Now for the Jesus prophecies that were made to come true. I agree with the "poodle lady" on this. I agree that these have been made to come true, but by whom? I will list several and we will employ logic to decide just who made them come true.

1. Born in Bethlehem. I think we can rule out Jesus and his disciples. Possibly Joseph and Mary, but highly unlikely since she was pregnant and due to give birth. One would hardly undertake such a journey in this state unless compelled to do so. The Roman government that required all to go to their native city for a census is the most likely candidate. Or maybe God?

2. Born of a virgin. Not provable. If it were the debate would be ended.

3. Time of birth. Once again possibly Joseph and Mary, but unlikely.

4. Flight to Egypt. Again, initiated by Rome. Or God.

5. From Nazareth. Also brought about by circumstance.

6. A forerunner (John the Baptist). A conspiracy by Joseph, Mary, and their in laws, carried on by John when he was older? Pretty far out there.

7. The working of miracles, healing the sick, raising the dead. This would have to be God.

8. Triumphal entry into Jerusalem. This was obviously planned by Jesus to fulfill prophesy.

9. Rejection by the Jews. Yes, Jesus in a way did make this come true. It's not too easy to find a motive for a "huckster" to do this. Most would have wanted those of wealth, influence, and power to be on their side.

10. Sold for 30 pieces of silver. I hardly think Jesus conspired with Judas on this one.

11. Silent at his trial. To remain silent when ones life is on the line to try to make prophecy come true is not something one is likely to do.

12. Spit upon and crucified with sinners. Still not likely to be a part of Jesus brilliant plan of deception.

13. Piercing of hands and feet instead of the more common method of tying one to the cross or post would not have been made to come true by Jesus.

14. Being mocked as he died, being given a drink of sour vinegar, praying for his enemies, having his garments gambled for, do not seem to be part of any conspiracy.

15. Having his side pierced, and no bones broken. The customary thing to do to avoid having dying Jews on crosses over the Sabbath was to break their legs so they would die quickly. Jesus was already dead so they pierced his side to make sure. Not part of a conspiracy.

16. Buried with the rich, preservation from decay, resurrection, ascension to heaven, come from the line of David.

I just don't see a conspiracy here?? And I suppose the disciples carried on this brilliant conspiracy. They got together after Jesus their leader was crucified (a most horrible death), and decided to steal the body, and lie about a resurrection? Even after the persecution got serious, and James was beheaded, the all stuck to the story?? And for what??

You will have to explain this one to me. This is one conspiracy theory that I definitely do not understand.

What JCGadfly said.

This making up stuff happens all the time. How is it in this age we have the book of Mormon, less than 200 years old? How is it they were persecuted? Was it a conspiracy or do you believe all they say as well?

It was actually 27 pieces of silver but they rounded up to fit the prediction. The old testament prediction was not about a virgin, but in Hebrew is simply stated a young woman conceived. However, the Bible had been translated to Greek and they chose the Greek word virgin. Since it was quite common to say a human god was born of a virgin this was added.  Do you believe Horus the Egyptian God was born a virgin? Do you believe in the virgin birth of Krishna? Read that silent Jesus at the trial part again. You will find Jesus was not so silent. The writers of these book just had to have him say something and yet throw in another "prophecy" from the OT. It is quite laughable. Ezekiel who calls himself Son Of Man like Jesus did makes the same blunder. The Jews demand a prophecy from him and he goes on a long tirade about how he will not prophecy and once that is done he gives them a prophecy. When you say time of Jesus birth do you mean December 25th? That was a Roman pagan holiday. Well, I could go on but the other stuff isn't hard. You act like we have hard evidence that any of it really happened. History is written by the victors. We have one propaganda book without any clear evidence elsewhere. Even the Bible says you have to have more than one witness to convict someone. 

Say, at topic #63 I asked about your direct experience with God. You quoted Hebrews 11 as hard evidence for faith but that was myths about people who live thousands of years ago like Abraham. You didn't respond about your DIRECT experience with God. I repeated the question at topic #88 and then you switch the topic to evolution. So, I will give the question one more shot. If you pass this time I will know that you have no DIRECT experience with God where you hear, see, touch him and you have based your faith on an ancient book whose experiences are 2000+ years old meaning your faith is dead or rather was never alive. It certainly is not based on any evidence that peers can examine and repeat for themselves.

From #63 and #88

OK. The examples above are people who had DIRECT contact with God. God spoke to them, walked with them, showed his face to them, knocked them off their horse or an angel appeared to them.  So, they didn't have to rely on someone else for evidence. There was no book they read but had a personal experience. A child jumping into his father's arms knows his father. The child has experienced being with his father. He can see, hear, smell, touch his father. Other people can clearly see the father as his child jumps into his arms.

Does this mean you have had DIRECT physical contact with God in one of these avenues? Have you heard God's voice clearly speaking to you as a human would or have you seen an angel? If so, please let us know how.

Even though it has not been clearly stated, it appears that the belief, or accusation is that the works of the new testament writers were somehow altered at a later date. Or maybe that the disciples made this stuff after the death of Jesus to make it fit prophecy. I would like to know just what the readers of this site believe in this matter. Since there is not time and space for me to go spell out in detail with references etc the evidences of Jesus life, death, and resurrection, I will have to direct you to a website. It is probably not the best, or the worst to address this issue, but it is fairly short and to the point. I am sure that this site is biased, as most sites are. Go ahead and browse this site, and let gramps know your take on the historical evidences.

Just what do you believe? Was Jesus an actual historical figure? Did his disciples actually exist? When were the new testament books actually written, and by whom? If there was a conspiracy who was involved? Why did Christianity spread so rapidly even in the face of such fierce persecution? I want to know your thoughts and beliefs.

The website is www.y-jesus.com.

This is in response to the much earlier question about the Jesus prophecies.

I will try to get to the other questions later.

Gramps

Well last time I checked u put something up, you should try to stick with the original topic, finish a topic off properly before going off on another one.

I don't have to personally see these people, I have seen the evidence provided that these people existed, from signed documents to historical documents provided by third parties that existed at the time to confirm that they existed, unlike many of the characters of the bible there is no evidence that they existed. As for the atom, 1000 more times evidence of the atom than god, yet you would like to dispute the atom? One thing is not to dismiss something someone has said, another thing is to completely believe them without any back up evidence, so far you have provided no evidence that god exists, there outside of the bible no evidence that jesus existed not even by contemporary historians of his time.

So you were in downward spiral in your life and you decided you wanted to end that spiral and choose a different path, and had a moment of clarity which you decided to follow the christian religion, great no more different that those that follow other gods or have become buddhists after studying buddhists texts and some event which causes a trigger for them to completely become part of that religion, most likely an addictive personality I would say, but I have no background of what you were into before. So far no evidence of god, you have provided the exact same evidence that my hindu, muslim and a few pagan friends of mine have.......nada. (however you will notice I am not making fun of you, if you were in a downward spiral in life and this is what you need to get out, that's fine, however it is still not actual evidence that a god exists.)

However it is far better to just finish a topic or two than to start up various other ones on the same thread.

Why did Christianity spread so rapidly even in the face of such fierce persecution?

I point back to my Mormon reference. The same can be said about it. Persecution is not a proof for whether something is true or not. 

I think Jesus was an historical person, but as even happens today urban legends, myths develop. It was a volatile time back then. The Romans were over a people who had a rich history of hating foreign rule. Many teachers and Messiahs arose, even Acts 5 mentions two that were killed by the Jews (Theudas and Judas the Galilean). One of these was bound to take just due to the sheer numbers.  Many, Many stories were created in this environment. Even the last version of the book of John states this:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

The guy only lived 33 years and really the good stuff happened only in the last 3.5 years so how could there be endless stories? Because people made them up. You might have heard about or done the whisper a story to the next guy game. The first person whispers in the ear of the second person a very simple story. The 2nd person whispers to the 3rd and so. The last person tells everyone in the group what the story was. It is so outlandishly off at that point you have to laugh in disbelief, especially when the first person tells the original story. I participated in one of these in my youth.

Eye witness accounts are quite suspect.  There is lots of studies on these. Today we have DNA tests that have overturned eye-witness accounts and freed innocent people. This shows the power of science and nearly everyone believes in DNA evidence.

The Gospels were written decades after the events, so there was a build up of this kind of story telling. There we no cameras or DNA evidence that could be used. Scholars believe there was an original gospel they call Q which Matthew, Mark and Luke used and that is why they are so similar.  The only books we have are in Greek. The apostles would have spoken Aramaic. That is what the original book would have been written in. But copies were quite expensive and only the rich could afford to have them. The rich spoken in Greek. It was a "universal" language like English is today. The Church became empowered when the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and took a big interest in organizing it. That codified the Bible and thus as I said the writing of history belongs to the victor.

Had one of the other messiahs been successful we would be pray to him instead.

On prophecies of Jesus. Check out the scripture that is quoted. If you read it in context you can easily tell the author was thinking of his time and not a future time involving this specific Jesus. The prophecies are not specific. 

For example read Zech 11 first and then read Matt 27.

Did Zech 11 strike you as a clear reference to Judas betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver?

Zechariah writes that it was the afflicted of the flock that paid him 30 pieces of silver. Then God told him to throw them (the afflicted) into the house to the potter. Who is who? Why is it them and not him (judas)? Why would Judas be the afflicted of the flock? They knew the word of the Lord. Judas would not.

Cheers.

In regards to God killing "kids" for calling someone bald. First of all they were referred to as "youth", a term commonly used in reference to young men. In that day, prophets held a position of influence and honor, and were the direct representatives of God to that society. In that light, this was not a case of a group of small children teasing an old man. It was a direct offense towards God, and defiance against His prophet. The statement "go up thou bald head", was mocking the act of God translating Elijah to heaven, and possible mocking Elisha as having made it up. If this were allowed to go on, this whole aspect of the prophets role in government would be compromised. Gods "harsh" act of prompting bears to attack this group made it clear that Elisha was a representative of God, and was to be respected as such.

The destruction of the Midianites is probably the most difficult passage in the entire bible. God was especially hard on this culture. In other passages such as Duet 20: 10-14 God instructs Israel in the event a nation does not accept peace, what they are to do. There they are instructed not to kill the women, children, or animals. They are not even to chop down the trees unnecessarily. So what is so different about the Midianites? If you look back a couple chapters, Balak, the Midianite king pays Balaam, an israelite prophet to curse Israel. Balaam tries, but cannot because Israels lack of iniquity at that time. He conveys this to Balak, and later when the cursing fails, the Midianites entice Israel into sexual sin and pagan idol worship.

It appears likely that the Midianites were attempting to gain victory over Israel by enticing them into sinful practices and separating them from their God. For this reason God was especially harsh with that culture. Since the older women were involved in enticing Israel into sexual sin they were not spared. The harshest of all in the bible, even the children in this case were slain. God did not want this nation to rise up again any time soon to afflict and influence His people.

It is possible, that God took them out of that bloody and harsh world, and the next thing they know they would be in a paradise without all the bloodshed and strife going on? That in the eternal picture could be more compassionate than having them grow up in those times and circumstances.

You are right when you point out that I have gotten into too many diversified subjects. But I have, and here we are. I am now attempting to answer and wrap up as many "loose ends" as possible. I am not sure that any subject can ever be fully "wrapped up", but they can hopefully be at least addressed.

As far as "knowing all the answers", Gramps does not. However I do try to answer the questions to the best of my ability. If I "know it all" that is bad. If I do not, I am ignorant. Can't win, but that's ok.

As for "spiritual swine", and being "deluded", these comments were not for you. That was directed towards those who like to "fart around", and poke fun. I addressed them maybe a bit too vividly earlier. I refer to no one who is honestly discussing the issues in this way.

As far as personal experience, you are right. This is not evidence for you, or anyone else but myself. That is why I have not focused my attentions on this. My experience is not yours, and yours is not expected to be mine. I do not expect for you to have the same experience as myself, and am not judging you in that, or any other respect. Sorry if you got that impression.

Gramps

Maybe it is okay for you to be given in marriage against your will to someone who killed all your family.  Why should it be okay for anyone else?  Personally, if it were me, I would have rather died.  And how much choice do you think the young women had?  "I like that one, so I'll take her."  "Uh, can I go with the guy who has bathed in the last decade?"  "No."  How is marriage against your will not rape?

Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version) 7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Looks like you'll be in Hell burning alongside all these atheists.

Do you really think you're doing God a service by coming here and lying to these atheists about His nature? Being a false prophet is no better than being an atheist. You might as well be a murderer, or a pedophile, if you're going to make up lies about God. 

Matthew 7:15 (King James Version) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Sorry I didn't make this more clear. I was not indicating that God may have sent the older pagans and idol worshipers to paradise, I was referring only to the children. Those who were under "the age of accountability". This group could be taken to paradise and not violate any of Gods principles.

I've always found it interesting when people use the "You're reading it out of context" dodge and resolve it by adding context to what is said.

Yes, the chapter mentions Cyrus but says squat about Babylon. That was added context to support the book of Daniel (and claim fulfilled prophecy).

And yes, let's look at other translations with more political motivations - after all, we can't have our God creating "evil". But is "calamity" really that much better for your God?

So you say that the gospels were written by Paul and his converts?? First let's take a look at Paul. In a conspiracy, there is usually a motive. What was Paul's motive?? Paul was a prominent figure in Israel. He was well educated, well respected, and most likely wealthy since prominent persons usually are. He was also intensely involved in the persecution of the Christians. The Roman government was also involved in this persecution. They had recently beheaded James, and were looking for more victims.

So now Paul says to himself. I think I will walk away from wealth, honor, and respect and join this new movement? So he makes up a completely unbelievable story about being knocked off his donkey by God? He now can get in to the inner circle. He spends the rest of his life traveling from providence to providence claiming to have inside information about God and Jesus. He often goes hungry, is stoned nearly to death, and eventually put to death. And he sticks to this "made up" story to the very end.

Paul indeed must have been a mad man. Now you say his converts also were in on this "brilliant" conspiracy. That poses another problem. The more people involved in any conspiracy the harder it is to keep it a secret. With that kind of involvement and the persecution that was going on somebody certainly would have "broken" and "spilled the beans". They also would have had to be "mad" to undergo such hardship for a lie.

We also have no account of any of the disciples disputing the accounts of Jesus death and resurrection, or his divinity. They would certainly have protested greatly about these blatant forgeries.

I have never put much stake in conspiracy theories. They are too problematic. This one is a doozy.

Here's a couple of books on Paul the deceiver (my name for my namesake) that might enlighten you a bit on why so many scholars consider him as a mythmaker.

The links are to Amazon through RRS

The Mythmaker - Hyam Maccoby

The 1st Urnban Christians - Wayne A Meeks

The Birth of Christianity Reality and Myth - Joel Carmichael

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians - Robert Eisenman

Paul was clearly never a Pharisee as purported in the NT, he associated with the enemy, the Herodians, he used the inferior translation or the Septuagint over the Hebrew source considered as the only truly valid version by Pharisees as is evidenced in his writing. Paul also did not use Pharisaic logic though Jesus is shown to do so in most of the Gospels. Pharisees' use of logic was you cannot take the argument beyond the premise though Paul certainly does so in his writing. There are many other problems with Paul and the mystic religion that developed as an off shoot of Judaism. 

You need to educate yourself more regarding Paul, Pharisees, and the Jerusalem church before making such conclusions as you have above.

You're too nice, pjts. I was waiting for him to get pompous and demand my sources. All I got was the pompous.

Unfortunately, grams, this information and the dating of the writings stand against Jesus creating Christianity and for Paul remaking Jesus into something that would have offended Jesus had he known of it.

Of course I didn't demand sources. I would only do this after hearing something that makes sense. If it does not make sense, there is no point in checking out sources. I am still quite in the dark as to what you believe.

You say Paul wrote the gospels. Do you believe Paul and his converts wrote the whole new testament? If not just what did Paul write, and who wrote the rest? Do you believe Paul just made up all of the accounts of his own persecution and imprisonment? If he did wouldn't those he was writing to have easily found this out? If not where was the motive for his making all this up, and suffering the consequences?

Just who was Jesus? Did he die and if so why? If he was crucified did his followers than disperse, or continue the cause?

I really don't see anything as of yet that makes any sense here. If something comes up that makes sense, I can than justify looking into it deeper. Until than it is nothing more than nonsense, and not worthy of investigation.

I never said Paul wrote the gospels. Nor did pjts. Stop straw-manning. Maccoby's work (among others) claims that the gospels were written by people Paul converted to Christianity. They probably had both the Torah and Paul's epistles in front of them so they could  try to keep the stories so they could tie Jesus to both religions.

Some of the epistles were likely written by members of the Jesus movement (what became known as the Jerusalem church though it wasn't a church at all). This is why they sit in opposition to Paul's teachings (that and Paul's swearing allegiance to Rome). The Catholics who voted on the canon didn't look that closely at what they were voting on.

Did a man named Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah die? Yes. Did his followers carry on? Yes again - but they had no cause. They were observant Pharisaic Jews who only differed from the orthodoxy in that they believed Jesus was Messiah - not considered an offense by the Sanhedrin.

You don't see things that make sense because you're still bedazzled by the magic. Want to see behind the curtain?

In my case I simply don't believe. I consider Christianity to be an outgrowth of one or more rebel movements in the 1st Century, Kingdom of God is at Hand Believers, Nazarenes, and Zealous Jewsish belief.

I consider Paul to be a heretic from Judaism and to have brought mysticism into the mashiach expectations.

Why do research, you might learn something, then what?

No one has any idea who wrote the Gospels, no copyrights and no 1st century autographed 1st Editions have ever been found.

In regards to who wrote the NT, please google it, if you are interested. There are several evident factions in the NT writing, you probably call this perspective of the writer.

Books probably written by Paul:

Galatians - 46 CE

1 & 2 Thessalonians - 50 CE

1 & 2 Corinthians - 55 CE

Romans - 56 CE

Philemon - 62-64 CE

Philippians - 62-64 CE

Attributed to Paul but very questionable:

Colossians - 62 CE

Ephesians - 62 CE

1 & 2 Timothy - 63 CE

Titus - After 60 CE

Gospels :

Mark - 60 CE + Attributed to John Mark an attendant of Peter who supposedly documented all the events as told him while Peter was awaiting his execution. They had visiting hours for accused rebels in Roman prisons?

Luke - 70 CE or later - Attributed to Sci-Fi writer Luke, who seems to have never even visited some of the locations in his writing. He was a companion of Paul according to tradition. Luke demonstrates a complete lack of history from the very beginning.

Acts - 70 + CE - a follow up book to the Sci-Fi work in Luke, attributed to the same writer due to similar writing style. Casts Paul as a Super Hero. Very poor attention to what he has written and fails in consistency when

examined. Example, 3 accounts of Paul's LSD, epileptic fit or whatever on road to Damascus. Inconsistency in Paul's arrest in Jerusalem. The Romans knew he was a Roman and saved him or not. Documents major factional difference between his gospels and the pillar of the Jerusalem Church James, who was likely the brother of Jesus aka James the Just.

Matthew- written  somewhere around 95 CE attributed to Matthew supposedly a disciple of Jesus. If this is the case he was very old. He demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge in regards to Herod. He is given to much Sci-Fi in his writing. Baby killing by Herod, Satan tempting one part of the Trinity Pak (suicidal for Satan if true), BS in regards to Pilate, dead people walking the streets after Jesus dies, sealed tomb & soldiers being posted, and much more Sci-Fi and inconsistent BS.

John - written somewhere around 80-90 CE by an unknown writer. Poorly written inconsistent account. Inconsistent treatment of the Trinity Pak. Sci-Fi in regards to Gethsemane, misplaced multitude of fishes miracle, possibility Judas was still living, variant of Palm Sunday arrival, variant of feeding & aftermath of 5,000 person picnic, and much more.

Other books:

James - supposedly James the Just brother of Jesus. Had to be before he was killed as documented by Josephus, in 63 CE. This book is dated as late as 150 CE by some scholars. Writing is inconsistent of a Jew as Zealous for the law as James is said to be as documented in Acts and by Josephus.

1 & 2 Peter - approx 60 CE - have a Pauline slant to the writing so Peter as source is questionable. However, when in reference to Jesus Resurrection he speaks of him as a man not part of a god. His references to honor the king seem in contrast to the Jerusalem Church and the Jesus movement. The kingdom of god had the Jews ruling for god on Earth which is much of the message attributed to Jesus and has basis in the mashiach as expected by the Jews. My opinion is a Pauline believer is responsible for 1 Peter.

The Catholic Church claims Peter wrote 2 Peter in 66 CE. A discussion of the transfiguration event uses the quote from Luke 9:35 and also in Matt 3:17. Since John Mark was Peter's biographer one wonders how this was omitted in Mark. Chapter 3 begins with suspicious writing, "This 2nd epistle.." which why say this after about 6 years since the 1st? He also has praise for Paul the deceiver, which is also questionable seeing that no where else does it indicate these 2 ever reconciled.

1,2, & 3 John - written around 90 CE. The writing is such that it is unclear if this John was a disciple, as in 1 John 1:5 "This is the message we have heard of him, and declare unto you that God is light and in him no darkness at all."-KJV, NAB, NIV, Douay-Rheims all  indicate they heard it from him (ie. Jesus). He tells the followers to not love the world or things of the world. This seems to contrast with Judaism and the Hebrew bible which taught that the world was all created by God and was good.  2 John - Short letter to a lady in Ephesus. Mentions there are anti-christs teaching the Christ has not come and tells her not to receive them.

3 John - Perhaps he is considered a false teacher by Diotrephes a leader in the Church who will not receive him, see what happens when you spread the idea there are false teachers, you may be included yourself.

Jude - supposedly written by Jude or Judas the brother of James also considered the brother of Jesus about 90 CE. This book was even questioned as to authenticity by Eusebius. Jude demonstrates knowledge and even quotes the Book of Enoch as well as the Assumption of Moses. It is written primarily to warn against heresy specifically Gnosticism.

Revelation - written after 96 CE supposedly by John. Again, if so a very old man. The writing style is very different however. Possibly written by another John. It was disputed for centuries and not accepted into Canon until 387 CE at the Council of Carthage. Inspired by the books of Enoch, Ezekiel, and the apocalyptic parts of Daniel. The writer has many issues with the Romans. IMHO, a complete Sci-Fi rant which I'd be glad to discuss in extreme blasphemous detail.

Jesus was a character in the Gospels. Whether he was a composition of legends, oral stories, or literature is the question. Perhaps a real man, perhaps a legend like Robin Hood.

Everybody dies, so did Jesus if he existed.

If he was executed it was for crimes against Rome such as: assault, battery, property destruction (several times), public endangerment, disrespect for the laws of Rome, rebellion against established authority, and public disorder. Community service was not a punishment given out at the time, execution was.

The Gospels indicate the disciples fled, several places. No accounts from outside sources support anything in their regard.

Rebellion against Rome continued in many forms and many groups until Hadrian attempted complete extermination of the Jews.

A closed mind is a sad thing. Research and study will not harm you.

You're welcome.

Gramps does not have an aversion to study and research. Given the fact that, as is was so gently stated above, I am "teetering on the edge of death", and have limited time, I have to give priority to what it is that I research into. As to the issue of Paul "inventing" Christianity, I have been looking into this.

In the first book mentioned above "The Myth Maker", I also find many problems. First one must consider the author of the book. Hiram Maccoby was a Talmudic Scholar and leading author against Christianity with an axe to grind. His book was really more about anti-Semitism" than anything else. Maccoby blamed Paul on Christianities "apparent" anti semitic prejudices. He did not have the insight to realize Paul was not anti semitic at all. Neither is Christianity. Only a few misguided extremists in history have taken the writings of Paul and distorted them and taken them out of context for their own diabolical use.

This book really never needed to be written. But since it has we will address it. This book has all the trademarks of   garden variety Conspiracy Theory "novel". When it suits his case Maccoby quotes the NT as a reliable source. When it suits his case it is not a reliable source. The Mishnah he treats as 100% reliable and acts like all of it's rules were in effect fully at the time of Jesus. He asserts that other scholars would recognize the "Maccoby truth" if they were not so biased. Only he has the wisdom to see the true story. He is very liberal with the use of prejudicial adjectives, and plays the role of a major historical revisionist, making up history as he goes.

Maccoby goes on the make general and vague comparisons between Christianity, and Paganism, trying to make a connection that does not make sense. He makes many unfounded assumptions like the deep hatred between Peter and Paul. Many try to make this case based on one confrontation in the Bible. One often becomes best friends with someone who confronts them on an issue like this.

He also asserts that Paul was in opposition to the Jerusalem church. something that is also unfounded. Among other fabrications is the notion that the disciples did not believe in the deity of Jesus, the Jewish leaders tried to save Jesus from the Romans, that Paul was an unsavory figure with less than honorable motives, he was never a Pharisee, he was a "thug" for a Saducee high priest, and the originator of the "Christian Myth". This book is full of unfounded, and poorly supported fiction.

Reading Paul's writings I find Paul to be of excellent character. There is nothing to indicate otherwise, except maybe a couple of passages taken out of context and distorted to try to prove a point.

I will try to find the time to examine the remaining books listed above. Hopefully at least one of them will be less of a disappointment.

Exactly on what Christian web site did you find this book review? 

Did you actually read the book?

In Paul's own words - Galatians 1:6-11 "I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. [10] For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.11-For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man." - Douay-Rheims

And - Galatians 2:11-14 - "[11] But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. [12] For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. [13] And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. [14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? [15] We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners. - Douay-Rheims

In the case of Barnabas, see Acts 15:39 "And there arose a dissension, so that they departed one from another; and Barnabas indeed taking Mark, sailed to Cyprus." Douay-Rheims

Nothing indicates they were reconciled.

In the case of Peter - Peter's side of Paul's slander is not included. There is nothing to indicate they were reconciled.

In the case of Paul teaching in contrast to the Jerusalem Church - 

See:

Acts 15 where Paul meets with the council and James gives his decision on Paul's teaching.

Acts 21:18-26 where James confronts Paul for ignoring the agreement.

I'm sure you see Paul as the "superhero" Luke intended.

Oh yes, I've seen this whole thing before. It's almost word for word to the last one I read. Is this, by chance, a copy and paste?

Anyway, granting that Helltruth.com is correct in its interpretations (I honestly like how they skip over context. We're talking about punishment in the afterlife here, so we can't compare the meaning of "everlasting" as it pertains to punishment of the souls the same way as it pertains to the "everlasting" punishment of a city, which is in this life. Another problem with it is that they say in the story of Lazarus and the way the site interprets it. They claim that "The rich man was in bodily form with eyes, a tongue, etc., yet we know that the body does not go to hell at death.  It is very obvious that the body remains in the grave, as the Bible says." However, Jesus says that if your eyes or hands are a cause of evil, it is better to enter the gates of heaven WITHOUT a hand or eye, than be in hell wholesome. So apparently, the physical condition of the body does affect the condition of our souls. The site also claims that punishment occurs after judgment, not after death, yet the story never says if judgment has occurred or not, so that's not a really valid objection. The one that I truly enjoy is when they claim that parables cannot be taken literally because that would require that you believe in talking trees. Funny, because the Bible wants you to believe in talking donkeys), which I find less than satisfactory, they claim that people aren't tortured forever, they are just destroyed. I am forced to ask: what's the difference? A being that tortures someone for eternity because of their crimes or one that annihilates his opponent. Big difference. 

The website that you linked us to, Helltruth.com, holds that no one goes to Heaven or Hell until AFTER judgment day. How can Enoch be translated into Heaven if this is so?

You're not much for fiction but you read the Bible...I forgot you take that as divine truth from an invisible being. My bad.

There was no other Gospel at the time other than what Jesus taught. There were and are other versions of what Paul taught. Which gospel is Paul defending? Not Jesus' - his writings show he stands against Jesus' teachings. there was no Jerusalem church - Jesus never started one (unless you believe Paul's converts in their writing of the Gospels - they needed to give Paul credence).

Paul "withstanding Peter to his face" likely never happened. The only time an observant Jew would have to worry about ritual purity is if he took a vow or it was a holy day. Oh, and the only people to call Paul "the apostle to the Gentiles" were Paul himself and his converts (past and present)

Of course there was no theological difference between Paul and John Mark. John Mark was one of his converts. And as you can see from reading Mark's gospel (likely written with Paul's letters in front of him) he repaid Paul nicely.

Who was James warning Paul from? The Pharisees paid no mind to the Jesus movement or Paul (why attack a brother Pharisee (Jesus)?, The only ones who had a man on against Paul were Jews that the disciples of Christ brought into the movement and the Sadducee high priest Paul bailed on. No one else had an axe to grind.

In the agreement that the Jerusalem movement was discussing with how to handle the Gentiles - they came to an agreement that the Gentiles were to be bound by the Laws of the Sons of Noah (no blood in food, non eating sacrifices from the altar of false gods). Paul was offended that they didn't consult him so he forced the split.

You're doing a whole lot of gymnastics to save Paul with your own interpretations and bias. Maccoby has Paul's writings, Pharisee texts and Jewish history on his side.

Gramps, you're going to an awful lot of trouble to save Paul the attention whore.