It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 08:23 PM
a reply to: Seede

The decision is yours to believe. Nevertheless the great evangelizing and giving of his life in no way distracts his love for the Christ Jesus. He gave his life for the Christ Jesus.

All i can really do is give credit where it is due... without Paul Christianity probably wouldn't have spread as it did...

Thus, one of the reasons for making this thread

Myself... i have no trust in this man nor his teaching, him being willing to do anything to gain converts as he himself puts it... became all things to all men... which incidentally included going so far as to quote "pagan" writers in his own writing.

To each their own of course...

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 08:45 PM
a reply to: glend

So when in 1 Corinthians 4:15 Paul wrote, "Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

Paul did not write 1st Corinthians nor 2nd Corinthians. They are pseudepigraphal works of which 1st Corinthians was written from Philippi by Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus and Timothes. In lite of this my interpretation is that this translation means that Paul is the father in evangelizing the Gospel of Christ Jesus. Till this time the attempt to evangelize the known world was not organized and Saul/Paul was commissioned by Jesus to be the first to the Gentiles. Being the elder was considered to be the father and not usurping the power of the Christ or The Most High El. Of course you can imagine other interpretations but I have never understood this in a derogatory attitude.

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:11 PM
a reply to: Seede

Yes father as in 1 Corinthians 11:1."Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" instead of writing "imitate Jesus, as I TRY"

I wonder if the real intent of those that canonised the words of Paul and not those of Thomas (Gospel of Thomas) was to make the Pope the supreme father/spokesman for God on earth by imitating Paul imitating Jesus. I am not saying that Paul was intently being evil, just egotistical, which is not a value Jesus in my humble opinion would have admired.

Revelation warning...

Acts 19:8-9 " Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus,,,, Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. 9 But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus."

Revelation 2:2 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus...I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false".
edit on 27-9-2016 by glend because: spelling

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:24 AM
a reply to: glend

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:55 AM
I have truly enjoyed exposing the absurd claims of the Christian religion regarding the historical enemy of the Nazarene movement, Sual the Pharisee.

Whoever assembled the New Testament in our current form the concept of a New Testament was Marcion's idea, and he wrote the first Gospel account supposedly using Luke and the "genuine" Pauline epistles (even the church fathers acknowledge some are forgeries), but I find it much more likely that Marcion wrote Mark, as if that isn't obvious just by the name.

Paul had two disciples named Luke (Lucian) and Demas.

Interestingly enough Apollonius of Tyana had two disciples named Damis and Lucian. It's a growing theory that the epistles of Paul are but mutilated and interpolated writings of Apollonius of Tyana the Tyanian sage educated in Tarsus and that the Christos of Paul is really the Chrishna of Apollonius.

Pol is short for Apollos which is short for Apollonius, who lived at the same time and traveled the ancient world acquiring and spreading wisdom.

What Marcion did was take the Apostate Elijah ben Abuhiah (Aher), the Judaic traitor of Talmud and Josephus fame and combine the story of Saul the Pharisee also from Josephus and turned him into "Pol" the Law/Torah hating Jew who tried to get the Jews to forsake their religion and join his team with no success.

After being subject to humiliation for teaching against the Torah and submitting to a Nazirite purification ritual of head shaving and having to pay for the four others who were undergoing the ritual at the same time ''Paul'' decided that he was never going to succeed in converting Jews to his pagan religion and sought out Roman and Greek converts.

The Bible records in his epistles his constant struggle with the Church of Jerusalem converting his decieved converts to the True Way, the credit given him for success in spreading the word is entirely based on supposition that he actually was successful, when his own words say that he was very unsuccessful and constantly angry about people who ''have turned from him" including all of Asia's churches.

And no historian of the era throughout the entire Roman Empire wrote a single word about Saul/Paul, the ''missionary" of the first century who made such an alleged impact on the world at the time.

In fact nobody before Marcion ever heard of the guy. Contrary to what paid scholars claim the dating of Paul's epistles to the first century is a complete guess, not very scholarly either.

When the oldest documents in existence from the New Testament are the work of the 3-4th century the obvious reason the disappearance of the original Gospels and Pauline epistles is deliberate destruction with the truth being forever destroyed or the alternative, that they were composed by the Catholic Church based off the Hebrew originals that told a different story and the plagiarized interpolated writings of Apollonius of Tyana aka Saul/Paul/Aher found by Marcion.

Marcion was the arch nemesis of early Roman Christianity and a heretic yet his (and the forgeries he rejected) ''Pauline epistles" make up Christian theology today.

Hmmm. So a heretic is the reason why Pauline theology dominates the teachings of the Church? Isn't that hypocrisy, calling the man a heretic does nothing to the credibility of the Pauline epistles yet they are what Christology is based on?

They trust this heretics testimony to the unknown to the first century ''Paul" and his epistles.

Philo, Josephus, both should have heard of Paul. At least Josephus, who never even heard of Christianity and says nothing about Christ (save an interpolated brief mention that nobody believes is genuine anymore).

James and John the Baptist are the only mentions of Biblical characters important to Christians.

Christians who believe this hodge podge of lies is their ticket to heaven merely are so decieved by the fear of hell that they will believe anything because they are afraid of death and hell, even though hades/hell is based on Greek mythology and not Judaism, who also borrowed the idea of hell in the second Temple period although weren't Jewish because they feared hell but because it was their identity. Their religion evolves with the times unlike the stuck in the first century beliefs of Christianity that defy logic and reason, literally nothing has been added to the religion officially like a Talmud or Zohar that explain the Torah in literal and mystical terms.

No emphasis on knowledge or learning about the history of religion and being honest about the mythical nature is forthcoming from Christianity while Jews openly admit that the Torah is not historically accurate or meant to be interpreted literally.

Christianity remains stuck in the dark ages of '' Believe what we tell you or BURN IN HELL."

This is divine truth to Christians. Accept that Jesus is God and died for your sins and is the ONLY means of salvation (from hell) because you are a born sinner with no ability to save yourself by good deeds or enlightenment from God, but through the Church only and if you confess that Jesus is Lord.

Paganism is the worship of the created over the Creator or even with. Jesus didn't create God, other way around.

Trinitarianism is NOT by any means Monotheism and Christianity is just pagan sun worship with a fancy story about a Jew that has no historical basis.

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:13 AM
If one wants to determine if Christianity is truly the teachings of God who is merciful and the Kingdom of the Messiah and God let's see how history reports its deeds.

50 million people (estimate) have been put to death by Christianity since Constantine and his wars made a state religion out of a movement that Jesus considered separate from the state of Rome (give unto Caesar what is Caesars) and Jewish in identity.

Jews have always faced persecution because of the ignorant beliefs of Christians who see them as rejecting God because they don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah and allegedly had him killed by Rome (why is Rome not as hated?).

They reject the Old Testament as applicable to their beliefs and obselete but have used it to support genocide, slavery and female inferiority and still do today with the writings attributed to Paul, banning women from being priests to this day.

A rotten tree has rotten branches so don't think because you aren't Catholic this doesn't apply to you.

Protestants persecuted Jews, Catholics and heretics just as brutally as Catholics and no amount of reform will erase history and the facts that the Bible has been used for far more evil than good should be enough to keep anyone away from organized Christianity, if you want to be a hypocrite go join a Church, built on lies and full of phony smiling liars of the most conceited breed who don't know the difference between lying and being a Christian because their isn't one.

The second you utter ''I know Jesus died for my sins" you have become a liar. And it only gets worse from there as the lies pile up and you realize it when it's too late and all your friends are in the Church and leaving means having less or no friends.

Constantine was a serial killer and King James had sex with animals.

Neither was actually a Christian but recognized its potential for mind control.

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:32 AM
a reply to: Akragon

I think you give Paul the credit for the spread of Christianity in error.

Marcion is the sole witness to the Epistles of Paul, nobody in the first century ever heard of the guy.

The spread of Christianity is the result of Constantine, warfare and forced conversion.

Paul had nothing to do with the success of the spread of Christianity, his name is used to invoke the belief that he was a superb missionary and theologian.

His letters do not support this at all. His theology is unintelligible and nonsensical, his story unbelievable and his success is a myth not even supported by the Bible itself if you actually are paying attention he is constantly complaining about being abandoned, rejected and turned away from.

He had absolutely nothing to do with the spread of Christianity, which didn't exist in the first century and was formed in the second by Marcion and his money.

There is no first century mention of any Christianity in the works of any historians. Until Marcion, Paul didn't exist.

If you are going to give due credit, give it to who deserves it. Constantine was responsible for the success of Christianity and Paul was just the "Apostle to the literate but dumb.''

The only reason Paul is a part of Christianity is because of the fraud of Marcion, the success is only because of Constantine.

The Romans were pagans, and are pagans today as are the Christians who just don't realize it or won't admit it.

There is no credit due to Paul.

(post by Malocchio removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:47 PM
I want to clarify that I don't think that Apollonius of Tyana was Paul of the New Testament, just Marcion's cheap version of based on other characters from Josephus to create the character Paul and falsley attach him to the Asian Church of Nazarenes who were Jewish and believed that the Messiah was Yeshua ha Notzrim and eventually became known to Rome and was made popular by Marcion in Rome who started the idea of a New Testament (not the New Covenant, the book) and his version was the first and rejected the Old Testament and the God of Israel. This is when Gospels begin to be quoted from in the early Roman writings. These people had no idea that Paul was the works of Marcion and his disciples and I think Acts and Luke were written to connect Paul to the Apostles and tell his conversion story making him seem like a superior Apostle and the great missionary of Christ as well as justify his status as chief theologian.

Whoever wrote Acts was hired to write a story but I believe left a subtle inference to the spurious appearance of this unhistorical character is a perpetration on a legitimate Jewish faith. Marcion was not a fan of Judaism or Jews and it shows in Paul. Luke is more of an author than a participant and probably is based on Lucian the disciple of Apollonius. It's not likely that a Luke the disciple actually wrote it, maybe Lucius Plutarch? Who knows is the point.

Apollonius seems to be a much better person than ''Paul" so I don't think that Apollonius is the author but that Marcion constructed Pol based off him.

Paulis in Aramaic means deciever!!!!

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:54 PM

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: Malocchio

It's hilarious witnessing every Bible thumping Christian with no understanding of Judaism or the history of the development of Christianity other than what their Bible or Pastor or Priest tells them all accuse each other of not understanding when the book they are thumping is built on a foundation of hypocrisy and lies, backed up by forced conversion and murder for millennia in the name of Christ.

Paul never knew Jesus, Jesus isn't God and Paul was some angry nut job with a pen that some idiots thought ''let's make this a religion to defeat the Jews''

Centuries later people finally decide that this Jesus called Christ is also God and that there were 3 Gods who were 1 God, the Jewish God under Rome (New Babylon).

And people are actually arguing who has the best understanding, insulting each other's intelligence and harping in with fudged historical facts as if they are enlightened and know the truth while everyone who disagrees is lacking in understanding. Hilarious hypocrisy.

If you believe Jesus was born of a virgin, you don't understand nature. If you believe that the miracles in the New Testament weren't written for the specific purpose of ''proving" Jesus was the Messiah and think that of all the world's mythologies THIS ONE is ACTUALLY true:

You don't understand.

If you believe Paul was a prophet with valuable teachings from God:

You REALLY don't understand, and shouldn't be messing with religion because there is a difference between religion and history and:

No man has seen God. Believe whatever you want but calling each other stupid and arguing about your religion just shows how much Christians think talking about their ''faith'' makes them better than everyone else, even though the average Christian knows less about the Bible than I know about the city of Sacramento.

The most knowledgeable people about the Bible are people who don't believe it because they don't have the bias of a Christian and aren't ''required" to accept the nonsense as fact.

And of course Jews, because it's their culture and they value knowledge and intelligence and know how to interpret what the Bible is actually saying instead of just taking it on faith as history.

Reality is mythology can bring people together and establish cultural bonds.

And it can turn people into self loving idiots.

Which cracks me up...because you have "Seede" and "Chester John", who are BOTH fundamental Christians...arguing with one another. Yea, you nailed it, dude. It's all so ridiculous. I get called on the carpet by both of them, yet THEY can't even agree with one another...yet, they believe the "BOOK" is infallible. So, guess what? The "Book" they hold so dearly, causes division even amongst themselves. Guess they can't figure out how to "rightly divide the word of truth".

I love this one, rightly dividing the word of truth. A true gem of a ridiculous quote from the writings of Paul that doesn't make any sense at all. Who is dividing, who gets what divisions? Is something I would like to know. It's like something a politician says that even the doesn't know what means. people who don't think about it think is something with meaning but it's just madman rantings.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. And people wonder why I walked away from it all.
All the fundamentalists on here are not only prone to argue with us....but each other. Huh.

edit on 28-9-2016 by Malocchio because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 06:14 PM
a reply to: Malocchio

What rightly dividing means basically in modern English is "apply the correct context". Meaning, don't apply something written to first covenant Levite priests and apply it to new covenant Gentile Christians. For example.

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:19 PM

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: Akragon

I think you give Paul the credit for the spread of Christianity in error.

Marcion is the sole witness to the Epistles of Paul, nobody in the first century ever heard of the guy.

Apparently you never heard of Peter and the Rest of the Christians of the first century who knew Paul personally.

2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

edit on 28-9-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:30 PM
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Paul got it from Christ.

Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:31 PM
a reply to: Malocchio

TextJews have always faced persecution because of the ignorant beliefs of Christians who see them as rejecting God because they don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah and allegedly had him killed by Rome (why is Rome not as hated?).

Wow what a hate filled rant.

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:32 AM link quote reply a reply to: Akragon He had absolutely nothing to do with the spread of Christianity, which didn't exist in the first century and was formed in the second by Marcion and his money. There is no first century mention of any Christianity in the works of any historians. Until Marcion, Paul didn't exist.

And here is another post to Akragon is it not?

Now in your first rant you are angry that Christians caused the persecution of Jews. You infer that the Jews did nothing to warrant this persecution except that they would not accept the Christian's Messiah.

Yet in your second rant to Akragon you say that there were no Christians till Marcion in about 144CE. So for well over one hundred years we have Christians [who never existed] cause Jews to be persecuted.

You expect people to believe you are sincere when you write stuff like this? The house of Annas bought the priest hood from Rome and murdered James the Just and Stephen, caused the death of both John the baptist and the Nazarene Jesus ---as well as using Saul to arrest and persecute hundreds more of their own seed. Yet you say not one word of these atrocities from the Jews themselves. You have lost all credibility that you had left.

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:44 PM
a reply to: Seede

Though those men may have been the hands the pushed the pen it was Paul's word divinely inspired for us to have today.

God would not preserve what is not his. This is why many of the 350 plus English Bibles have removed words, verse and made complete changes of that which they do not want.

Like our friend Molocchino/Gnosisisfaith

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:45 PM
a reply to: Seede

I like the way he changed the 50 million killed by Christians. He was totally in error as well as the further error you expose of him in his replies to Akragon

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:47 PM
a reply to: Malocchio


That is why Peter mentions him and his writings (plural) because no one knew Paul in the first century.

Like I said, ""you err not knowing the scriptures" Jesus Christ"

edit on 28-9-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:58 PM
a reply to: glend

the preserved word says,

1Cor 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
You will notice there is no guardian or Paul calling himself a father in sight for 100 verses either direction. The Bible you quote removes verses, words and changes them, it is not God's word but men's word. You will notice also Paul did not say he was their father as the corrupted Bible of men you quote does.

So once you have the preserved word there is no violation of call, "no one your father" like many Catholics do.

And who is deciding what is Bible and what is not? Men of course.

But if a English Bible for this generation was preserved by God as he promised, it would have all the verses in it no argument, it would be able to define those words by their context, and it would have a build in cross referencing system using those words, phrases, and verses.

Only One Bible has that. Find it and believe.

edit on 28-9-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:27 PM
a reply to: Malocchio

Who is dividing.

Has not God showed us how to divide. Look what he has preserved for us in his word.

1Co 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

See ye not how he has separate his people the unsaved Jews, from the unsaved Gentiles made up of every one who is not a Jew, and the church of God whichis made up of both Jew and Gentile?

Do you not see the difference between Jewish law for Jews in their land, and the law of liberty under the gospel of the grace of God.

Do you not see the difference between the gospel of the Kingdom preached to the Jews before the cross and how it diminished because of Israel's rejection of it, and the gospel of the grace of God for all mankind when God decided to set Israel aside for a time to provoke them to jealousy, and take his grace to the Gentiles.

The whole nation of Israel will turn and the whole nation of Israel will be saved and it will be under the Kingdom Gospel but not until the end of the Tribulation when he takes up his work with Israel again. And that not until the church is gathered unto Jesus in the clouds ever more to be with him.

Failure to rightly divide blinds anyone from seeing the divisions God has placed throughout his words. And it does not negate any of his instructions to to so even if it is by Paul, for these are God's words to the church today, preserved along with all his words for Israel.

edit on 28-9-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:44 PM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Thank you ChesterJohn but that "I" as in "I have bergotten you thought the gospel" is still referring to Paul isn't it? The issue I bring up might be just semantics but the writers of the NT were wordsmiths so I don't accept that misinterpretations were not unintentional embedded although that might have occurred when the words were translated from Greek into English.

If the NT consisted of Gospels of Matthew, Luke and Thomas with addition of Revelation I might have been a Christian today but I personally cannot accept that its present format is the truth. Even though I do accept that one can become enlightened through Christianity (like MLK) by accepting the words of Jesus (or more correctly Joshua/Yeshua) himself.

Each to our own and I do hope Yeshua smiles on you.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in