The Battle to Establish the Eternal Religion Chapter Four — The Enemy, The Liar and The Sower of False Things
Acarya James had one adversary who was a constant problem. He was “self-willed, often rebellious and argumentative individual within the movement” who “leads many astray” and “tires out many with a worthless service.”. Who was this person? Why was he a problem? Our introduction to “The Enemy” of the early church begins with the first known interaction between he and James—at the Temple in Jerusalem. This account is given in Recognitions in the Pseudo-Clementines, [1] commenting on which Eisenman, as he typically does, uses the occasion to disparage the derelictions of the establishment exegetes, here because the Pseudo-Clementines contain such valuable information of the true history. He says, “Fortunate, indeed we are to have the Pseudo-Clementines. Though these are generally held in contempt by scholars of an orthodox mindset, they contain traces of events that are of the most inestimable value for sorting out the history of early Christianity.” The story proceeds as follows:
The High Priest of the orthodox (establishment) Jews asked the leaders of the Assembly in Jerusalem, led by James, if they would be interested in debating their doctrines. The debates were to take place between the apostles, and Caiaphas and the other High Priests. James accepted the invitation and went to the Temple with many followers. Standing on a high parapet in order to be seen and heard, James begins his discourse which continued for seven days.
Just as James is about to win over the people, “The Enemy” entered the Temple with several other men and began arguing with James. When however The Enemy was about to be overcome in the debate, he begins to confuse the arguments so that matters that were previously being correctly and calmly explained could neither be properly examined, nor understood. Then, belittling the Priests as weak and foolish, he encourages violence: “Why do you delay? Why do you not immediately seize all those who are with him”? Rising up, he took a firebrand from the altar and began beating people. Encouraged by his behavior the rest of the priests did likewise, beating and killing who they could, while many fell over each other in the panic-stricken flight that ensued.
Many were killed and their blood poured down and throughout the Temple. The Enemy ran to James and seizing him, threw him down from the top of the stairs. After the fall he lay as if he were dead and The Enemy desisted from hitting him again. However, although James’ injuries are less than fatal, his legs had been broken in the fall. This attack spurs a retreat of some thousands of his followers away from Jerusalem to the safety of Jericho, the place of James’ residence. James is spirited away with them and recovers after some time.
The Enemy then promises the High Priest Caiaphas that he would kill all those believing in Jesus’ teachings. He sets out with a writ of authority from the Priest so that he could marshal other unbelievers’ aid in destroying the Jewish Christians, going toward Damascus, because he thought that the other stalwart of the church, Peter, was there.
Along the way to his destination however, he suddenly falls off of his horse, supposedly bewildered by a blinding flash. Then in a ‘vision’ revealed to him, and him alone, he claims to see the risen Jesus who challenges him: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” In this well- known scene The ‘Enemy’ is revealed as Saul, or Saulus, who later becomes Paul—the subsequent creator of the Christian religion.
These beginning events give some insight into the character who is Paul. Beginning as he does with an attempt on the life of the leader of the Jewish Christians, and threats to kill the rest, anyone with a native intelligence must wonder about his motives. Of course, nobody’s future is forever dictated by their past, and all of us have the birthright of mending our evil ways and taking up the spiritual way of life. The question as regards Paul is did he have a change of heart, or rather, did he simply feign one in order to better carry out another agenda? Is he a case of “atheism in the convenient disguise of theism” or was he the genuine article he purports to be? The answers will be found in his attitudes and activities— a sane man can understand who is a devata or asura by the activities they perform. This is of course the question that we raised in the Introduction—developing the ability to discern the truth. Concerning Paul, and given the genuine history of the Jewish Christians and their leaders Jesus and James, we have the ability to understand what those fruits actually were. Now finally, with so much background material covered, we begin our analysis of the Kamsa’s and Putana’s handiwork when the Eternal Religion manifest in the first century at Palestine.
Who was Paul?
Like so many characters from that era Paul will be seen in different ways in the different texts available to us. In the canonical texts the history has been written in such a way to make Paul the protagonist, and anyone who is against Paul, even if it’s the apostles themselves, is pictured in a derogatory light.[2] The Biblical version of Christianity is unequivocally accepted as Pauline, and the Gospels are overwhelmingly representative of Paul’s perspective. For example, fourteen of the twenty-one Letters of the New Testament—a full two-thirds—are Paul’s, often taking an autobiographical tone, and of course emphasizing his perspective. Moreover, and interestingly, his perspective is one that is both submissive and accommodating to Roman power, rather than being in opposition to that power as were the body of Jewish Christians. The author of the Gospel Luke, a physician friend of Paul’s, was perhaps not coincidentally the author of Acts of the Apostles, which also favors Paul’s perspective, casting him in a generally flattering light with little to say about the other apostles.
Other sources for Paul's biography are scattered in various unexpected places, such as the ‘Damascus Document,’ an Arabic manuscript, which has been preserved by an unlikely chain of circumstances. He also figures prominently in the Qumran literature, although not identified by name, save for a margin note identifying him as the Enemy, who is repeatedly castigated therein for his malicious work. This Enemy is also clearly identified for us by Schoeps as Paul in the Kerygmata Petrou: “Their old enemy (Rec. 1.70), here appears under the pseudonym “Simon.”’ This “Simon who is also Paul” (Simon qui et Paulus) is for them “a certain deceiver,” “the enemy,” and a “false apostle” (pseudapostoios) who taught “apostasy from Moses” (apostasis apo Mouseos) and proclaimed a false gospel. As true apostle, Peter opposes him in a debate which exposes him.”[3]
Schoeps informs us that of more decisive importance is the claim of the original apostles that there was no other gospel than the one which Jesus’ disciples had learned from Jesus himself. He says that it is clearly obvious that Paul was a false apostle simply by the fact that he did not teach and expound the discourses of Christ. Indeed, his thought was the very opposite of Jesus’ teaching! Quoting from Recognitions 2.55: “Whoever does not learn the law from teachers but instead regards himself as a teacher and scorns the instruction of the disciples of Jesus is bound to involve himself in absurdities against God,” he says that for this reason Peter also attacked Paul and exposed him in debate as the antikeimenos, the great adversary. And “since Paul was viewed at least by the descendants of the early Judaists as the adversary, as the echthros (“enemy”), indeed, even as the Antichrist (Rec. 3.61), it is probable that he was so regarded by the early Judaists themselves.” [4]
The above clearly establishes that the Ebionites considered this Paul to be ‘The Enemy’ identified at the beginning of the chapter, and more as well. But this account has taken us a little ahead of our story. Let’s back up to the events on the road to ‘Damascus’ and look at it in some more detail, following Paul’s ‘formative’ years as a novitiate within Jewish Christianity. These events raise some questions that, in being answered, bring some interesting and insightful background to the character of the ‘Enemy.’
First of all, one would ask why this person is so ready to begin chasing after the faithful? What is his motive? What is it that is driving him to do this? Secondly, is he just an ordinary citizen with a personal vendetta? If so why would the High Priest provide him with ‘letters’ (i.e., a writ carrying with it legal authority for arrest)? If not, then on whose behalf is he working? And thirdly, why travel to Damascus, since at the time Damascus is in Syria and outside the jurisdiction of the Palestinian authorities? The writ would have no authority there! And most intriguing of all, why does this hunter of the Jewish Christians have such a turnabout that he wants to become one of them, or is this behavior a guise hiding another agenda, and what would that be?
Looking at the life of Paul
Eisenman raises the point of how unusual it would be for Saul as a relatively young man to have established sufficient authority in Jerusalem to independently take on the project of hunting Jewish Christians. How could he just take the law into his own hands? — an unlikely action in an area under Roman control. It is much more reasonable that instead of taking up this task on his own volition, he is carrying out the bidding of other established authorities such as the High Priest who issues Saul’s writ. But why would he be acting on behalf of the Priest?
Looking at every event of the time under his detective’s glass, Eisenman finds much evidence that links Saul’s Roman citizenship with highly placed personages in the Roman government, features that are both rare for the place and time. His citizenship is a known fact as he avails himself of its advantages at several pivotal moments. Moreover, he is also observed to be quite comfortable in speaking and his dealings with highly placed Roman officials, even including Nero’s own household members for example—a behavior that belies something deeper than the formal relationships, if not animosity, that would otherwise be expected from a true Essene. [5]
Later, in an unguarded moment Paul speaks of his “kinsman Herodian.”[6] This is most interesting, and the use of the term kinsman is not likely to be just an offhanded remark. As it turns out Herod Antipas, for services rendered the Roman cause, was granted citizenship along with his heirs in perpetuity. Paul’s given name, Saul, at times, Saulus, is the same as a member of the Herodian family,[7] and one suspects that he may be in fact be that Saul who is related to Herod. Evidence links the two, for example Herod’s Saul was known to enjoy the same favorite haunts as Paul liked, and there is other evidence for Paul’s Herodian connections and Roman citizenship as well.[8] Eisenman’s conclusion arrived at after twenty pages of sussing-out and cross-referencing dozens of minutiae is that they are one and the same man. It is the Roman connections that offer the best explanation to all of the relationships and behaviors observed between Paul and the figures of Roman establishment.
Paul’s being related to the High Priest or other government official would certainly explain why he was tasked with the job of ferreting out the Jewish Christians, who were at this time seen as a threat to both the political and ecclesiastical Establishment. It would also explain why he was given the authority to arrest them, and his enthusiasm for the job as well.
Recognitions tells us who was the instigator and authority of the posse: Saul “received a commission from Caiaphas, the High Priest...that he should arrest all who believed in Jesus, and should go to Damascus with his letters, and that there also, employing the help of unbelievers, he should make havoc among the faithful, and that he was hastening to Damascus chiefly on this account.”[9] It appears then that the invitation to debate was a ruse designed by Caiaphas and Saul to ambush and first kill the leader of the Movement, James, and with that now done (so they thought), proceeding to take care of the others. So we have established probable cause for Saul’s actions based on politically motivation and familial connections, and on whose account this action is taking place. The next question: why Damascus?
It is plainly recorded that after the attack on James that the Jewish Christians repaired to James’ house in Jericho, an area where some 5,000 members of the church also lived. So Paul is pursuing them to Damascus? Damascus lies on the other side of Jericho! He must go near or through Jericho to reach it! Some word jugglery seems to be at play here, and Eisenman has determined that it is to Qumran that Saul is going. That connection is made from the contents of what is called the Damascus Document, first found in 1896 in Cairo. It is linked to the Qumran community, when Qumran’s Scrolls are found to include among them no fewer than ten copies of the Damascus Document.[10] Qumran, did not have that specific name at the time, and may well have been referred as Damascus, for reasons about which we can only speculate. That isn’t necessary however, because the actual destination of Saul is revealed by what happens next.
One of the results of his ‘vision’ of the risen Jesus is that Saul is struck blind, the other is that by this visionary miracle he presents himself as a totally changed man—converted from a persecutor of the Jewish Christians to a believer like them. Now understanding the Truth, he asks to be taken to the community of the Jewish Christians and be allowed to join them as one of the faithful in Jesus. Novitiates are required to complete three years of training...at Qumran.
This asks a lot of any rational person. First of all Paul is a known killer of Jewish Christians. Secondly, his supposed ‘vision,’ blindness and change of heart are phenomena to which only Saul can attest. There is absolutely no independent way of testing the truth of any of these. We are asked to accept these attestations blindly, convinced as it were, of these miracles wrought by the grace of Jesus. The nature of such a request challenges the true believer’s acceptance of Jesus’ potency. Can the ‘risen’ Christ, who did so many other miracles do such things? The believer is inclined to accept that his Lord can indeed do such a wondrous work. But did Jesus do such things? In the scenario created while the scoffer can or will be challenged as an unbeliever, lacking faith in the Lord, the unquestioning believer may well be taken for a fool. The final truth of these matters must therefore be judged on Saul’s actions.
Saul, who remains blind for three days, is for some reason or other, accepted into the Qumran community. There is an adage that it is better to have an enemy insides one’s camp than outside. This view is apparently not shared across the board however, and many of the community have strong reservations about allowing one who has already shown himself as the enemy into the camp. From some quarters, even after years, hostility never dissipates. And then another miracle takes place. Saul is ‘cured’ of his blindness, ministered by the prayers and laying-on-of-hands of one of the faithful, after only three days. Praise the Lord! This man is the recipient of all sorts of blessings and miracles!
Saul’s ‘Training’
A 3-year training-probationary period was required prior to being admitted as a full-fledged member of the Essene community. Saul, now renewed by the baptismal initiation as Paul, relates the tutelage completing his novitiate in his letter to Galatians, Chapter One. By some accounts he is now as much as fanatic as he previously was, only now to his new cause. Actually, he turns out to be something of a loose cannon, or a lightning rod for trouble. After his probationary period he goes about giving witness to Jesus and the miracles he had experienced, and this testimony from a former persecutor is sufficient to convince some to follow him as disciples. But his preaching in ‘Damascus’ is causing trouble and rumors of his assassination are heard. Fleeing town with his companions in the dead of night he goes to Jerusalem to join the disciples there. They won’t yet accept him, some being afraid of him, not believing in his change of heart. He is thus obliged to repeatedly prove himself by his earnest preaching, and eventually counts Barnabas and others among his supporters. Still, threats of his murder are again heard. Finally, for his own safety, or perhaps more likely to free themselves of this troublesome case, he is dispatched by the church leaders to Taurus (presently in Turkey), the city of his birth.
Baigent and Leigh offer that this assignment was tantamount to exile.[11] The community in Jerusalem being preoccupied almost entirely with the events at home is little concerned with the rest of the world. If by fluke he manages to do something there, well and good. If he meets some other unfortunate end, why, what can be done, and he won’t be unduly missed.
Paul has three trips ‘abroad’ covering fourteen years of his preaching career. After Taurus he preaches in Antioch, the place where his followers are first people to be called “Christians.” However, it wasn’t long afterward that the area is bristling with dispute over the content of Paul’s message. Representatives of the church travel there, and unable to convince Paul and Barnabas of the necessity of strictly following the law of Moses, they are called on the carpet and ordered back to Jerusalem. In the assembly of the elders Paul makes his case, and then, surprisingly, or perhaps not, Biblical Acts from there on out defers to Barnabas’ and Paul’s opinions, becomes their apologist, and exalts the “signs and wonders worked through them.”
For the unschooled nothing may seem amiss here. But for those who understand the ideology of the early church as represented by James, this is alarming! Baigent and Leigh comment on this explaining that: “by careful consideration of the implications of non-sequiturs in extant texts as well as glaring omissions, Eisenman clearly presents the working method of Acts and the Gospels as nothing more than deliberate obfuscation and rewriting of early church history in order to downplay the parts played by Jesus’ brothers (especially James) and to try to justify Paul’s doctrines with those really held by the Jerusalem Community.”[12] The activities of the Putana’s thus begins to show itself. Recall Srila Bhaktisiddhanta here: “King Kamsa, acting on this traditional fear is never slow to take the scientific precaution of deputing empiric teachers of the scriptures, backed by the resources of dictionary and grammar and all empiric subtleties to put down, by the show of specious arguments based on hypothetical principles, the true interpretation of the Eternal Religion revealed by the scriptures.” [13]
Paul’s Self-Arrogated Special Position
Jesus and James, as the leaders of the early church, had established and maintained its teachings and standards. The early church was established on their authority, and the faithful were counted as those who followed these teachings. Now here comes Paul, who, while doing what is necessary to remain associated with them, attempts to establish his own authority, and thereby introduce an understanding that is diametrically opposed to the church he fashions himself to represent!
For our entry into the nature of Paul we must begin with that which demonstrates his attempts to establish himself as a true and authoritative representative of Jesus. But when we answer the question: who was Paul? we must reply that he was a Johnny-come-lately, someone who appeared on the scene after Jesus had been gone for at least three years. He never in fact had met Jesus. Nonetheless, and despite his reproachful introduction to the Jewish Christian community, after only a brief time, and on the flimsiest of credentials, he presents himself as a peer to the original apostles, one of a select group chosen by Jesus himself to present his teachings. (We note that this has some lessons and parallels for the observers of ISKCON as regards who the rightful authorities and representatives of Srila Prabhupada were after his departure.) How does he do this?
Schoeps answers for us: “Over against the principle of belonging personally to the narrowest circle of Jesus’ associates, as enunciated by the primitive church (Acts 1:21 f.), Paul set the principle of the new post-messianic period, according to which apostleship no longer depended upon association with Jesus according to the flesh but only upon the fact of being a witness of the Resurrection (II Cor. 5: 16). And this must have meant for him a special calling, a sending and commission by the risen Christ directed especially to him. That is, he believed himself commissioned to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:1; 11:13; Gal. 1:16; 2:6—8; etc.). By “God’s” will he was called to be “an apostle of Jesus Christ,” as stated in the introductions to most of his epistles, having the office of the “servant of Christ” (doulos Christos), who is a tool in God’s hands. To his opponents in Galatia he retorted that his apostleship was independent of men since it had originated in a separate revelation of Christ which was imparted only to him (Gal. 1:1—12). His apostleship did not derive from human authorization (“not from men nor through a man”) but was uniquely derived from the commission of Jesus Christ and his divine Father (Gal. 1:1).”[14] (all emphsis mine)
From the emphasis I have added in the above it is easily and repeatedly seen that Paul’s promotion to the post of apostle is therefore entirely self-arrogated. We recall that his ‘vision’ of the ‘risen’ Jesus is his own unverifiable (and questionable) testimony, and it is on this basis that he makes his claim. Moreover, it is a claim that has no precedent within the church he purports to be of. Nor is his claim even recognized by the other authorities of that church, nor do they even recognize the basis of his claim.
The Apostles unconditionally rejected Paul’s claims. In Homilies 17, Peter flatly asserts that Paul could not have seen the risen Christ. Furthermore, the principle had already been established—only eyewitnesses of the earthly Jesus could be considered for election to the Apostolate.[15] The Jerusalem church had maintained a rigorous limitation of the apostolic office to the circle of the Twelve, and a thirteenth apostle was as unthinkable as a thirteenth month in the year (Rec. 4.35). The “visions” and “revelations of the Lord” to which Paul pointed constituted no claim to objective truth since they were merely subjective experiences. Indeed, in Clementine Peter even reviles them as manifestations of an evil demon or a lying spirit.[16] Schoeps continues to relate Peter’s arguments from Homilies 17.14—19: “‘Personal acquaintance with and personal instruction by the True Prophet provides certainty, but visions leave one in uncertainty. For they can also proceed from a deceiving spirit, who feigns to be what he is not.’ The righteous man, he continues, does not need visions in order to learn what he ought to do. ‘To the pious man in the earthly body truth comes not in dreams or visions but is granted to him in full consciousness.[17] In this way the Son was revealed to me by the Father. Thereby I know from my own experience the importance of revelation.’”
It is important for us to give just a little more attention to this subject because it firmly establishes Paul’s position in regards the other disciples. Although Paul repeatedly attempted to establish some credentials with the apostles he is met with scathing criticism and rejection. Hardly then is he the person by whom the true teachings of Jesus are to be established. Peter’s challenges to his vision and any position based on them is scathing. He concludes by saying:
“How then can one be qualified for the teaching office by means of instruction received in a vision? And if you protest, ‘It is possible,’ then why did the Master spend a whole year with us who were awake? How are we to believe you when you say that he has really appeared to you? And how can he really have appeared to you, since you think precisely the opposite of his teaching? If, however, by means of one hour’s instruction you have become an apostle, then also proclaim his discourses and expound them, love his apostles, do not quarrel with me, for I was with him. You have opposed me, a firm rock, the bedrock foundation of the church. If you were not my adversary, you would not slander me and revile my preaching, so that I am not believed when I declare that which I received directly from the mouth of the Lord himself, as if I were a condemned man and you were the one who was highly extolled. When you call me kategnosmenos, you indict God, who revealed Christ to me; you attack him who praised me as blessed on account of this revelation. But if you do in fact want to work for the truth, then first learn from us what we have learned from Jesus, and become as a disciple of the truth our co-worker.”[18]
It must now be clear that this “Clementine Peter” is Paul’s most vehement adversary. Schoeps finishes the subject by reiterating the rejection of Paul’s visions and his claims to any position of authority, as well as his gospel that diverges so significantly from that of the apostles quoting Homilies 2:17: “it is said that he [Simon/Paul] “came with the pretense of proclaiming the truth in the name of our Lord, but was actually sowing error.”
Paul Exclusively Holds the ‘Correct’ Understanding
In another remarkable display of self-arrogated authority Paul will claim sole exclusivity in understanding the teachings of Jesus. He attributes to himself a virtue widely acknowledged and attributed to James—that of being holy from his mother’s womb—and asserts on this, again self-established, claim[19], that God had especially chosen him and ‘revealed His son to him’ and how the Gospel as he taught it ‘among the Gentiles’ was the result of a direct ‘revelation of Jesus Christ.’ On such flimsy authority he adopts another of James’ prerogatives—the claim as acarya. Paul claims that anyone who preached a Gospel contrary to the one he preached—even an ‘angel in heaven’—is to be accursed.[20] We know by now however what the Apostles would have thought of this arrogant claim. It is not to the Apostles that he speaks however, but to the innocent, foolish and the naïve.
One last item in Paul’s estimation of himself shows up in his being “all things to all men” and winning at all costs. In I Corinthians 9:19-23, Paul declares his interest to win over as many as possible, by being a Jew to Jews, weak to the weak, outside the law to those outside the law, and a follower of the law to those who follow the law. It is a widely understood spiritual principle that one cannot achieve a desired end by using means contrary to it. How then can Paul maintain his integrity while being “all things to all men”? He can’t. And these efforts then belie another agenda. The idea of “winning over as many as possible” was never an interest of the early church who determined that only those who qualify themselves by obedience to the Law, and tested over a three-year period, were welcomed into their community. (We might add that this was also Srila Prabhupada’s policy. He also was not interested in numbers but quality). Beyond that, they were not interested in seeking converts from the Gentiles. Their focus was on being good and proper Jews who followed the Law of Moses. It must therefore be asked then, what Paul was trying to convert people to? Obviously to his own way of thinking, to his own individually-created theology. At least it could not have been to convert them to Essenes, or the Jewish Christians, of which he passed himself off as their representative.
Paul’s Alternative Gospel
We saw above that Peter rejected not only Paul’s visions but also his deviant gospel. Just as his claim to apostleship ran counter to that of the tradition of the early church, so did his claims about the person of Jesus and his teachings. There are at least three items in his preaching that must have enraged the other disciples, because they are such egregious deviations. The first regarded the necessity of following the Law, the second his introduction the idea of Jesus’ blood sacrifice for atonement of sin, and the third would be the divinity of Jesus.
As I have labored to make clear above, the Jewish Christians sought to follow the true Mosaic Law reestablished by the prophet Jesus. They were fastidiously attentive to the Law, and demonstrated the fact by doing intentional good works. Now comes Paul with a supposed vision, and saying in Jesus’ name that it isn’t necessary to do works of any kind, nor worry about following the Law. He declared that there was a new covenant declared by Jesus by which everything was already taken care of, and all that was necessary was faith—and not faith in reality—but faith in a fantasy. His gospel, purported to be the teachings of Jesus, and by extension to embody an understanding of him, was almost completely diametrically opposed to what James, and the remainder of the Jewish Christians, including Jesus, stood for.[21] A result that is not accidental.
We return again to Schoeps for insights into Paul’s understanding of the Law. In the closing paragraph to the chapter entitled The Content of the Message of the Ebionite Christ, he reiterates the Ebionite understanding, and Paul’s misunderstanding, deliberate or otherwise, of the same:
“In concluding this chapter we must again emphasize that for the later Ebionites the real point of Christ’s message was the reformation of the Mosaic law. They were convinced that they were judging the law on the basis of Jesus himself; they saw in his life and teaching the real fulfillment of the Mosaic law. What was of divine origin, he confirmed; what was not, he annulled. The knowledge of this, the “mystery of the Scriptures” (Hom. 2.39; 3.4, 28; 17.10; 18.20), was transmitted by Jesus, the Christ, to the apostle Peter and through him to the Ebionite congregations, while “Simon who is also Paul” was reproached by them for having tried “to learn from the law what the law did not know” (ex legediscere quod nesciebat lex,Rec. 2.54).
Trying “to learn from the law what the law did not know” is of course a euphemism for either misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or deliberately altering the Law. We suggest that Paul, now clearly identified as an agent of Kamsas of the time, was deliberately altering it for the purpose of misleading anyone who would desire to follow Jesus down a false, and impotent, spiritual path. His technique is to introduce half-truths, a method by which many people become confused. It’s a baited hook. Sensing some inherent truth and accepting it, they also accept the falsity, not being able to discern the distinction. The establishment of Paul’s false “doctrine of faith” is one example of this, and it is established as follows:
The ‘starting point of the theological concept of faith’, according to Eisenman[22], is found in the New Testament in Paul’s letters to the Romans (1:17)[23], and to the Galatians (3.11)[24]. These are also the ‘foundation piece of Pauline theology’ as well, providing the basis on which Paul makes his stand against James. While James extols the Law, Paul extols the supremacy of faith.
Paul seemingly derives his theology from the original Book of Habakkuk, a text of Old Testament apocrypha dating perhaps as far back as the mid-7th century B.C. There we find the exhortation that “the upright man will live by his faithfulness.”[25] This idea is expanded upon in the Habakkuk Commentary, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls:
“But the righteous shall live by his faith. Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgment because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness.”[26]
We see that in this passage that the emphasis is on how to live: having faith in the Teacher of Righteousness those who observe the Law will be delivered by God. This, as understood in conjunction with the many passages from the Pseudo-Clementines, such as that cited on the last page, is the doctrine of the Jewish Christians. It can be restated as: those who are Righteous, because they have proper faith, will live the Law; or as: the way they live is an expression of their faith in the Law, and faith in the results accrued by such works. Remember that the Essenes (Ebionites, Zealots, Sacarii, etc.) had a strong emphasis on the Law and works (from above):
“The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls would thus refer to themselves, as, for example, ‘the Keepers of the Covenant’. As synonyms for Covenant and ‘Law’, they would often use the same words that figure so prominently in Taoism—‘way’, ‘work’, or ‘works’. They would speak, for instance of ‘the Perfect of the Way’, or ‘the Way of Perfect Righteousness’ – ‘way’ meaning ‘the work of the Law’, or the ‘way in which the Law functions’, ‘the way in which the Law works’. Variations of these themes run all through the Dead Sea Scrolls to denote the Qumran community and its members.”[27]
But Paul takes the passage from the Book of Habakkuk and reorients the emphasis: instead of works he emphasizes faith. That is all well and good perhaps, but it is not the actual spirit of the passage, nor is it the understanding of the immediate followers of Jesus, and by extension, neither would it have been Jesus’ interpretation or teaching. Paul thus takes the truth of living by faith, and makes it a half-truth of living presumably in any manner, as is taught by some present-day Christians, as long as one has faith. In doing so he creates confusion for everyone, just as he did when he first entered the scene and debated with James prior to throwing him down.
The Pauline ‘Christian’ doctrine of faith can be understood from his Letter to Galatians, chapter 3:11-14, here from the Living Bible:
Consequently, it is clear that no one can ever win God's favor by trying to keep the Jewish laws, because God has said that the only way we can be right in his sight is by faith. As the prophet Habakkuk says it, ``The man who finds life will find it through trusting God.'' How different from this way of faith is the way of law which says that a man is saved by obeying every law of God, without one slip. But Christ has bought us out from under the doom of that impossible system by taking the curse for our wrongdoing upon himself . . . Now God can bless the Gentiles, too, with this same blessing he promised to Abraham; and all of us as Christians can have the promised Holy Spirit through this faith.
This idea of “faith not works” being the salvation of man has opened the door to much foolishness. I have been told by at least one “Christian” that after receiving Jesus as my personal savior—simply by saying so many words—I would then be free to do any sinful act, having been forever redeemed from all sin by the atonement of Jesus. This was exactly the idea so roundly criticized by Srila Prabhupada that the Christians were using Jesus as a door mat on which to repeatedly wipe their sins.
Eisenman points out the transmogrification of Paul’s doctrine: “the scriptural warrant from Genesis 15:6[28] is also a cornerstone of Paul’s famous discussions in Galatians 3:6[29] and Romans 4:3,[30] but of course with exactly the opposite intent.” [31] Paul’s emphasis in Galatians on faith, as well as his deprecation of keeping the Laws of God as being impossible, were the opposite of the early Christian teachings, and so it was said of The Liar that ‘he sows error instead of truth,” To make it perfectly clear James responds to a ‘spiritual adversary’, the man teaching that Abraham was ‘justified by his faith, not works’ in the New Testament Letter of James, 2:20-24:
“Don’t you realize you Empty Man that Faith without works is useless? You surely know that Abraham our father was justified by works...you see that Faith was working with works and that by works faith was perfected.”[32] (all emphasis mine)
So much for Paul’s creation of the theology of “grace not works.” Let us now turn to his other major alteration of the Jewish Christian doctrine, that of Jesus’ blood sacrifice as atonement for sin.
The Sacrificial Cult of Paul
Paul reiterates throughout the Gospels that he is ‘building’ a community where both Greeks and Jews can live in harmony,[33] insisting that Jesus is the precious ‘Cornerstone’; the Prophets and Apostles, ‘the Foundation’ and the members ‘the building.’[34] From our perspective two millennia later it would seem a noble effort. It was not, however, viewed in such a flattering light by his contemporaries, for the early church determinedly rejects wholesale Paul’s ideas of building any community calling it ‘a City of Blood’— ‘The Spouter of Lying’ “led many astray to build a Worthless City upon blood and erect an Assembly on Lying, and for the sake of his [own] Glory, tiring out many with a worthless service, instructing them in works of lying, so that their works will count for nothing.”[35]
This reaction comes from the early church regarding several of Paul’s newly created doctrines: the New Covenant where the Messianic Christ, now God incarnate as a redeemer, shed his blood as a remission for the sins of mankind. There are also the putative statements of the Last Supper where Jesus asks his disciples to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood as a sacrifice of the New Covenant.[36] Paul mandates this ‘belief’ by establishing it on a threat: that those who partake of the Communion without seeing through to the body of the Lord, eats and drinks Judgment to himself.”[37] The Roman church later formally defined this doctrine in 1215,[38] but it wasn’t instituted until after further formulation by Thomas Aquinas. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) reaffirmed the doctrine, and it finally became official dogma in 1564. Under the name ‘Transubstantiation’ the bread and wine of the Mass must be literally perceived as the very body and blood of Jesus transfigured, which they are then asked to eat at Communion!
The very idea of anything to do with eating blood is abhorrent to the Jewish Christians. Recall that they had been strict vegetarians even since long before Jesus arrived on the scene,[39] and they looked to him to remove the false pericopes of the Torah that required animal sacrifice. This according to Recognitions 1.35. In their view, they had been freed from the sacrificial worship established with Josiah’s reform[40]—not through the universally efficacious sacrifice of the “Son of God,” as Paul led people to believe—but rather through the cleansing water of baptism whereby Jesus extinguished the fire of the sacrificial cult, relieving the act of atonement, once and for all, of all of the foul connotations of blood.
“The notion of blood and consuming it is one that exercises those responsible for the literature at Qumran to no small degree” writes Eisenman, and he connects the Qumran allusions to the “City of Blood,” etc., with Paul’s ‘Communion with the Blood of Christ’ and the ‘New Covenant in my blood, which was poured out for you.’[41] I continue quoting Eisenman, who makes the point with authority:
“One can well imagine how, in particular, this [Paul’s New Covenant] would have infuriated those of a Qumran perspective . . . Paul knows full well what he is doing. Again, as we have pointed out ad nauseam – but it cannot be repeated too often – on almost all these issues Paul is systematically allegorizing and turning the Qumran positions back against them. He is doing the same to James. That Paul groups his positions regarding ‘dining in an idol-temple’ and ‘Communion with the blood of Christ’ under the heading of ‘loving God’ or ‘Piety’ would have only infuriated groups like Qumran even more.”[42]
There are a plethora of additional references to these themes but our case is sufficiently made by now. Suffice it to say that these main doctrines of Paul were an abhorrent to the Essene community, and Eisenman may be consulted further for additional details.[43] Nor did Paul disregard the teachings and example of those before him just on these issues, but for all practical purposes on every single doctrine the Essenes followed. I will complete the question from above, of Paul’s “change of heart” as demonstrated by his works, with brief anecdotes.
Paul’s As Above the Law One particular sin that modern man is especially sensitive to is the idea that some men put themselves above others, as somehow special and therefore above the laws that command everyone else. This was an especially egregious issue in the first years after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance when a certain eleven arrogated to themselves such a unique status. Paul was no different, and he says as much in I Cor. 9:20: “to those under the law I became like one under the law--although I myself am not under the law—to win over those under the law.” And in Galatians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle, not from men, nor through any man” Exactly why was Paul not subject to the Law? Because of the special status afforded to him by dint of the risen Christ having “appeared” to him—a self-arrogated position that, as shown above, carried no weight with anyone of authority in the early church. This special status is therefore only respected by the innocent, foolish and naïve, i.e., those without the requisite ability, spiritual qualification, or native intelligence to either discern the truth themselves, or to even bother asking the opinion of the established authorities of the Jewish Christian church.
Paul’s Lack of Discrimination Regarding Cleanliness
We have cited above that the Essenes were especially attentive to cleanliness, bathing in the morning daily, washing before and after eating, defecation, and even bathing after having touched someone judged to be unclean (i.e., a foreigner, of unclean habits). The idea of cleanliness even extended to eating with such people. Srila Prabhupada likewise trained his disciples in extreme cleanliness who understand the principle of ‘contamination.’ Paul however fails to respect this idea in practice or judgment. He has no qualms regarding eating unclean food, or with unclean persons, and he ridicules those who follow this injunction. In Romans 14:14 he challenges the very idea of cleanliness: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.”
This idea he extends to food in the next verse, rejecting the idea of discriminating in what is eaten: “But if on account of meat your brother is aggrieved, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not with your meat destroy him. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of meat.” That is, he appeals to those who would follow him that they may have to temporarily set aside their lust for flesh foods if their brother, one who strictly follows the injunctions of the Law, happens to be offended by it. Later, presumably, they can return to their carnivorous habits.
We see here an excellent example of half-truths: on the one hand the attractive idea of loving your brother (who would reasonably reject that?), on the other, rather than encouraging them in following the Law, tacitly permits them to continue in their loathsome habits. What kind of ‘spiritual’ leader is this? The spiritually ignorant would have a difficult time keeping to the Law, and would easily fall prey to this leader that indulges their lusts, especially someone who has such high credentials as having been given the audience of the risen Christ. But those who are properly trained and understand the spiritual principles, such as the apostles, these teachings are nothing but lies, and therefore the epithets that they attach to Paul, such as “spouter of lies,” “deceiver,” and “false apostle.”
Paul Disparages Vegetarianism as “Weakness”
This lack of discrimination as regards eating is not simply about eating with others, but extends to eating all foods indiscriminatly. He says: “All things are lawful for me . . . eat everything that is sold in the marketplace. There is not need to raise questions of conscience.” (I Cor. 10:25), and “Food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do.” (I Corinthians 8:8) Paul repeatedly uses this “weakness of conscience” to deride strict followers like the Essenes, encouraging others by similar passages to likewise ignore the Law, doing what they will.
Paul teaches that those who will not eat any-and-everything do so out of weakness: “One person who has faith may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables” (Romans 14.2). The obvious emphasis here is to encourage people to eat anything, and further, that doing so is even a demonstration of their faith! In I Corinthians 9:10, he exhorts his followers that in eating food sacrificed to idols/demigods (a strong prohibition of the Essenes) they will be an example to those who, because of their weak conscience, (i.e., inclination to follow the Mosaic Law) would be discouraged. Paul therefore shows himself to be completely ignorant of the teachings of the church regarding contamination and restriction of food choices, or else he intentionally disregards them. Obviously after a three-year training period he would know the difference, and his exhortations to the contrary must be with the deliberate intention of leading people astray—toward that which the Jewish Christians considered forbidden.
Paul uses ‘weakness’ or ‘weak brothers’ or ‘their weak consciences’ always as a euphemism for those observing the Law. Eisenman sums up Paul’s many references to weakness: “Paul repeatedly uses the term ‘weak’ in his letters almost always with derogatory intent when describing the leaders of the community, particularly in Jerusalem, and their directives. Occasionally he parodies this, applying the term to himself to gain sympathy, but generally uses it to attack the leadership, in particular those keeping dietary regulations or relying on Mosaic law—even those whom, as he puts it, ‘only eat vegetables,’ like James.”[44]
Paul Ignores Temple Etiquette
The last time that Paul was summoned back to Jerusalem he was told to purify himself by James. This was a test. He could, before his genuine superiors, protest that he was above the Law and refuse, or else humble himself to do as was demanded of him. He chooses the later. (Interestingly, part of this purification ritual is to shave one’s head.) During this affair he enrages the populace by flaunting the commands of Temple etiquette by bringing Greeks into the Temple. So grievous is this behavior that an inscription at the entrance warns foreigners against entering the Temple on pain of death. Incensed by his flagrant disregard, Paul is seized by a crowd who are apparently intent of carrying out the sentence.
Amazingly the Roman guard is summoned who rescue Paul from the crowd on the pretense of restoring civil order. This is unusual because it was the prerogative of the Jews to maintain their laws without appealing to the civil authorities (the Romans). They would as a matter of course, exact retribution to serious offenders, i.e., stone them to death, with no interference by Roman legionnaires. This anomalous behavior, Eisenman suggests, belies a closer connection between Paul and the Romans than is otherwise reported in the New Testament. In adding all of the evidence up Eisenman concludes that Paul is in fact, and has been, a plant of the Roman Establishment for the past twenty years,[45] who then step in to save ‘their man’ from members of the movement, who, finally having had enough, vowed not to eat or sleep until Paul is dead.
At this point Paul apparently concludes that he has taken his ruse as far as possible, and, demands, as is every Roman’s right, to have his case heard before the Roman emperor, Nero. What case? There was no civil infraction! Nonetheless, this ruse works well to protect Paul from those sworn to his death, and he is carted off to Rome protected by a sizeable escort. On the way he hobnobs in congenial and intimate fashion with the Roman procurator, Antonius Felix and Antonius’ brother-in-law, Herod Agrippa II, as well as with the king’s sister![46] After his return to Rome Paul abruptly disappears from the scene, and little is heard of him again.[47]
Given the wealth of evidence of Paul’s efforts to undermine the influence of—indeed!—completely replacing the teachings of the Jewish Christians, and given the evidence of Paul’s Herodian connections, is it unlikely that Paul is an agent of the atheistic Roman Establishment? And, as we asked at the beginning of this discussion, did Paul he have a change of heart, or rather, did he feign one in order to better carry out another agenda? Is his church a case of “atheism in the convenient disguise of theism” or a genuinely bona fide religion? The answer to these questions is to be found in his attitudes and activities—by the fruits of his work—culminating in the development of a ‘Christian’ religion—one which is entirely antithetical to the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles. I’ll finish here with Paul’s activities in summary. For contrast, I will add to this, parenthetically, the admonitions given by Bhaktisiddhanta regarding of the activities of the Kamsa and Putanas.
Paul’s Character
Some character traits should be apparent to the reader by now, but why don’t we sum them up with an evaluation by the scholar Eisenman. He states that severe character deficiencies are observed where Paul is concerned—both in his own letters, and also in the Book of Acts. “These include his insubordination, jealousy, incessant bragging and vindictiveness”. . . [Paul also] denigrates the authority of those he calls ‘leaders’, ‘pillars’, ‘Archapostles’ . . . and often display his unwillingness to follow their views. He never however, contests James’ legitimate right to exercise the position he occupies, nor the fact of his authority.” By contrast Paul makes it clear that the Apostle Peter was not only obliged, but quite willing, to follow James’ leadership.[48]
I ask: what do we discern of this person named Paul? Does he demonstrate by his character and actions that he is a daiva or an asura? Does he demonstrate himself to be a suitable candidate to establish the principles of religion, as Jesus was and did, or is he otherwise the creator of an upasampradaya by which to deceive the would-be followers of sanatana-dharma?
A Summary of Paul’s Activity The established political power in first century Palestine was the Romans. Given their modus operandi of conquer, control and exploit we understand them to be atheistic Rāksasas who exploit this world and its people for their own benefit. We understand that it serves their cause to keep the masses in spiritual ignorance, and that they are motivated to extinguish any glimmer of the Truth as soon as it makes it appearance in this world. Having detected the presence of the Truth manifesting from within the Jewish Christian Movement they determine to deal with it. Recall the words of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta: “The materialist has a natural repugnance for the transcendent. King Kamsa is the typical aggressive empiricist, ever on the lookout for the appearance of the truth for the purpose of suppressing Him before He has time to develop.”
Paul, a blood relative of Herod, the puppet-king of Rome, attempted the murder of the head of the church, James the brother of Jesus, but his attempt fails, unbeknownst to him. He is then sent out by the high priest of the Temple to kill all other believers. On both accounts it is through Paul that a persecution is loosed the early church.[49] A campaign of butchery however would only take care of present day followers. Therefore, a plot is devised deal with many more than the sword can accommodate. He becomes the deceiver with the intent to mislead all those who would follow Jesus’ teachings, or rather that of the Jewish Christians, in the future.
For this purpose he arranges a special position and prerogatives for himself by portraying the ‘risen’ Christ as having appeared to him in a vision. Feigning belief he enters within the church and is able to learn firsthand all of their beliefs, customs, and practices. Knowing what the thesis of the Jewish Christians is, he can establish the anti-thesis using half-truths to attract, and at the same time mislead, the innocent, the foolish and the naïve. Recall Srila Bhaktisiddhanta: “Human beings have a natural inclination toward faith in a power that is greater than themselves and beyond their comprehension. They desire and seek to find the suitable repository of their faith.”
He begins to teach his own philosophy, one that runs opposite of the church he claims to represent. Thus the Apostles label him with epithets such as “a certain deceiver”, “the enemy”, “lying spouter” and a “false apostle” who taught “apostasy from Moses” and “he who proclaimed a false gospel”.[50] In doing so Paul is actually the first Christian heretic.[51] Recall Srila Bhaktisiddhanta: “Faith in the transcendent can be circumvented and made to yield to a materialistic understanding if prompt and decisive measures are immediately adopted. Therefore, to maintain his materialistic domination Kamsa must demean and disparage any understanding of the transcendent truth the instant it makes it appearance.”
“He became an enemy of all law. Just as by his intervention he had already frustrated the endeavors of the primitive church and James to convert the Jews to “the Mosaic law, restored through Jesus the Prophet,” so also after his conversion did he remain the persecutor of the true law. Of Paul it is said that he “came with the pretense of proclaiming the truth in the name of our Lord, but actually sowing error.”[52] Using half-truths Paul misleads those who would follow the actual teachings of Jesus. Recall Srila Bhaktisiddhanta: Kamsa takes advantage of tendency toward faith by misdirecting it to dogmatism and hypocrisy, which is presented as religious mystery and accepted as such by those of an atheistic or materialistic bent, or the more innocent who have only limited powers of discernment and discrimination.
By Paul’s own imagination he ‘creates’ Christianity—a theological concept of the body-soul being eternally saved by Jesus’ act of sacrifice on the cross, and with nothing else required except faith. The unfortunate un-saved are eternally damned to hell-fire. Such a dogma is completely antithetical to the teachings of the Jewish Christians. In fact it has no basis as a religion since religion can only be established by God.[53] Having no connection with anything deriving from above, such teachings are actually atheism in disguise.[54] As successful as this church is, that much is Paul successful in his bid to drive people away from the truth. Whatever truth the followers of Jesus had was lost in the development of Christianity; says Eisenman, “The Hellenized Movement which we now call ‘Christianity’, was in fact, the mirror reversal of what actually took place in Palestine under James.[55] Recall Srila Bhaktisiddhanta: The church that has the best chance of survival in this damned world is that of atheism under the convenient guise of theism.
Rather than having the potent spiritual process taught by Jesus that raises people up, the followers of Paul’s church are offered a milquetoast version that knows neither genuine spiritual principles, nor potent practices. They are not innocent victims however, for it is the cheating propensity, residing within their hearts, that allows them to be attracted to such a message. Thus those who would be cheaters are themselves cheated. Recall Srila Bhaktisiddhanta: The negative services that the Putanas unwittingly render to the cause of theism by strangling all hypocritical demonstrations against their own hypocrisy . . . Due to the general prevalence of atheistic disposition in the people the Putanas have complete control of the pulpits of the great ecclesiastical institutions.
Using Paul’s ‘theology’ and activities to create the majority of a ‘scripture,’ the New Testament is first penned after the demise of the majority of the Jewish Christians in Palestine, i.e., after 70 A.D. In the centuries to follow, an ‘orthodoxy’ is coalesced using Paul’s doctrines, contradictory to what Jesus and James stood for on almost every point, and in the second and third centuries the orthodoxy creates the books of the New Testament to substantiate their views. These books are written in Greek. Even these originals are lost or destroyed as the oldest extant books of the Bible, again written in Greek, date from the 4th century, all other original texts having been ‘lost in time’ (read: destroyed). Other polemics are written by the church fathers opposing the Gnostic beliefs, and these are also employed in development of church dogma. With these ‘scriptures’ the Roman church is born, later adopted by Constantine[56] as the official and only religion of the Roman (read: Raksasa) empire.
Constantine asks Pope Silvester I to agree to have the Christian church to become the official state religion. He has only two conditions: 1) that the pope be both the temporal and spiritual Roman emperor, and 2) that he can name the next pope.[57] Silvester agrees, and now the control of men is accomplished by controlling their beliefs rather than by the sword (although for a long time the sword is still used to “convert” the reluctant and dispose of the unwilling). These beliefs, in turn, are controlled by the Pope, who wields the threat of eternal damnation, as well as corporal punishment, against any would-be doubters. Recall Srila Bhaktisiddhanta: Such institutions are created and followed because of a desire on the part of the mundaners to exploit a spiritual movement for their own material purposes.
It was Paul’s activity that set the stage for what was to develop into Christianity. While Paul’s actions were antithetical to that of Jesus and his followers, it was those who came after Paul, those who wrote the gospels, that actually set up the Christian religion that has been antithetical for all believers in the two thousand years since. If Paul was a Kamsa, these ‘scribes’ were the Putanas. Having described Paul’s activities we turn now to that of the Putanas, both from ancient times and our own.
The opinion of Paul’s doctrines being the antithesis of those of Jesus is shared by many observers through history. Please see Appendix D for their comments.
The next thing we are told about Saul in Acts is that he was 'harrying the Church; he entered house after house, seizing men and women, and sending them to prison' (Acts 8:3). We are not told at this point by what authority or on whose orders he was carrying out this persecution. It was clearly not a matter of merely individual action on his part, for sending people to prison can only be done by some kind of official. Saul must have been acting on behalf of some authority, and who this authority was can be gleaned from later incidents in which Saul was acting on behalf of the High Priest. Anyone with knowledge of the religious and political scene at this time in Judaea feels the presence of an important problem here: the High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it that Saul, allegedly an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting hand in glove with the High Priest? The picture we are given in our New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect. excerpt from: The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby Chapter 1.
Summary:
Paul is sent to persecute the early church and destroy it. He persecutes and harrasses many followers. He decides to go inside, or is told to go inside and from within create dissension and divert it from it course. He feigns a vision, he feigns blindness; he feigns conversion and becomes a fanatical follower, as fanatical as he was a persecutor
He is sent away to preach; mostly to be gotten out of the way. Reports come back that he is preaching a deviant philosophy. This deviation is significant: he says by grace, not by works is man saved, a philosophy that is completely antithetical to what the early church taught. The early church were faithful followers of the law, as a means of achieving perfection.
Through his preaching he generates a large following based on the credentials of the institution he supposedly represents. He uses those followers to generate political power to hijack the organization and cause a split (albeit outside of Palestine). Through his deviant philosophy he creates a new religion, one that had nothing to do with the original church, but purports to be a part of it. New people coming to hear him, and perhaps having heard of what the genuine church is achieving, take his teaching to be that of the genuine church. Thus these people are misled.
The church of Paul becomes the official dogma of the coalescing ‘orthodox’ Roman church. The Roman powers had all but exterminated the Jewish Christians in Palestine, although they had regrouped and mounted another unsuccessful war on the occupying forces in 140 A.D. They are finished in the attempt. The Jewish Christians of the West, i.e., Egypt, now become the focus of the attacks and attempts are made to destroy the Gnostics and all vestiges of their written word and traditions. The Ebionites who had fled to Syria flourished for some hundreds of years but are eventually exterminated when the church established a See there in the 5th century.
The original scriptures were all lost in the second century AD, and the bible rewritten in that era. The early Gnostic church thought that the Jewish scripture was tampered with and did not contain the original teachings.
The Roman leader understood by observing Christians that people would give everything according to their belief and sought to co-opt that behavior
He offered Sylvester I the opportunity to make Christianity the official religion of the entire Roman empire on 2 conditions
1. that he can name the next pope
2. that the pope be both secular and ecclesiatical authority
The established church now had absolute authority over the entire Roman Empire.
Whoever did not follow on the basis of belief and dogma were simply killed and thus eliminated. With absolute power the Inquisitions were used to ferret out anyone who was a genuine follower of the Jewish Christians. For example, eating of animal flesh was one of the tests they used to indicate their beliefs. This went as far as exterminating ‘their own’ such as the Templars and the Cathars when it was politically expedient. So the Roman church persecuted other Christians such as the Gnostics, the Templars, the Cathars, etc.
In this way, what began as a genuine spiritual movement with full potency to liberate people from material shackles became a vessel empty of all potency used to control and exploit everyone as far as possible.
Footnotes: [1] Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, p. 584-9; fr. Syriac version of Recogntions Ch. 1. [2]The Dead Sea Scroll Deception, p. 177 [3] Schoeps, p. 51 [4] Schoeps, p. 55-6 [5] Phillippians 4:22 gives reference to Paul’s having one of his closest associates in the person of one Epaphroditus, who is likely both Nero’s secretary and Josephus’ publisher. Paul refers to his as his “comrade-in-arms”, and “my brother, co-worker, and fellow soldier”. There is also apocryphal correspondence between Paul and Seneca, Nero’s Chief Minister, as well as between Paul and Seneca’s brother Gallio (Acts 18:12-17). See Eisenman, Paul as Herodian, p. 244-5 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians. [6] Romans 16.11 [7] Eisenman, James, p. 46 [8] For more information regarding Saul/Paul’s Herodian connections see Eisenman, James, p. 524-29; The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, p. 226-246. [9]Recognitions 1.70-71; also Acts of the Apostles, Ch. 9 [10] For Damascus as a locution for Qumran, and the confusion regarding the places of Paul’s training and early preaching, see Eisenman, James p. 148-53. This history of the Damascus Document is admirably recounted in The Dead Sea Scroll Deception, p. 144-9. [11]The Dead Sea Scroll Deception, p. 180 [12]The Dead Sea Scroll Deception, p. 188 [13] Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, Putana, See Appendix A [14] Schoeps, p. 49 [15] Acts, 1:21-2. [16] Schoeps, p. 51-2 [17] Srila Prabhupada on the instruction of the Lord: “The Lord imparted instructions with full senses, and Arjuna received them with full senses, and thus there was a perfect exchange of sensible and logical understanding between the master and the disciple. Spiritual understanding is nothing like an electrical charge from the master to the disciple, as foolishly claimed by some propaganda-mongers. Everything is full of sense and logic, and the exchange of views between the master and disciple is possible only when the reception is submissive and real. In the Caitanya-caritāmrta it is said that one should receive the teaching of Lord Caitanya with intellect and full senses so that one can logically understand the great mission.” SB 2.3.20 (emphasis mine) [18] Schoeps, p. 52-53. Note that the accounts given in the Pseudo-Clementines (Homilies and Recognitions) although thought to be fictional dialogues, are accepted as reconstructions of what the characters would likely have been thought to have said. This is in a manner similar to the authorship of the four major gospels of the New Testament. See the section Development of Pauline Doctrine and the Canonical Bible in Chapter Five. Epiphanius is an important witness in support of the view that the original Clementine writings, now no longer extant, are to be associated with the Ebionites. See Schoeps, p. 15-17. [19] Letter to Galatians, 1:15-6, see also Eisenman, James, p. 257 [20] Ibid, p. 257 [21] Eisenman, James, p. xxxii [22] Personal letter to Baigent and Leigh, 22 Aug. 1990, fr. Dead Sea Scroll Deception Endnote 31, Ch. 13 [23] Romans 1:17 – “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith.’” [24] Galatians 3:11 – “But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for ‘The just shall live by faith.’” [25] Book of Habakkuk, 2.4 [26] The Habakkuk Commentary, VIII, (ii,4b). Vermes, p. 239 [27]Maccabbees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran, pgs. 6 & 108, fr. The Dead Sea Scroll Deception, p.172 [28] Genesis 15:6 re: Abraham; “And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” [29] Galatians 3:6 – “Thus Abraham ‘believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’” [30] Romans 4:3 – “For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’” [31] Eisenman, James, p. 274 [32] Eisenman’s translation, James, p. 274 emph. in orig. Letter of James rep. of Palestine tradition, p. 10 [33] Galatians, 3:28 [34] Eisenman, James, p. 284 [35] Eisenman, James, p. 734 [36] I Corinthians, 11:23-32 [37] I Corinthians, 11:29 [38] At the Fourth Lateran Council commenced by Innocent III [39] Judas Maccabee, Jewish independence leader, and his followers as precursors of later day Zealots, were all strict vegetarians dating back to 165 BC. [40] “According to Ebionite belief Moses received a Pentateuch different from the present one; the latter, written a thousand years after Moses, has been falsified. Approximately five hundred years after Moses’ death it was rediscovered in the Temple (Josiah’s reform, Deuteronomy); after another five hundred years it perished in the flames (under Nebuchadnezzar), then was written down again (Priestly Code, under Ezra), with the result that in successive drafts it became more and more falsified. In any event, we may regard it as certain that the Ebionite theory of false pericopes did not come out of the blue but derived from ancient recollections that the extant version of the Torah was not identical with the Sinai version but had been distorted by additions and alterations. The Ebionites were as justified in maintaining that the Sinai legislation was originally non-cultic [without animal sacrifice] and that it was the post-Deuteronomy Priestly Code which introduced the many sacrificial commandments into the Torah for the first time, wrongly giving Jewish religion a cultic [sacrificial] character.” Schoeps, p. 83-4.
“We may say that Jewish Christian antagonism toward the law of sacrifice is directly descended from statements of the prophets on this subject. The statements of the prophets. . . can only be understood when one remembers that the standardization of the sacrificial cult is the product of later Israelite history; it occurred, at the earliest, in the era of Manasseh (698—643 B.C.). Consequently, the Mosaic origin of the cultic laws is a fiction, or, to employ Ebionite terms, the product of false pericopes. Schoeps, p. 118
[41] Ibid., p. 274 [42] Eisenman, James, p. 735 [43] See for example, James, p. 725-750 [44] Eisenman, James, p. xxx [45] Ibid., p. 350-52 [46] Eisenman, James, p. xxxiii [47] Eisenman suggests that Paul entered into Nero’s service at this time, “if he had not been in this service all along.” [!] see Paul as Herodian, p. 244 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians.. [48] Eisenman, James, p. 52; ref. to Peter’s subservience to James is in Galatians 2:11-12. [49] Schoeps, p. 45 [50] Schoeps p. 51 [51] Baigent, et. al. p. 181 [52] Schoeps p. 56 [53] “Nobody can create religious principle. A man cannot create. That is not possible. Any religious system which is created by man, that is not religion. Religion means what is created by God. That is religion. Dharmam tu säksät. Säksät means directly. So this Bhagavad-gītā is real religion, because it is directly spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead for the benefit of the whole human society.” Lecture 13Jan73. [54] “One who has no idea what God actually is thinks that any form he imagines or any rascal he accepts can be God. This acceptance of cheap gods or incarnations of God is actually atheism.” Chaitanya Charitamrta, Adi 10.11 [55] Eisenman, James, xxxiii [56] Note his history: Constantine was a German warrior who fought all over the world on behalf of the imperial government of Rome. As a Roman administrator he spoke Latin, Greek, Pict, Gaulish, Frankish, and at least one Asiatic dialect. After his fight with Maxentius at the Battle of Milvan Bridge, he became emperor of the West and the most powerful man in the world. [57] Martin Malachi, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, p. 33
