Jewish, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Holy Books: A Table of Which Texts Each ContainThe Christian BibleThe Formation and Creation of the Bible's New TestamentWho Wrote the Four Gospels of the New Testament? An Introduction to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.St Paul - History, Biblical Epistles, Gnosticism and MithraismBiblical Dress Codes: God's Laws on ClothesThe Old Testament Versus the New Testament: Do Christians Still Have to Observe OT Law?
13 of the books of the Christian New Testament are the epistles (letters) of St. Paul. Seven were probably written by Paul himself and six others have been written in his name by (anonymous) followers, some up to 80 years after his death. By the time the official Bible canon was produced, no-one knew that only some were genuine. The historical Paul probably did write 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Letters forged in the name of Paul are 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians.1. Paul was born in Tarsus as "Saul" and adopted the name of Paul after converting to what is now Christianity. He was an early leader of the growing Christian churches around the Roman Empire, and the writings of St. Paul are the earliest existing Christian writings known to historians. Despite this, Paul never met Jesus and appears to rely mostly on Greek myths and legends, many of which he copied, placing Jesus at the center of them instead of their original heroes.
Forged in the name of Paul:
The authentic (early) writings are gnostic, whereas the later pseudonymous texts are more literalist and misogynistic. The four gospels are written using Paul as a source, although none of the originals of Paul's writings have survived.
“We do not have the original of 1 Thessalonians (i.e., the text that Paul actually wrote) or of any other New Testament book. Nor do we have copies made directly from the originals, nor copies made from the copies of the originals, nor copies made from the copies of the copies. Our earliest "manuscripts" (hand-written copies) of Paul's letters date from around 200 CE, that is, nearly 150 years after he wrote them. [...] Indeed, it is not until the fourth century, nearly three hundred years after the New Testament was written, that we begin to get complete manuscripts”
Paul's use of a scribe - not a "secretary" - to write down what he spoke was well known amongst Christians. Epistles written in the name of Paul by others often ended in the same way, including Colossians 4:18: "The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen" - this is copying the way in which Paul would write a final sentence on his letters in his own large handwriting, in order to prove they were by him. The problem was that as so few people knew what his handwriting looked like, this technique was easy for the forgers to imitate.
“There is no doubt that the apostle Paul used a secretary on occasion. One of this secretaries tells us that he has written the letter! In Romans 16:22 we read, 'I Tertius, the one who wrote this letter...' [and he] was the scribe who wrote what Paul told him to write. Paul also used a scribe for his letter to the Galatians, since at the very end he tells his readers, 'See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand' (6:11). Commentators are widely agreed that Paul had dictated the letter to a secretary, but here at the end he was writing the final bit himself. He used larger handwriting either because he wasn't as skilled at writing as the secretary, because he had problems with his eyesights and so wrote larger letters, or for some other reason. [...] Did the secretaries contribute to the contents of the letter? This is [easy] to say: Despite what scholars often claim, all of the evidence we have suggests that the answer is no.”
Are the 'forged' letters best explained as the result of secretarial contribution?
“In the ancient world, people often did dictate letters to secretaries. A problem exists in comparing Paul's letters to others of that era: most dictated letters were short - just one page long, or were stereotyped form-letters such as certificates. But Paul's writings are extensive essay-letters, treaties; long and complicated. Secretaries did not edit, correct and improve prose in the name of his employer at such great lengths. Well - some rare types of professional secretaries did - but in the ancient world, only the über-rich could afford such scribes and there is no evidence that anyone else used them. And by über-rich, we mean Emperors, Senators and their senior Generals, and even then, such occasions are rare and the individuals who ever used these services are very few in number. And those people did not have their secretaries co-author pieces for them. Paul, lumping his lot in with the unruly and anti-establishment Christians, did not have such professional secretaries available to him anyway, so, appealing to their existence does not explain why the letters forged in Paul's name have different writings styles to Paul. They were forgeries, not co-authored pieces.”
Saul of Tarsus is the man we now call Paul. Saul was a Greek Jew, working for a Sadducee High Priest as a type of hired goon. Some say that he was likely a follower of Mithraism, which was a popular religion in the first century Roman Empire especially in Paul's home town of Tarsus. He was a powerful and outspoken critic of the troublesome sect of Jews that were led by the Rabbi Yeshua Nazaret. Acts 8:3 describes Saul ridiculing and arresting the followers of Yeshua. On the way to Jerusalem it was believed that Saul was going to continue to harass the followers of Yeshua. Instead, at about the age of 30, Paul revealed himself as a convert to the Jewish sect of Yeshua and changed his name to Paul.
“Paul was originally a Jewish Pharisee from outside Palestine, who had heard the Christian proclamation of Jesus, found it blasphemous, and worked to oppose it with all his heart and strength, one of the first the most forceful persecutors of the new faith (Gal. 1:13; cf. Acts 8:3). But Paul himself then had some kind of visionary experience of Jesus (Gal. 1:15-16; 1 Cor. 15:8-11) and changed from being the Christian movement's chief adversary to being its chief advocate, transformed from persecutor to proclaimer.”
Saul was convinced from his Mithraistic roots that the Christ would return within his lifetime. Possibly he felt much guilt for persecuting the Yeshua cult despite it being his job. Converting presented a personal chance of guilt abstention and controversial fame. He became the holy man he desired to be and was vindicated of all the wrong he had done in persecuting Yeshua: He declared himself born again and began actively preaching about Jesus the Christ. This guilt-complex explanation is not the only one presented by scholars, others have held that the mystical experience Saul had was the result of neurology:
“Saint Paul certainly had an epileptoid, if not an epileptic seizure.”
St Paul never met Jesus - his only encounter was during a seizure in which he saw a vision of Jesus, as recorded in Acts 9:3-9. William James, the well-known psychologist and author on the history of religion, is convinced that St Paul's vision was caused solely by a seizure. His claim is scientifically likely and has been made by scientists and doctors many times in history9. The prominent book on brain neurology, Neuroscience states that people can have a once-in-a-life seizure that can include visual hallucinations and in the general (non-epileptic) population this occurs in 7 to 10 percent of all people's lives10.
So, Paul was never a first-hand witness of Jesus, and this was a hot topic of debate amongst early Christians, especially given that no-one seemed to have access to any of the disciples or knew anyone else who had directly known them. Pseudo-Clementines is one of the Christian texts that did not make it into the New Testament canon, and in it the argument is given by Peter, the apostle, that Paul's story does not make sense:
“Can anyone be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? And if you will say, 'It is possible,' then I ask, 'Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those who were awake?' And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? [...] For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand.”
It is a very strong argument. Why was Jesus incarnated at all if it turns out that the good news can actually be delivered via a brief vision to a single person? Prof. Ehrman continues explains the line of thought given in Pseudo-Clementine:
“Paul may have had a brief vision of Jesus. But Peter was with him for months - a year! - not asleep and dreaming, but awake, listening to his every word. And Jesus himself declared that it was Peter, not Paul, who was the 'Rock' on whom the church would be built. Paul is a late interloper whose authority rests on entirely dubious grounds. It is the teachings of Peter that are to be followed, not those of Paul.
Whether or not this is the view of the historical Peter is something we will probably never know. But it is certainly the view of Peter set forth in the forged writings known as the Pseudo-Clementines.'.”
When the Pauline Christians formed the New Testament with the backing of the Roman State, they selected the Christian writings that most agreed with their beliefs, and as such, they decided not to include Pseudo-Clementine. It is easy to see why!
In Damascus Saul preached his new belief but the locals forced him away. He arrived at Jerusalem but the original followers of Yeshua did not trust Saul, their old enemy. Paul left Jerusalem and went to his home town, Tarsus, in Cilicia/Cesarea, in an area now called Turkey.
Paul was the original preacher of "Jesus the Christ". Yeshua was not called "Jesus" (in Greek) nor "Christ" (another Greek idea) until Paul concluded that Yeshua was Christ. Paul combined his own beliefs with those of the Jewish followers of Yeshua, including many rituals and parts of the Mithraist religion. He confused the Hellenic Christ theme with the messiah of Judaism, and the result was the sacrificial nature of Christ that Christianity has.
Paul opposed Jewish tradition and preached a new covenant from God that included women and Gentiles (non-Jews). This allowed many new converts and followers to what became known as Pauline Christianity. He gained a new life of which he could be proud. However many of his attempts to preach his new way in the synagogues were rebuked and he spent more than one stretch in prison. He travelled throughout the Mediterranean bringing the Good News to the Gentiles. Paul died in about 64CE after a two year stretch in a prison in Rome.
Some text taken from
“Paul mistook the Jewish "Messiah" to mean the Hellenistic "Christ". This happened before anything was written down; it happened during Paul's conversations with people as he was working through what had happened. A messiah is a person who is a great leader who leads your people to freedom. The title was taken by Jews from Persian culture. A christ is a god-king who dies as an offering to some divine being as a sacrifice in return for prosperity, especially agricultural prosperity. Both are anointed with oil as a mystical, sexual rite.”
Jesus didn't exist(Quoted in 1999, site is now down)
The pagan theme of Christ, as was a popular part of Roman mystery religions and folklore, was combined with the Hebrew Yeshua story by Paul and his subsequent followers. It was Mithraism that probably provided the greatest influence of all the mystery religions, as Tarsus was a heavily Mithraist place. Tarsus was a very old seaport, over 2000 years old, and Mithraism was popular there with shrines and imagery stretching as far West as the Danube river. Paul no doubt found a large audience there for his preaching of Jesus, the new Christ, and for the story of salvation, as Mithraism contained many compatible and defining features of his Christ theory. This is why Christianity came to have so many rituals and beliefs in common with Mithraism, even down to the same wording used in prayers.
Here are some older myths that were common which Paul would have known as a Roman:
Attis "was the son of the goddess Nana's earthly incarnation. She was a virgin. "He grew up to become a sacrificial victim and savior, slain to bring salvation to mankind. His body was eaten by his worshippers in the form of bread. He was resurrected to become the most high god, who holds the universe together. Like his priests, he was castrated, then crucified on a pine tree, whence his holy blood poured down to redeem the earth" [Unknown source]
Osiris started out as an Egyptian God of Vegetation, resurrection and the endless seasons. Osiris evolved to become a dominant God in the Egyptian religion. Osiris presides over the tribunal of the dead, who must appeal to him with gifts and tokens of goodness gained whilst they were alive, because he can give them new life. The Cult of Osiris and Isis, found in Rome, were directed towards Salvation and making sure that they would please Osiris when they die. Osiris was tricked and killed (but returned to life), and for a period of time his enemies ruled in his place. (Similar to Revelations 20)
Asklepios (5th century BCE): The majority of the miracles performed by Jesus appear to have their root in Asklepios' miracles, healings etc. A blind healed by Asklepios see at first only trees, like the one healed by Jesus. Asklepios heals poor and rich, men and women, slaves and free, like Jesus. He raises the dead, the details being the same as in the Jesus stories.
Herakles (5th century BCE), like Jesus, was born of a virgin. Zeus was his father. Like Jesus he walked on the waters, was viewed as a savior, dies with the words "father, it is done" and rises to heaven. There are many more parallels.
Dionysios (8th century BCE), like Jesus, was the son of a god (Zeus) and a mortal woman. He was a healer, turned water into wine (the marriage at Kana) and was a mortal and resurrected god.
Christ theme: The words "My El, why have you forsaken me?" are those of a pagan Messiah, "El" is a pagan God and this is the word used in older Biblical texts, only, it is Jesus who is said to say them. Pagan kings were often assumed to rule by divine right, and the ritual sacrifice of them often involved a judas. The judas would take the place of the true king for the sacrifice, the point of which was to renew the Earth and to bring salvation to mankind. Mythically the sacrificed people rose again from the dead at the same time as salvation was given (through the sacrifice).
There are many different books that the Christian church decided to expunge. We have snippets and scraps from many such books including the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic Gospels, the Apocrypha, 1 Infancy, 2 Infancy, Nicodemus and the first and second Book of Adam and Eve.
It is revealing that in one such book Jesus is not crucified, but Judas is instead whilst Jesus stands laughing on a hill. Try these two sources for copies of some of these texts: The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden published by World Bible Publishers, Inc. and The Other Bible: Ancient Alternative Scriptures edited by Willis Barnstone.
“Spirit of Spirit, if it be your will, give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again - and the sacred spirit may breathe in me.”
Prayer to Mithras
“Mithraism and Judaism merged and became Christianity. Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. St Paul as the first "Christian" bears much of the responsibility for merging the two in his preaching and teaching, and also comes from Tarsus, a major Mithraist center.
The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity.”
“It was in Tarsus that the Mysteries of Mithras had originated, so it would have been unthinkable that Paul would have been unaware of the remarkable similarities we have already explored between Christian doctrines and the teachings of Mithraism. [Footnote:] Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, where, according to Plutarch [46-125CE], the Mithraic Mysteries were being practiced as early as 67BCE.”
Gnosticism is an ancient religion stemming from the first century (approximately), and is an alternative messiah-religion that shares many features with Christianity. An inferior angelic being created the Earth, and this being is a hindrance to spiritual development. Many Gnostic schools taught that the Hebrew Scriptures were the religious creation of this inferior god. To trick this god out of power, a saviour was sent by the true god, and the sacrifice of this innocent man undermined the power of the old god, allowing the possibility for people to become saved and align themselves with the true god. Gnosticism was heavily attacked by the first Christian anti-heresy writers. Some authors such as Freke & Gandy (1999) argue that Christianity as we know it is a shallow version of Gnosticism which has mistaken symbolic stories for real ones13, whereas many academics find that the historical and archaeological evidence is unclear: Christianity and gnosticism are related, but, and although we don't yet know which one came first, it seems that early Christianity was much more Gnostic than it is now, and perhaps the gnostic/literalist divide simply didn't exist for the first two centuries of Christian history. By the 7th century, literalist Christians had overwhelmed Gnosticism and related forms of Christianity, leaving us with modern Trinitarian Christianity.
The Outer Mysteries comprised the publicly available information and constructed stories of the religion, whereas the Inner Mysteries were learned by initiates, and revealed that these stories were allegorical and symbolic creations that hold deeper spiritual meanings. Literalists were those who never learned the inner teachings. Unfortunately, the literalists formed Christianity as we know it today, as a religion that beliefs in the rebirth of their savior in an actual physical, real, literalist way.
Was Paul himself a gnostic and a teacher of the Jesus Mysteries, or was he a literalist? The scholars T. Freke & P. Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries compiled a large quantity of historical evidence that St. Paul was a Gnostic:
“Paul writes of a 'Gnosis' which can be taught only to the 'fully initiated'. He offers a prayer 'that your love may more and more be bursting with Gnosis'. He writes of 'Christ in whom are hid all the treasures of Sophia and Gnosis' and of 'the Gnosis of God's Mystery'. Like a Gnostic initiate Paul claims: 'By revelation the Mystery was made known to me'. Like a Gnostic defending the secrecy of the Inner Mysteries he asserts that he has heard 'ineffable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter'. Like a Gnostic he puts the emphasis on understanding, not on dogma, writing, 'The letter kills, while the spirit gives life'. And like a Gnostic, he describes stories in the scriptures as 'allegories' and writes of 'events' and 'symbolic'.”
Yet Freke and Gandy conclude that he was actually neither a gnostic nor a literalist. A large chapter of their Jesus Mysteries hypothesis is dedicated to showing us the many ways in which early Christianity was a Mystery religion, which was later replaced by Christians who only interpreted its vegetation myths literally rather than spiritually. They conclude that although Paul's genuine teachings were gnostic, Paul was neither for or against Gnosticism, because literalist Christianity did not yet exist, so there was no "side" to be on.
“Upon reflection we felt that to call Paul a Gnostic was, in a sense, misleading. The more we looked at the evidence we had uncovered, the more it seemed that to apply to the terms 'Gnostic' and 'Literalist' to the Christianity of the first century was actually meaningless. From Paul's letters it is clear that the Christian community of this period was deeply divided, yet this schism was not between Gnostics and Literalists, as was the case by the end of the second century. Paul is neither anti-Gnostic nor pro-Gnostic, because in his day the great schism between Gnostics and Literalists had yet to occur.
At the time of Paul, the strands of thought that would become Gnosticism and Literalism were harmoniously co-existing as the Inner and Outer teachings of the Jesus Mysteries. The theological battle that Paul is engaged in is between those initiates of the Jesus Mysteries who want to maintain a traditional and distinctively Jewish identity and those, like himself, who wish to make their new Mysteries completely 'modern' and cosmopolitan.”
That Christianity actually started out as a Roman Mystery Religion is not accepted even by many liberal Christians, but nonetheless the evidence is laid out comprehensively that Paul taught gnostic teachings, not because he was a "gnostic" as opposed to a "literalist", but because Christianity was inherently gnostic from its conception. It was another god-man religion like Mithraism, Osiris-Dionysis myths and other common religions of the time. Taking the bullet points from Freke and Gandy (p212-213), here is some of the simplified evidence that Paul taught the same things that the Mystery religions, because Paul was himself a gnostic, being an initiate of The Jesus Mysteries:
The Gnostics claimed that their spiritual lineage stemmed from Paul and that they were privy to secret oral teachings taught by Paul to select disciples
Gnostics had many gospels which they attributed to Paul, their 'Great Apostle'
Many Gnostic groups claimed Paul as their founding father
By the middle of the second century the communities to which Paul had written his letters are known to have been centres of Marcionite Gnosticism
Paul's anti-Gnostic Pastoral letters are fakes, forged in the late second century. In the genuine letters Paul is not anti-Gnostic and never mentions an historical Jesus
Literalist Christians of the early second century attack Paul, who they claim 'contradicts' the true teaching and is the 'adversary' of Jesus.
Paul was born in Tarsus, a major centre for the Pagan Mysteries, and often uses terms from the Mysteries in his letters. He even calls himself a 'Steward of the Mysteries of God', the term for a priest in the Pagan Mysteries of Serapis. Paul quotes Pagan sages and teaches Pagan doctrines.
[...] Paul's letters reveal a powerful Gnostic content. Paul regularly uses Gnostic terms. [...] He teaches that Jesus came only in the 'likeness' of flesh. [...] He describes the scriptures as 'allegories' and 'symbolic'. [...]
Whilst the Literalists saw the resurrection as the promise that they would rise from their graves and experience bodily immortality after the Second Coming, Paul teaches the Gnostic doctrine that the resurrection is a mystical experience that can be had here and now
The great secret that Paul claims to be able to reveal is not that Jesus literally walked the Earth, but the mystical revelation of "Christ in you"
The Gnostics claimed that, like the gospels, Paul's letters encoded secret teachings. Paul taught in 'two ways at once': the Outer Mysteries [and] the Inner Mysteries. [...]
What does this mean? It means that the rebirth of Jesus was not thought of as a historical event. This explains why, for example, early Christians had no traditions on the birth of Jesus, nor did they know where he was buried, nor are there any mentions of a historical Jesus by historians. All the elements of the birth narrative that we know are false are easily explained by the fact that they were gnostic stories, designed to teach initiates greater truths than the mere literal value of the stories. All of this not only lends support to the suspected truth that Jesus did not exist, but the idea that Christianity as a literalist religion based on historical truth is a mistake.
The teachings of St. Paul are infamously misogynistic and their effect on the status of women in the Western world has been unspeakably horrendous; legal inequality and suppression and social subjugation has gone hand in hand with Christian power (a power reserved for males in Christian institutions).
Be submissive to husbands and home: 1 Corinthians 11:3 proclaims simply that as God rules men, men rule women. Titus 2 sees St Paul give the clearest commentary on the status of womankind in Biblical Christianity: Titus 2:3-5 tells older women to instruct younger women to love their husband and children, to be self-controlled (same for men); but also "to be busy at home" and "subject to their husbands" (repeated in 1 Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22-25). The women follow the men, and the men are to set examples and be serious (Titus 2:1,6-7). He explains to the Corinth congregation why men own women: "For a man did not originally spring from woman, but woman was made out of man; and was not created for woman's sake, but woman for the sake of man" (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).
Women have no authority over men and must be silent: 1 Timothy 2:11-15: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness". 1 Corinthians 14:34 says similar stuff: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church".
It was no doubt with these words of St Paul in mind that St Cyril justifies why a mob of Christians murdered Hypatia and burnt down the Library of Alexandria: "When Christian monks in the fourth century hacked the great scholar Hypatia to death with oyster shells, St. Cyril explained that it was because she was an iniquitous female who had presumed, against God's commandments, to teach men"17.
Women cannot remarry: 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband". It is affirmed in 1 Timothy 5:11-12 where women who divorce will face judgement from God and cannot be put on a welfare list to receive societal aid. There is an exception to this rule; when the woman's first husband dies, "she is free to marry another Christian" (1 Corinthians 7:39). I guess she just has to wait! A male could marry and divorce a few women but as long as he remains alive, his estranged wives cannot remarry.
1 Peter 3:3 and 1 Timothy 2:9-10 forbid women the plaiting of hair and the wearing of gold, pearls and fine or expensive clothes; they must dress modestly. Apparently men can be as outrageous as they want. God, being omniscient, had clearly forseen the bling of the black male music industry and the glitz of the shows of Broadway; but it was women, in particular, who are denied golden decorations and the like!
After sternly stating the subjection of women to man Ephesians continues with some statements that might be seen as condoning equality (in Ephesians 5:25-33), as it commands husband and wife togetherness, however, this state is always to be instigated by the husband. So... togetherness is ok, as long as it occurs when the male says so. Otherwise, it is patriarchalism all the way.
Any original Jewish Christians were eventually completely replaced by Pauline Christians. According to the take on events in the Bible, the Apostles did not consider Paul to be a fellow apostle and didn't trust him, as he'd never actually met Jesus. Paul preached that converts didn't need to keep Old Testament Laws and that circumcision was a barrier to God. Paul's teachings, Greek to Greek, appealed to the masses of the Roman Empire and its neighbours, whereas Jewish Christianity dwindled in importance under the tide of followers of the easy Christianity preached by Paul.
The gnostic Mithraists and Jewish Ebionites formed the very first Christians of the first century, with practices and beliefs based respectively on Gnostic and Judaistic rituals, symbols and practices. Pauline Christians dispensed with the difficult Jewish laws and became popular amongst gentiles, soon out-numbering the Jewish Christians, causing them to be secluded and eventually suppressed. Increasing literalism amongst roman converts then led the Pauline Christians to become obsessed with enforcing their literal interpretation of Christianity's original stories, causing another huge rift with older gnostic-style Christians. With Roman power behind their press and with the favour of Emperors, the Pauline-Nicene Christians wiped out the gnostics, annihilated the Arians after long bloody campaigns, and murdered and burnt the Marcionites and many other small sects, to leave themselves as the sole Christians within the Roman Empire, free to edit their own books to 'prove' how all their predecessors had been wrong. The three Cappadocian scholars promoted the Holy Spirit to the godhead to create a Trinity, which was codified strictly in to the Nicene Creed of 381, which went to careful lengths to disclaim against 'heresy'. Emperor Theodosius published a series of forceful edicts intolerant of all non-Nicene sects. This state of affairs persisted in the West for over a thousand years from the 5th century, causing mainstream Christianity to become completely ignorant of their own past.”
The page quoted above continues the story in detail.
“The "glad tidings" were followed closely by the absolutely worst tidings - those of St Paul.”
The following text is copied and slightly edited version of text from hansss/Pauls-laws.html, which is no longer online.
Don't get divorced (1 Cor. 7:11 - Genuine)
Don't worry about eating food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:4 - Genuine)
Don't have long hair [men] (1 Cor. 11:14 - Genuine)
Don't give welfare to women under sixty (1 Tim. 5:9 - Fake)
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife´s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband´s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? 17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God´s commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21Were you a slave when you were called? Don´t let it trouble you although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord´s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ´s slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to. 25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord´s mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. 29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. 32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord´s affairs how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world how he can please his wife- 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord´s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. 36If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better. 39A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
1 Corinthians 8:1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But the man who loves God is known by God. 4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. 9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won´t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
1 Corinthians 10:25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord´s, and everything in it." 27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience´ sake-- 29the other man´s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another´s conscience?
1 Corinthians 11:1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. 2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. 3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,
Galatians 5:2: Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Galatians 5:12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
1 Timothy 5:8 If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 9No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. 11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.
Titus 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. 6Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. 9Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them
The Bible (NIV). The NIV is the best translation for accuracy whilst maintaining readability. Multiple authors, a compendium of multiple previously published books. I prefer to take quotes from the NIV but where I quote the Bible en masse I must quote from the KJV because it is not copyrighted, whilst the NIV is. [Book Review]
Bear, Connors and Paradiso
(1996) Neuroscience. Published by Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. The Amazon link is to a newer version. Mark F. Bear Ph.D. and Barry W Connors Ph.D. are both Professors of Neuroscience at Brown University, Rhode Island, USA, and Michael A. Paradiso Ph.D., associate professor.
(2003) Lost Christianities. Hardback. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
(2011) Forged. Subtitle: "Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are". Hardback. Published by HarperCollins, New York, USA.
(1995) The Dark Side of Christian History. Published by Morningstar & Lark, Windermere, FL, USA.
(1902) The Varieties of Religious Experience. From the Gifford Lectures delivered at Edinburgh 1901-1902, first Edition printed 1960. Quotes from fifth edition, 1971, Collins. [Book Review]
As an example, the historian Bart Ehrman notes in "Lost Christianities" that "the pastoral letters of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus [...] claim to be written by Paul, but appear to have been written long after his death"
“Yet other books are pseudonymous - forgeries by people who explicitly claim to be someone else. Included in this group is [...] probably the pastoral Epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, quite likely the deutero-Pauline Epistles of 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians, and possibly 1 Peter and Jude.”
“Virtually all scholars agree that seven of the Pauline letters are authentic: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. [...] The other six differ in significant ways from this core group of seven. Three of them - 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus - are so much alike that most scholars are convinced that they were written by the same person. The other three are usually assigned to three different authors.”