Jewish Christians

shafique In answer to a question asked in the Paul Vision thread, here are some references and background to Jewish Christians - and particularly references to the difference between their views and what is called 'Pauline Christianity'. I've highlighted the references from a number of books quoted below, and also the reference to the church history being re-written (echoing what Kung says, already referenced):

Jewish Christians
Gentile, Jews & Essenes
Originally there was only one type of "Christ disciple" - the Essene Nazarean family and followers of Yeshua. They had a very strong and unique "Essene" culture. They also had their own set of scriptures, different from the New Testament canon we know today. This original Nazarean Family had various levels and degrees of initiation and purification associated with it. Those on the outer probationary levels retained many of their former customs and beliefs, including gentile and Jewish ones, while those initiated into deeper levels became well versed in deeper Essene doctrines.
It appears that these early Nazareans were a Christ centered expression of the ancient Nazarites and a continuation of the ancient Essene Nazareans spoken of by Epiphanius, although Epiphanius himself is reluctant to admit this fact. It is also probable that these New Testament Nazarenes accepted both gentile and Pharisee Jews, along with many of their customs and varied beliefs, into the outer fringes of their society. Being the most viable and growing sect of their time, these Nazarenes eventually became the melting pot, especially after the fall of Jerusalem in 68 A.D., for a wide array of converts from all seven of the ancient Jewish sects, several Samritan sects, numerous gnostic and Pythagorean groups, as well as converted and semi-converted Roman and Greek pagans.

"Galatians 2:1 states that it was another 14 years before Paul went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and so we have a total of 17 years prior to the the meeting [with the apostles]. If we take the first 13 years as noted above, of pre-Pauline Christianity , and add the 17 years between Paul's vision and the Jerusalem Council meeting, we see that Christianity had a solid Jewish foundation of three decades -- thirty years -- before the question of admission of Gentiles was considered!"
- Miryam Nathan, "Acts, the Jews and the Torah"

Eventually a second and third type of "Christ disciple" evolved - the gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians. This second and third type tended to be non-jewish, or Pharisee Jewish, and were eventually unconnected with the original followers of the Messiah. They tended to have either Roman, Pharisee or Hellenic backgrounds and they tended to put great trust in the writings and doctrines of either Paul on the one hand, or the false Torah and Pharisee customs on the other. Their descendants did not like the original Nazareans very much and prefered a different non-essene culture and non-nazarean approach to their spiritual matters.
The more numerous gentile Christians set about redefining the mission and role of Yeshua the Messiah, recasting Him in the light of their Greek and Roman dying and resurrecting god myths. The Nazareans, or "Jewish-Christians" as some of them were eventually called by the Romanized Christians, did not appreciate this distortion of their Teachers of Righteousness. These Nazareans did not accept the writings and doctrines of Paul, nor did they take much account of the Gospels which found their way into the New Testament bible. Instead, they used the Gospel of Hebrews which denied, among other things, the Roman version of the virgin birth. (Their own version was no less holy, but it included Joseph as a participant)

"...Modern theological studies suggest that the New Testament's two letters of Peter, the second speaking unctuously and unconvincingly of 'our brother Paul...so dear to us' (2 Peter 3:15), [color=red]were most likely forged in Peter's name by some pro-Pauline writer[/color], and that other letters attributed to Paul, notably the Pastorals, were fabricated to create a false impression of harmony. Recent computer tests have clearly confirmed what theological scholars have long suspected, that whoever wrote Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus was not the person [indisputably Paul) who wrote Galatians, Romans and Corinthians."
- Ian Wilson, Jesus, The Evidence

This original group of Nazarean disciples had firsthand knowledge of what Yeshua had taught and stood for, and were holding to the original vision. The non-nazarean "Jewish-Christians" and the "Gentile Christians", on the other hand, did not have or want the firsthand knowledge possessed by the original Nazareans, but instead prefered creating their own myths concerning the Christ. This led to conflict and eventual persecution of the Nazareans. The more powerful and numerous gentile Christians eventually removed most vestiges of the original Nazarean Way from their gentile gospel, and what little was left of the original Nazarean Way was only partially preserved by the monastic orders which slowely began to arise as the Nazareans were persecuted into extinction.
When they rewrote history , it appears that these Christians associated the original Essene-Nazarean disciples and their descendents with the semi-converted Pharisee Nazorenes and their remnants, refering to both groups as "Jewish Christians", casting them in the light of narrow minded Pharisee Jews incapable of fully accepting their Christ.
These true Essene Nazareans would not accept the gentile's "Christ", or the gentile "New Testament", because they knew both had been tampered with, altered and remade in the image of the Roman Gods. The confused Pharisee Nazorenes accepted the gentile's Christ and Bible, but clung tenaciously to many false Pharisee customs and laws. Eventually the true Essene Nazarean remants gravitated to various monastic orders in upper Egypt and elsewhere. In these monastic worlds they were able to preserve some of their original traditions, but also were forced to compromise on many issues. The uncompromising Pharisee-like Nazorenes faded from history as their monastic cousins blended more completely with the Rome centered new Christianity.

"Conceptions of the messianic orientation of the Jerusalem church based on the foundational revelation of Jesus' resurrection, as well as conceptions of the role, authority and positions of its leading members are likely to reflect the internal disputes and competing claims for legitimation of individuals and communities engaged in a mission to Gentiles beginning in the late forties and the decade of the fifties....This view of a foundational revelation to the leaders of the community in Jerusalem ascribing to them a superior authority and status may turn out to be in large part a diaspora version of beginnings in the homeland designed to support a mission to Gentiles among different factions of Jewish and Gentile Christians in the Hellenistic cities of the diaspora."
- Merrill Miller, "Beginning From Jerusalem..."

It is important to understand that the Nazarean's "jewishness" is not the jewishness which modern people associate with Judaism. Modern Rabbinic Judaism is an evolvement of the Pharisee sect of ancient Judea. Nazareans were from the Essene Nazarean Sect. They did not accept either the Old Testament, the Jerusalem Temple, the animal sacrifices, or even the celebration of Passover as we know of it today. They, therefore, are not correctly understood by the modern label of "jew". The ancient Nazareans were more akin to the Osseaen sect, which may be partially understood by studying the Dead Sea Scroll documents and historian reports, such as Josephus and Philo, on the Essenes.
(The later Nazorenes, spoken of by Epiphanius as totally Jewish and accepting of the Torah and other practices rejected by earlier Nazareans and Nazarenes, were probably a remnant of Pharisee converts who never fully gave up their old beliefs and customs when becoming outer level Nazareans. Epiphanius' report of later Nazorene beliefs is therefore probably inaccurate if applied to earlier Nazareans, being based on a later group descended from only semi-converted Nazorenes of the post-pella period. (Epiphanius himself admits that in the beginning all followers of Jesus, even non-jewish ones, were called Nazorenes.) In the same light, the eventually dominant Roman Church were probably descended from only partially converted gentiles on the outer fringes of the original Nazorene Way who never sluffed off their Hellenistic customs in favor of the full Nazorene-Essene lifestyle)

Conclusion
Due to rapid growth and a general "diaspora" dispersion due to persecution and other factors, original Nazarean quickly divided into numerous and varied factions and groups. The small central core of original Yeshua's disciples, attempting to live a pure Essene communal life, were quickly outnumbered by vast conversions from non-essene circles. These gentile converts, with their Roman and Greek customs and lifestyles, eventually rejected the original Nazarean Way in favor of their own adaptation and revision of the original Gospel. When they gained political power they rewrote history and the New Testament in a manner fitting their own divergent views and lifestyles, rendering it only a shadow of its original glory. They sucessfully destroyed, or drastically altered, most of the original writings and customs of the earliest disciples. This fulfiled a prophecy that the Times of the Gentiles would hold sway until an eventual resurgence and return of the true Israelite (Essene Nazarean Ebionite) Way.

&Essenes/jew.htm
Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon Eh?
I guess when you can't answer a simple question you must run to google to quickly copy-paste whatever article you happen to stumble upon on the web.
Hey, I can understand if you're still hurting from your last embarrassment by not being able to find which New Testament passage says the disciples were weary of Paul because of his conversion of Gentiles. I then expanded this question to include any source from outside of the New Testament written within the first century and you still have not gotten back to me. Instead you continue to refer to a quote from Hans Kung that has nothing to do with my question of Paul and the early disciples.
So now, you copy-paste an article from some random dot com website. I guess this is your 'downtime' from quoting all those New Testament theologians you read, huh?
It's interesting to read the claims made by the author and notice that the author agrees with me on several points - such as what I have explained and re-explained to you several times.
So, let's start with what we agree on and perhaps this time you'll get it.

This second and third type tended to be non-jewish, or Pharisee Jewish , and were eventually unconnected with the original followers of the Messiah.

I seem to recall several times (even on this forum) that the Pharisaic Christians of Paul's time were unrelated to the original disciples of Jesus and shafique simply did not understand this.
The author confirms my previous assertions and hopefully shafique will not repeat his strawman that the Judaizers Paul was in conflict with were the original apostles. Who knows, perhaps seventh times a charm?
Unfortunately, silly internet copy-pastes like this lack the caliber of first rate scholarly approach. I know that shafique takes pride on how knowledgeable he is on early Christianity and the New Testament (claiming a quote from an epistle is a quote from Jesus) and all, so I will not have to remind shafique that the author's claim:

The Nazareans, or "Jewish-Christians" as some of them were eventually called by the Romanized Christians, did not appreciate this distortion of their Teachers of Righteousness. These Nazareans did not accept the writings and doctrines of Paul,

Is patently wrong.
For starters, the author unsurprisingly conflates different groups of Jewish Christianity in the second century, as recorded by church fathers Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. While Justin Martyr does not mention the views of the two *different* Jewish Christian groups he mentions in regards to Paul, he does say that one group did not believe that Gentiles were required to follow Jewish law while another group apparently believed that Gentiles should also follow the laws of Judaism.
Irenaeus also does not use the term 'nazarene', but he does use the term Ebionite in his description of a sect within the larger group of Jewish Christians that did not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and believed that Gentiles were required to follow Jewish law.
What is interesting, however, is that the Jewish Christian groups already discussed in the second century by church historians, despite their differences, all share the same view that Gentiles 'god-fearers' were welcome into their communities and these groups proselytized amongst Gentiles in Gentile lands - despite what shafique has previously claimed.
This is attested by Paul's writings in Romans, I Corinthians and Galatians of the existence of Gentile Christian communities in regions he had not yet traveled to. Paul's own personal letters, written to the communities as he arrived in these cities and are the earliest extant sources of ancient Christianity we have, is proof that Paul was not the one to change direction and convert Gentiles - unless Paul was able to convert people in regions had not visited before.
The theological dispute among the Jewish Christians was actually a wider reflection of the debate swirling around in Judaism at the time, and was over the issue of monotheistic Gentiles, known as god-fears, and whether they should become fully Jewish or only follow some basic laws of Judaism.
The author of the article makes an argument from silence that although the Gospels record Jesus ministering and converting Gentiles (and Samaritans), and Peter and followers of Stephen converting Gentiles (Acts 9, 10 and 11 and also Galations), the belief of the Jewish Christians, who the author mysteriously refers to as Nazarenes, (in reality, he should have called them Ebionites), were the true followers of Jesus, as opposed to the Jewish Christians described by Justin Martyr, that did not require Gentiles to follow all of the of Judaism.
Can we assume that the author of this article has simply not read up on his Church history as he would like to convince himself to believe? Nevertheless, these are the basic mistakes one would expect to find on these silly internet copy-pasties.
In addition to simply ignoring the historical writings of church fathers from the first century that record Peter as the first Christian bishop of Rome, the apostolic succession of the early church fathers as direct disciples of Peter and John who studied at their feet and, additionally, the writing of Justin Martyr, this author further compounds his loose telling of history by claiming that the early followers of Jesus were not actually from the Pharisaic school of Judaism... they were actually Essenes!
While such an extravagant claim is beyond the scope of this thread, it certainly deserves its own thread. Many scholars have postulated this possibility before, but there is simply too little information of the Essenes and the Qumran sect to conclude that Jesus or even John the Baptist were Essenes. The author is simply pulling one wild, typically discounted, conclusion after another.
To be fair, this isn't the last of the author's mistakes or errors. Other church fathers also write of the Nazarenes and Ebionites. The Nazarenes, actually referred to as such for the first time by church historian Epiphanius, says that this group of Jewish Christians, while continuing to adhere to Jewish Law as Paul himself did, viewed held a favorable view of the apostle and it is doubtful that they would have required Gentile converts to follow all of the laws of Moses, as Paul, Peter and John also did not require for Gentiles.
But hey, I'm sure shafique will get around to posting actual scholarly articles right after he answers my question on the other thread. Hopefully the question is not too difficult for him to simply answer. shafique Thank you for your views eh - the readers will be able to compare your theories with those of the authors I highlighted in the article. As I stated very early on, the differences between us all stem from from which historical accounts we choose to believe. Your belief that the Bible is gospel despite what the historians tell us is not unusual - it is a tenet of Pauline Christian faith. It is equivalent to Muslims believing the Quran to be true when it declares it is the literal word of God. Cheers, Shafique event horizon

shafique wrote:
Thank you for your views eh - the readers will be able to compare your theories with those of the authors I highlighted in the article.
As I stated very early on, the differences between us all stem from from which historical accounts we choose to believe.
Your belief that the Bible is gospel despite what the historians tell us is not unusual - it is a tenet of Pauline Christian faith. It is equivalent to Muslims believing the Quran to be true when it declares it is the literal word of God.
Cheers,
Shafique

Actually, I only once referred to the Bible. It helps to read posts. What I actually said is that the author was mistaken on several of his points.
But hey, why consult historians and biblical scholars when we have google? shafique As I said, we can compare what the historians and authors are saying about the history of the church being re-written in favour of Pauline Christian views, and your insistence that this version of history is Gospel. Your views of what the Jewish Christians were etc is as per the traditional Pauline Christian (aka official church) histories - the very issue that is disputed by the quotes I gave. As I said, there is a choice to be made - either the Pauline Christian version of events are true, or the quotes I gave are accurate. Cheers, Shafique event horizon

As I said, there is a choice to be made - either the Pauline Christian version of events are true, or the quotes I gave are accurate.

There's another option, people who have bothered to spend more than five minutes on google might know what they're talking about and dismiss claims made by others that the Ebionites were the original followers of Jesus.
But hey, that's just the opinion of modern scholarship that has rejected the Tubingen school of thought. shafique Your name dropping of a theological school of thought would be more impressive had you not admitted that you didn't know who Gibbon was and that 2 mins on Google showed (you said) that he didn't demonstrate that the Bible was historically suspect. Must be embarrassing that you actually named a thread on the subject. ;) But hey, I forgive (if not forget) - and agree - the readers should make up their own minds. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Not as embarrassing as claiming (while pontificating on the epistle, which apparently you had not read) that Jesus was the speaker in a letter *from* James. Oh well. It should speak volumes that your 'research' involves dot com websites and wikipedia. When are you going to quote from these New Testament theologians you so often read? shafique

event horizon wrote:
Not as embarrassing as claiming (while pontificating on the epistle, which apparently you had not read) that Jesus was the speaker in a letter *from* James.

Yeah, my mistake was embarrassing - quoting Jesus instead of James when he contradicts Paul's contention that works are +not+ needed!
Hey - at least we agree your mistake was embarrassing.
You ask about quotes from theologians - do you not consider Kung to be a theologian? As for the credentials of the authors quoted in the first post - I presume you haven't Googled them yet! ;)
Cheers,
Shafique shafique I am actually grateful eh took the time to type out his view of Jewish Christians. It serves to make my point that he is relying on official church history to back his view.
My point has been that from Gibbon onwards, the historians have not shared the faith eh is exhibiting for the Church's accounts in regards to differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity.
As the quote from Wilson above says:

"...Modern theological studies suggest that the New Testament's two letters of Peter, the second speaking unctuously and unconvincingly of 'our brother Paul...so dear to us' (2 Peter 3:15), [color=red] were most likely forged in Peter's name by some pro-Pauline writer [/color], and that other letters attributed to Paul, notably the Pastorals, [color=red] were fabricated [/color]to create a false impression of harmony. Recent computer tests have clearly confirmed what theological scholars have long suspected, that whoever wrote Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus was not the person [indisputably Paul) who wrote Galatians, Romans and Corinthians."
- Ian Wilson, Jesus, The Evidence

The fabricated letters were inserted to give the false impression of harmony that eh repeats as historical fact.
Cheers,
Shafique

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
event horizon Shafique reveals his ignorance on Church history once more.
The second letter attributed to Peter was always in dispute amongst the early church fathers.
Ignoring that i have already maintained that the Pastorals (I Timothy included, where I am careful to say 'Paul' when referring to any passage from these epistles) are considered later epistles and not written by Paul according to some scholars, shafique presents the strawman of selectively quoting random bits of information on this thread.
Surely shafique is confused. Doesn't he realize that I've never referred to the epistles he's now posted on?
Anyways, still waiting for this historian you apparently claim to have read that claims the apostles of Jesus disagreed with Paul over his preaching to Gentiles. event horizon

shafique wrote:
- event horizon wrote:
  Not as embarrassing as claiming (while pontificating on the epistle, which apparently you had not read) that Jesus was the speaker in a letter *from* James.
Yeah, my mistake was embarrassing - quoting Jesus instead of James when he contradicts Paul's contention that works are +not+ needed!
Hey - at least we agree your mistake was embarrassing.
You ask about quotes from theologians - do you not consider Kung to be a theologian? As for the credentials of the authors quoted in the first post - I presume you haven't Googled them yet! ;)
Cheers,
Shafique

Of course I consider Kung a theologian. But unfortunately, for your argument, he does not say that the apostles of Jesus were in dispute with Paul over the issue of Paul's ministry to Gentiles. shafique Great - we agree on the fact Kung is a theologian. I'm also glad we agree that the Bible contains forgeries, falsely attributed to Peter and Paul (in examples above). Can you quote what +you think+ Kung says the differences are between Jewish Christian views of the beliefs of Jesus and his apostles vs those in Pauline Christian accounts? It should be relatively straightforward for you to show he agrees with you that Jewish Christians believed the Apostles agreed with the teachings of St Paul, whilst they considered him an apostate. He does talk about Jewish Christianity in 'Women in Christianity' in the pages after pg12 and 15 which I quoted - IIRC - so you don't even need to Google. I concede, perhaps I misunderstood what Kung wrote - so if you do have some quotes that can correct this misunderstanding (as you think), then you'd be doing me a favour by posting these quotes. I'll resist my oft repeated reference to mouths and trousers and await your quotes. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Shafique, no problem if you're confused. I totally agree with you on that. What Hans Kung doesn't say in that quote is that the apostles did not side with Paul's mission to the Gentiles. Now, ignoring that this quote that you have misunderstood was not read by yourself at the time you made the post, where/how did you come to the conclusion that the apostles were distrustful of Paul's missionary activities? Did you make the claim up as I suspect (and you are now wasting time/ googling furiously for some author who makes the same claim) or did you actually read from someone at the time you made this assertion that said the apostles of Jesus were distrustful of Paul? shafique Thanks eh - I thought it would be a long shot to ask you to produce actual quotes from Kung, but I thought I'd be polite and ask. As I said, my reading of Kung's comments on Jewish Christians in Women in Christianity is in total accordance with what I've posted - he agrees that the Jewish Christians' believed Jesus and the Apostles did not agree with Pauline Christian innovations. I agree you think everyone but you is confused on this issue - but hey, I thought I'd ask for evidence anyway. Cheers, Shafique event horizon

he agrees that the Jewish Christians' believed Jesus and the Apostles did not agree with Pauline Christian innovations.

Sorry. Where does Kung say the apostles of Jesus do not agree with Paul???
Are you having difficulty reading basic English or is this another of your leaps of logic here? shafique Kung talks about Jewish Christianity in Women in Christianity on the pages following pg 15 - as I stated before. If your contention is that Kung agrees with you that the Jewish Christians simultaneously viewed Paul as an apostate and believed that Jesus' apostles supported Paul's views, then I am sure you can provide the quote. It seems an odd belief to have (to believe that Paul changed Jesus' message, but to believe his disciples/apostles agreed with Paul) - but hey perhaps you do have some evidence from Kung that the Jewish Christians believed this. Cheers, Shafique event horizon You're right, Kung, in his one sentence quote, talks of the differences between Jewish and Orthodox Christianity over a century after Paul and the apostles. What does that have to do with your claim that the apostles were distrustful of Paul's missionary activities among Gentiles? Since you did not read the passage from Kung at the time you made the post, your point is moot. Is your claim that the apostles were distrustful of Paul made up, as I suspect and you are now trolling/ wasting time, or did you actually come to this conclusion based on your 'research' into Christianity? As I suspect, I figure you're trolling, just like you trolled the forum you were a moderator of and drove the frequent members away. But hey, I just want to read from your post if you made the claim up or not. shafique A simple 'I can't show where Kung agrees with my view' would have sufficed. ;) You will notice that this thread is full of references about the Jewish Christians and I have already thanked you for providing the old official church view of Jewish Christians. It is self evident that the Jewish Christians who rejected Paul for changing Jesus' message would not have agreed with the Pauline Christian view that the apostles agreed with Paul's innovations. Whilst initially claiming the Bible contained no contradictions and is historically accurate, you now say you are well aware of the fabricated parts of the Bible. It took many, many posts to arrive at this admission - but hey, I'm glad you finally came out and agreed with what I had written from the outset. As for here - feel free to call me names rather than address the differences between Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity - and feel free to continue to believe that Kung supports your view. His words (already quoted) speaks for itself. Cheers, Shafique

shafique

event horizon wrote:

When are you going to quote from these New Testament theologians you so often read?

This was what I was responding to when I posted Father Murphy O'Conner's quotation about the Bible's inauthenticity when it came to Pauline Christian history - he talks about the fabricated verses inserted by Pauline Christians.
O'Conner's views are not unique - they are shared by scholars of the NT, and hence why I just said that Biblical scholars disagreed with eh's view that there was no theological difference between Pauline Christians and Jewish Christians - because the Bible says so. The Bible was edited and had fabricated verses inserted by Pauline Christians - according to the Biblical experts quoted.
And yet, some continue to believe the discredited idea that the Gospels/NT weren't tampered with. Then again, some people still believe the world is flat. Each one to their own beliefs!
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon

This was what I was responding to when I posted Father Murphy O'Conner's

Good for you. You found an off topic quote via google from a Biblical scholar and posted it here. Do you want congratulations that you can find quotes online?
I would be more impressed if your quote was relevant, but hey, this is what I've come to expect.

A simple 'I can't show where Kung agrees with my view' would have sufficed.

Well, that would be hard to do since Kung's quote did not support/address your claim that the apostles were distrustful of Paul.
Did you make this claim up, as I suspect, or did you actually read it from somewhere?
Obviously, quoting Kung is a moot point because he simply does not say what you want others to believe he said in addition to the fact that you did not read the page from his book at the time you made your claim.
So, what author did you read who supports your assertion or did you just 'wing' it as you did when you believed that Jesus was the speaker from the epistle of James? shafique

event horizon wrote:
- This was what I was responding to when I posted Father Murphy O'Conner's
Good for you. You found an off topic quote via google from a Biblical scholar and posted it here. Do you want congratulations that you can find quotes online?

No the fact that you acknowledge that O'Conner is a Biblical scholar and don't dispute that he categorically states that the Bible contains fabricated verses which contradict other Biblical verses, and that they were inserted by Pauline Christians to support their theological views (and therefore not reflecting what actually happened) is satisfaction enough for me.
You wishing that this is 'irrelevant' to the discussion at hand doesn't really change the facts.

event horizon wrote:
- A simple 'I can't show where Kung agrees with my view' would have sufficed.
Well, that would be hard to do since Kung's quote did not support/address your claim that the apostles were distrustful of Paul.

Let me repeat once more. The Jewish Christians considered Paul an apostate, they believed Paul changed Jesus' message. Their version of Christian history has the apostles and Jesus disagreeing with the innovations Paul brought (which distinguishes Jewish and Pauline Christianity).
It is self evident that the Jewish Christian (and Muslim) view is that the apostles etc who remained faithful to Jesus' message and whom Jewish Christians trace back their beliefs were those who disagreed with Paul.
What Kung et al say is that the Jewish Christians (with their beliefs of Paul's apostacy) were around before the Pauline Christians decided to delcare them heretics and changed the Bible to reflect both the heresy and to downplay the differences in the early Church.

event horizon wrote:

Did you make this claim up, as I suspect, or did you actually read it from somewhere?

Why would I make up a fact historians agree with? I agree you want to believe the Bible's and official Pauline Christian edited version of the church's history as true, but I'm with Kung and the others who understand that the Jewish Christians have an alternative view - and I personally believe that the latter are correct.
At the very least, at least the Jewish Christians didn't insert mysogyinistic contradictory verses into the Bible and attribute them to Paul.

event horizon wrote:

Obviously, quoting Kung is a moot point because he simply does not say what you want others to believe he said in addition to the fact that you did not read the page from his book at the time you made your claim.

It would have been hard not to have read what I typed out from his book... but hey, I note that you haven't actually quoted what Kung says on the subject.

event horizon wrote:

So, what author did you read who supports your assertion or did you just 'wing' it as you did when you believed that Jesus was the speaker from the epistle of James?

What - you want more references? Please make up your mind - I thought that me quoting from O'Conner and Kung would be sufficient in terms of heavy-weight contemporary theologians and Biblical scholars (and not to mention that they are both priests - one a Dominican Monk, the other a Roman Catholic Priest - and both are published Biblical historians)
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon

No the fact that you acknowledge that O'Conner is a Biblical scholar and don't dispute that he categorically states that the Bible contains fabricated verses which contradict other Biblical verses, and that they were inserted by Pauline Christians to support their theological views (and therefore not reflecting what actually happened) is satisfaction enough for me.
You wishing that this is 'irrelevant' to the discussion at hand doesn't really change the facts.

It is irrelevant to what I'm asking you. By the way, I notice that you haven't gotten around to the fact that a majority of Muslim scholars, let alone a few eminent ones, believe in Koranic abrogation.

The Jewish Christians considered Paul an apostate

I agree, you believe that.

What - you want more references?

Nope, I want references that are relevant to this topic.