Did Paul Invent Christianity?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

There are certain things all cults have 1) extra Biblical sources, 2) you have to be of their group or with them or your not save/going to heaven, 3) salvation is not by grace alone, 4) Jesus is not God, 5) Jesus did not die on the cross for anyone's sin. These are just a few of the cultist teachings.

Major cults are Mormons, JW's, British Israelism/worldside church of God, Roman Catholicism, Church of Christ/Inglesia ni Christo, and a few more. But they all hold to the three teaching I mentioned above.

You and Malocchino hold those teachings as seen through out this thread and in other threads since you join in just the last few months.

Hmmmmm.....
Ok,
1). I figured Paul out way before I went to sources outside the Bible. It just took me awhile to go outside the Bible...cause, I was just like you...scared to actually question it and investigate further my doubts in Paul. Funny, but all those "extra biblical" sources were mainly other people who were showing the SAME thing I'd found already... and some I hadn't noticed yet).
2). I don't belong to a "group" of anything. Just because I agree with those who found the same thing as me...doesn't make us a GROUP of religious people or a cult.
3) Paul is the Creator of "salvation by grace alone"
4). I don't believe in vicarious atonement... nor Jesus as a blood sacrifice. Once again, that is Pauline doctrine. I believe Jesus was much more than that....and this world would be radically different and better if they just heeded His teachings. But alas, Christians are to enamoured with their boy Paul....which is why when push comes to shove, they act just like him.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

so why again exactly are you trying to dissuade people from the teachings of Paul?

Especially If your not a Christian(who believes in any of the major Christian tenants), and you are non-religious and a member of no religion (as you stated in your previous post and this one, and Malocchino also said he was not-religious until today when he accused be of hating him because of his religion).

Why even care about whether Paul is a heretic, a liar, a false Prophet, a false Apostle, a Pharisaical plant if you r are not trying to win people to another view? Namely yours and Malocchino's view. I realize that Akragon may have desires to come to his view but that view must have a point you all converge under a single group or teacher?

Sure you are not all followers of Sole Khristos movement?

Or the left wing Judaic Messiah movement? (this ones puts Christians back under the law btw.)

you see, Deborah, it is all about getting followers after a certain persuasion as I can tell.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

you better go back and unless it has been edited we all saw it where Malocchino said Luke recorded that Paul ate idol meat. Sorry that is pretty straight forward accusation.

And you live in California I should have known.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I realize that Akragon may have desires to come to his view but that view must have a point you all converge under a single group or teacher?

Actually i came to this realization a long time ago... no group, no teacher

Just a desire to see people depart from said religion... and this is only because i know, and have seen and experienced what it turns people into

And Jesus isn't the reason for this change

a reply to: Akragon

There seems to be only teo main sources and one webnut for this info out there.

Of course this does not include ATS forums.

And all three of them in the end are seeking followers.

So are you know nothing of Solo Khristos or Chrsit's teachings alone, or of the left wing Messianic Jews, movement who deny Paul's teachings (there's is the oldest info out there) or maybe the other webnut.

The Messianic one, they teach it because if you remove Paul everyone has to convert to Judaism, under the kingdom Gospel. That is why they have their doctrines of Paul the false teacher.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Ok, I’m just going with logic here, I'm’ not even going to bring any scriptures into play…

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
People have rejected people for crazier reasons today you can find lots of it happening.

It’s not so much the reason given (by Paul) but the lack of other reasons for rejecting somebody, which is the crazy part.

If Paul was not a Christian, then I’m pretty sure they would have accepted him, chains or no chains…If he was a “believer” they would have accepted him too…

But Paul is supposed to be an Apostle!!!, that title should carry with it some weight and importance etc…so based on that alone, they shouldn’t have rejected him at all. Think about it, would they have so easily rejected say John, Matthew or Peter for example…

The only sensible reason for them rejecting him would be that they didn’t believe he was an Apostle and/or they rejected all or parts of what he was teaching/preaching…

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
Minister is easy to get the meaning. Paul ministered the gift to the saints in Jerusalem. Onesiphorus ministered the gift to Paul in Rome. Just study out the word in the NT. the base meaning is one giving to another whether it be the word of God or clothing or money.

What I meant in my last post by “we don’t know what minister to Paul really meant”, is that just because he (Onesiphorus) gave Paul food or a word of comfort etc…, doesn’t mean that he accepted Paul as an Apostle…

Unless we take Paul at his word!!!…but that would defeat the whole point of the discussion…

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
look at the context of the verse Paul says exactly why he was abandoned in Rome, they were ashamed of his chain. H claimed only Onesiphorus was not. He was a representative of the Church in Ephesus

Just rejecting someone based only on the fact they were in prison and had chains around their ankles, is something that only a bunch of non thinking, non caring barbarians would do…which in itself doesn’t add up…

But the fact that the Church in Ephesus sent out a representative to administer to Paul, while he was in Jail, does not match up to the idea that Paul was rejected by the whole Church, just because of his chains.

They clearly didn’t hold any grudges about Paul being in chains when they sent out their representative to help him; so the reason given by Paul, seems highly suspect to me personally.

Plus it doesn’t make much sense for the one representative to accept Paul, but for his whole congregation to reject him. It seems more likely that the Church rejected Paul much later, most probably after Onesiphorus reported back to the Ephesian Church after ministering to Paul…

Paul could have just made that part up, after all, a whole church has just rejected him. If Paul was to blame for their rejection, then he’s certainly not going to write down the real/true reason as to why.


- JC

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

so why again exactly are you trying to dissuade people from the teachings of Paul?

Especially If your not a Christian(who believes in any of the major Christian tenants), and you are non-religious and a member of no religion (as you stated in your previous post and this one, and Malocchino also said he was not-religious until today when he accused be of hating him because of his religion).

Why even care about whether Paul is a heretic, a liar, a false Prophet, a false Apostle, a Pharisaical plant if you r are not trying to win people to another view? Namely yours and Malocchino's view. I realize that Akragon may have desires to come to his view but that view must have a point you all converge under a single group or teacher?

Sure you are not all followers of Sole Khristos movement?

Or the left wing Judaic Messiah movement? (this ones puts Christians back under the law btw.)

you see, Deborah, it is all about getting followers after a certain persuasion as I can tell.

Why do you care if I think he's a heretic, a liar, a false prophet, a false apostle, a Pharisaical plant....and why are you trying to defend him? Aren't we all allowed to our "free will thoughts and truths"?
I see Paul as the main detractor from the truth of the message Jesus was showing us. You can't step into any church (or even this forum) without pastors or Christians spouting Paul...rather than the Son of Man.
I want truth, not indoctrination....and not the lies of this Matrix we live in.
Edmund Burke once said, "all it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing". I want to expose Paul...because Paul was not a good man. As a matter of fact, he was a backstabbing, condemning, misogynistic jerk...and the rotten fruit of his stupid theology is rampant all through Christendom..because HE IS the instigator of it.
The Inquistitions, Witch Hunts, murdering of so many throughout history "in the name of Christ or God", slaughter of American Indians, subjugation of women, division amongst believers (ya'll can't even agree on things in the Bible)....are from Paul's scraptures.
Yea, Paul said some pretty sounding spiritual things...but all it takes is a few drops of cyanide in pure water to kill you. Paul's writings are lies wrapped up in those pretty sounding spiritual things (some truth). But, it's enough poison (or leaven) to mess everything up. Your SAVIOR warned you a "wolves in sheep's clothing" and "Beware the Leaven of the Pharisee's". But, because Paul's letters were included in CANON, by ROME.....you bought it all, hook, line, and sinker.

How many times have I asked you on this thread to JUST USE JESUS' words?? Have you? Nope. Why is that?

And who the heck is Deborah?? What is it with you accusing people of being someone else?? I don't live in California, lol.
Good grief, dude.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

you better go back and unless it has been edited we all saw it where Malocchino said Luke recorded that Paul ate idol meat. Sorry that is pretty straight forward accusation.

And you live in California I should have known.

WHO CARES if Paul ate idol meat!???? You are STILL missing the main point of what he AND I were pointing out! That Paul contradicts JESUS on the whole issue!!!
And how the heck would you know WHERE I live?? What is it with you and sidetracking the points being brought up?
Can you not stay on topic???

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Sure you are not all followers of Sole Khristos movement? Or the left wing Judaic Messiah movement? (this ones puts Christians back under the law btw.)

I don't even know who the heck those people are, lol!!!
Chester, you know what I think? You don't know how to defend Paul...except with PAUL, cause you sure can't use Jesus (you know...the one who you say redeemed you) to defend your faith. All you have is Paul....and throwing out cakamamey accusations and labels at those who are pulling the Paul rug right out from under you.

a reply to: Joecroft

The only sensible reason for them rejecting him would be that they didn’t believe he was an Apostle and/or they rejected all or parts of what he was teaching/preaching…

BINGO!!!! See...logic works very well, doesn't it? LOL. Fist bump, bro.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Forgive me I am new to this forum and do not mean to "rock" any boats. Paul did not change the Sabbath. The Catholic Church along with Constantine own that one. The verse you are referencing is concerning Paul's travels and collections of the churches under his charge. The Sabbath is still the last day of the week and is meant to be kept holy. To respond to the topic it was originally called Chrestians mostly by outsiders. The change to the word happened later more than likely as a correction in spelling thinking Christian for obvious reasons in later translations. I dont claim any expertise just throwing in my own research on the subject.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

you better go back and unless it has been edited we all saw it where Malocchino said Luke recorded that Paul ate idol meat. Sorry that is pretty straight forward accusation.

And you live in California I should have known.

WHO CARES if Paul ate idol meat!???? You are STILL missing the main point of what he AND I were pointing out! That Paul contradicts JESUS on the whole issue!!!
And how the heck would you know WHERE I live?? What is it with you and sidetracking the points being brought up?
Can you not stay on topic???

Funny thing is ChesterJohn doesn't realize that I never said Paul ate idol meat according to Luke.

What I said was Luke recorded the decree of the Holy Spirit forbidding the eating of idol meat.

And that Paul taught, against the decree of the Holy Spirit, that this was weak spiritually and that idol meat was "kosher."

I supplied all relevant verses and quotes, and I even told ChesterJohn I didn't say Luke said Paul ate the meat.

This is a man who cares nothing about honesty and it is not the first false accusation he has made about me.

Of course he can't quote me actually saying this so he throws in I may have edited my comment, covering his lying tracks as I only edit for grammatical errors and didn't erase anything I have said as I don't have to.

I am not a lying Paulianna Christian like mr John.

Anyway, sorry to bother you with this nonsense but I felt I had to expose his lie.

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

you better go back and unless it has been edited we all saw it where Malocchino said Luke recorded that Paul ate idol meat. Sorry that is pretty straight forward accusation.

And you live in California I should have known.

WHO CARES if Paul ate idol meat!???? You are STILL missing the main point of what he AND I were pointing out! That Paul contradicts JESUS on the whole issue!!!
And how the heck would you know WHERE I live?? What is it with you and sidetracking the points being brought up?
Can you not stay on topic???

Funny thing is ChesterJohn doesn't realize that I never said Paul ate idol meat according to Luke.

What I said was Luke recorded the decree of the Holy Spirit forbidding the eating of idol meat.

And that Paul taught, against the decree of the Holy Spirit, that this was weak spiritually and that idol meat was "kosher."

I supplied all relevant verses and quotes, and I even told ChesterJohn I didn't say Luke said Paul ate the meat.

This is a man who cares nothing about honesty and it is not the first false accusation he has made about me.

Of course he can't quote me actually saying this so he throws in I may have edited my comment, covering his lying tracks as I only edit for grammatical errors and didn't erase anything I have said as I don't have to.

I am not a lying Paulianna Christian like mr John.

Anyway, sorry to bother you with this nonsense but I felt I had to expose his lie.

It's ok....I get it.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

There seems to be only teo main sources and one webnut for this info out there.

no my friend there plenty of info on the whole Anti Paul movement... has been for a long time

Of course this does not include ATS forums.

And all three of them in the end are seeking followers.

What religious belief doesn't seek converts?

So are you know nothing of Solo Khristos or Chrsit's teachings alone

I do actually...

or of the left wing Messianic Jews, movement who deny Paul's teachings

never heard of that particular group...

The Messianic one, they teach it because if you remove Paul everyone has to convert to Judaism, under the kingdom Gospel.

No thats just according to your own personal doctrine... Conversion to another religion is never necessary...

Nor is having one in the first place

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivoryou could be a fat man with your pipe hanging out your mouth as far as I know. I am not in your room to verify the truth of who you are.

But apparently you and Malocchino know each other personally because speaks to you about his notes as if you could verify them for us. Unless you do know him it is impossible

Stop. Lying. Seriously.

Wow. Chester, seriously, I have had enough of your isht talking.

I don't make things personal but you have. Not only do I not personally know ANYONE on ATS I also am not a deciever, false teacher or liar as you repeatedly claim yet lack any evidence.

You claim I said I am not religious but also said you were negatively attacking me (troll) because of my religious persuasion.

You admitted to negatively attacking me because I "put OT law on Christians" but the problem with that is I don't. I have not told anyone what to do and certainly don't recommend anyone live their life based on the Tanakh.

That previous statement doesn't make me religious or not. I never said I was or wasn't religious, I don't think like that. But there is a difference between having a religion and religious persuasion.

My religion is none of your business, yes I have one. if you must know I am a Muslim.

My religious persuasion is a different story.

I am Spiritual, not religious. And I know Paul is a false prophet (specifically what I meant by religious persuasion).

I have exposed every aspect of the false apostle from who you derive your utterly dishonest ways from, Saul the false prophet.

You hate the FACT that you have been unable to counter a single point that I have made with anything resembling logic.

You have failed at every point to even offer a plausible alternative interpretation of the specifics I know so well BECAUSE I know them so well.

I may not like the false apostle Saul, but that doesn't mean I don't know the Bible and quite obviously better than you. You don't even know who Azazel is because you use an outdated and deficient translation and believe that the King James ''Authorized" version is ''the ONLY preserved word of God."

So God neglected the entire non English speaking world by making the KJV the only available accurate Bible in 1611 and that humans have learned nothing new about the OT and NT since then?

What lunacy!!!

We have learned a lot from the Dead Sea Scrolls, fragmentary or not some important issues have been resolved regarding Masoretic vs Septuagint issues that usually resulted in the Septuagint being more accurate to the original Hebrew of the Jews.

This is important to scholars and men and women of knowledge but a religio-fascist like yourself would probably burn the Scrolls to keep the knowledge in them from proving the inferiority of ANY Masoretic based translation.

The KJV is not the only Bible and far from the best. You are not a Bible scholar or even a well educated Christian. Your beliefs border on cultish and you behave like a child whenever you know you're wrong.

Stop running your mouth about me saying things that aren't true that you have no proof of.

I don't care how many times you say that you have emerged victorious in debate because anyone with one eye can tell that's not true at all. Just like they can tell I have not lied and am not trying to decieve anyone.

Everything I have said has been true and accurate and that is your real problem, not that I am lying but that I am right about Paul.

I dare you to quote one time I have lied or said something incorrect. You are the only lying deciever and that is why you don't mind making false claims.

Unfortunately the best you got is that I said I wasn't religious (having a religion doesn't make you religious, I am Spiritual and a Muslim but don't consider myself religious) then said you were negging me because of my religious persuasion, as if that somehow makes me dishonest.

The only other thing you can say (also a lie) is that I said Luke said Paul ate idol meat. And then to cover your lie you claim I may have edited the comment.

I didn't say it so how could I edit it?

You are defeated, I know it and with your lame lies obviously so do you.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

Again Your Opinion and not fact. Try quoting the AV or any version for that matter as your source of anyone including Paul ever ate meat offered to and Idol. It is always an opinion that some once did it because Paul addresses the issue. But no real proof Paul or Peter did it.

You are using deflection from the obvious.... Paul taught it was acceptable to eat idol meat....James and Jesus BOTH are recorded in scripture saying it's not acceptable.... ever. The issue is not whether Paul ate meat sacrificed to an idol, the issue is Paul taught it was ACCEPTABLE. You have no response to the obvious, so you are going down rabbit trails.

Nobody has been able to counter this issue and a few have tried.

It's not possible to explain how a so called and self proclaimed apostle could teach something that the Holy Spirit through James (recorded in Acts " Jerusalem Council") declared forbidden and Jesus Christ himself condemned as the ''doctrine of Balaam."

It's not possible to rationalize away, I have read the attempts and they are seriously void of logic and ignorant of facts.

Chester knows he can't counter this point with scripture or logic so he resorts to insults.

I think it would not hurt anything to just ignore him from now on. He has nothing to offer besides insults and hate.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Ok, I’m just going with logic here, I'm’ not even going to bring any scriptures into play…

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
People have rejected people for crazier reasons today you can find lots of it happening.

It’s not so much the reason given (by Paul) but the lack of other reasons for rejecting somebody, which is the crazy part.

If Paul was not a Christian, then I’m pretty sure they would have accepted him, chains or no chains…If he was a “believer” they would have accepted him too…

But Paul is supposed to be an Apostle!!!, that title should carry with it some weight and importance etc…so based on that alone, they shouldn’t have rejected him at all. Think about it, would they have so easily rejected say John, Matthew or Peter for example…

The only sensible reason for them rejecting him would be that they didn’t believe he was an Apostle and/or they rejected all or parts of what he was teaching/preaching…

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
Minister is easy to get the meaning. Paul ministered the gift to the saints in Jerusalem. Onesiphorus ministered the gift to Paul in Rome. Just study out the word in the NT. the base meaning is one giving to another whether it be the word of God or clothing or money.

What I meant in my last post by “we don’t know what minister to Paul really meant”, is that just because he (Onesiphorus) gave Paul food or a word of comfort etc…, doesn’t mean that he accepted Paul as an Apostle…

Unless we take Paul at his word!!!…but that would defeat the whole point of the discussion…

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
look at the context of the verse Paul says exactly why he was abandoned in Rome, they were ashamed of his chain. H claimed only Onesiphorus was not. He was a representative of the Church in Ephesus

Just rejecting someone based only on the fact they were in prison and had chains around their ankles, is something that only a bunch of non thinking, non caring barbarians would do…which in itself doesn’t add up…

But the fact that the Church in Ephesus sent out a representative to administer to Paul, while he was in Jail, does not match up to the idea that Paul was rejected by the whole Church, just because of his chains.

They clearly didn’t hold any grudges about Paul being in chains when they sent out their representative to help him; so the reason given by Paul, seems highly suspect to me personally.

Plus it doesn’t make much sense for the one representative to accept Paul, but for his whole congregation to reject him. It seems more likely that the Church rejected Paul much later, most probably after Onesiphorus reported back to the Ephesian Church after ministering to Paul…

Paul could have just made that part up, after all, a whole church has just rejected him. If Paul was to blame for their rejection, then he’s certainly not going to write down the real/true reason as to why.
- JC

I just wanted to add that a whole sub continent actually rejected him.

" This you know, all those who are in Asia have turned away from me."

So not only was Paul rejected by the 7 churches in Asia but it was well known to Timothy and probably many people outside of Asia, Paul was not a popular guy and from his attitude I can see why.

What I don't get is why the Roman Church thought him the pre eminent apostle when he isn't even an Apostle and was not liked or trusted by the real Apostles, as is apparent in Acts and his letters.

Barnabas ditches him in favor of J. Mark, others like Hermogenes ditch him.

Everything the guy does is disturbing, he is the false prophet of Matthew 24:23, of this I am sure.

It is baffling that people don't see this but then again you actually have to read it straight through to notice and most Christians actually have never done it.

a reply to: Malocchio

Eh Mollochio man, I was wondering if you could please flesh out your perspective on Mark 7:14-23, in the context of Revelation 2:14. What is your understanding of the doctrine of Balaam?

originally posted by: dffrntkndfnml
a reply to: Malocchio

Eh Mollochio man, I was wondering if you could please flesh out your perspective on Mark 7:14-23, in the context of Revelation 2:14. What is your understanding of the doctrine of Balaam?

Balaam taught Balak to put a stumbling block in front of Israel leading them into sin. He was a prophet who turned traitor.

The doctrine of Balaam is simply the teachings that it's OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols and fornication, to forsake God's commandments.

You only have to read Revelation to see what Jesus says the doctrine of Balaam is.

I will get back to you on Mark, I'll have to get my Bible and see.

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

Jesus did say what you eat doesn't defile you, after being rebuked for not washing his hands.

Does that mean that he didn't say that he eating meat sacrificed to idols was something he held against Pergamum?

Or that you can eat human flesh?

As far as I am concerned it only means that you can eat food that isn't Kosher and that washing your hands isn't going to make you a better person.

It doesn't have anything to do with the decree of the Holy Spirit at the Jerusalem Council or the message to Pergamum that eating meat sacrificed to idols was a stumbling block as is fornication.

There you have it. Fornication is a sin and so is eating idol meat.

While Paul doesn't condone fornication he deliberately defies the Holy Spirit by calling the decree not to eat idol meat for the "weak."

It's obviously designed to insult James and the ''circumcision faction" and Paul is a petty little B%&$$.

Calling the Holy Spirit and James ''weak" doesn't seem like a very Apostolic thing to do and teaching the opposite of what the Holy Spirit says to is... Satanic.