Great interview! I have mentioned that Paul seems to be preaching a unique gospel of his own accord and my Christian friends get VERY uncomfortable. It's so sad because I am simply observing what is obviously written in the Bible but they have a deep emotional need to justify everything they are taught in their church no matter how much it contradicts history, the scriptures and most regrettably, the truth.

So the question arises: who was worthy of being followed?: James & the Disciples who actually met, learnt from and were chosen by Jesus to carry his message, or Paul who never met Jesus besides a claimed vision he had, contradicted the teachings of Jesus as understood by his chosen Disciples (even had animosity towards them), and preached a theology contrary to that of the Old Testament Prophets?

I came to my feeling about saul/paul being a self appointed apostle preaching a different message just thru reading the Bible and NT. As well as reaching that conclusion after being originally raised Catholic and only having access to the nt as we were discouraged from reading the Torah. Well finally reading torah and the Bible was an eye opener. But also i suffer from temporal lobe seizures which can produce vivid hallucinations that seem completely real. I often wondered if that was Paul's throrn. It took paul so long to go meet the true apostles. I would have rushed right to them fallen on my knees and begged forgiveness for percecuting them. To me, he seemed arrogant and full of himself rather than humbled. So after reaching my conclusions about paul I scoured the web to see if others had also reached the same conclusion and was relieved i was not all alone. YESHUA could have left us his direct teachings himself, the fact that he did not speaks volumes to me. Our Father already left His teachings for us. YESHUA came to rescue us from damnation, not to bring a new religion.

Thank you finally someone else said this. Why all this uproar when Paul comes on the scene. I kept asking Christians this because I noticed this right away. If the disciples are preaching the same thing as Paul why as soon as Paul comes saying the same thing they are on the hunt to k1ll him? It made no sense to me. Unless Paul came preaching something to them no one else was teaching.

Since i learned a lot the last years about Paul to me he is an imposter, a narcicist who saw the chance to abuse the new Jesus movement to become so influencial. He saw his stakeholders among the pageans, the Greco-Roman establishment. He was a Herodoan and most likely homo sexual why he could not become a high priest in Jerusalem. So he abandonned the Thora and opened his own Hellenistic-Egyptian myth blending with the Jesus ideas and a cracy Real-Fleh-Ressurrection... and always imagine that all his Pauline stories and the Gospel is most likely written under and by Marcin and after him his Material was caoninized as totally anti Thora and anti Jewish. Listen Dr. Markus Vinzent about Marcion and the first Gospels!.

As someone who definitely thinks that Paul was a false Apostle , I very much enjoyed this presentation , so thank you Jacob for having Barrie on your program . There's just one thing that Barrie was wrong about and it's something that most Christians get wrong also , they don't read past Acts 10 so they think that Peter's vision was about clean and unclean foods but if one continues on to Acts 11 you'll see that it wasn't about food , the unclean animals represented gentiles : Acts 11:18 KJV 18)"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life"

This is so interesting. For me its obvious that they did split in Antioch, which we can read in Galatians 2 12 to 14. Acts is not considered reliable. Today every Christian follows Paul. That's one reason I rejected Christianity

Thank you so much. I have read Christianity described as the victory of St Paul over Christ, and listening to you certainly clar,ifies the issues and the very human responses to them. Poor Jesus! If only he had known.,

I love when people aren't afraid to speculate. It always makes the conversation more interesting. ❤

Jacob, thank you for having Barrie on. I have learned from others already that Paul was a liar, a false Apostle and a deceitful worker, a grifter, a scam artist, and a complete narcissist. He seems to be a mid-First Century televangelist!

Thank you Jacob and Dr Wilson for this content. I follow as much about this timeframe as I can and can't help but think Robert Eisenman is one of the most prominent scholars on this material that most people don't talk about...Gotta admit you REALLY need to be interested to get to the end of his books! Lol. 😊 {Note: I have seen him here and realize he's getting along in age.}

From my understanding, Martin Luther wanted to exclude James from the scriptures because it involved salvation by works. Imagine, he didn't like the idea of making people accountable for their actions. Not sure what convinced him to reluctantly keep it in the NT.

This is a great guest. Thank you so much. I really wish his book was on audiobook.

I think there’s some very good points but as I’ve been led to understand it, Jesus preached to Jews with the Old Covenant and Paul preached a different Gospel (revealed by Jesus/New Covenant) to the Gentiles. The question is then does it contradict what Jesus said? We can all probably agree there’s differences because of the difference of audience , but different paths can lead to the same destination - Differences doesn’t necessarily mean contradictions. I think a lot of what Paul says is taken out of context. He explicitly states faith above all else but DOES NOT disregard good works. If the Bible is written and canonised by men with the power of the Holy Spirit, does it not undermine the Holy Spirit with Paul being the New Testaments biggest contributor? Additionally, If the Holy spirit informed Peter of the lies of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts, surely the Holy spirit would have warned them about Paul too? If 13-14 of the 27 New Testament books are attributed to Paul, why is there no backlash of his writings being canonised through the ages? Is Paul being an Apostle ever questioned/accepted by 1-Apostles and 2- by early church fathers? At Council Of Nicea? Council of Constantinople? I think it’s a fascinating topic and a really good discussion. 👏

I am a huge fan of Dr. Wilson...he's brilliant, I love listening to and learning from him. He really makes the dynamic of the early movement and James, for me, much more digestible.

Thank you Jacob for having Dr Wilson on. His book would seem to capture a fascinating concept that very few have studied. I just don't understand why if James and his followers were pious Jews would the high priest give Paul a commission to hunt them down? And even after Paul's vision and conversion was he really any less adversarial towards them?

My study of the book "What you weren't taught in Sunday school" made me search this topic because Jerald F. Dirks (a former ordained minister) clearly talks about how Paul went against the elders of Jerusalem church. He has some youtube videos as well.

PErhaps Dr Wilson can help me my number one question.. "Under James, was the yearly Passover observed " as before Christ's "atonement" That will fill out a lot of blanks... PAUL AND PETER AND ALL THE APOSTLES WERE ONE IN ACTS 15, Until James adds more laws after Peter pushes against his own struggles of law keeping . Anybody else?

The idea that the Supreme Priest had some kind of authority in Damascus to the point he could order someone arrested there is ridiculous in any context let alone in the Roman Empire 1 century AD context

Wonderful interview

Ebionites would not eat at the same table with non-Ebionites. James was a vegetarian.” (Prof. Robert Eisenman in, James the Just, The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls) “James, the brother of the Lord, lived on seeds and plants and touched neither meat nor wine.” (Epistulae ad Faustum XXII, 3) “James, the brother of the Lord was holy from his mothers womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh.”(Hegesippus, quoted in The Church History of Eusebius, book 2, chapter 23) “John never ate meat.” “James, the brother of the Lord, lived on seeds and plants and touched neither meat nor wine.” The Apostle Thomas: “He continually fasts and prays, and abstaining from the eating of flesh…” “…The Apostle Matthew partook of seeds, and nuts, hard-shelled fruits, and vegetables, without flesh.” Peter said, “I live on olives and bread, to which I rarely only add vegetables…” “The unnatural eating of flesh meats is as polluting as the heathen worship of devils…” (Peter, Clementine Homilies)

This is excellent. I love how you let guests speak 👍👍 Also the book sounds really interesting

Yes, but his vision was his conviction. Just as Paul had a change in mind when he had a vision of Christ. An important encounter in one’s relationship with God. For example, upon my Awakening I began my 40 days fast, and on day 10 I had a vision, a sign was drawn before my eye, a laser red seven in the shape of the Talon of the Dragon. Followed by a pink Sun Cross, it’s own bottom right was Sanctified in laser red. That was 18 years ago and I’m only now discovering the intricate details of our Lord ~

Peter ends his epistles telling believers to read Paul. In doing so Peter saved Christianity. Anyone who dumps on Paul is anathema to me.

I appreciate Dr. Wilson's attention to Paul's ethics. If you tell your followers that the law doesn't matter, on what do you base your moral mandates? And how do you expect them to know what you mean with terms like 'sexual immorality'? Ultimately, it seems to me that Paul ends up saying 'because I say so!' It's not like he can defer to the local synagogue, or the church in Jerusalem...

Jacon, Dr. Wilson stuck an important point with his inquiry into second generation perspectives. In a recent video I was alarmed by the student of John, Papias, and Papias's elaboration on the death of Judas. He seems to feel he has some sanctioned privilege to add to the story. This is important as he was acting in honor of John and must have been taught this perspective fifty years after the event. What sort of man [John] carries that kind of visceral hate for someone else, and for decades? There has been no trespass. John wants his hatred to be carried through history. None of the circumstances surrounding the Crucifixion warrant this degree of vengeance.

Read what Biblical scholars and others had to say about Paul. A wake up call to the Christians. Soren Kierkegaard, Danish Christian philosopher and theologian, observes in “The Journals:” “What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down; making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ.” Miguel de Unamuno, Spanish essayist, novelist and playwright, writes in “The Agony of Christianity:” “During Christ’s lifetime, Paul would never have followed (Jesus).” Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence; writes in his “Letter to William Short:” “Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” In the book “Christ or Paul?” the Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore writes: “Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught. For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message. That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world. If we apply to Paul the test ‘by their fruits ye shall know them’ it is abundantly clear that he was a false prophet.” Frederick Engels, German philosopher and father of Marxist theory, writes in “On the History of Early Christianity:” “Attempts have been made to conceive all the messages of John’s Revelation/Apocalypse as directed against Paul, the false Apostle. The so-called Epistles of Paul are not only extremely doubtful but also totally contradictory.” Bishop John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, USA, writes in his book, “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism:” “Paul’s words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference.” Rudolf Bultman, a theologian, writes in his “Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul:” “It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his views. When the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus’ teaching is- to all intents and purposes- irrelevant for Paul.” H.G. Wells, famous English science-fiction writer, observes in “The Outline of History:” “It is equally a fact in history that St. Paul and his successors added to or completed or imposed upon or substituted another doctrine for- as you may prefer to think- the plain and profoundly revolutionary teachings of Jesus by expounding a subtle and complex theory of salvation, a salvation which could be attained very largely by belief and formalities, without any serious disturbance of the believer’s ordinary habits and occupations.” Gene Savoy, American theologian and clergyman, declares in his “The Essaei Document:” “Paul’s Christianity is another matter. He taught a different kind of theology than that shared by the original disciples who were schooled under Jesus. Paul was the father of Pagan Christianity; a movement based on a concept completely foreign to Jesus. The teachings of Jesus the Messiah were overshadowed by the teachings of Paul.” Thomas Cosette, a Christian scholar, writes in “Hebrew Prophecies of the Coming of Paul:” “This man Paul hijacked what is called the church. But he can only keep those who do not love the truth. Those who still have conscience and will compare his teaching and his testimony to Y’shva’s and the prophets without granting Paul’s testimony (is) the Word of God but (is) just another man’s testimony in light of Jesus’ teachings. Then they will discover that Paul usurps the truth.” Patrick Henry writes in “New Directions in New Testament Study:” “There remains in the popular mind a strong suspicion that Paul corrupted Christianity (or even founded a different religion). Paul imported into the Christian community a form of religion characteristic of the ‘mysteries’ religious movements of initiation into secret rites and esoteric knowledge.” Walter Bauer, an eminent German theologian and scholar of the development of the early Christian churches, writes in his “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity:” “If one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly the Apostle Paul was the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age.” Michael Baigent, author and speculative theorist declares in “The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception:” “Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he’d begun to regard as his ‘Savior.’ He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus’ teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus.” Paul Johnson, English journalist, historian and author, writes in “A History of Christianity:” “Writings by Christian Jews of the decade of the 50’s AD present Paul as the Antichrist and the prime heretic. The Christology of Paul, which later became the substance of the universal Christian faith, was predicated by an external personage whom many members of the Jerusalem Church absolutely did not recognize as an Apostle.” The last word belongs to Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the United States. He writes in “The Age of Reason:” “Paul’s writing is no better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told.”

Barrie says we don't know about Pauls youth BUT,, Barrie SHOWS about Pauls youth with the Scripture that TALKS ABOUT PAUL,,,,,, Paul WAS the Pharisee Jesus Condems in Matthew 23,, Jesus Said EXACTLY what Paul would do,,,, Matthew 23:33-36 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generatio

Where did you find the opening bumper music?

Perhaps the early Christians christened Jesus brother James the Just in contrast to Paul "the not so much". 😮

I do not see how you can use Peter's vision that all foods were on the table given the explanation is given a short while later. nothing about eating forbidden food, just that he could now eat with Gentiles and given the person he went to see was a god-fearer who probably lived a jewish lifestyle anyone, would not have been eating the bottom feeders anyway.

a lot comes down to whether you accept Luke;s accounts as truthful representations or attempts at smoothing over the theological differences. Church tradition really gets in the way of how we interpret obvious passages in the book of Acts.

Does this mean that Saul (before he became known as Paul) was never persecuting the early Christians? Were the early Christians ever actually persecuted?

In Arabic, a sister language to Aramaic and Hebrew, a similar worx Sadiq, Siddique means honest, truthful, trustworthy. So James (May Allah have mercy on him), the brother of Jesus (peace be upon him) was an honest and trustworthy man. Paul does not come close to James in comparison.

It is amazing to me that how gentile Christianity became what it is. The Jerusalem community which at that time was considered like the Vatican which James as the pope.

but there is another way to interpret Galatians and it is Paul's rant against trying to find covenant membership by conversion (of ethnic status) to being Jewish.

i suppose it is a difficult subject as James' (Jacob's) posse remained a Temple centred Jesus movement, whereas the message Paul produced was more like Judaism for the masses (more like the Noachide movement of today).

Sometimes the content of what a person wrote is what decides who you follow. I’d rather follow the lofty vision l.

I can't help thinking that in the ending of this interview there was a feeling of sadness that Jesus' message/movement under the guardianship of James had been hijacked/taken over by the Pauline gentile Catholic Church. The people who had actually been with Jesus and received instructions directly from him, ie. the Nazarenes, had lost to the "Christians" of Paul. As Dr. Wilson says, it was "hokey" the way Peter forsook the Jewish dietary Law (hint, hint: another vision yet again aka Saul becoming Paul). Jesus knew what was to happen to his flock and hence he mentions that in his Second Coming he will dismiss these misled "Christians" as evil doers, workers of Lawlessness.

I dispute that Paul or the immediate followers of Paul believed Jesus was a pre-existent divine being. That would be a teaching of some Gnostic groups though. - Dr.G.Craig Fairweather.

Very interesting exposition!

The whole Gospel & literal reason why Jesus was put to death was because he didn't follow the supposed "Law" of the Sadducees & Pharisees of his time. He established that it was all based on esoteric understanding. When I start hearing people mentioning that it's wrong to eat shellfish, that's when I walk out of the room.

Why didn't he give the scripture reference about Paul saying he wished someone slipped and cut themselves during circumcision? What scripture is that?

GREAT question: Why was Paul the guy picked to track down Christians? Fantastic! Then, "Who were these thugs?" What a fantastic question. Definitely getting this book.

We have to supposed so many things and there are so many contradictions… Until new information is discovered we have 50/50 certainty of everything is in the NT. We do not even know the year of birth nor death of JC… Less of his apostles and Paul 😁✌🏼

9:10 the kingdom of God had not yet come? This man needs to read the scriptures of the Messiah's teachings. _Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:_ _Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you._

This is so interesting that I'm listening to it twice. Great guest!

My humble request to all please read the Bible and th3 Qur'an and then ask God Almighty to show the straight path.

Was one of his brothers head of the temple at some point ?

In regards to Yahusha, i do believe He is the Messiah though as we can see this in Daniel, Zechariah 12:10, i saiah, book of John and book of Revelation unless we chuck out all the books of the new testament. But then we have an issue with what to believe in the new testament.... Paul is a definite nono. What about the other books?

Jesus merely said he would return in their lifetimes, which he did, and raised people out of their graves to go with him ! He never said it would be the millenium.

ministries by acknowledging that Paul was in the market for more pagan minded gospel recipients while James spoke with an authority on the previously established people of the descendent s of God's chosen people who had been called to action in the day's of the messiah having fulfilled the rites of the covenant made with Adam's initial act of defiance being paid for in full by the blood of The lamb allowing for reconciliation with The Father Perhaps if wewe apply the prerequisites character of The Wisdom of The Lord that comes from above to this debate, we can get some respite of resolve to the matter? Paul Vs James? For us to pick one side or the other is a demonstration of partiality by definition. Perhaps if we can critically ok implement being without partiality(James 3:17-19 I believe) then we can avoid the ok inevitable hypocrisy that comes from choosing sides in such a case. Perhaps if we agree that Faith is a necessary part of the salvation equation then we can proceed to recognize that those with Faith will subsequently be shown to bear the good fruits of said Faith, then we can understand that Faith without works is a n oxymoron as the latter is made evident by the former. Both of the doctrines are correct in that thought exercise and we can attribute the difference in the approach to their respective ministry

You come to a fork in the road you can't step into the same river twice. Paul got hit on the head by ⚡️⛈️but he seemed to stop trying to kill Jesus followers and allegedly shared some fellowship and letters of divergent matters of interpretation concerning conditioned. Jews and the gentiles.

What i hate about Paul is that he spoke for and against the law, and the messianic Torah obsetvant community does head gymnastics to defend Paul by saying he was speaking against the oral law but he spoke for Yahuah's law. Its so awful that i cannot even create a proper case to show people that Paul is THE wolf prophecied by Yahusha. It sucks on so many levels.

Luke/ACTS written 100 AD ???? RIDICULOUS!! One can tell; that the author(s) is the same man! Disciple of Paul..

Paul = James (the Just) = Germanicus = zacharias (huqoq mosaic elephant panel) btw Peter is Lucius Anneus Seneca (minor) = ananias ( Festus & Albinus on the road to . . . )

Prior to Moses receiving the law, people were rendered righteous via faith (Genesis 12:1-3, James 2:23, Galatians 3:6, and Hebrew 11). 2. Jesus asserts that Christians are the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth (Matthew 5:13-16). James emphasizes this when he says, FAITH WITHOUT ACTION IS DEAD (James 2:17-23)... Paul emphasizes this in his behavior and education (1 Corinthians 5:13, Acts 18:3, 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 3:6, among others). In conclusion, a Christian must bear witness and reflect God's light in his or her behavior, speech, and labor (22 Thessalonians 3:10). Until his death, Paul served as an excellent example of a working Christian. James and Paul argued in faith, and neither contradicted the other! 3. If you believe Paul was against the commandments, why would He encourage the church to break away from the evildoers in the church (11 Corinthians 5:13)? Reasons: i. According to Hebrews 10:26, a rescued person lives in light rather than sin. Why would someone require commandments if they're situated in the light? And if one requires commandments, a sacrifice must be offered to atone for his or her sin once more, despite being "saved"! The process will end the Cross's work. ii. Paul was aware of the Perfect Sacrifice( Christ) & the work of the Holy Spirit that puries and renews( John 15:18-20, 1 Corinthians 6:11,Colosians 3:2, 1 John 5-10 among others). Why else would paul say Wreched man I'm. Paul was aware of the fact that not keeping the commantments is sin. Another assumption is that our fleshly impulses and actions undermine the power of the law (Romans 8:3). As a result, Christ is the only one who can put flesh (sin) to death so that one might be called saved! For example, when the Pharisees imposed regulations on people that they couldn't bear, Jesus had to call them out. An action that shows Paul correct in the sense that it demonstrates that the law was frequently abused, rendering it ineffective( Mathew 23). Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Read no longer under the law) Paul and James are saying the same thing. James speaks about the FRUITS of Faith like Paul does. James 2: 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

How exactly did Paul and his followers create a Christian movement that eventually conquered the Roman Empire?

The word Christian was a Greek word originally that the Greek started calling the apostles in the Church

Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus?

IT IS PETER IN ACTS 15 [THAT IS EXHAUSTED ABOUT THE COMMANDMENT KEEPING- Did you know that? Did you know, that ALL of the Apostles seem to be nodding with PETER!! WHY DO YOU IGNORE THIS CRITICAL HISTOICAL ACCOUNT- There was SILENCE- But then- JaMes above all of the ones who had =been with Christ . James offers nothing but law keeping and never elucidates "Faith" / Do you think the jews had enough laws? Yet James has over 50 TIPS "TO DO" haha.

Good Bible teach you that Paul and James were fighting no

Was James an Essene?

Paul saying he spoke Hebrew in front of the Sanhedrin in Acts is a sure fire way of knowing he’s a liar. Hebrew wasn’t a spoken language in the Second Temple era, it was only used for liturgy. Highly unlikely that most of the Sanhedrin wouldn’t even understand what even saying.

Paul vs James is a false narrative. It assumes, incorrectly, that the Apostle Paul had been redeemed. from the Law when James wrote his epistle. Actually, the Crucifixion that would accomplish that redemption was still in the future. Both James and Paul talk about faith but from two drastically different perspectives. James from his day to day experiences with Jesus before the Crucifixion, and Paul, decades later, from his supernaturally derived lessons from the Ressurected Savior.

Name of the church was the Church of the Nazarene

Paul claims that his gospel came from direct revelation from the post-ascension Jesus. Does this place Paul in the same category as other self-proclaimed prophets in history? I am thinking of Joseph Smith and his restored gospel. Paul performed miracles and started the church in Rome, which set Christianity up to become the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century CE. Is this what places Paul above the rest? Or was Paul just another man preaching a new religion?

Paul KNEW Who Jesus Was,,,,,

I don't believe Paul. But I also believe Yeshua was the word of God made flesh. The first and the last.

The more I learn details about Paul - about how his Christianity was so different form both the words of Jesus and the teachings of the disciples who actually walked & talked with Him during His 3 year mission - the more I see him as a 1st Century Joseph Smith. Smith, who founded the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), took some of the bones of traditional Christianity and used them to flesh out a whole new creature.

Christianity is no different today. They still dispute as before like Paul and James!🤣🤣🤣

Paul emphesized grace, but not works also as he should have! James taught the dictrine if Christ more, that faith eithout works is dead and can not save you! Christ Himself taught: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commadments." Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:17)!!! The were different, but not as mych as he implied here! Jsmes also believef in the divinity of Christ!!!

This Barri fella is right about Paul bein false Apostle but his words prove he don't pay attention to Scripture,,,, aint gonna type it all out but come on,,,,,, lissin to him talk,,,,

The book also says the kingdom of God is within didn't you read that part?are you doing confirmation bias and motivated reasoning?

totally clueless, CUCKIRICOOOHH ! Paul = Scrooge McDuck Pete = Launchpad McQuack

The disciples had 3 to 6 MONTHS with Jesus, not 3 years. John is wrong in that Gospel

In my view this battle did not only create Christianity and Judaism as we know it nowadays. It also created Islam. One can not see these historical events separate form each other. One who wants to understand how Islam came into being needs to understand what happened in Christianity, esp.. in the 4th to the 6th century in the councils in the east. And this process goes back to this struggle. I don't agree that Paul did create Christianity as also Pamela Eisenbaum has pointed out in her fabulous book: Paul was no Christian. She proofs that Paul did not invent Christianity as we know it. That was part of the Gnostic corruption. She proofs that the real Paul was a typical Jewish mystic in the merkavah tradition from the 1th century. This is also pointed out already by Jeremias, a German Lutheran theologian, who was one of the first to point out that there are just 7 genuine letters of Paul. This thesis is now again subject of scientific discussion, were some reduce it even to 4 letters and just parts of it: being Romans, 1+2 (parts) Corinthians, Galatians. I'm not getting into this but is proof how much people are mislead nowadays to think Paul created Christianity. Christianity did not emerge earlier than after the sacking of Jerusalem. This is a historical fact that we also can see in the development of rabbinical Judaism after the year 70. It were the Gnostics who have corrupted the Jerusalem legacy as we also can see in what happened in the Marcion heresy. Marcion was one of those Gnostics who corrupted Paul's letters and the Gospels.

The gospel that is taught by many people today has been reduced down to just "faith alone". This false gospel of "faith alone" has made following the commandments of Christ null and void. Obeying His commandments have been eliminated from the gospel and have been made subsequent and optional to salvation. Walking in the Spirit has been made optional as well. This false gospel of "faith alone" changes what Jesus said in Matthew 7:14 - For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. By teaching that we do NOT need to keep the commandments(plural) of Christ as the gospel, the saving power of the gospel has been neutralized. The end result is that millions of people have been deceived by Satan into thinking that they are saved. They were taught that "faith alone" saved them apart from them having to keep the commandments of Christ. This has become Satan's masterpiece and has deceived millions of people into thinking they have eternal life in Christ when they actually remain lost.

Paul has gotten so many off the true path that it’s tragic . My HaShem open the eyes of the truth for those who seek his face to turn back to Torah. Beezrat HaShem!

As I was saving this to Watch Later, I seem to have said, "Oh, spank me!" out loud. My girlfriend wants to talk to you. Much love all around!

You are so talkative. Why not let your guests state their case?

Paul is right. James was right and will be right again. 2 different audiences. 2 different time periods. God made an example out of Paul. Paul refers to himself as the chief of all sinners. God saved him. Anyone can be saved. Anytime, anywhere. Paul is our pattern for a reason. Just believe 1 Corinthians 15 1-4.

James loved Paul

There is no battle, james was a jew who christ didnt even think worthy to be an apostle. James wrote to the jews. Paul to the gentiles and church of God. 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

James carried on the teachings and gospel of Jesus of faith without works, is dead. Paul taught grace alone will save you, which Jesus never taught. As a Latter-day Saint, we follow the gospel of Jesus Christ and James of 12 Apostles, a Seventy, Temple worship, and faith without works, is dead.

no Paul was very close to Jesus' age,, I thik within the two year age Herrod had kill'd but Paul WAS a Herodian so they would not kill him,,, Paul WAS a pharisee WHEN Jesus WAS Preach'n,, saul stood face to face with Jesus and was condem'd

All speculation, no documentation, have a little faith.

The NAZARENES are the Original.

Denial of the Scripture and denial of the deity of Christ. This is anti-Christianity. If Peter and Paul got along, except for that one time where Paul had to rebuke him, how were they against one another? This video makes no sense.

The way the name which is called James even all names aren't knowable facts only like sun has many references depends on time called lights of day times, the hints of how written stories are like three levels of what represents how high your mind can understand what stories offer does appear three ways the mind operates after what you see, feel, smell, behaviors that can be based on how an animals names are attached to how man acts, the symbology of creations trees, rivers, wind, oceans, mountains, minerals, ect........................for Bible stories does confuse literal secular historic versions does produce limited meanings unless Allegorical and parable avoid time. How many efforts are failed by how a seed sprouts but fails representing your mind returns to flesh limitations of possibilities running entrapment to time of test to get past it if you score is a requirments till grace and mercy overrides missing marks that law with mask is called Moses still same problems' if law hast to inforce temporal and death another debated what kind still flesh alive but becomes dead to free grace no requirments necessary outside like jews follow it as necessity to stay holy. Gentiles were to natural copying animal lust. The teaching after Saul became Paul who teaches Abram to Abraham life was written stories called Allegories, James told personal life called Abraham even Paul taught what could only relate to what jews religion outside called bondage compared to inside Job on your mind and heart called Temple by Paul throwing some meat at milk and old wine bottles. James wasn't teaching Abraham was Allegory tales is another mystery of both teaching valuble to common reasonings' if became also inside actions of stories most helpfull if they repair mind to effective for heart. So can I favor Paul or James is another mind can favor both reasons take place for what mind lacks we all face what the mind hungers for itself under nothing new under sun.

It is your mis-Understanding of what Paul said and what James said that causes you to think they are fighting

If he's a professing Christian, he's got no faith. I've given this considerable thought also, and I don't think there was any great schism between James and Paul, in fact they were likely good brothers. James's book is not about salvation by works, but it's "if you were charged with being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?", which is not works. Works in Christianity are regarded as the natural outflow of a transformed heart. I agree with Paul's teaching, I disagree with Dr. Wilson's teaching.

I could just cry because there is not much fellowship when one rejects Paul. All the groups, even Torah groups loooooove Paul. Yahusha was not lying when He said "beware the leaven of the Pharisees". Cant find anything that does not have some Paul in it.

Mr Wilson is not born again, so he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Jesus said, "If you do not believe in me , BELIEVE IN MY WORKS that attest to me,": Why don't you get that Paul hard 1) more power, including Resserection power, constant heaslings, sufferings, WHY DOES EVERYONE OF YOUR GUESTS IGNORE THE "CV" of Paul which surpasses even PETER!! What else could that man iof done, while the FAVORED James is on his kness.. Where did James' authority comeb from besides specu;lation- hje "bumps": peter out?

39:40 quote: (paul) never mentions the kingdom of god concept Paul uses it so often that he takes it as a given. He even explains it: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god. quote: jesus told his message in parables No, that is Mark's Jesus and he exploits the distiction between hearers and readers. But besides it, there are really not that many parables in Mark. Mark has no qualms to use sock puppets. Paul quite on the contrary is very reluctanrt to use Jesus as a sock puppet. But when he does, it shuts the jews out! (Eucharist) I think this author has not sufficient scepticism. You cannot believe acts concerning Paul. And to me again it seems that we miss the 14-17 years between Pauls conversion and the start of Paul the epistle writer. How come? It has nothe to do with an event to the road of damascus (which really is the road into the essene camp) But everything with his road OUT OF damascus.

I totally disagree that the followers of Paul saw Jesus as God, this is not true. Paul never taught anything like that, anyone can read 1 Timothy 2:5 to see how Paul understood who Jesus was. Now, that there was a misunderstanding later and became a dogma, yes, but Paul never taught Jesus was God or divine, nor any other apostle.

Do you all really understand the power of God? Who he is?...Do you really believe God would allow 2/3's of the New Testament in the KJV to be written by Paul if it was false? Jesus spoke in Matthew 12:24-26 (24) "But when the Pharisee's heard about the miracle, they said, "No wonder he can cast out demons. He gets hi power from Satan, the prince of demons." (25) Jesus knew their thoughts and replied, "Any kingdom divided by civil war is doomed. A town or family splintered by feuding will fall apart. {26) And if Satan is casting out Satan, he is divided and fighting against himself. His own kingdom will not survive." Do you really believe God would fight against himself?

this is like sleepy & sneezy salivating over grumpy and bashfull ( the poor dwarfs are the 7 or 8 ebionites ) .

Blasphemy.