudiness in it; for why shouldn’t this impurity be able to pollute what is clear? But to me it’s as if I saw human passion here, something like pride or anger, which does not agree with the humility of the Gospels. As if there were here an emphasis on his own person, and even as a religious act, which is foreign to the Gospel.
In the Gospels – so it seems to me – everything is less pretentious, humbler, simpler. There are huts; with Paul a church. There all men are equal and God himself is a man; with Paul there is already something like a hierarchy; honours and offices.^[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism...rsus_Paulinism

[Ronin Truth]

Wow, very interesting. I always knew that such a philosophy must exist, since I've believed it myself for years, but I had no idea it had a name.

Thanks for sharing this!

You're welcome. I've always had major issues with creepy institutions. It looks like TJ was on this track too.

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...on%20Bible.pdf

[GunnyFreedom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism...rsus_Paulinism

This is specifically the kind of article that Wikipedia should never be used for.

Some people freak out whenever someone cites Wiki but Wiki is good for fact-based articles.

Wiki is not good for opinion based articles.

[Ronin Truth]

Any apparent contradictions between the teachings of Yeshua and the teachings of Paul, arise from a lack of understanding Paul.

I tend to not hold it against people, however, as Paul is kind of hard to understand at times. If someone wants to think that Yeshua and Paul are in contradiction, and they appear entrenched in that position, I say "Fine, obey Jesus and you will do well." If someone rejects Paul but obeys Yeshua, they may be missing some depth, but they will come out OK.

Paul's theology and Yeshua's theology are the same, but Paul is easily and often misinterpreted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

[GunnyFreedom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

This is specifically the kind of article that Wikipedia should never be used for.

Some people freak out whenever someone cites Wiki but Wiki is good for fact-based articles.

Wiki is not good for opinion based articles.

[Ronin Truth]

This is specifically the kind of article that Wikipedia should never be used for.

Some people freak out whenever someone cites Wiki but Wiki is good for fact-based articles.

Wiki is not good for opinion based articles.

As typical Google searches go, there is not a lot here to choose from.

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&...nfpr=1&start=0

[GunnyFreedom]

As typical Google searches go, there is not a lot here to choose from.

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&...nfpr=1&start=0

That would seem to support my point about Wikipedia being bad for that kind of article. Someone could write an article about Martianism and post it on Wiki. Doesn't mean Martianism is a real thing.

Anybody with an axe to grind about Paul can create an entire Yeshua vs Paul controversy out of whole cloth and then post articles to Wiki to support their invention. There has already been a history of this occurring on Wiki, particularly around Scientology.

[Ronin Truth]

That would seem to support my point about Wikipedia being bad for that kind of article. Someone could write an article about Martianism and post it on Wiki. Doesn't mean Martianism is a real thing.

Anybody with an axe to grind about Paul can create an entire Yeshua vs Paul controversy out of whole cloth and then post articles to Wiki to support their invention. There has already been a history of this occurring on Wiki, particularly around Scientology.

I'm more than open to you finding us a better source for this subject than Wikipedia.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm more than open to you finding us a better source for this subject than Wikipedia.

If something only exists in Wikipedia, then the chances are it's not real to begin with, and no manner of better sources will correct that.

[Ronin Truth]

If something only exists in Wikipedia, then the chances are it's not real to begin with, and no manner of better sources will correct that.

But it is NOT ONLY in Wikipedia. I gave you a Google search link to review and choose from.

[GunnyFreedom]

But it is NOT ONLY in Wikipedia. I gave you a Google search link to review and choose from.

I already know that Yeshua and Paul agree with each other. Posting a link to search results means what? If you wanted a discussion on the merits of the subject, then post an example of what you think is a contradiction, and I will explain how you have misunderstood Paul's writing. I already know that there are people out there who think Paul taught something different. Christian Usenet was saturated with that stuff back in 1998. It's faded away because they were wrong.

[Ronin Truth]

I already know that Yeshua and Paul agree with each other. Posting a link to search results means what? If you wanted a discussion on the merits of the subject, then post an example of what you think is a contradiction, and I will explain how you have misunderstood Paul's writing. I already know that there are people out there who think Paul taught something different. Christian Usenet was saturated with that stuff back in 1998. It's faded away because they were wrong.

Proof That Paul Is An Apostle Of Satan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jVBoPCnQ7c

The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmkwcGAt3XQ

[erowe1]

As typical Google searches go, there is not a lot here to choose from.

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&...nfpr=1&start=0

Meaning you can't find anything that actually supports what you want to believe is true?

[erowe1]

But it is NOT ONLY in Wikipedia. I gave you a Google search link to review and choose from.

It doesn't even really exist on wikipedia.

[Ronin Truth]

Paul’s Curse

When it comes to Paul, there are a lot of firsts. He was this first person to self-proclaim himself an apostle. He was the first person to receive ‘secret’ knowledge (Colossians 1:23-26) through an instantaneous flash. He was also the first to be made worse by the revelation of Jesus and required God to curse him to make up for it.

I am of course talking about Paul’s thorn (2 Corinthians 12:7-9). Now before I get to the scripture let me ask a very easy question. If I came to you and said the following, “God has revealed to me secret knowledge and mysteries that were not given to anyone else. I know this might sound arrogant, but God has cursed me to keep me humble.” What would you honestly think of me? This statement is right up there with, “I am not arrogant, I have no flaws.”

Paul wrote to the Corinthians and said just this. He tells the Corinthians that the revelation God revealed to him was so amazing that God had to curse him to keep him humble. Now there is some debate on what the thorn actually is. I have read that it was a physical ailment, a demon, and even homosexual desires given his very aggressive stance against homosexuality. However, what it actually was doesn’t actually matter.

According to pretty much all Christian theology, even mainstream theology, the belief in Jesus and his teachings is supposed to make you a better person. Now Paul was apparently exposed directly to God. Exactly what kind of revelation does God reveal that can make a person arrogant? If he was exposed to God wouldn’t he be fearful, wouldn’t this make him not arrogant? So without even knowing what his “thorn” was, we can deduct that whatever revelation he was revealed did not have the depth of transformation on his life that he claimed.

Also is there anywhere else in scripture that God uses cursing in this way? In almost all cases of God either justifying directly (Adam & Eve), or allowing curses to happen (Story of Job), the ‘curse’ was either to test or was a punishment for not following God. Never does God curse in order to modify people’s character. One could even argue that if God did this he would actually be taking away human free will.

So what are we left with? We are left with a man who proclaims that he was given a great revelation and God to keep him humble cursed him. Does this make sense to you?

Faith Vs Works, A Paul Lie

Some Quick Background

There is a common belief in mainstream Christianity that the only requirement to be saved is the “conversion”. From a religious stand point making a conversion as easy as possible is the best way to make your religion survive, and also increases tithing income.

The problem is this, in James he says faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26). Paul all the other hand said that faith alone can save you (Romans 4:5). Here is what dogma will tell you, that James was talking about charity, and Paul was talk about the law. There is a couple problems with this. The main problem is that when James gives an example of a “work” he uses Abraham’s son sacrifice as the example. When Abraham was going to sacrifice his son, this was not charity or common good deeds, this was respecting God’s wishes (law). How can any reasonable person say that James was only talking about charity?

It is also interesting to note that James specifically uses the Abraham example in contrast to how Paul used Abraham. If had to make a wager the “foolish man” (James 2:6) James was referencing was actually Paul. We know that Paul was at odds with the other apostles and he even went so far as saying they added nothing to him (Galatians 2:1-10).

So About That Jesus Guy

One of the most shocking things I discovered when I actually started reading the red letters was how much the Church misrepresented Jesus or selectively chose to not preach the words of Jesus. Here is a very basic question, “what are the requirements for salvation?” Almost all Christians will universally say, “you must accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior.” Now when I hear Christians tell me this, I like to follow-up with this question, “Right, so what else did Jesus say were the requirements for salvation?”

But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses
- Matthew 6:15

With out forgiveness of the Father, there is no Salvation. Jesus says this in multiple locations. This verse is almost always overlooked, for good reason. Jesus is putting criteria on forgiveness and that is something that is in complete conflict with mainstream Christianity. This idea is also some what profound in nature because it makes forgiveness a requirement. Now it is true that the Church does endorse forgiving others, however, it rarely states the truth that forgiveness is actually mandatory.

It is also worth noting that despite this statement being verified by multiple Gospels, self-proclaimed Apostle Paul never preached that forgiving others was a requirement for salvation.

Why is this important? Because forgiveness is an act or work. Jesus also confirms that acts can bring you salvation when he has a conversation with the lawyer (Luke 10:25-28). Dogma will do all kinds of things to try and prove that Jesus’s initial statement was actually false and that he only said it to prove a point. So was Jesus “lying” to the lawyer when he said we can obtain Salvation through loving God and our neighbor?

Conclusion

Everyone wants things without effort. This was the message Paul was spreading and is it any wonder it became wildly popular? Getting something for free is not a God concept. It goes all the way back to Adam and Eve where God commanded they not eat from the tree of knowledge to maintain their lives. Jesus similarly did not promise ‘free’ salvation. Paul wanted gentiles to convert, and he knew the only way they would convert is if he made it as easy possible. He made a claim that the cake was free, when in reality he didn’t have a cake to give.

The Start of the Great Deception

paul-on-the-road-to-damascus1

It all started on a desert road. A Pharisee by the name of Saul (Paul) had a character, that apparently was Jesus, bestow him the greatest knowledge of all the apostles. There was a light and a voice and the people travelling with him stood speechless (Acts 9:7). Oddly, Paul would go onto say that he was the only one who heard the voice of Jesus, and not his travelling companions (Acts 22:9).

Paul up to this point had been persecuting “Christians”, that term being very different from what it is now today. Upon his revelation he under went a “conversion” and realized that Jesus was the messiah.

So started over a thousand years of corruption. Where a pharisee made the claim that he saw Jesus without any solid proof and received his knowledge through Gnosis. An idea we now know was prevalent among early Gnostic based Christianities.

Like the many corrupt leaders that would followed him, Paul would use this experience and the legitimate words of Jesus to give his incorrect non-Jesus based beliefs credibility. He would dismiss Jesus’s real apostles and introduce his own ideas to a large gentile population who was yearning for any kind of “truth” that could bring more meaning to their lives, regardless of if it was actually correct.

http://fightpaul.wordpress.com/tag/jesuism/

[ClydeCoulter]

It's too bad, that our lives are kept so busy, and our wealth confiscated (that of our parents also), and our lives shortened.

How is anyone going to drill down to find truth, it is like a child chasing a butterfly that won't land. It makes me sad.

And if someone is really trying to find truth, he meets the jackals, the wolves, and the spiders web. But, he needs to meet the others that are trying to find truth, but they are not as plentiful as the other "others".

If a person tries to write down his thoughts, and what, partially, he has found, he will be asked for his sources, and if he give sources he will be told that he is unable to describe it himself, and if he describes it and gives his sources then he will be questioned to death until he is tired and goes away.

No support or discussion comes his way, no research from the questioners (question against rather than support or guidance). "Here is what I have found"..."take this you nail", says the hammer.

[erowe1]

It's too bad, that our lives are kept so busy, and our wealth confiscated (that of our parents also), and our lives shortened.

How is anyone going to drill down to find truth, it is like a child chasing a butterfly that won't land. It makes me sad.

And if someone is really trying to find truth, he meets the jackals, the wolves, and the spiders web. But, he needs to meet the others that are trying to find truth, but they are not as plentiful as the other "others".

If a person tries to write down his thoughts, and what, partially, he has found, he will be asked for his sources, and if he give sources he will be told that he is unable to describe it himself, and if he describes it and gives his sources then he will be questioned to death until he is tired and goes away.

No support or discussion comes his way, no research from the questioners (question against rather than support or guidance). "Here is what I have found"..."take this you nail", says the hammer.

Is it possible that if you really are looking for truth that it will turn out to be what the people you think are jackals are saying?

You seem to be that what you consider a search for truth should not involve having sound reasons for your conclusions, and that those who do want to pursue conclusions that are based on sound reasons are somehow actually impeding that search instead of doing a better job of it.

[Ronin Truth]

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

[ClydeCoulter]

Is it possible that if you really are looking for truth that it will turn out to be what the people you think are jackals are saying?

You seem to be that what you consider a search for truth should not involve having sound reasons for your conclusions, and that those who do want to pursue conclusions that are based on sound reasons are somehow actually impeding that search instead of doing a better job of it.

That there is a whole lot of conjecture. Have you been following me, and that is the best you can do to summarize me or others seeking truth?

The search for truth cannot be obtained by being an expert in every field, with all knowledge of everything. We just don't have the time, life is short and kept busy. So, we try to find consistency here and there, in the dark corners as well as in the open light of day.

We do know a few things from experience. We know that many of the "more educated" among men lie. Why, is hard to tell, but when there are inconsistencies and down right contradictions, someone is lying. So, we dig deeper and more shallow. On the surface we find the outward face of things, and deeper we find the details. Some things can be thrown off immediately, and we don't forget where those come from, but those are few.

We also have to fight the continuous propaganda, that daily plagues mankind.

Is something true because the majority accepts it as truth? You know the answer to that. Has all truth already been found, and we are to yield ourselves to way things are. Have the educated found the answer to life, and we are just rebels seeking a way out of our lowly estate in life?

If you have found the answer to it all, then clearly state it for us who are less fortunate. Otherwise, for myself, I will continue searching, and I will continue brushing aside those that block my way, no matter the manner they have devised to do so.

[otherone]

It's too bad, that our lives are kept so busy, and our wealth confiscated (that of our parents also), and our lives shortened.

How is anyone going to drill down to find truth, it is like a child chasing a butterfly that won't land. It makes me sad.

And if someone is really trying to find truth, he meets the jackals, the wolves, and the spiders web. But, he needs to meet the others that are trying to find truth, but they are not as plentiful as the other "others".

If a person tries to write down his thoughts, and what, partially, he has found, he will be asked for his sources, and if he give sources he will be told that he is unable to describe it himself, and if he describes it and gives his sources then he will be questioned to death until he is tired and goes away.

No support or discussion comes his way, no research from the questioners (question against rather than support or guidance). "Here is what I have found"..."take this you nail", says the hammer.

“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.”

Joseph Campbell

[erowe1]

That there is a whole lot of conjecture. Have you been following me, and that is the best you can do to summarize me or others seeking truth?

No. That wasn't conjecture. It was a characterization of your own words in the quote that I gave and replied to.

Otherwise, for myself, I will continue searching, and I will continue brushing aside those that block my way, no matter the manner they have devised to do so.

If the people you brush aside are those who ask questions, who want sources, and who try to understand things to the point that they can describe them using their own words (which are the things you yourself mentioned above), then what you're doing is not searching for truth, but running from it.

We could be having productive discussions about Paul and Jesus, where questions would be asked and answered, and knowledge shared to mutual benefit. But some people refuse. And those people are consistently the ones who are so intent on making an evil caricature out of Paul that they are unwilling to consider that it might not be historically accurate. They are a type of religious fundamentalist.

[otherone]

those people are consistently the ones who are so intent on making an evil caricature out of Paul that they are unwilling to consider that it might not be historically accurate.

“Myth is much more important and true than history. History is just journalism and you know how reliable that is.”

Joseph Campbell

[heavenlyboy34]

“Myth is much more important and true than history. History is just journalism and you know how reliable that is.”

Joseph Campbell

Not exactly true, but true enough to get a chuckle out of me. Thnx.

[Ronin Truth]

Historical Quotes Concerning Paul and his doctrines from Historians, Philosophers and Theologians:


Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author)

"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly
immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to
excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it
was an inspiring document." (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])


Thomas Jefferson

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." (All references not listed here, can be
found in Christianity Betrayed)


Albert Schweitzer

"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had
to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on
the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially
relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."


Wil Durant (Philosopher)

"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of
Christ."
"Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."


Walter Kaufmann (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton)

"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."


George Bernard Shaw

"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its
legs again in the name of Jesus."


Thomas Hardy

"The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."

Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar)

"As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and
the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian
tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter
opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with
horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the
imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree,
as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in
spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome. Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is
not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale
inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation." (The Mythmaker, p. 139,Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)


Jeremy Bentham (English Philosopher)

"If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul." (Paraphrased. Looking for a copy of "Not Paul, but Jesus" in order to retrieve the exact quote.)

Carl Jung (Psychologist)

"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." (U.S. News and World
Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)


Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark)

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
(Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991).

http://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_docs.htm