embed/christianity2.0
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Wiki Activity

Update 6

embed 2023-09-28 11:10:44 +00:00
parent ded930ab29
commit c4f20786ce
29 changed files with 1773 additions and 711 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

432
BnaiAmenEbionites.md

@ -29,85 +29,85 @@ of by Yeshua and faithfully recorded in Aramaic by Matthew and others.
In the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.2-3),
we read:
* In the Gospel that is in general use among them (Ebionites) which is
* called "according to Matthew", which however is not whole and
* complete but forged and mutilated - they call it the Hebrew's Gospel
* - it is reported:
In the Gospel that is in general use among them (Ebionites) which is
called "according to Matthew", which however is not whole and
complete but forged and mutilated - they call it the Hebrew's Gospel
- it is reported:
* There appeared a certain man named Jesus of about thirty years of
* age, who chose us. And when he came to Capernaum, he entered into
* the house of Simon whose surname is Peter, and opened his mouth and
* said: "As I passed the Lake of Tiberias, I chose John and James the
* sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddeus and Simon the
* Zealot and Judas the Iscariot, and you, Matthew, I called as you sat
* at the receipt of custom, and you followed me. You, therefore, I
* will to be twelve apostles for a testimony unto Israel."
There appeared a certain man named Jesus of about thirty years of
age, who chose us. And when he came to Capernaum, he entered into
the house of Simon whose surname is Peter, and opened his mouth and
said: "As I passed the Lake of Tiberias, I chose John and James the
sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddeus and Simon the
Zealot and Judas the Iscariot, and you, Matthew, I called as you sat
at the receipt of custom, and you followed me. You, therefore, I
will to be twelve apostles for a testimony unto Israel."
*
And:
* It came to pass that John was baptizing; and there went out to him
* Pharisees and were baptized, and all of Jerusalem. And John had a
* garment of camel's hair and a leather girdle about his loins, and
* his food, as it is said, was wild honey, the taste if which was that
* of manna, as a cake dipped in oil. Thus they were resolved to
* pervert the truth into a lie and put a cake in the place of locusts.
* (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.4-5)
It came to pass that John was baptizing; and there went out to him
Pharisees and were baptized, and all of Jerusalem. And John had a
garment of camel's hair and a leather girdle about his loins, and
his food, as it is said, was wild honey, the taste if which was that
of manna, as a cake dipped in oil. Thus they were resolved to
pervert the truth into a lie and put a cake in the place of locusts.
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.4-5)
* And the beginning of their Gospel runs:
And the beginning of their Gospel runs:
* It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea, when
* Caiaphas was high priest, that there came one, John by name, and
* baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan. It was
* said of him that he was of the lineage of Aaron the priest, a son of
* Zacharias and Elisabeth : and all went out to him. (Epiphanius,
* Panarion 30.13.6)
It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea, when
Caiaphas was high priest, that there came one, John by name, and
baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan. It was
said of him that he was of the lineage of Aaron the priest, a son of
Zacharias and Elisabeth : and all went out to him. (Epiphanius,
Panarion 30.13.6)
* And after much has been recorded it proceeds:
And after much has been recorded it proceeds:
* When the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by
* John. And as he came up from the water, the heavens was opened and
* he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove that descended and
* entered into him. And a voice sounded from Heaven that said: "You
* are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased. " And again: " I have
* this day begotten you". And immediately a great light shone round
* about the place. When John saw this, it is said, he said unto him :
* "Who are you, Lord?" And again a voice from Heaven rang out to him:
* "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." And then, it is
* said, John fell down before him and said: "I beseech you, Lord,
* baptize me." But he prevented him and said: "Suffer it; for thus it
* is fitting that everything should be fulfilled." (Epiphanius,
* Panarion 30.13.7-8)
When the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by
John. And as he came up from the water, the heavens was opened and
he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove that descended and
entered into him. And a voice sounded from Heaven that said: "You
are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased. " And again: " I have
this day begotten you". And immediately a great light shone round
about the place. When John saw this, it is said, he said unto him :
"Who are you, Lord?" And again a voice from Heaven rang out to him:
"This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." And then, it is
said, John fell down before him and said: "I beseech you, Lord,
baptize me." But he prevented him and said: "Suffer it; for thus it
is fitting that everything should be fulfilled." (Epiphanius,
Panarion 30.13.7-8)
* Moreover, they deny that he was a man, evidently on the ground of
* the word which the Savior spoke when it was reported to him:
Moreover, they deny that he was a man, evidently on the ground of
the word which the Savior spoke when it was reported to him:
* "Behold, your mother and your brethren stand without." namely: "Who
* is my mother and who are my brethren?" And he stretched his hand
* towards his disciples and said: "These are my brethren and mother
* and sisters, who do the will of my Father."
* (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.14.5)
"Behold, your mother and your brethren stand without." namely: "Who
is my mother and who are my brethren?" And he stretched his hand
towards his disciples and said: "These are my brethren and mother
and sisters, who do the will of my Father."
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.14.5)
* They say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father, but created
* as one of the archangels ... that he rules over the angels and all
* the creatures of the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as
* their Gospel, which is called Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel
* According to the Hebrews?,
* reports:
They say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father, but created
as one of the archangels ... that he rules over the angels and all
the creatures of the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as
their Gospel, which is called Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel
According to the Hebrews?,
reports:
* "I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if you cease not
* sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you."
* (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16,4-5)
"I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if you cease not
sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you."
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16,4-5)
* But they abandon the proper sequence of the words and pervert the
* saying,
* as is plain to all from the readings attached, and have let the
* disciples say:
But they abandon the proper sequence of the words and pervert the
saying,
as is plain to all from the readings attached, and have let the
disciples say:
* "Where will you have us prepare the passover?" And him to answer to
* that: "Do I desire with desire at this Passover to eat flesh with
* you?"
* (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.22.4)
"Where will you have us prepare the passover?" And him to answer to
that: "Do I desire with desire at this Passover to eat flesh with
you?"
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.22.4)
### Clementine Homilees
@ -120,170 +120,168 @@ They also contain information of the daily lifestyle and diet of early
Nasarene leaders such as Peter. We learn that Peter bathes in flowing water
every morning before dawn and that he eats only wheat, olives, fruits and
vegetables. We also learn of the strict Nasarene rules governing
association and eating with meat eaters. All doctrines and principles
espoused by these Clementine works are received by the Essene Church of the
B'nai-Amen.
association and eating with meat eaters. All doctrines and principles espoused
by these Clementine works are received by the Essene Church of the B'nai-Amen.
### Ancient Writers on the Ebionites
* "Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by
* God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to
* those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to
* Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he
* was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they
* endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they
* practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs
* which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of
* life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of
* God." (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), 180 A.D.)
"Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by
God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to
those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to
Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he
was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they
endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they
practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs
which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of
life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of
God." (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), 180 A.D.)
* God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us
* the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now
* presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman
* shall conceive, and bring forth a son," as Theodotion the Ephesian
* has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The
* Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph;
* thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvelous
* dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets
* which proceeded from God. (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Against
* Heresies), 180 A.D.)
God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us
the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now
presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman
shall conceive, and bring forth a son," as Theodotion the Ephesian
has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The
Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph;
thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvelous
dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets
which proceeded from God. (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Against
Heresies), 180 A.D.)
* He will judge also the Ebionites; [for] how can they be saved unless
* it was God who wrought out their salvation upon earth? Or how shall
* man pass into God, unless God has [first] passed into man? And how
* shall he (man) escape from the generation subject to death, if not
* by means of a new generation, given in a wonderful and unexpected
* manner (but as a sign of salvation) by God [I mean] that
* regeneration which flows from the virgin through faith? Or how shall
* they receive adoption from God if they remain in this [kind of]
* generation, which is naturally possessed by man in this world? And
* how could He (Christ) have been greater than Solomon, or greater
* than Jonah, or have been the Lord of David, who was of the same
* substance as they were? How, too, could He have subdued him who was
* stronger than men, who had not only overcome man, but also retained
* him under his power, and conquered him who had conquered, while he
* set free mankind who had been conquered, unless He had been greater
* than man who had thus been vanquished? But who else is superior to,
* and more eminent than, that man who was formed after the likeness of
* God, except the Son of God, after whose image man was created? And
* for this reason He did in these last days exhibit the similitude;
* [for] the Son of God was made man, assuming the ancient production
* [of His hands] into His own nature, as I have shown in the
* immediately preceding book. (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Against
* Heresies), 180 A.D.)
He will judge also the Ebionites; [for] how can they be saved unless
it was God who wrought out their salvation upon earth? Or how shall
man pass into God, unless God has [first] passed into man? And how
shall he (man) escape from the generation subject to death, if not
by means of a new generation, given in a wonderful and unexpected
manner (but as a sign of salvation) by God [I mean] that
regeneration which flows from the virgin through faith? Or how shall
they receive adoption from God if they remain in this [kind of]
generation, which is naturally possessed by man in this world? And
how could He (Christ) have been greater than Solomon, or greater
than Jonah, or have been the Lord of David, who was of the same
substance as they were? How, too, could He have subdued him who was
stronger than men, who had not only overcome man, but also retained
him under his power, and conquered him who had conquered, while he
set free mankind who had been conquered, unless He had been greater
than man who had thus been vanquished? But who else is superior to,
and more eminent than, that man who was formed after the likeness of
God, except the Son of God, after whose image man was created? And
for this reason He did in these last days exhibit the similitude;
[for] the Son of God was made man, assuming the ancient production
[of His hands] into His own nature, as I have shown in the
immediately preceding book. (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Against
Heresies), 180 A.D.)
* He shall also judge those who describe Christ as [having become man]
* only in [human] opinion. For how can they imagine that they do
* themselves carry on a real discussion, when their Master was a mere
* imaginary being? Or how can they receive anything steadfast from
* Him, if He was a merely imagined being, and not a verity? And how
* can these men really be partaken of salvation, if He in whom they
* profess to believe, manifested Himself as a merely imaginary being?
* Everything, therefore, connected with these men is unreal, and
* nothing [possessed of the character of] truth; and, in these
* circumstances, it may be made a question whether (since, perchance,
* they themselves in like manner are not men, but mere dumb animals)
* they do not present, in most cases, simply a shadow of humanity.
* (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), 180 A.D.)
He shall also judge those who describe Christ as [having become man]
only in [human] opinion. For how can they imagine that they do
themselves carry on a real discussion, when their Master was a mere
imaginary being? Or how can they receive anything steadfast from
Him, if He was a merely imagined being, and not a verity? And how
can these men really be partaken of salvation, if He in whom they
profess to believe, manifested Himself as a merely imaginary being?
Everything, therefore, connected with these men is unreal, and
nothing [possessed of the character of] truth; and, in these
circumstances, it may be made a question whether (since, perchance,
they themselves in like manner are not men, but mere dumb animals)
they do not present, in most cases, simply a shadow of humanity.
(Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), 180 A.D.)
* "The Ebionaeans, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him
* Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the
* Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live
* conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are
* justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified
* by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the
* Ebionaeans,) that (the Savior) was named (the) Christ of God and
* Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed
* completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the
* commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ.
* And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like
* manner they fulfill (the law), are able to become Christ's; for they
* assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the
* rest of the human family)." (Hippolytus, d. c. 235, Against All
* Heresies)
"The Ebionaeans, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him
Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the
Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live
conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are
justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified
by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the
Ebionaeans,) that (the Savior) was named (the) Christ of God and
Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed
completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the
commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ.
And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like
manner they fulfill (the law), are able to become Christ's; for they
assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the
rest of the human family)." (Hippolytus, d. c. 235, Against All
Heresies)
* "But the Ebionaeans assert that the world is made by the true God,
* and they speak of Christ in a similar manner with Cerinthus. They
* live, however, in all respects according to the law of Moses,
* alleging that they are thus justified." (Hippolytus, d. c. 235,
* Against All Heresies)
"But the Ebionaeans assert that the world is made by the true God,
and they speak of Christ in a similar manner with Cerinthus. They
live, however, in all respects according to the law of Moses,
alleging that they are thus justified." (Hippolytus, d. c. 235,
Against All Heresies)
* [The Heresy of the Ebionites.] "The evil demon, however, being
* unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of
* God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so
* brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly
* called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions
* concerning Christ. For they considered him a plain and common man,
* who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was
* the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion
* the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on
* the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and
* by a corresponding life. There were others, however, besides them,
* that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd
* beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a
* virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they
* also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word,
* and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former,
* especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the
* bodily worship of the law. These men, moreover, thought that it was
* necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they
* called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called
* Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.
* The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed
* just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the
* Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Savior.
* Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of
* Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For
* this is the name by which a poor man is called among the
* Hebrews."(Eusebius, 4th century, Ecclesiastical History)
[The Heresy of the Ebionites.] "The evil demon, however, being
unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of
God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so
brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly
called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions
concerning Christ. For they considered him a plain and common man,
who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was
the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion
the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on
the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and
by a corresponding life. There were others, however, besides them,
that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd
beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a
virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they
also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word,
and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former,
especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the
bodily worship of the law. These men, moreover, thought that it was
necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they
called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called
Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.
The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed
just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the
Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Savior.
Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of
Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For
this is the name by which a poor man is called among the
Hebrews."(Eusebius, 4th century, Ecclesiastical History)
* [The Translator Symmachus] "As to these translators it should be
* stated that Symmachus was an Ebionite. But the heresy of the
* Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of
* Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on
* keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have seen already in this
* history. Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he
* appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew.
* Origen states that he obtained these and other commentaries of
* Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana, who, he says,
* received the books by inheritance from Symmachus himself."(Eusebius,
* 4th century, Ecclesiastical History)
[The Translator Symmachus] "As to these translators it should be
stated that Symmachus was an Ebionite. But the heresy of the
Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of
Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on
keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have seen already in this
history. Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he
appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew.
Origen states that he obtained these and other commentaries of
Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana, who, he says,
received the books by inheritance from Symmachus himself."(Eusebius,
4th century, Ecclesiastical History)
* "The matter in debate, therefore, or I should rather say your
* opinion regarding it, is summed up in this: that since the preaching
* of the gospel of Christ, the believing Jews do well in observing the
* precepts of the law, i.e. in offering sacrifices as Paul did, in
* circumcising their children, as Paul did in the case of Timothy, and
* keeping the Jewish Sabbath, as all the Jews have been accustomed to
* do. If this be true, we fall into the heresy of Cerinthus and Ebion,
* who, though believing in Christ, were anathematized by the fathers
* for this one error, that they mixed up the ceremonies of the law
* with the gospel of Christ, and professed their faith in that which
* was new, without letting go what was old. Why do I speak of the
* Ebionites, who make pretensions to the name of Christian? In our own
* day there exists a sect among the Jews throughout all the synagogues
* of the East, which is called the sect of the Minei, and is even now
* condemned by the Pharisees. The adherents to this sect are known
* commonly as Nasarenes; they believe in Christ the Son of God, born
* of, the Virgin Mary; and they say that He who suffered under Pontius
* Pilate and rose again, is the same as the one in whom we believe.
* But while they desire to be both Jews and Christians, they are
* neither the one nor the other. I therefore beseech you, who think
* that you are called upon to heal my slight wound, which is no more,
* so to speak, than a prick or scratch from a needle, to devote your
* skill in the healing art to this grievous wound, which has been
* opened by a spear driven home with the impetus of a javelin. For
* there is surely no proportion between the culpability of him who
* exhibits the various opinions held by the fathers in a commentary on
* Scripture, and the guilt of him who reintroduces within the Church a
* most pestilential heresy. If, however, there is for us no
* alternative but to receive the Jews into the Church, along with the
* usages prescribed by their law; if, in short, it shall be declared
* lawful for them to continue in the Churches of Christ what they have
* been accustomed to practice in the synagogues of Satan, I will tell
* you my opinion of the matter: they will not become Christians, but
* they will make us Jews." (Jerome, CE 404, Letter 75 - Jerome to
* Augustin)
"The matter in debate, therefore, or I should rather say your
opinion regarding it, is summed up in this: that since the preaching
of the gospel of Christ, the believing Jews do well in observing the
precepts of the law, i.e. in offering sacrifices as Paul did, in
circumcising their children, as Paul did in the case of Timothy, and
keeping the Jewish Sabbath, as all the Jews have been accustomed to
do. If this be true, we fall into the heresy of Cerinthus and Ebion,
who, though believing in Christ, were anathematized by the fathers
for this one error, that they mixed up the ceremonies of the law
with the gospel of Christ, and professed their faith in that which
was new, without letting go what was old. Why do I speak of the
Ebionites, who make pretensions to the name of Christian? In our own
day there exists a sect among the Jews throughout all the synagogues
of the East, which is called the sect of the Minei, and is even now
condemned by the Pharisees. The adherents to this sect are known
commonly as Nasarenes; they believe in Christ the Son of God, born
of, the Virgin Mary; and they say that He who suffered under Pontius
Pilate and rose again, is the same as the one in whom we believe.
But while they desire to be both Jews and Christians, they are
neither the one nor the other. I therefore beseech you, who think
that you are called upon to heal my slight wound, which is no more,
so to speak, than a prick or scratch from a needle, to devote your
skill in the healing art to this grievous wound, which has been
opened by a spear driven home with the impetus of a javelin. For
there is surely no proportion between the culpability of him who
exhibits the various opinions held by the fathers in a commentary on
Scripture, and the guilt of him who reintroduces within the Church a
most pestilential heresy. If, however, there is for us no
alternative but to receive the Jews into the Church, along with the
usages prescribed by their law; if, in short, it shall be declared
lawful for them to continue in the Churches of Christ what they have
been accustomed to practice in the synagogues of Satan, I will tell
you my opinion of the matter: they will not become Christians, but
they will make us Jews." (Jerome, CE 404, Letter 75 - Jerome to Augustin)
### Conclusion

3
EarlyEbioniteMatthew.md

@ -121,9 +121,10 @@ Jerome around 400 AD says:
[original-gospel-of-matthew-knol.html](.../Hebrew-Matthew/original-gospel-of-matthew-knol.html)
### Links
* [Hebrew Dialect of Aramaic](http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=820)
* [original-gospel-of-matthew-knol.html](.../Hebrew-Matthew/original-gospel-of-matthew-knol.html)
* https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/ENG/Epiphanius%20of%20Salamis%20-%20The%20Panarion,%20Book%20I%20(Sects%201-46).pdf
* https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites.html

1
JWO_07_02_strongestverseintheBibleforoncesaved,alwayssavedandIwouldnotdisagree.(R.T._0029.md

@ -63,4 +63,3 @@ although it may not be expedient:
practicing unrepentant fornication cannot possibly pose such a threat.
18. Dave Hunt, CIB Bulletin (Camarillo, CA: Christian Information Bureau) (June 1989) at 1.

778
JWO_30_PaulorJamesChurch.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,778 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Paul or James' Church: Who Was The Most Successful Evangelist?
### Paul's Mystery Period
Most people assume without any study of church history or careful examination of
the Book of Acts that Paul was the key evangelist who spread Christianity outside
Palestine to the Gentiles. Is this picture realistic? No. It is a complete myth.
First, after God used Cornelius and a message from the Holy Spirit, Peter took on
the mission to the Gentles. (Acts 10.) Thereafter, Peter was the choice of the
"Holy Spirit" to be the "Apostle to the Gentiles." Who says so? Apostle Peter.
(Acts 15:7.) See "Christian Evangelism of Gentiles Before Paul" below.
Peter founded in 45 A.D. a church in Antioch, Syria.1 It eventually had 66 local
congregations functioning underneath its authority.
Incidentally, prior to Paul's involvement and missionary journeys, Peter mentions
in Acts this Gentile outpost in Antioch began with "men of Cyprus and Cyrene" who
brought the gospel to Gentiles at Antioch even before Peter did so. (Acts
11:19-20.)
Second, to fulfill the commission of the Holy Spirit that Peter was the Apostle
to the Gentiles, Peter in the 40s A.D. founded a church at Rome. Paul did not
visit that church until after 58 A.D., and it was already flourishing. (Acts
28:14-15.) See "Christian Evangelism of Gentiles Before Paul" below.
Paul meanwhile had a mysterious period where we know nothing going on for many
years. Paul says for fourteen to seventeen years after his conversion, he stayed
in Arabia. After that time, in about 47 A.D., Paul comes to Antioch where a
church is already in operation. (Acts 11:27-30); (Gal. 2:1).^2 Scholars all
acknowledge this huge gap in Paul's activities, negating him having any
demonstrable role in the Christian movement for as much as seventeen years after
his conversion. After Saul goes to Tarsus in Cilicia, we learn:
His first years as a Christian, spent in Arabia are a
mystery. Three years after his call Paul went to Jerusalem to
visit; he saw Peter and James. Later (after fourteen years), he
returned to Jerusalem for a meeting often referred to as the
'Jerusalem Conference'[Gal. 2:1 2]....(Watson E. Mills, Acts and
Pauline Writings (Mercer University Press, 1987) at lvii.)
**Paul's First Missionary Journey in 48 A.D.**
Then Paul has his first missionary journey - to Seleucia and Cyprus. (Acts 13:4.)
Scholars put this first missionary journey as taking place in early 48 A.D.4
To repeat, rarely is it ever emphasized that if this is Paul's first missionary
journey, this means that Paul was inactive as a Christian missionary for fourteen
to seventeen years. During that entire mystery period, Peter and the twelve are
all over the earth in various missionary activities. Peter in particular is
reaching out to Gentiles all that time. Paul is doing nothing so far as anyone
knows.
**Paul's Journey to Jerusalem in 48-49 A.D.**
We will discuss Paul's success (or lack therefore) in a moment.
After this journey, Paul will then return to the church at Antioch (Acts 14:27).
Thereupon, Paul apparently raised at Antioch the question about circumcision. It
was the elders at Antioch who then sent Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem to ask the
twelve apostles about the question whether the Gentiles had to be circumcised.
(Acts 14:26; (Acts 15:2). Using Paul's chronology, this Jerusalem conference
had to be no earlier than 47 A.D. - fourteen years after his
conversion. Scholars put the Jerusalem Council at 48-49 A.D.5
### The Key Question
Other Apostles Long Time Abroad. Meanwhile, Apostle Thomas was spreading
Christianity to Gentiles in India. This is mentioned in many ancient Christian
texts, including by Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinus, and Jerome. ("St. Thomas
The Apostle," Catholic Encyclopedia.) At Mylapore, not far from Madras,
"tradition has it that it was here that St. Thomas laid down his life
[in 72 A.D. which] is locally very strong." Id. (See "India" on page 6.)
And Apostle James, son of Zebedee, was travelling to Spain in 40 A.D.,
evangelizing there, before returning to Jerusalem in 44 A.D. where he was
beheaded. (See "Spain" below.)
It is also interesting to note that there were multiple traditions
that overlapped on one theme. The tongues on Pentecost was to bestow
the language on each apostle which represented the nation to which God
would send them. Based on that, the twelve divided up their
responsibility of what nations they should evangelize. There were
multiple text traditions that supported this was the true nature of
the gift of tongues, as we shall discuss below.
With that background, we have a broader understanding of the
intersection of Paul with an expansionist apostolic church that
predates Paul. Several of the apostles are already evangelizing
Gentiles. The apostolic church is in Rome, Cyprus, Antioch, Spain and
India for many many years prior to Paul's emergence from the
mysterious period when he was in Arabia for fourteen to seventeen
years post-conversion.
By looking at the Book of Acts, we now must ask carefully this
question: was Paul a highly successful evangelist? A successful
planter of new churches in Gentile lands?
If you only look at maps of Paul's travels which are called
"Missionary Journeys," you would assume this to be the case. However,
Luke in Acts hardly mentions any significant success in evangelism by Paul.
This shocks most people, because they do not critically tally what
Paul's successes are as they review Acts. However, when you focus carefully,
Paul's missions depicted in Acts are largely failures with minor successes.
See "Paul's First Recorded Conversion" below; "Lydia & The Jailer and His Family"
below; "Athens" below; "Ephesus" beliow; "Felix, Festus and Agrippa" below;
"Paul's Evangelism is Rather Ineffective" below; and "The Numbers Converted?"
below.
In fairness to Paul, Luke's focus is on the problems Paul encountered
repeatedly wherever he went. So Paul's success might be understated
somewhat. Yet, what is indisputable is that in Acts, relatively few
people are described as having been converted by Paul.
By contrast, Acts portrays the church under James as leading "many
tens of thousands" to Christ before Paul's conversion. This was thanks
in no small part to Peter, of course. See "Proof James's Church (Not
Paul) Was The Most Effective" below.
Thus, who was the most successful evangelist in the early period of
Christianity if we rely solely on Luke's book of Acts? The church run
by James whose chief evangelist was Peter.
If this credit certainly belongs to James and Peter prior to Paul's
emergence, even as Luke depicts the church's early history, why do you
think a modern myth was created making it appear Paul was the most
successful evangelist?
### Could Doctrinal Bias Explain The Exaggeration?
Could doctrinal bias have something to do with taking the lustre away
from James and Peter and giving it to Paul?
After all, Luther said it was obvious James' emphasis on faith and
works in (Jas. 2:14-17) contradicts Paul in (Eph. 2:8-9). It is
evident too that Peter's sermons in chapter two of Acts emphasized
repentance from sin as the means of the blood of Christ washing the
audience and imparting eternal life. This was at odds with Paul's view
that Abraham was saved by belief alone in Romans 4:3-5 while yet an
(unrepentant) sinner.
Hence, could it be Paul's efforts are exaggerated to overshadow the
work of Peter and James, and thus marginalize their doctrine, and the
importance of it on the success of Christianity?
Let's examine Luke's accounts in Acts in detail to assess Paul's success in
evangelism. Then let's compare it to the work of the twelve apostles.
### Christian Evangelism of Gentiles Before Paul
Peter explained at the Jerusalem Council that he was appointed by the
Holy Spirit "a good time ago" to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Paul was at Peter's feet as Peter said this. Paul raised no objection.
Peter's exact words were:
And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up, and said
unto them, Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice
among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of
the gospel, and believe. (Act 15:7) ASV.
**Antioch.** Peter founded also in 45 A.D. a church in Antioch, Syria.6 It eventually
had 66 local congregations functioning underneath its authority.
**Italy.** Peter then sent many emissaries from Antioch to evangelize Italy.
First, Peter in what can only be approximated as 42 A.D. (but which was obviously
after 45 A.D.) founded a Church at Rome.7
Then Peter sent emissaries from Rome and Antioch to found other churches
throughout Italy. For example, Priscus was the first Bishop of Capua in Italy,
where he was sent by the Apostle Peter.
By tradition he was martyred under Nero.8 Likewise, Peter sent out Paulinus of
Antioch to Lucca, Italy.9 Also, Birillus came from Antioch with Peter, and became
first bishop of Catania in Sicily.10
So too Pancras came from Antioch, and was tasked by Peter to go to Taormina,
Sicily.11 Peter went to Naples, and converted Aspren (or Aspronas), and later
made him bishop.12 Ptolemy was a disciple of Peter and became a Bishop of Nepi in
Tuscany.13
Paul first arrives in Rome sometime after 58 A.D., and finds a flourishing
church. (Acts 28:14-15.)
**Corinth.** Aquila and Priscilla had a Christian church in their home at Corinth. (1
Cor. 16:19.) They arrive in Corinth in 49 A.D. because they left Rome that year
due to the Roman decree exiling Jews in 49 A.D. While one cannot be sure, it is a
reasonable inference they were Christians prior to leaving Rome. Paul never
mentions converting them to Christ. It was this couple who received Paul into
their home upon his arrival in Corinth. (Acts 18:1.)14
**India.** Meanwhile, in 46 A.D., Apostle Thomas was preaching Christianity to
Gentiles in India, converting 3,000 Brahman in his first major sermon. Apostle
Thomas' mission to India is mentioned in many ancient Christian texts, including
by Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinus, and Jerome. ("St. Thomas The Apostle,"
Catholic Encyclopedia.) At Mylapore, not far from Madras, "tradition has it that
it was here that St. Thomas laid down his life [in 72 A.D. which] is locally very
strong."15 According to the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, the other eleven apostles
were each allotted other nations to evangelize. India fell to Thomas.16 The
legends of Apostle Thomas' arrival line up chronologically with events in India
that date to 46 A.D.17
**Spain.** It should then not suprise us that Apostle James, the son of Zebedee and
brother of Apostle John, is traditionally viewed as the first evangelist to Spain
in 40 A.D. The town of Compostella keeps alive his memory there in a chapel, and
he is the patron saint of Spain.18 Since Apostle James died in 44 A.D. in
Jerusalem, he must have been one of the earliest international evangelists among
the apostles. Tradition has it that Apostle James was in Spain in 40 A.D., but
then returned to Jerusalem for some reason whereupon he was beheaded by Herod
Agrippa in 44 A.D.19
### Is this history of Apostle James true?
The Gospel of the Twelve Holy Apostles (which dates from the first century) says
that when the Holy Spirit descended on the twelve apostles, each apostle received
the language corresponding to the land which each was destined to evangelize. On
that ocassion, Apostle James (son of Zebedee) was given Latin. This would imply
his destination was West - into Roman territories such as Spain.20 Thus, this
corroborated the legend that "when the apostles divided the known world into
missionary zones, the Iberian peninsula fell to [Apostle] James."21
(Please note how identical this story is to the apocryphal book Acts of Thomas
which records the same division of the world for each of the twelve apostles.
Even though these are not canonical books, when they converge on the same point,
we must given consideration that the point is historical.)
The second proof that Apostle James preached in Spain is that documents dating to
the late 500's likewise state this. In what is called the Breviary of the
Apostles, it says Apostle James preached in Hispania.22
**Conclusion.** Thus, contrary to common presupposition, the Gospel of Jesus would
not have died out in Palestine without Paul. Long before Paul's first missionary
journey in 47 - 48 A.D., Peter was in Antioch, Syria, and from there
springboarding to Italy, including Sicily. Apostle James (son of Zebedee) was in
Spain in 40 A.D. And Apostle Thomas was in India, evangelizing from 46 A.D. to 75
A.D.
### Paul's First Recorded Convert
Now let's turn to Paul and his evangelical record. Let's see if it compares at
all to the widespread work of the twelve apostles.
Paul's first postconversion appearance is in Acts 13:9 at Salamis. He casts out a
demon. Luke then records Paul's message at a synagogue. Paul leaves without any
mention of success. (Acts 13:42.)
Then Paul in Acts 14:9-11 heals a lame man. The audience thinks Paul is a god.
(Acts 14:11-12.) Paul tries to restrain them by rebuking them. (Acts 14:15.) No
converts are noted thus far.
Paul is then dragged out to be stoned by Jews. (Acts 14:19.) Paul passes to Derbe
where it cryptically says "he made many disciples." (Acts 14:21.) These are the
very first converts Luke records made by Paul! These are the only converts
mentioned prior to the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15. This is important because
according to Paul's account, this is fourteen years after Paul's own conversion!
(Gal. 2:1.)
Paul's next success is with Lydia of Thyatira at Philippi. (Acts 16:14.) This
leads to Paul's imprisonment there. Then the earthquake is mentioned which leads
to the conversion of the jailer and his household. (Acts 16:33.)
So far Paul's converts are the unnumbered 'many' at Derbe along with Lydia, plus
the jailer and his family at Philippi. If Luke is trying to emphasize Paul's
success at evangelism after about 17 years of service, the numbers are meager.
Next Paul goes to a synagogue in Thessalonica and preaches on three Sabbaths.
"Some of them believed," mostly Godfearing Gentiles and some women. (Acts 17:4.)
**Athens.** Friends of Paul then whisk him away from angry Jews by taking him to
Athens. (Acts 17:15.) Paul there preaches at the Areopagus. The only response was
that some mocked him, while others said: "We will hear you again concerning
this." Paul leaves with no record of success. (Acts 17:32.)
**Corinth.** Next, in Corinth, things improve. It says Paul was preaching and
"persuading Jews and Greeks." (Acts 18:4.) But the text then says the Jews
rejected him. As a result, Paul vowed from that day forth to go only to Gentiles.
(Acts 18:6.) Then presumably by Paul's preaching, Crispus, the synagogue leader
at Corinth and "many Corinthians" believed. (Acts 18:8.) Then Paul settles there
for a year-and-a-half. No mention is made of how many more come to the Lord.
**Ephesus.** Then Paul goes to Ephesus. (Acts 18:21.) There Paul baptizes a group of
twelve men who already were semi-converts, but they only had the baptism of John.
(Acts 19:17.) Then Paul spoke three months at the local Ephesus' synagogue,
"reasoning and persuading concerning the kingdom of God." (Acts 19:8.) Some
presumably were persuaded to faith. Some, however, were "hardened" and rejected
the Way (as taught by Paul). Paul then took his disciples from that synagogue and
met in a schoolhouse. (Acts 19:9.) This went on for two years. No mention is made
of how many were converted. Yet, possibly by Paul's influence, a "considerable
number" of magic-arts practioners later converted. (Acts 19:19.)
Various events follow at Ephesus. Paul's next evangelistic speech is at Acts
21:40. But before he finished, the crowd erupted against him. (Acts 22:22.) No
converts are noted. This event led to a court proceeding by the Roman
authorities.
Felix, Festa & Agrippa. Next we turn to Paul's imprisonment in Felix' custody.
First, Felix for two years kept asking Paul to come out from his cell at Caesarea
to talk, in hopes Paul would pay a bribe. (Acts 24:2228.) Felix never is
mentioned as being converted.
Then Festus took over the case. He asks Paul if he wants him to decide the case.
Paul responds that he wants Caesar to make the decision, and he appeals. (Acts
25:11.)
King Agrippa then came to Caesarea and for some reason wanted to hear what Paul
had to say. (Acts 25:13,22.) During the talk of Paul, Agrippa jokes that Paul is
trying to convert him, but he doesn't convert. (Acts 26:28.)
En route to Rome for a hearing, Paul is shipwrecked on Malta. (Acts 28:1.) No
mention is made of any crewmember accepting Christ.
On the island, Paul is then bitten by a viper but does not die, which makes the
Maltese think he is a god. (Acts 28:6.) Paul heals the father of Publius. (Acts
28:8.) No mention is made of the conversion of anyone at Malta. Instead, Luke
mentions the Maltese were very grateful for healings by Paul. They give gifts of
food to the soldiers and Paul for their trip to Rome. (Acts 28:10.)
Then in Rome, Paul found Christians already there, greeting them. (Acts 28:15.)
At Paul's lodging, "some indeed were being persuaded," and some not. (Acts
28:24.) This concludes the accounts of Paul's missionary journeys in Acts.
Paul's own letters do not note any successful conversions except Timothy when he
claims he is Timothy's spiritual father.
Paul's Evangelism Is Rather Ineffective. Hence the converts of Paul that Luke
mentioned are few and far between. This does not mean it is impossible there were
more. Again, in fairness to Paul, Luke's focus in Acts is not on Paul's success
in evangelism. Yet, one has to do a lot of presupposing to think Paul was very
successful. To recap, his converts mentioned in Acts were:
1. Derbe: "he made many disciples." (Acts 14:21.)
2. Philippi: Lydia and the Jailer and his family. (Acts 16:14, 33.)
3. Thessalonica : "Some of them believed." (Acts 17:4.)
4. Athens: none recorded.
5. Corinth: "many Corinthians" believed. (Acts 18:8.)
6. Ephesus: Paul was "persuading [some] concerning the kingdom of God." (Acts
19:8.)
7. Caesarea none.
8. Rome: "some" were persuaded. (Acts 28:24.)
### The Numbers Converted?
The number of people Paul led to Christ, based on Luke's account, would
approximate 41 people, if we used fair assumptions. The description 'many' would
appear to signify a handful. If the numbers were greater than ten people each
time 'many' were used, Luke surely would note them so as to make Paul look good.
This can be deduced also from the one time Luke gives a number. Luke says twelve
quasi-Christians who had the baptism of John were rebaptized into Christ. Thus,
if Luke elsewhere doesn't use a number and instead uses the word many, the
reasonable inference is that it is less than twelve. Luke's mention of the twelve
quasi-Christians needing rebaptism means that number is more significant than the
numbers which 'many' represented. This is why Luke mentions twelve-representing a
higher number than when many is used.
Accordingly, if you reasonably assume 'many' means ten persons each time, and
'some' means five persons each time Luke uses it, and you assume the jailer's
family were five people, then Luke records a total of 41 people led to Jesus by
Paul. Not an amazing number, but still a worthy accomplishment that the angels
rejoice over.
Compare this to James second encounter with Paul when he tells Paul that "many"
myriades, i.e., "tens of thousands"23 of Jews have come to Christ at Jerusalem
alone where James is bishop. (Acts 21:20.) James must mean a minimum of 30,000
("many myriades") at Jerusalem had come to Christ. Two myriades would not be
many. Thus, the number must at minimum be 30,000. It could be much greater.
This is a realistic number too. Peter's very first sermon led 3,000 to Christ at
Jerusalem. (Acts 2:41.) Thus, a 30,000 figure achieved by over a dozen years
later (i.e., the date of the second encounter with Paul in Acts 21) makes sense.
While there are no end of claims that Paul was the "most successful evangelist,"
the evidence is to the contrary. James and James' church (including Peter) alone
has the right to such a title.
Prior to Paul's conversion, this church under James was expansive, and not
limited to Jerusalem. When Paul became a Christian, there was already a church
far from Jerusalem at Damascas in Syria, where Paul first joined the church.
(Acts 22:12.) Paul later joins a Church at Antioch. This church was founded by
Peter. When Paul goes to Rome, there are already Christians there even though
Paul never before set foot in Rome. (Acts 28:15.) This church too was founded by
Peter. These are the prior fruits of James' church24 without any assistance from
Paul.
### Why The Exaggeration of Paul?
Thus, it is pure myth that Paul was highly successful in evangelism. It is not
based on any provable facts from the Book of Acts. His success was certainly
nothing compared to that of James and the church James ran at Jerusalem. More
important, there is little reason to believe that Peter and the other eleven
apostles were not more successful than Paul. The history we do have outside
Scripture supports that indeed they were far more successful than Paul. Thomas
alone is said to have converted 3,000 in his first speech in India. Again, using
Acts as our guide, Paul at best appears to have led 41 people to Christ!
We often hear "Paul was the world's most successful evangelist in the early
Church." (St. Paul's Lutheran Church.)25 But we saw above that Paul had scant
success and Luke records Paul perhaps led 41 people to Christ. By contrast, James
and James' church led "many tens of thousands" to Christ in Jerusalem alone, and
had spread the church far and wide long before Paul appeared on the scene.
What do you think explains the exaggeration of Paul's success and the complete
forgetting of the success of James and his church (including Peter) before Paul
appeared on the scene? Do you think it has to do with one's preference for Paul's
doctrine over James' teachings? Do you think it also might have a desire to
downplay Peter as part of Catholic bashing? (While I do not agree with many
teachings and practices of Roman Catholicism, this does not permit me to
denigrate the historical role of Peter.)
### Proof that James's Church (Not Paul's) Was The Most Effective
Next we will prove that the church universally was led between 125 A.D. and 325
A.D. by persons who shared James' view of Jesus. They rejected all of the
uniquely Pauline doctrines that we hear about today. This proves once more who
was the leader of the most successful evangelist movement of its time: James and
those who shared his doctrines.
East and West, the church leaders from 125 AD to 325 AD- known as the AntiNicene
period26-all echo the teachings of James and reject those of Paul. This proves
that the churches were established by the evangelism that James (along with
Peter) ushered in at Jerusalem rather than what Paul later tried to inject.
This disproves the other myth popular today that Paul was the true founder of
Christianity. Paulinists delight in this designation which anti-Christian
scholars try to affix to Christianity. The anti-Christian scholars' purpose is to
marginalize Jesus. They know if Christianity has always been Paulinism, and not
following Jesus, then the question arises: 'How can anyone say Jesus was an
important historical figure?' Instead, the true founder of the Church after Jesus
was his brother-James along with Peter as a key evangelist. They were tightly
wedded to Jesus' doctrine. For Pauline Christians to accept the 'Paul was the
true founder of Christianity' thesis is dishonest conniving to help bolster
Paulinism at the expense of Christ.
Let's prove this by reviewing the doctrines in that Anti-Nicene period. We turn
now to the leading church figures of that period: Clement of Rome, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Archelaus, and
Papias. They all send one clear universal message: they accept all of Jesus'
teachings (which coincide with James' doctrines) and reject all of those
doctrines that are uniquely Pauline. They reject loud and clear that man has no
freewill, total depravity, eternal security, predestination, and most important
of all, salvation by faith without works.
Bercot, a Protestant attorney like myself, has done a comprehensive survey of the
doctrines of the early Church, in his Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up
(1999). It is backed up by an exhaustive 705 page Dictionary of Early Christian
Beliefs (1998).
He admits he discovered that the early church, in "contradiction to many of my
own theological views," taught doctrines that universally (i.e., with no dissent)
rejected doctrines which we all recognize as part of Pauline teaching.
### Paul's Doctrine of Total Depravity Contradicted
Bercot, for example, explains:
"[T]he early church never taught that humans are incapable of
doing or overcoming sin in their lives. They believed that we do
have the ability to serve and obey God." (Will the Real Heretics
Please Stand Up, at page 53, quoting Origen, Clement and
Lactantius.) "The early Christians didn't believe man is totally
depraved and incapable of doing any good." Id., at 64.
### Paul's Doctrine of Eternal Security Contradicted
"The early Christians universally believed that works or obedience
play an essential role in our salvation." (Id., at 57, quoting
Clement of Rome, Polycarp, the letter of Barnabas, Hermas, Justin
Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Lanctatius.)
"[E]arly Christians...believed that a 'saved' person could still
end up being lost." (Id., at 65, quoting Irenaeus, Tertullian, and
Cyprian.) I would add quotes from Scorpion's Bite by Tertullian to
the list. Hence, the early church rejected eternal security.
### Rejection of Grace Alone Doctrine of Paul
"As surprising as all of this may be to you, what I'm about to
tell you is even more bizarre. There was a religious group
labelled as heretics by the early Christians, who strongly
disputed the church's stance on salvation and works. Instead,
they [i.e., the heretics] taught man is totally depraved. That we
are saved solely by grace. That works play no role in
salvation. And that we cannot lose our salvation once we obtain
it...." Id., at 66.
Bercot is discussing Marcion who founded a Paulinist system of doctrine in 144
A.D. He said the twelve apostles were intended for a different dispensation, and
the Jesus they present does not speak to us. Our only apostle to follow is
supposedly Paul. Marcion was the first person to promote the doctrine of faith
alone. As a result, the early church universally regarded him as a heretic.
Bercot cites the works by Tertullian and Irenaeus against Marcion and the
Gnostics heretics. For more on Marcion, see my books Jesus' Words on Salvation
(2008), and appendix B: How the Canon Was Formed in Jesus' Words Only (2007).
### Paul's Doctrine of Predestination Regarded As False
"The early Christians were strong believers in freewill [citations
and discussion omitted.] Originally, it was the pagan world, not
the Christian, who believed in predestination. Yet, in one of the
strange quirks of history, Martin Luther took the side of the
pagan Romans against the early Christians....[I]t was once again
some of the Gnostic teachers who taught that humans are
arbitrarily predestined for salvation and punishment....Although
not believing in predestination, the early Christians believed in
God's sovereignty and in His ability to foresee the future." (Id.,
at 70, 72, 73, 76, quoting Justin Martyr, Clement, Archelaus,
Methodius, and Origen.)
### Conclusion
If Paul were truly the successful evangelist we are told that he was, then what
explains the early church between 125 A.D. and 325 A.D. rejecting almost every
uniquely Pauline doctrine? Why were those holding to modern Paulinist ideas on
salvation, predestination, and grace regarded as heretics?
What makes more sense than believing Paul was the second founder of Christianity
is instead to accept that the approximately 41 people identified in Acts as
having been led to Jesus by Paul is close to the true total number. This is one
of the reasons why Paul had so little impact in the early church.
By contrast, Acts records that James and James' church at Jerusalem were
responsible for many tens of thousands of Jews coming to Christ. James and James'
church (including Peter) prior to Paul's entrance is truly the greatest
evangelical movement of all time-starting from nothing and growing
internationally and at Jerusalem at a phenomenal rate. This explains why James'
doctrines permeated the early church right up through 325 A.D.
### Post-Script: What Changed Things?
Had it not been for the Emperor of Rome, Constantine, in 325-329
A.D. changing the direction of the church in Roman territories, there
would never have been any notion that Paul had any influence. Thus, by
the Roman church's actions under Constantine's influence, it gave an
illusion that Paul had greater influence all along, and thereby
created a myth of Paul's influence which he previously never had.
This is because the Roman Catholic Church post 325 A.D. treated two unique
teachings of Paul for the first time as officially valid:
1. The doctrine of Original Sin. This in turn spawned the Marian heresy
that she had to be sinless27 to prevent original sin tainting Jesus;28 and
2. The abolition of Sabbath on Friday-Saturday as heretically legalistic, relying
upon Paul's principle that the Law of Moses' was abrogated.29
These same two doctrines - Original Sin doctrine and Abolition of
Sabbath as Friday-Saturday - were rejected by the remaining Christian
bishops who lived outside the Roman empire.30 These same Orthodox
reject these two doctrines then as they still do today. These bishops
trace their origin to James' church at Jerusalem by unbroken
historical records of succession. They are known to us today as the
Eastern Orthodox Church (with 250 million members). They are primarily
located in Israel, the Middle East, Ethiopia, Russia, Armenia, and
Turkey. They always have kept the true Sabbath for the past 2,000
years while worshipping on Sunday. They are extraordinarily
non-Pauline in all their teachings. (See my book Jesus' Words on
Salvation, Chapter Sixteen, viz., at page 422.)
The pattern is clear. Paul had virtually no influence in the early church's
doctrine apart from his influence to raise the issue over circumcision which then
turned on a decision by James, not by Paul. See Acts chapter fifteen. This
historically explains why Paul's doctrines are rejected in the original church.
The only change in that pattern arose by the fortuity of Emperor Constantine's
influence beginning in 325 A.D. He led the Roman Bishop to tamper with the
universal doctrine of the church that had no doctrine of Paul affixed to it. The
pope added what appeared then to be just two minor Pauline doctrines: Original
Sin and Abolition of traditional Sabbath. These doctrines turned out to be the
poison pill.
### The Irony of Roman Catholicism
It is somewhat ironic that the Roman Catholic church would later be put on the
run by Luther's citation to Paul. The irony is that the Roman Catholic Church
then had to run back to James' Epistle and its clear teaching on salvation.
The mistake the Roman Catholic Church made way back in the 300's, which left it
trapped in a fatal inconsistency, was that it let in Paul's teaching on original
sin and the abrogation of the Law. As a result, then it had no plausible way to
claim Paul's salvation doctrines should not also be the measure of doctrine. Paul
contradicts James. The Catholic church had somewhat retained James on salvation
doctrine. Yet, the Roman Catholic church was wedded to the doctrine of original
sin (which propped up Marianism) and abrogation of Saturday-Sabbath. It relied
upon Paul for those two positions.
The Eastern Orthodox have no such problem. They never agreed on any unique points
of Paul. They show a low regard for any of his unique teachings. In its own
territories, the Orthodox are not subject to any vulnerability of inconsistency
over Paul because they never have given him any serious credence in their
doctrine. (He is in their canon nevertheless.)
As a result of the Roman Catholic church's totally different position, it has
remained completely vulnerable to attack by Paulinists for its inconsistency. The
Paulinist asks Catholicism a clearly difficult question: how can Roman Catholics
accept the unique teachings of Paul on original sin (Romans ch. 5) and the
abrogation of Sabbath, but not also accept Paul's teachings on salvation by faith
without works in Romans 4:4 and Eph. 2:8-9? The Eastern Orthodox alone can say
they accept neither teaching of Paul. Yet, for the Roman Catholics, these are
hard questions which deserve an answer. Roman Catholicism never offers a coherent
answer. It just keeps citing James to "balance" Paul.
### A Solution for Roman Catholics
The solution for Roman Catholicism is to take a brave step. While it
has kept up a stiff upper lip for 400 years, it must one day resolve
this inconsistency between James' doctrine and Paul's teachings. The
Roman Catholic Church needs to expel the uniquely Pauline doctrine of
original sin (and get rid of all the Marian heresies that it spawned)
and restore the Mosaic Law to the position it deserves, making the
careful distinction between Gentile and Jew that James in Acts
chapters 15 and 21 revealed. With a few other repairs, such as removal
of doctrines about purgatory, infant baptism, calling priests fathers,
and abrogation of anything that offends Jesus' teachings, the church
can be restored to its original purity of the teachings under
James. After all, they are identical to the teachings of Jesus. As a
result, we will get back to Our Lord's true words.
---
### Footnotes
1. The Greek Orthodox church that traces itself to this church (the Melkite
church) says tradition is that Peter founded the church at Antioch in 45 A.D. See
https://www.mliles.com/melkite/apostlepeter.shtml.
2. Paul's dates lead to incongruities that put his conversion to 30
A.D. Some arbitrarily solve this problem, and simply put Paul's
conversion to 34 A.D. See http://www.xenos.org/classes/chronop.htm.
Paul writes apparently about the Jerusalem conference recorded in Acts
15 as taking place fourteen years after his conversion: "Then after
the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with
Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. (2) And I went up by revelation;
and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles
but privately before themwho were of repute, lest by any means I
should be running, or had run, in vain." (Gal 2:12 ASV.) Prior to
that time, Paul says he never met any other apostles at Jerusaelm than
Peter and James. Thus, Galatians 2 must be discussing the Jerusalem
conference of Acts 15. If one assumes Paul was converted in 34 A.D.,
then the Jerusalem council would have to be in 4748 A.D.
3. Watson E. Mills, Acts and Pauline Writings (Mercer University Press, 1987) at
lvii.
4. "This journey would need to have been finished and Paul returned to Antioch by
the fall of 48 A.D. in order to leave time for the council and related events.
The length of his lst Missionary Journey would have been anywhere from 4 to 10
months. This would put his departure for the lst Missionary Journey no sooner
than early spring 48 A.D." http://www.xenos.org/classes/chronop.htm
5. http://www.xenos.org/classes/chronop.htm.
6. As mentioned earlier, the Greek Orthodox church that traces itself to this
church (the Melkite church) says tradition is that Peter founded the church at
Antioch in 45 A.D. See www.mliles.com/melkite/apostlepeter.shtml.
7. Peter was crucified in Rome in 67 A.D. during the reign of Nero. Eusebius says
that this was after coming to Rome twentyfive years earlier. (Eusebius, The
Chronicle.) Peter thus arrived at Rome about 42 A.D.
8. http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/s1centy.htm
9. Id.
10. Id. http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/s1centy.htm
12. Id. http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/s1centy.htm
12. Id. http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/s1centy.htm
13. Id. http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/s1centy.htm
14. "(a) After these things he departed from Athens, and came to Corinth. (2) And
he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from
Italy, with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to
depart from Rome: and he came unto them; (3) and because he was of the same
trade, he abode with them, and they wrought, for by their trade they were
tentmakers." Act 18:13 ASV.
15. "Unfortunately, Portuguese adventurers destroyed precious documents that
might have shed light on Thomas' history. The Portuguese thought that the
Christians of Malabar were heretics. And so the writings of Christians who have
an ancient church named for Thomas and who can point to a tomb where he was
buried, are lost forever." https://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2002/07/daily07032002.shtml.
See also, Cardinal Eugène, Cardinal Tisserant, Eastern Christianity in
India; a history of the SyroMalabar Church from the earliest time to
the present day. (Authorized adaptation from the French by
E.R. Hambye. (Westminster, Md., Newman Press, 1957).
16. Prof. M. M. Ninan in STORY OF ST. THOMAS THE APOSTLE AND THE ST.THOMAS
CHURHES OF INDIA explains: "Acta Thomae, the apocryphal book is historically
dated around end of first century soon after the martyrdom of St. Thomas. There
are several ancients texts in existence in various languages such as Syriac,
Greek, Latin, Armenian and Ethiopic. The original manuscripts are found in the
British Museum. This book gives a detailed account of Apostle Thomas' labors in
nine parts. The gist of the book is as follows: After the ascension of Jesus
Christ, the Apostles met in Jerusalem and portioned all the countries of the
world among themselves. India which at that time included all Middle East to the
present India fell to the lot of St. Thomas." http://
www.acns.com/~mm9n/marthoma/marthoma.htm.
18. Prof. M. M. Ninan, STORY OF ST. THOMAS THE APOSTLE AND THE ST.THOMAS CHURHES
OF INDIA, reprinted at http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/marthoma/marthoma.htm.
19. Id. http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/s1centy.htm
20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_son_of_Zebedee. Some dispute this is
historical, but others defend it. See "St. James the Greater," New Catholic
Encylcopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08279b.htm.
21. http://www.csj.org.uk/2000years.htm#tradition
http://www.csj.org.uk/apostle.htm
22. http://www.csj.org.uk/2000years.htm#tradition
23. Inexplicably, most translations render this "thousands." The Greek word has a
very specific meaning: a myriad means 10,000. It comes from myrios that means
"numberless, countless, 10,000" as an adjective. As a noun, it means specifically
ten thousand. See "Myriad,"
http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2004/09/03.html
24. Peter was the apostolic member of James' church who founded the church at
both Rome and Antioch. (Eusebius, The Chronicle (303 A.D.)
25. "Evangelism," St. Paul Lutheran Church reprinted online at
http://www.stpaulsrq.org/Evangelism%20ministry.htm
26. The AntiNicene period (125 A.D. to 325 A.D.) represents the postapostolic
period when the bishop of Rome, while influential, still was just one of many
bishops. Other than James as the superior bishop over those of other churches,
once he died there was no recognized shift of the superior bishop to the one at
Rome in that AntiNicene period. See index entry on 'Roman Catholicism: origins.'
27. This is heretical because if sinless from birth, Mary needed no savior. Yet,
Mary affirms God is "My Savior." (Luke 1:47.)
28. Maryworship had already entered the church earlier. However, Maryworship was
later made respectable as a solution to the problem of original sin uniquely
taught by Paul in Romans ch. 5. Roman Catholicism taught Mary's alleged sinless
nature explained how Jesus did not suffer original sin in his flesh. Marcion
resolved this dilemma differently in 144 A.D. He said Jesus only appeared to have
human flesh. This was the heresy of docetism that Apostle John condemns. Both the
RC and Marcion heresies derive from Paul's teaching on original sin in (Rom. 5:1).
29. At the Council of Laodicea of 363 A.D.-one of the first church councils
controlled primarily by the Roman Bishop-it was decided to deem heretical and
anathema (cursed) the practice of keeping Sabbath. (Canon 29.) The Council
claimed Sabbathkeeping was "judaizing." (Nicene and PostNicene Fathers (1990),
supra, XII at 92.) This council ruling was never accepted outside of Roman
territories. The Eastern Orthodox have always maintained Christians must keep the
Sabbath (on Fridaysunset to Saturdaysunset) while worshipping on Sunday. The
AntiNicene church records from 125 A.D. to 325 A.D. likewise show that keeping
Sabbath on our Saturday. Then the Orthodox had Sunday worship. This was the clear
practice of universal Christianity pre-363 A.D. See the Constitution of the
Apostles (ca. 200 A.D.) Book 7, ch. XXIII & XXX, Book 2, ch. LX, and Book 5, ch.
XX, reprinted in AntiNicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to a.d. 325
(Ed. The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D.) (Reprint of
Edinburgh Edition of T&T Clark)(Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans). A
reprint of Book 7 is at
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF07/anf0747.htm#P6620_2278762. A reprint of Book 2
and 5 are at the same webpage, except identified as ANF02 or ANF05.
30. Tertullian, a leading church member at Carthage (N. Africa) in Against
Marcion around 207 A.D., does concur that Paul abrogated ceremonial laws from the
Law. However, he claims otherwise Paul did not abrogate the law. Some interpret
James in Acts 15 that way too. However, James in Acts 21 tells Paul this is a
misunderstanding of what his decision on circumcision meant.
#### Further Studies
[[JWO_31_HowtheApostlesDied]]

278
JWO_31_HowtheApostlesDied.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,278 @@
Parent: [[JWO_30_PaulorJamesChurch]]
## What Happened to the 12 Apostles
Ichthus has an article entitled "what happened to the 12 Apostles"
Sources on what happened to Jesus' disciples:
Hippolytus of Rome:
* Birth unknown, died around 236 AD
* See his entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia: click here
* Here is a page on the Internet containing his writings: click here
Eusebius:
* Was the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, known as the "Father of Church History" because he wrote about the church history.
* Lived around 260-341 AD
* See his entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia: click here
#### And now... what ever happened to the disciples of Jesus
**Judas:**
We all know what happened to him...
**Andrew:**
According to Hippolytus:
Andrew preached to the Scythians [modern day Georgia] and Thracians
[modern day Bulgaria], and was crucified, suspended on an olive
tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia [Greece]; and there too he was buried.
**Bartholomew:**
According to Hippolytus, Bartholomew preached in India:
Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave
the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head
downward, and was buried in Allanum, a town of the great Armenia
[modern day southern Georgia].
Eusebius, in his Church History, confirms the ministry of Bartholomew in
India, and adds an eye witness account:
About that time, Pantaenus, a man highly distinguished for his
learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in
Alexandria... Pantaenus...is said to have gone to India. It is
reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the
Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival.
For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them,
and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language,
which they had preserved till that time. ---- (Book 5, Chapter 10)
**James, Son of AlphaeusL:**
Hippolytus identifies that James was stoned to death in Jerusalem:
And James the son of Alphaeus, when preaching in Jerusalem, was
stoned to death by the Jews, and was buried there beside the temple.
**James, Son of Zebedee:**
James was the brother of John, the disciple "that Jesus loved".
According to the Book of Acts in the New Testament, James was killed by
Herod:
(Acts 12:1) And at that time Herod the king threw on his hands to oppress some
of those of the church.
(Acts 12:2) And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
This is confirmed by Hippolytus:
James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by
Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there.
Eusebius descibed more precisely what was cut off of James:
First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James,
the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded... (Book 3, Chapter 5)
Yep... James' head was cut...
**John, brother of James and son of Zebedee:**
John was one of the few disciples that did not die a cruel death, but of "old
age".
Eusebius discusses the reason that John wrote his Gospel:
"Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they,
tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of
necessity...And when Mark and Luke had already published their
Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in
proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the
following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come
into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he
accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that
there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ
at the beginning of his ministry." (Book 3, Chapter 24)
According to Hippolytus, John was banished by Domitian to the Isle of Patmos,
and later died in Ephesus:
John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle
of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the
apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus,
where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.
**Matthew/Levi:**
Eusebius referenced to Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, as early as c. 110 A.D.,
bearing witness to Matthew's authorship of his gospel:
....Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew
language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
(Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 39)
According to Hippolytus:
Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at
Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia.
[Parthia is near modern day Tehran]
**Simon/Peter: **
Eusebius, quoting Papias of Hierapolis (c. 110 A.D.), records a
tradition that the Gospel of Mark preserved the Gospel as preached by Peter:
"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately
whatsoever he remembered.... he accompanied Peter..." ---- (Book 3, Chapter 39)
Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.) records a similar tradition, and mentions that
Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome:
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their
own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and
laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark,
the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in
writing what had been preached by Peter..." ---- (Irenaeus,
"Against Heresies", Book 3, Chapter 1)
Eusebius records that Peter was put to death under Nero in Rome:
It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself,
and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of
Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are
preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.
---- (Book 2, Chapter 25)
(Paul was a Roman citizen can cannot be crucified but got an "easier" death
sentence)
Hippolytus confirmed the fact that Peter was crucified by Nero in Rome:
Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia,
and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by
Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to
suffer in that manner.
**Philip :**
According to Hippolytus, Philip preached and was executed in what
today is eastern Turkey:
Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with
his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there.
**Simon the Zealot [sic: Canaanite]:**
According to Hippolytus, Simon the Zealot was the second Bishop of Jerusalem:
Simon the Zealot, the son of Clopas, who is also called Jude,
became bishop of Jerusalem after James the Just, and fell asleep and
was buried there at the age of 120 years.
**Thaddaeus/Judas son of James:**
According to Mat 10:3 (KJV): Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the
publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was
Thaddaeus.... Thaddaeus is also known as Lebbaeus.
Hippolytus records:
Jude, who is also called Lebbaeus, preached to the people of Edessa, and to
all Mesopotamia, and fell asleep at Berytus, and was buried there.
**Thomas:**
Hippolytus records that Thomas was an active missionary, and that
he met his fate in India And Thomas preached to the Parthians,
Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians, and was
thrust through in the four members of his body with a pine spear
at Calamene, the city of India, and was buried there.
#### How the Apostles Died
See also "How the Apostles Died," Prayer Foundation (2012) which states:
**ANDREW:**
Traveling to what is now modern-day Russia, to the "land of the man-eaters,"
Andrew preached Jesus to its inhabitants. Christians there claim that he was the
first to bring them the gospel. It is also said that he preached in the Roman
province of Asia (modern-day Turkey). Tradition also has him preaching in
Greece, and says that he was crucified there.
**BARTHOLOMEW:**
Tradition says that he went on missionary journeys to Southern Arabia and
Ethiopia. That with Thomas he traveled to India, and also that he preached in
Armenia. Accounts of his death vary, but all agree that he was martyred for the
faith.
**JAMES, THE SON OF ALPHEUS:**
James, the Son of Alpheus, is said to have proclaimed Jesus in Syria. Josephus
(a Jewish historian writing for Romans; see also our page:Josephus On Jesus)
reported that he was stoned and then clubbed to death.
**JOHN:**
The only Apostle for certain never said to have been martyred, is theApostle
John. John became Bishop of Ephesus (a Greek City located in what is now
modern-day Turkey). He was exiled to the Island of Patmos. There John was
inspired by God to write the Book of Revelation. Tradition holds that this
happened in a particular cave which you can still go and visit. Greek Orthodox
Monks long ago built a Church and monastery over it.
**MATTHEW:**
Matthew (Levi) was the tax collector who followed Jesus and later wrote the
Gospel of Matthew. He preached in Persia and Ethiopia. There is disagreement as
to whether or not he was martyred. According to some of the oldest sources, he
was not martyred. Other sources hold that Ethiopia was the place where he died;
and that he was stabbed to death there.
**MATTHIAS:**
The other Apostles by casting of lot chose Matthias to take the place of Judas in
an attempt to fulfill the Old Testament prophecy "...let another take his office"
-Psalm 109:8, quoted in Acts 1:20 (however, some feel that the Lord Himself
fulfilled this prophecy by replacing Judas with the Apostle Paul). Matthias is
never mentioned again in Scripture. Tradition says that Matthias traveled to
Syria with Andrew and was burned to death.
**PETER:**
It is said that Peter asked to be crucified upside down in Rome, saying that he
was not worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord. He was executed ca. 66
A.D. by the Roman Emperor Nero.
**PHILIP:**
To the northern African city of Carthage, Philip is said to have brought the
Gospel. It is also said that he led the wife of a Roman proconsul to the Lord,
and that the proconsul was not pleased with this. It is said that he had Philip
arrested, and executed with great cruelty.
**SIMON THE ZEALOT:**
Simon, it is held, traveled to Persia. Tradition says that he refused to
sacrifice to the Persian's sun god, and was killed because of it.
**THOMAS:**
It is held that Thomas preached east of Syria. Tradition says
that he proclaimed Christ in India, and founded the church of Mar
Thoma. This church is still in existence today, and claims Thomas
as its founder. In India they say that he then traveled to China
and also preached the Gospel there, later returning again to
India. Thomas is said to have died in India, killed by four
soldiers armed with spears.

6
JesusWordsOnly.md

@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ Parent: [[Home]]
* [[JWO_21_02_BibliographicalReferences_0114]]
* [[JWO_21_03_BibliographicalReferences_0115]]
### Adenda
* [[JWO_30_PaulorJamesChurch]]
### JWO
* [[JwoRefs]]

2
ThomasParallelsSchenk.md

@ -164,6 +164,8 @@ comparisons to the various Apocryphal or other Christian and Gnostic texts.
["Lk.17:20"]=113
---
* THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS https://sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm
* Commentary & Typing by Craig Schenk
* Made available to the net by Paul Halsall <halsall@murray.fordham.edu>