It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

page: 101
19
<< 98  99  100   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Let's see what Paul thinks about the question.

"According to the grace of God given me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation,and someone else is building on it. "

Paul is not to shy about being the "master builder" of the foundation of...

I would have to say the theology of Christianity.

But what he says afterwards is not so... coherent. No one can lay another foundation than Jesus Christ, which means Paul is saying he built Christ, dubiously assigned to the grace of God.

If Paul built the foundation.

And the foundation is Christ. No one can build another foundation/Christ.

Paul "built" Christ. "plants a vineyard." Eats "the fruit."

"I have made a fool of myself, but YOU drove me to it.I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not the least inferior... "

Apparently Paul is having more trouble than success and is outfoxed by his opponents in the world who are the Apostles he pretended to be one of but was never accepted as one by one.

" To the super-apostles even though I am nothing."

Clearly, Paul's not on the same page as the 12 Apostles. I made a thread about a recently translated Syriac Apocalypse of Peter that survived also in Ethiopian and is called "Contendings of the Apostles" but is edited to de anti-Paulinize it in Ethiopian, the Syriac has an interesting story about Paul that is sealed with the request that Paul nor anyone like him be taught these things.

I think Paul was rejected and started a pseudo-messianic "Christ" cult of nonsense that was the subject of ridicule by his peers.

When Rome got involved the Asian Churches were annexed and Paul forced upon them. He seems to be trying to make a human sacrifice out of Christ that covers the sins of believers, naturally leading people to debauchery because they are "saved by the blood of Christ" and the Law of God given to Moses "dead" "a curse."

James and Peter, John and the Apostles, disciples and followers of the real Yeshua, called Nazarenes and not Christians, didn't accept Paul as the prophetic apostle of Christ he proclaimed he was and that they did.

They did not. They made fun of him. James, John and Peter all have polemical contents against the words of Paul. Nobody reads them so it doesn't really matter, if they do they assume that the polemics are against heretics or gnostics, but it is Paul vs the Apostles to one with eyes to see.

And the truth will set you free...




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Hilkiah1611

You can be a Christian without Paul.

It's not Paulianity.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hilkiah1611
a reply to: Joshuabennone

In reply to your question, no, you cannot be a Christian and disbelieve Paul. Matter of fact, you cannot even be CALLED a Christian without Paul. Without Paul Bible believers would just be called converted Jews. Paul gave the revelation of how God offered his grace and salvation freely to gentiles after His own people (Jews) rejected Him.


Jews started "Christianity" and no, they didn't reject Yeshua.

James, Peter, John, all of the 12, the 70 and many Jews, their descendants and Greco-Roman disciples existed in peace until the fifth century.

They rejected Paul. Called him apostate.

They were probably killed or forced into exile for "heresy" an odd turn of events for the people who were first, but in the eyes of the Romans who needed to be the first they were a threat to the legitimacy of Rome's claims to Apostolic succession.

You are hilarious though.



Gentiles being saved by grace through faith (me) is nothing more than God's second plan for mankind. He allows gentiles to be saved like we are now in order to make the Jews mad. Yes, that is the reason, plenty of scripture backs this up, wrote by Paul, a Jew of Jews.


Nonsense.



To compound the matter and give you a headache, you will go to Hell if all you do is follow what Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels. Matthew 19:17. Look up the verse in a King James Bible. It is the words and command of Jesus. And if you follow it you will go to Hell.


Further nonsense.

Matthew 19:17 is about keeping the commandments. Jesus rebuked someone who asked about doing good because only one (read: God, NOT Jesus, who is not God according to this passage btw) is good.

Yet the argument is always made that the Law, the commandments, are dead, by Paul. Faith alone justification is the crux of Pauline theology.

Jesus here says otherwise. He says that the man should sell everything he has and give to the poor. The man is sad because he is rich.

The point is Paul is null and void. He contradicts Jesus, even removing the 2 commandments requirements most important commandment to love God saying just loving your neighbors fulfills the entire Law.

The Law he says is dead and replaced with his terrible ideas.




2 Timothy 2:15 is ignored today, which is why there is over 2000+ "Christian" flavors out there.


Pseudepigraphal 2 Timothy, ANY Pauline epistle is nonsense. Trying to make it sound sensible is never going to work because it is total madman nonsense.

Graceless nonsense. You need to study in depth because you can't follow Christ AND Paul, it's literally impossible, though delusion certainly makes up for the fact in many minds.
edit on 29-1-2017 by irenialilivenka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hilkiah1611
a reply to: Joshuabennone

In reply to your question, no, you cannot be a Christian and disbelieve Paul. Matter of fact, you cannot even be CALLED a Christian without Paul. Without Paul Bible believers would just be called converted Jews. Paul gave the revelation of how God offered his grace and salvation freely to gentiles after His own people (Jews) rejected Him.

To compound the matter and give you a headache, you will go to Hell if all you do is follow what Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels. Matthew 19:17. Look up the verse in a King James Bible. It is the words and command of Jesus. And if you follow it you will go to Hell.


Go to hell for.. the words and commands of Christ?

That is the absolute most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

I am certain it is the opposite, seeing as how he is the foundation of the faith, Paul is a nobody who never met the man.

At least you admitted Paul teaches his "gospel", though he says it himself people deny it, credit due for honesty on your part.

It is Paul who is the mysterious false prophet and wolf (of Benjamin) in sheep's clothing. One of the 3 beasts in Revelation, one of the false apostles of Ephesus, etc.

There can not be a 13th apostle of Christ so he is an apostle of himself.



2 Timothy 2:15 is ignored today, which is why there is over 2000+ "Christian" flavors out there.


As well it should be. "Paul" is not the author and Paul is a false prophet so should be ignored completely.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

no you are just taking things out of context and pretexting an idea into the text which is intellectually dishonest. That is what cultist do, they pretext the Bible, say it has errors and don't believe God is able to preserve his words to all generation. thereby justifying all their claims without any Biblical proof.

Is there a tribe of Israel call the Canaanties?

Simon the Canaanite was a Disciple/Apostle chosen by Jesus how could he represent one of the tribes of Israel?


I am new to this long thread and reading through it is interesting.

But Simon the Canaanaen/Cannanite is from a city called Canna in Judea, not a country called Canaan. Canaan the country hadn't existed for a long time before when this was happening.

I can't remember where but the city of Cana or Canna is mentioned in the New Testament.



Not so smart to say the twelve were representatives of the twelve tribes now is it?


How ironic it is that you talk like this when you are the one who is wrong, so, "Not so smart" are you. I intended to be polite but you don't really act like a person who is worthy of respect, talking like this, shame.



so if you are to follow the kingdom gospel you must keep all the commandments found in the OT as well as what Jesus teaches in the four Gospels or you will not be saved.


Love God, love your neighbor, and you are fulfilling the whole Law.

You don't know a lot, and talk rude to people when you are wrong.

There is one Kingdom, the Kingdom of God.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

You were already in error parroting about the 12 disciples were chose as a representation the 12 tribes of Israel.
Simon was a Canaanite chosen and named by Jesus as a Apostle.

Which tribe is the Canaanite?
What makes you think we can accept anything you say as truth?


You really are something dude!!!

You think you are talking with full knowledge of the New Testament, BUT:

1. You didn't know that the city of Canna was the home of Simon the Cannanaen aka Simon the Zealot.

2. Say this person should not be trusted because they allegedly made an error.

3. You were the one who was wrong.

So using your own logic YOU can't be trusted.

Also, John mentions in his Gospel that Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding in Cana of Galilee.

4 times in total does John mention the town of Cana. So you calling someone who said that the apostles were only 12 in number unworthy of trust is ironic to say the least.

The way you type/talk it is as if you know every word of the Bible by heart.

Yet you didn't know that Simon the Zealot/Cannanaen was from Cana of Galilee or that the nation of Canaan never recovered after becoming a Babylonian state, Persian state then Greek when it was called Phoenicia and was a tiny group of city states and merchants, famous for being great explorers by boat.

All I am saying is that you should not be so rude, especially when you are the one who is mistaken.


edit on 2-2-2017 by irenialilivenka because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Also, earlier I noticed you speak ill of the Baptism of fire as if it was a destructive force like the flames of hell.

John was not saying that the Baptism of Fire was bad, no, it goes hand in hand with Baptism of Water and Spirit. Water for repentance, Spirit for Wisdom and Fire for knowledge.

Or water for the body that is immersed.

Spirit for the spirit (of mankind).

Fire for the soul.

Let's see what Paul says:

1 Corinthians 3:13

That day begins with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If his structure stands up to it, he will get his wages; if it is burnt down, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through FIRE.

ONLY as through fire will the builder whose house is burnt down be saved.

Paul is saying, clear as day, that fire has a salvific effect and the builder will be saved as through fire.

Saved...As through fire.

Using your logic, as before, you can't be trusted because you made a mistake in not being aware that even Paul acknowledged that the fire of the Baptism of Fire, has a saving effect.

Like the parable of the tares, the chaff is burned and the rest, what is left, is good
edit on 2-2-2017 by irenialilivenka because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 03:50 AM
link   
It appears to me that there are 2 kinds of disciples in Christendom:

The disciples of Jesus; are usually less dependant on the Bible and concentrate on learning to a greater degree than the:

Pauline "Christian" who reads the Bible a lot, understands very little, denounces "worldly" wisdom and knowledge as if God was not All Wise or All Knowing and didn't want us to be as wise and learned as possible.

The second type forsakes the Gospels for the Epistles of Paul for their "theology"(see: lies), claims a greater understanding than they actually have, for example, saying that Simon the Zealot/Cannanaen was from Canaan and a Canaanite a la Joshua and his battles.

Zealots were Jews, which means so is Simon of Cana.

Only Simon was from Cana of Galilee, not Canaan, and a Jew, so much so he was also a literal Zealot, as were many of James' (Ya'akov) followers who weren't merely zealous but actual Zealots of the fourth philosophy. As was Judas the Sicari. Josephus, now only available through Heggesipus (the Aramaic version), described the 4 philosophies of the Essenes, later said by Eusebius to have been the first Christian monks, though I doubt that.

But the Qumran sectarians definitely fit the bill as both a community of zealots (though they didn't call themselves this, others did, I don't think anyone knows what they called themselves besides Hasidim and Sons of Zadok/Sons of Light, a few other epithets), and they are in all likelihood the Jews from who the faith of Christianity was based off.

But if you see someone who is factually incorrect by theological standards making the argument that someone else is not trustworthy because they were "wrong", although it happens to be they weren't wrong and someone else (me in this case)comes along and points this out, you can bet someone else will be attacked with off topic insults:

This person is a Paulinist, not a Christian.

Paul "adds nothing" to Christianity and removes and replaces Christ's theology with his false gospel.

Beware of the Wolf of Benjamin, who also is leaven of the Pharisees employed by Rome.

Saul of Tarsus, better known as Paul the (false) apostle.

But if you don't know something, like that a town in Galilee called Cana and not the (extinct) country called Canaan was the source of the alt. epithet "Canaanaen" you probably don't know much about the Bible.

If you try (and fail) to label him as something that didn't exist in the time of Jesus (other than Phoenicia), namely a Canaanite, it means you are not only NOT a Bible scholar, you say things without concern for accuracy and are not even well versed in scripture, history, and don't give a damn about honesty.

Unfortunately, Paul thought it was OK to lie if your lie glorified God, he "Became all things" to "all men."

To the Jew, a Jew, to the Greek, a Greek.

In spirit and letter Paul is a liar and proud of it.

And so are most to all Paulinist Christians.
edit on 3-2-2017 by irenialilivenka because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: irenialilivenka

It appears to me that there are 2 kinds of disciples in Christendom:

The disciples of Jesus; are usually less dependant on the Bible and concentrate on learning to a greater degree than the:

Pauline "Christian" who reads the Bible a lot, understands very little, denounces "worldly" wisdom and knowledge as if God was not All Wise or All Knowing and didn't want us to be as wise and learned as possible.

The second type forsakes the Gospels for the Epistles of Paul for their "theology"(see: lies), claims a greater understanding than they actually have, for example, saying that Simon the Zealot/Cannanaen was from Canaan and a Canaanite a la Joshua and his battles.

Zealots were Jews, which means so is Simon of Cana.

Only Simon was from Cana of Galilee, not Canaan, and a Jew, so much so he was also a literal Zealot, as were many of James' (Ya'akov) followers who weren't merely zealous but actual Zealots of the fourth philosophy. As was Judas the Sicari. Josephus, now only available through Heggesipus (the Aramaic version), described the 4 philosophies of the Essenes, later said by Eusebius to have been the first Christian monks, though I doubt that.

But the Qumran sectarians definitely fit the bill as both a community of zealots (though they didn't call themselves this, others did, I don't think anyone knows what they called themselves besides Hasidim and Sons of Zadok/Sons of Light, a few other epithets), and they are in all likelihood the Jews from who the faith of Christianity was based off.

But if you see someone who is factually incorrect by theological standards making the argument that someone else is not trustworthy because they were "wrong", although it happens to be they weren't wrong and someone else (me in this case)comes along and points this out, you can bet someone else will be attacked with off topic insults:

This person is a Paulinist, not a Christian.

Paul "adds nothing" to Christianity and removes and replaces Christ's theology with his false gospel.

Beware of the Wolf of Benjamin, who also is leaven of the Pharisees employed by Rome.

Saul of Tarsus, better known as Paul the (false) apostle.

But if you don't know something, like that a town in Galilee called Cana and not the (extinct) country called Canaan was the source of the alt. epithet "Canaanaen" you probably don't know much about the Bible.

If you try (and fail) to label him as something that didn't exist in the time of Jesus (other than Phoenicia), namely a Canaanite, it means you are not only NOT a Bible scholar, you say things without concern for accuracy and are not even well versed in scripture, history, and don't give a damn about honesty.

Unfortunately, Paul thought it was OK to lie if your lie glorified God, he "Became all things" to "all men."

To the Jew, a Jew, to the Greek, a Greek.

In spirit and letter Paul is a liar and proud of it.

And so are most to all Paulinist Christians.




edit on 21-2-2017 by Matrixsurvivor because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 98  99  100   >>

log in

join