The Greatest Conspiracy

[kentington]

That's an excellent point. Nonetheless, there are unmistakable similarities between Matthew and the Dhammapada. For example:

“In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you ..." (Matthew 7:12) | "“One should do what one teaches others to do..." (Dhammapada 159)

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) | “The faults of others are easily seen, but one's own faults are hard to see.” (Dhammapada 252)

“Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy.” (Matthew 6:20) | “The wise share their accumulated wealth, and by doing so build merit that will never decay.” (Dhammapada 355)

I'd be curious to have a qualified human do this analysis and see what they come up with.

Obviously I may not be considered a qualified human, but I do see the similarities. First I will say wisdom is wisdom. A wise saying by one person doesn't preclude another from thinking of it for the first time themselves without having read it.
1. The Dhammapada 159 says, Do as you say not as you do. (Basically) Matthew 7:12 is saying to do as you want others to do. Which could be similar if you were teaching others to treat people as you want to be treated. I would say these are different enough to be their own saying though.
2. Matthew 7:1 ; This is saying you will be held to the same standard you hold others to. The following verse says as much. Just a bit further to Matthew 7:3 and it talks about removing the plank from your eye before removing the speck of sand from your brother. I think Dhammapada 252 would be closer to that. Although, Jesus is doing more than just saying something wise, he is calling people to act on it. That is a slight difference.
3. Matthew 6:20 is not necessarily saying to be generous. It is saying more than that. It is about being eternally and spiritually focused. It's about being God focused rather than worldly. Dhammapada 355 is saying strictly to be generous with your worldly possessions. If you read further, to Matthew 6:24, you will see it says that you cannot serve both God and money.

Again, I can see similarities, but I don't think they are a copy of each other.

A 4th or 5th century CE commentary attributed to Buddhaghosa includes 305 stories which give context to the verses.

Pāli Dhammapada – the oldest available manuscripts date to 1500 CE. A compiler is not named.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada

Doesn't Jesus predate this?
The Dead Sea scrolls are said to be 3rd century BC to 1st century AD.

[kentington]

WTF is this thread? Did you all take peyote together and forget to invite me?

Saxi recognizes the board has politics fatigue. So, he is kicking more life into it by going for another controversial discussion.

[mookiemcgee]

I had a dream this week that the donald somehow got it passed through gov't that he could run for a 3rd term, but then Bill Clinton ran against him and secured the presidency. No peyote involved just natural brain chemicals doing their thing while i slept.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Just hoping Roosevelt rises from the grave and pulls this country's head from its ass. Lol

[jonesthecurl]

I had a dream this week that the donald somehow got it passed through gov't that he could run for a 3rd term, but then Bill Clinton ran against him and secured the presidency. No peyote involved just natural brain chemicals doing their thing while i slept.

Well, according to himself, he won in 2020 and therefore THIS is his third term.

[mookiemcgee]

I had a dream this week that the donald somehow got it passed through gov't that he could run for a 3rd term, but then Bill Clinton ran against him and secured the presidency. No peyote involved just natural brain chemicals doing their thing while i slept.

Well, according to himself, he won in 2020 and therefore THIS is his third term.

Fair but this way my dream, and from my subconcious' perception this was only his second term as president. 0 terms as Prime Minister or Supreme Leader tho!

[jusplay4fun]

What if, during the 18 years of Jesus' life that are unaccounted for, he traveled East and studied with the Magi who had greeted his birth? He learned the perennial religion of man and sought to return and civilize the Israelites. But he had to encase it in a framework with which they would be familiar and so presented his teachings within the context of the Tanakh.

I just asked ChatGPT this question ...

Don't trust chatGPT. It is just an echo chamber. I have adjusted your question to show that I wanted it to confirm a bias towards the Old Testament and not the Dhammapada (which I am actually unfamiliar with, transparency). I know your version of the question seemed to have no bias, but the fact that you are asking it to compare the New Testament towards one, suggests that you don't think it is the Old Testament. At least in my opinion.

That's an excellent point. Nonetheless, there are unmistakable similarities between Matthew and the Dhammapada. For example:

“In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you ..." (Matthew 7:12) | "“One should do what one teaches others to do..." (Dhammapada 159)

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) | “The faults of others are easily seen, but one's own faults are hard to see.” (Dhammapada 252)

“Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy.” (Matthew 6:20) | “The wise share their accumulated wealth, and by doing so build merit that will never decay.” (Dhammapada 355)

I'd be curious to have a qualified human do this analysis and see what they come up with.

There is very little dispute that Paul's letters should be included in the New Testament of the Bible. PERIOD.

I don't contend it is a mainstream view. However, to say there is "very little" dispute is to fail to acknowledge the Ebionites - whom Duk mentioned and whom rejected Paul - as well as many very serious scholars who have also rejected the authenticity of Paul. They include prominent early Americans, as well as several notable contemporary religious scholars.

- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Paine
- Leo Tolstoy
- Friedrich Nietzsche
- George Bernard Shaw
- Robert Eisenman
- James Tabor
- Hyam Maccoby

But I admit that Big Church -- institutions with a vested, financial interest in keeping Paul as a soothsayer -- is not open to discussion of that which would put their position at risk.

Saxi cites only:

1) insufficient evidence,

2) weak evidence, and

3) mere speculations, at best.

This part is the most damaging to Saxi's hypothesis, from his own cited source:

Criticisms
John Gager of Princeton University reviewed The Mythmaker (1986) in the Jewish Quarterly Review (1988), describing part of Maccoby's thesis as "perverse misreading" and concluded "Thus I must conclude that Maccoby's book is not good history, not even history at all."[7][8] Skarsaune (2002), referencing Maccoby's work and the theory that Paul represents a Christianity totally different from that of the early community in Jerusalem, writes that "Acts provides no evidence to substantiate this theory."[9] James D. G. Dunn (2006) describes Maccoby's revival of Graetz' accusations that Paul was a Gentile as "a regrettable reversion to older polemics".[10] The continuity with Graetz is also noted by Langton (2009), who contrasts Maccoby's approach with adherents of a "building bridges" view, such as Isaac Mayer Wise, Joseph Krauskopf, and Claude Montefiore, even if they shared some details of the polemic critique of Paul.[11]

Most of the info on the other two cited sources are equally speculative and offers little support.

I think many thinkers had ideas writings, and speculation on religion, death, and the Second Coming. Isaac Newton did, too, but I do not see him cited by Saxi. Nothing Newton wrote about regarding his religious notions proved to be anything MORE than that: ONLY speculation, and NOTHING Credible.

And I read what I posted. Did you, kent? Or are you reading the sources of Saxi? And what is your conclusion?

And what is meant by the term "Big Church"? That is vague and not helpful alone to advance the discussion.

And this may be very helpful here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

Note that I use the same source as Saxi.

[saxitoxin]

Saxi cites only:

1) insufficient evidence,

2) weak evidence, and

3) mere speculations, at best.

This is the canard played by Big Church to maintain the cult of Paul.

"Evidence" for any episode in the Bible does not meet a conventional definition or standard of evidence. But we accept a lesser standard of evidence out of faith. Which is fine.

However, if you criticize Big Church's interpretation of the Bible, Big Church demands you show-up with nothing short of a CSI Miami crime lab.

Everything must be interpretive because we have no uninterrupted chain of custody for any of this. Some of the most important elements of Jesus' life -- like the very existence of Judas Iscariot -- can't be proved except by reference to the Bible itself. So to shut-down an alternative interpretation with "Insufficient evidence!" is a dodge. Because even the conventional interpretation does not have evidence to support it.

[kentington]

Saxi cites only:

1) insufficient evidence,

2) weak evidence, and

3) mere speculations, at best.

Agreed. Although, Saxi is arguing against something. You do not necessarily need to cite anyone for that. Saxi is making claims and asking questions. Some of those were claims that the Bible itself if taken in the order it came speaks against some of the later Nee Testament writings. Is there a source greater than the Bible to cite?

You can disagree with his interpretation, but he did quote scripture.

This part is the most damaging to Saxi's hypothesis, from his own cited source:

Criticisms
John Gager of Princeton University reviewed The Mythmaker (1986) in the Jewish Quarterly Review (1988), describing part of Maccoby's thesis as "perverse misreading" and concluded "Thus I must conclude that Maccoby's book is not good history, not even history at all."[7][8] Skarsaune (2002), referencing Maccoby's work and the theory that Paul represents a Christianity totally different from that of the early community in Jerusalem, writes that "Acts provides no evidence to substantiate this theory."[9] James D. G. Dunn (2006) describes Maccoby's revival of Graetz' accusations that Paul was a Gentile as "a regrettable reversion to older polemics".[10] The continuity with Graetz is also noted by Langton (2009), who contrasts Maccoby's approach with adherents of a "building bridges" view, such as Isaac Mayer Wise, Joseph Krauskopf, and Claude Montefiore, even if they shared some details of the polemic critique of Paul.[11]

Most of the info on the other two cited sources are equally speculative and offers little support.

I mean, this is only damaging to his view if he was basing his thoughts solely off of this one source. Saxi’s posts were less about relying on the status of the source and rather on the argument itself. I feel like I addressed his arguments directly and therefore didn’t need to go to the source. I don’t understand why I am being questioned on Saxi’s sources and methods. Maybe I am misreading your post, but it feels a bit odd.

I think many thinkers had ideas writings, and speculation on religion, death, and the Second Coming. Isaac Newton did, too, but I do not see him cited by Saxi. Nothing Newton wrote about regarding his religious notions proved to be anything MORE than that: ONLY speculation, and NOTHING Credible.

You don’t need to be credible to ask a question. Credibility comes in the affirmation of something. If someone is saying this is why I don’t believe x, then I take that at face value. No citation is needed or relied upon. Even if they are quoting someone.
If someone says, “This is why YOU need to believe x,” then they better have some good sources and logic.

And I read what I posted. Did you, kent? Or are you reading the sources of Saxi? And what is your conclusion?

I feel like I responded to you and said I would read the essay you cited. It was really long and I was in the middle of reading the Bible to respond to Saxi, who posted first. Obviously you read what you wrote, at least I hope you did.

I have a lot of thoughts on your essay, but the last line of the essay sums it up for me.

Thus, in addition to the passages from the biblical canon that Catholics point to in support of the Church’s claim to God-given authority, the weight of the historical evidence underscores how problematic it is to attribute divine authority to the canonical books of the Christian Bible without also attributing some God-given authority to the institutional Church that played such an integral role in selecting them.

As long as I read the essay in my right mind it seems to say that the reason for choosing the canon is because the group who chose it was given divine authority. Okay, what is the justification of that claim? It was a very long winded way of saying trust me trusting these people because they all agreed. The author gave more info on the Old Testament than the new, just because people mostly agree on the New Testament.

Your source also cites the Pope/s as divine authority, as long as I understand it correctly, and I don’t attribute divine authority to the Pope. I don’t believe the Catholic Church follows the Bible, but that is a whole other topic. I am not arguing that here, just being transparent.

And what is meant by the term "Big Church"? That is vague and not helpful alone to advance the discussion.

And this may be very helpful here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

Note that I use the same source as Saxi.

You will have to ask him what he meant by big church. I wasn’t really concerned with it and didn’t even address it.

I really feel like I offended you by answering Saxi first. I am just having a casual conversation in here.

[saxitoxin]

WOW - more and more people are questioning Paul.

I just went to Reddit and searched "Paul Jesus False." Scores upon scores of people spontaneously affirming belief in Jesus and rejecting Paul.

There is clearly a market for a non-Pauline church, but still no non-Pauline church. Not one. Not even a single congregation.

You can have a schism within Christianity over virtually anything and spin-up a new church -- the Apocrypha, Papal Fallibility, Adult Baptism, the Sacraments. You can reject the very existence of the Triune God (see: Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, Salvation Army, etc.).

But you can't -- ever, at all, under any circumstance -- reject Paul. (?!)

If this doesn't raise alarms ...

[saxitoxin]

Maybe I'll try to start a non Pauline denomination. I'll call it the Four Book Church or Essentialism or JESUS! FIRST. I wonder how long I'll live?

[HitRed]

Eternity is for everyone, just depends where.

[jusplay4fun]

WOW - more and more people are questioning Paul.

I just went to Reddit and searched "Paul Jesus False." Scores upon scores of people spontaneously affirming belief in Jesus and rejecting Paul.

There is clearly a market for a non-Pauline church, but still no non-Pauline church. Not one. Not even a single congregation.

You can have a schism within Christianity over virtually anything and spin-up a new church -- the Apocrypha, Papal Fallibility, Adult Baptism, the Sacraments. You can reject the very existence of the Triune God (see: Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, Salvation Army, etc.).

But you can't -- ever, at all, under any circumstance -- reject Paul. (?!)

If this doesn't raise alarms ...

Perhaps, Saxi, you are on to NOTHING here...??

[saxitoxin]

WOW - more and more people are questioning Paul.

I just went to Reddit and searched "Paul Jesus False." Scores upon scores of people spontaneously affirming belief in Jesus and rejecting Paul.

There is clearly a market for a non-Pauline church, but still no non-Pauline church. Not one. Not even a single congregation.

You can have a schism within Christianity over virtually anything and spin-up a new church -- the Apocrypha, Papal Fallibility, Adult Baptism, the Sacraments. You can reject the very existence of the Triune God (see: Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, Salvation Army, etc.).

But you can't -- ever, at all, under any circumstance -- reject Paul. (?!)

If this doesn't raise alarms ...

Perhaps, Saxi, you are on to NOTHING here...??

Perhaps.

Perhaps, I'm on to everything.

[jusplay4fun]

Are you planning to be the leader to start this movement, Saxi?

[saxitoxin]

Are you planning to be the leader to start this movement, Saxi?

I'd rather not end up on a Mossad hit list.

[HitRed]

Why would the Mossad care?

[saxitoxin]

Why would the Mossad care?

Mossad's job is to defend Israel.

Israel can't defend itself without U.S. foreign aid.

Foreign aid, generally, is unpopular in the U.S.

Foreign aid, specific to Israel, is more popular in the U.S.

The dichotomy is because Israel actively funnels money to key leaders in U.S. evangelical churches (e.g. Kenneth Copeland, Jerry Falwell, etc.) to promote the Master Race / Chosen People Theory to their congregants and provide them a false bill of sale that says they've been ordained by heaven to be a servant race to the Chosen.


The Master Race / Chosen People Theory is built on the false belief that the OT is the unaltered Word of God, as opposed to a heavily reworked plagiarism of older Babylonian texts.


A religion posited on Jesus-worship, but that rejected the divinity of the OT, is a threat to the State of Israel.*


The nation of Israel has a history of terminating threats to its existence at the embryonic stage, before they metastasize (see: the Crucifixion).

* Gnostics get around this a bit by not evangelizing and by dancing around the plagiarism with the Yaldabaoth myth.

[HitRed]

Oh, I thought you we going to say tourism.

[saxitoxin]

To better summarize my views, I asked ChatGPT the following: Write an essay to why Paul was a fake or a fraud in a narrative, non-bullet point format. Incorporate, at a minimum, the following as evidence: Mark 13:22, the disputed authenticity of 2 Paul 3:15-16 where Peter "vouches" for Paul, the inconsistencies with Paul's description of Jesus and what we know Jesus was like from the canon gospels. You may also incorporate anything else you find compelling.

This is what it came up with which I think does a good job of explaining things.

The legitimacy of Paul as a true apostle of Jesus Christ has long been a subject of debate. Despite his significant influence on Christian theology, there are compelling reasons to consider that Paul may have distorted or even betrayed the teachings of Jesus.

In Matthew 24:26, Jesus issues a powerful warning to His followers: “So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.” This verse serves as a caution against self-proclaimed messengers or revelations claiming to represent Christ apart from the established witness of His life and teachings. Paul’s claim to apostleship rests on his dramatic encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9). Unlike the original apostles who were called directly by Jesus during His earthly ministry, Paul’s experience is a private vision, unverified by other witnesses. This reliance on a solitary, unverifiable event resonates disturbingly with the kind of deceptive claims Jesus warned about in Matthew 24:26. Rather than seeking confirmation from those who had walked with Jesus, Paul immediately begins to preach his interpretation of the gospel, setting himself apart from the original apostolic community.

The supposed endorsement of Paul by Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16 has often been used to bolster Paul’s legitimacy. In this passage, Peter allegedly refers to Paul’s writings as inspired by “the wisdom given him.” However, many biblical scholars question the authenticity of 2 Peter itself, often labeling it a pseudepigraphical work written long after Peter’s death. If 2 Peter was authored by someone other than Peter, the endorsement of Paul in this passage becomes highly suspect. Moreover, even within the text, the writer acknowledges that Paul’s letters contain “some things that are hard to understand,” which some twist to their own destruction. This acknowledgment of the complexity and potential for misinterpretation in Paul’s writings does little to solidify his alignment with the teachings of Jesus and the original apostles.

Perhaps the most striking evidence against Paul’s authenticity lies in the inconsistencies between his description of Jesus and the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels. In Paul’s account of his conversion on the road to Damascus, Jesus appears as a disembodied voice, saying, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” and then identifying Himself: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:4-5). Notably, this is the only instance in the New Testament where Jesus refers to Himself by His first name. In the Gospels, Jesus never uses His own name when speaking, instead relying on titles such as “Son of Man” or allowing others to identify Him. This deviation raises questions about the authenticity of Paul’s vision, as it introduces a behavior completely absent from the Gospel accounts. Additionally, Jesus in Paul’s account speaks in an ethereal and detached manner, referring to Himself in the third person initially and appearing only as a disembodied voice rather than a physical presence. To complicate matters further, Paul’s Jesus inflicts a physical injury—blinding him temporarily—in order to perform a miracle. This punitive act is at odds with the Gospel portrayal of Jesus as a healer who restores sight and alleviates suffering, never causing harm. These profound discrepancies cast doubt on whether Paul’s experience reflects the same Jesus known to the apostles and recorded in the canonical Gospels.

Finally adding to the case against Paul is his self-contradictory approach to evangelism. In 1 Corinthians 9:20-22, Paul famously declares that he becomes “all things to all people” in order to win converts. While this adaptability might seem pragmatic, it raises ethical concerns about whether Paul’s primary allegiance was to the truth of the gospel or to the expansion of his own movement. This approach contrasts sharply with Jesus’ unwavering commitment to authenticity, even when it led to rejection and persecution.

[saxitoxin]

I next asked ChatGPT this: Predict the future of Christianity if all of the New Testament, other than the four canon gospels, became universally rejected as inauthentic.

If all of the New Testament outside the four canonical Gospels were universally rejected as inauthentic, Christianity would likely undergo profound transformations in its theology, practice, and institutional structure. The focus would shift almost entirely to the life, teachings, and actions of Jesus as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

1. A Return to Jesus-Centered Faith
With only the four Gospels remaining, the emphasis of Christianity would move away from doctrinal formulations and theological interpretations introduced by Paul and later epistles. Core Christian beliefs such as justification by faith alone (Romans 3:28), predestination (Ephesians 1:4-5), and the nature of the church as the “body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:27) would lose their scriptural foundation. Instead, Christianity would prioritize Jesus' ethical teachings, parables, and actions. Concepts such as love, humility, forgiveness, and service—central to the Sermon on the Mount and other Gospel narratives—would dominate Christian life and worship.

2. Relations with Judaism
The rejection of the broader New Testament might create greater openness to dialogue with other religious traditions, particularly Judaism. Without Paul’s writings, which often critique the Mosaic Law, Christianity might develop a closer affinity with its Jewish roots. Similarly, the absence of texts that have been historically used to condemn other Christian traditions could foster greater unity among different denominations.

3. New Role for the Church
The hierarchical structure of the church, largely justified by Pauline writings and epistles such as 1 Timothy and Titus, would face significant challenges. Leadership roles like bishops, elders, and deacons might lose their scriptural basis, leading to a reimagining of Christian communities as egalitarian gatherings focused on communal worship and service. This could also diminish the influence of centralized religious authorities such as the papacy.

4. Shift in Eschatology
Christian eschatology would also change significantly. The apocalyptic visions in Revelation and the eschatological teachings in Paul’s letters would no longer hold authority. Instead, end-times theology would rely solely on Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, such as the parables of the kingdom and His warnings in passages like Matthew 24. This might result in a less detailed, more symbolic understanding of the end times, focusing on personal readiness and ethical living.

5. Simplified Worship and Practice
Christian worship, which often incorporates elements drawn from non-Gospel New Testament writings, would likely become simpler. Liturgical traditions such as the Eucharist might be reinterpreted or deemphasized, as they are largely rooted in Pauline theology. Instead, worship might center on the words and actions of Jesus in the Gospels, such as prayer, acts of charity, and communal meals modeled on the feeding of the multitudes.

[HitRed]

Which founding father of the USA would you remove?

[saxitoxin]

Which founding father of the USA would you remove?

We already removed him: Benedict Arnold.

Now Christianity needs to remove its own Benedict Arnold.

[mookiemcgee]

Which founding father of the USA would you remove?

Charles Pinckney, 2nd choice Aaron Burr

[saxitoxin]

I found a website of a guy who apparently is a retired attorney in California and promotes a theology called "Jesus' Words Only." This is about 90% of the way to where I'm at, in that it rejects all NT books except the four canon gospels and denounces Paul as a conman.

https://jesuswordsonly.org

This diverges from me in that he still recognizes the OT as divine text.