Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: Akragon

I don't have to watch, I have seen the video already as I am not a fan of Saul/Paul.

Did he invent it? No, he corrupted the Nazarenes and Ebionites version of Yeshua by teaching people that the Torah is dead, a curse and that even Jewish converts to the Nazarenes should stop observing Torah, i.e. stop being Jewish.

He told people who submitted to circumcision that they were bound to the Torah even though he forced Timothy to get circumcised (a Greek) and he payed lip service to the Apostles but defied them behind their backs.

But Marcion was the first Pauline Christian to publish the epistles and it would seem unlikely that they are not interpolated to suit the needs of Roman Catholicism and the originals destroyed.

So we'll never know if they are genuine, even the so called genuine epistles are suspect and Catholicism has admitted that they are interpolated and some pseudepigraphal altogether.

You just need to listen to Jesus and the genuine Apostles teachings, Paul was a nobody and his writings stink and are opposed to the teachings of the Gospels.

What does that tell you?

James and Peter weren't Christians and neither was Jesus.

Christianity is a Greco-Roman pseudo Judaic religion that can't stand scrutiny because it's a rip off of the Nazarene Way and a Roman pagan religion.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Wow Ak pushing Gnosticism

Sounds like preaching to me, is that allowed here now

Ak knows I disagree, an hour of my time better spent chasing pokemon

What's your beef with Gnosticism?

It's not like it's evil or anything, it's just a Christian sect that valued knowledge that had books about Jesus that might be considered heretical to Catholics.

But who cares what Catholics think or for that matter Christians, who are robotic and anti everything?

Nobody cares what Christians think anymore, it's not like they read Gnostic material so it's out of ignorance they fear Gnosticism.

But the OP said nothing about Gnostics and the Gnostics loved Paul so you just said that, he wasn't pushing anything just proposing a question and if you think Gnostics didn't like Paul, think again.

They had at least two books about Paul.

Paul hated Gnosticism because he wanted to be the ONLY one with Gnosis. He was basically the one who inspired Gnosis with his supernatural claims of heavenly ascent.

I just hate people that hate on religions because it's not THEIR religion, it's jealousy or superstition that makes people do that. Not because you know the truth.

You asked if it was ''allowed'' to push Gnosticism. Are you trying to make ATS a Christian only website?

That's never going to happen because not everyone is Christian and some Gnostics actually are Christians, just not your version so just for saying that I am going to make a thread on Gnosticism because I hate discrimination and though I am not a Gnostic I will defend any and all beliefs that are not harmful, Gnosticism is not evil.

Discrimination is.

a reply to: LucianusXVII

I disagree, Ak is welcome to his beliefs, good on him
I disagree
That's it

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: LucianusXVII

I disagree, Ak is welcome to his beliefs, good on him
I disagree
That's it

You obviously have a problem with Gnosticism as you insinuated that it shouldn't be allowed, even that it wasn't allowed, or did you forget making that comment?

So I guess I got my point through to you as you have done a 180° and are suddenly tolerant, a rather quick change of mind.

Maybe you should just stop insulting other people's beliefs now. Live and let live. Offer your opinion if you must but don't outright insult someone for having Gnostic beliefs because I don't think you know what it means and doubt you are qualified to pass judgment. Your obviously a traditional Christian but that doesn't mean you should go on threads that have nothing to do with Gnosticism and say negative things about it. It makes you look rather foolish since there is nothing wrong with Gnosticism.

As for the topic of this thread, "Did Paul invent Christianity?"

He definitely invented Pauline theology and didn't ever meet Christ, so he invented Christianity. Jesus and the Apostles were Nazarenes, the difference being Paul and his crappy writings that aren't compatible with Jesus' teachings and contradictory a lot of time.

Christianity has done more evil than any religion in history, they don't follow the teachings of Christ but do follow Paul. They might read the Gospels but they don't imitate (or at least try) Jesus at all but do act like Paul.

Which is why they are the way they are, annoying hypocrites.

a reply to: LucianusXVII

Oh well you are the winner then

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: ChesterJohn

There is no rule for what day Christians should assemble
This is the issue, many are blaming Paul for demanding Sunday worship when in fact Christians are called to worship everyday

Paul never demanded anyone meet on Sunday the first day of the week. He said this,

Romans 14:5, 6 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or []in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

I think that Greeks invented Christianity using the so called Pauline epistles, but I don't think Saul the Pharisee met the already dead man people call the Messiah and received secret teachings not in conformity with what Yeshua taught to his personally selected Apostles and Matthias, the 12th and last Apostle.

The fact that only Paul calls Paul an apostle says that they didn't consider him an equal and didn't believe his story or ''conversion."

By the middle of Acts you already see that James is against what Paul is teaching and summons him to Jerusalem to deny it. Paul goes on his own after this and declares himself an apostle of the lord and the 12 Apostles ''of men."

So HE believes he is superior and this is when he begins trying to make a theology out of the death of Yeshua. Of course none of it makes sense.

Jesus didn't say his death was an atonement or call the Torah ''a curse'' but preached obedience to it with love and common sense.

He showed people how to fulfill in 2 commandments: Love God, love everyone. That doesn't mean he was anti Torah like Paul was.

Most if not all Pauls epistles are forgeries. Nobody knows outside of his letters and Acts anything about Saul/Paul and if his missionary journies were so successful where is the independent corroboration that he even existed from, say, a historian of the first century.

Josephus is silent and so is the whole ancient world.

Paul was a literary invention, not a real person so whoever invented Paul...invented grace ''theology.''

Abomination that it is.

originally posted by: Malocchio

I think that Greeks invented Christianity using the so called Pauline epistles, but I don't think Saul the Pharisee met the already dead man people call the Messiah and received secret teachings not in conformity with what Yeshua taught to his personally selected Apostles and Matthias, the 12th and last Apostle.

The fact that only Paul calls Paul an apostle says that they didn't consider him an equal and didn't believe his story or ''conversion."

By the middle of Acts you already see that James is against what Paul is teaching and summons him to Jerusalem to deny it. Paul goes on his own after this and declares himself an apostle of the lord and the 12 Apostles ''of men."

So HE believes he is superior and this is when he begins trying to make a theology out of the death of Yeshua. Of course none of it makes sense.

Jesus didn't say his death was an atonement or call the Torah ''a curse'' but preached obedience to it with love and common sense.

He showed people how to fulfill in 2 commandments: Love God, love everyone. That doesn't mean he was anti Torah like Paul was.

Most if not all Pauls epistles are forgeries. Nobody knows outside of his letters and Acts anything about Saul/Paul and if his missionary journies were so successful where is the independent corroboration that he even existed from, say, a historian of the first century.

Josephus is silent and so is the whole ancient world.

Paul was a literary invention, not a real person so whoever invented Paul...invented grace ''theology.''

Abomination that it is.

Gnosisisfaith/LucianusXVII, we have heard you so many times over the last 10 months it is getting a little old. your so called "Grace theology" goes back to the OT when Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Not to mention that Adam and Eve also found that same grace when God killed an animal and made atonement for their sin with that blood, clothed them with the coats of skins of those animals as a reminder of their sin. If not for God's grace there would be no human alive today.

If you read the Bible over and over more than one can count, as I have for 20 plus years, you will see the supernatural cross references that God put in his preserved word that show the teaching of grace goes back way before Paul.

You like others seem to forget that Paul also called other apostles before him that were not of the 11, or the 12th, 13th or 14th(which was not Paul either).

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Paul is the Antichrist.

The amount of people waking up to the truth about Paul is staggering, the hardliners are the fully indoctrinated who think they are the new ''chosen people.''

The type of people who want everyone to see things as they do and can't deal with the fact that Jesus wasn't a Christian and neither were the real 12 Apostles who knew him.

People don't want to learn about Jesus from a guy who never actually met him, he doesn't have a very solid story and he is both the false prophet spoken of by Christ and one of the 3 Beasts of Revelation.

He was a traitor to everyone he ever met that wouldn't kiss his a×× and do things his way.

A liar, con artist and seeker of admiration of men, no friend of God. Even the Epistle of James hints at this without naming names. You have to read between the lines but study it out, it's there.

I think the most telling thing about the Pauline epistles are the lack of Torah comprehension. He was a scheister and not a Torah scholar. He uses the Septuagint which is unlikely if he were a real Pharisee and hates the most Righteous person alive after the death of Jesus, James the Just who he constantly insults and calls names. He brags about a confrontation with Peter that shouldn't be bragged about in a letter if he was a real man of God (he likely made it up or whoever wrote under his name did.)

Many of his letters are acknowledged forgeries that were passed off as genuine for centuries but no longer.

One forgerie ruins the claim of the ''inerrant, inspired word of God.''

a reply to: Malocchio

The amount of people rejecting the Bible in mass is nothing new. Put is is said,

2Th 2:3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

And you saying that the son of perdition is Paul, that is totally laughable if it were not a crying shame of the rejection of scripture to which is what is meant by a great falling away.

So when people start turning from the word of God, in mass to the law and reject almost a two thirds of of the NT and over a quarter of the entire bible or more, then that is the fulfillment of 2 Thess 2:3,

Even so come Lord Jesus and come quickly.

About Paul not quoting the Torah. the torah consists of the first five books of the Bible, and Paul refers to the torah many times. Especially the book of Genesis, and the book of Leviticus in regard to Jesus Self Sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. And more.

You are just not familiar enough with the Bible to know that. so come back when you can truthfully speak and not parrot some anti-christ/anti-Paul Anti-christ who is teaching you via youtube who is preparing the great falling away.

John's epistles identity Paul as antichrist.

1 John 4:1

Dear friends, don't believe everyone who claims to have the Spirit of God. Test them to find out if they really come from God. Many false prophets have gone already gone into the world.

4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,...

4:6 We [Apostles] are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

2:19 These people [antichrists] came from our own group, yet they were not part of us. If they had been part of us, they would have stayed with us. But they left, which proves that they did not belong to our group.[Paul]

2 John 1:9 Anyone who does doesn't abide in the teachings of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teachings has both Father and Son.

Paul did not listen to the 12 Apostles. Galatians 2:1-9 he rants about the Apostolic Church: 3 But because of false believers secretly brought in...to spy on the freedom which we have in Christ, so that they might enslave us...6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they are makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)---those leaders contributed nothing to me.

He goes on to claim that the same acknowledged pillars who contributed nothing to him agreed to let him preach among the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews as long as he remembers the poor. This contradicts the book of Acts 15:7 Peter says :

''My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I [Peter] should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of thr gospel and become believers.''

This is at the same council Paul CLAIMS that he was given permission to be the one to deliver the good news to the Gentiles and the 12 and Peter would preach to ''the circumcised.'' [Galatians 2:9]

I doubt Luke, Pauls pal, would lie in Peter's favor about the council. If Luke quotes Peter and confirms that Peter was the TRUE Apostle to the Gentiles there is no reason to doubt it.

So not only does Paul defy the outcome of the council but he falsley claims that he is the apostle to the Gentiles when Luke records that's Peter's role, PER GOD'S DECREE.

Also Paul claims that Jesus was ''in the likeness of human flesh... likeness of sinful flesh,... and in Philippians 2:7 '' being born in human likeness.

So based on the epistles of John's rules for recognizing decievers and basic common sense, comparison to Paul's own epistles, Paul is according to scripture a false teacher who is disobedient to the teachings and Apostles of Christ (AND Christ), denies the real humanity of Christ in Docetic lingo, then he goes on his own away from the brethren to start a heretical faction.

Paul is a false prophet and his story is absurdly easy to disprove. I don't know what is so hard about Jesus teachings or so repulsive about the real Apostles to churches today but they are the real deal and he is a phony.

JOHNS EPISTLES AND PAUL THE FALSE PROPHET

a reply to: ChesterJohn



I'm more knowledgeable than you, you can not even figure out how Paul is a false prophet and are being bitter about it so you think saying that I am not knowledgeable enough is your ''revenge'' on me for being more knowledgeable than you and not agreeing with you because you are obviously vindictive enough to assume you know the extent of my knowledge.

You would have to be clairvoyant to actually know how much I know and knowledge aside for the moment I understand the vast knowledge of the Bible I happen to have and I think you're just betraying your anger by trying to claim psychic ability.

It's typical Christian behavior, the ''I know more than you (without actually knowing more) because I am a Christian" approach.

I couldn't care less what you think I know.
Which is a lot.

I am self taught so I don't have the whole mind control brain washing issues that Christians do. Not only do I know A TON of facts but I also comprehend the meaning of the scriptures.

I doubt (but I am not psychic, just based on what I can assess of your character through your entertaining but wrong understanding) that you know much of anything about the Bible beyond church doctrine aka programming.

a reply to: Malocchio

I think the most telling thing about the Pauline epistles are the lack of Torah comprehension. He was a scheister and not a Torah scholar. He uses the Septuagint which is unlikely if he were a real Pharisee and hates the most Righteous person alive after the death of Jesus, James the Just who he constantly insults and calls names. He brags about a confrontation with Peter that shouldn't be bragged about in a letter if he was a real man of God (he likely made it up or whoever wrote under his name did.)

Reading your rant against Paul is interesting and I realize that nothing I could show would improve your hatred. One thing that I was interested in was when you said that Paul had a lack of Torah Comprehension and that he was a Shiester. By this do you mean that Paul was a shyster? May I ask in what respect did Paul deceive?

In reference to Torah I have a question for you. Jesus observed all of Torah while alive. He also gave His brother, James, the authority to be the foundation of Christianity. Paul was not converted till about five years after the death of Jesus. Who gave James permission to change Torah and forbid sacrifice of animals and birds? Being that Paul was not converted till long after this change is it not true that James changed Torah?

By this exchange it affected the tribute to Rome in that the Nazarene's would not contribute to the Temple sacrifice in any matter. Where is it in any known bible that James had the authority to change Torah? You cannot lay this upon Paul. Does this then, by your standards of judgment, also condemn James? Now that the Jerusalem temple was finally done away with in 135 CE and all Jews from that time till this day do not sacrifice, does this mean that Torah is no longer needed? Now if Paul was as you have implied then would James also be put in the same basket?

Apparently you are a linguist or scholar of some means when you state that - "Many of his letters are acknowledged forgeries that were passed off as genuine for centuries but no longer." - Would you clarify that statement with some facts?

You see the fallacy in hatred and untruths when you do not unfold truth. If the Creator gave Torah that the Hebrews may be saved, why then would the same Creator cause Torah to be destroyed and the same people perish from not obeying Torah? Is that the case or effect of a bad Creator who simply plays with His creation? You are teaching that Paul changed or neglected Torah and yet you will not condemn James or the Creator for doing the same. Why is that? Could it be that you yourself are not understanding and that Paul did understand?

One last question if I may. Who is the Creator that gave Torah? If you know the answer then you will understand that you are mistaken in you understanding.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith/LucianusVI/Malocchio
I can tell when one is not familiar with scriptures. You may b knowledgeable in some teachings of men but Not the preserved Bible. That is all I meant

To accuse me of vengeance and vindictiveness makes you more of the clairvoyant than me because there is not way without intonation of speech and body language you could of came to that conclusion. Remember we are not speaking face to face but via text medium. So you would have to be a psychic to even conclude any emotions like vengeance or vindictiveness. and besides I have no reason unless you are who I suspect you to be.

John, Peter James et al gave Paul the right hand of fellowship and accepted the Gospel of the grace of God which he taught as the gospel to the uncircumcised.

Sorry you and your teachers seem more like anti-christs than Pau At least he followed Christ and engcouraged us to do so too.

a reply to: Malocchio

John's epistles tell us those who do not teach the doctrine of Christ being God come in the flesh were anti-christs.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

a reply to: Seede

Why do you assume that I hate?

My disdain for false prophets like Paul in no way is out of hate, nay, it's my love of the truth that drives me to expose the false prophet called Paul.

I love Jesus, his teachings and the Apostolic Church of God. Assuming that truth telling=hate is an error on your part.

Were I full of hate would I study the New Testament so vigorously? This study and love of Christ and his genuine Apostles is what led me to the truth after years of error.

I hate evil and lies but I can forgive Paul and anyone else, I feel sorry for people who fall for the false teachings of Pauline theology.

But I think the accuser (of hate) would likely be the real person who is full of hate. You hate my love of truth and the fact that I like exposing lies because those lies sound like truth to you.

I just don't stop exposing lies because wide roaders think that they are truths and I never will. You have 2 choices, ignore me or learn the truth for yourself.

Accusing me of hate betrays some telling characteristics you possess. You equate love of Christ with hate.

Odd. If I hated anyone why would I concern myself with spreading the truth? Just because it's not considered true to Christians in the majority doesn't make it not true. It just means I have great analytical skills and know that the story of Paul is one of an angry deciever who causes contention and talks poorly of the chosen Apostles of Christ and teaches falsehoods for his own glory.

I am sorry you are so angry that you need to accuse me of hate, I hope you get over it.

Salaam.

It's terrible but nothing Paul says is trustworthy as his account of things doesn't agree with Acts account, like ''The right hand of fellowship '' and ''remember the poor'' neither of which happens in Acts, quite the opposite actually.

Paul is accused of going astray from the teachings of Christ and he actually doesn't deny this but confirms it! Well, when the Apostles aren't around that is.

Paul is a two face who pays lip service to gain acceptance and then declares his independence and superiority as the one w with the ''true gospel.''

I am afraid Paul is a liar and it's rather obvious at that.

a reply to: Malocchio

See like I said you don't or are not familiar with the preserved word of God enough to know what Paul said about the collections for the poor so that he would have too take up an offering but that it would be ready by the time he came.

the "right hand of fellowship was his acceptance in preaching the gospel of the grace of God. he welcomed all the saints an only a few did he ever have to rebuke and removes fro fellowship.

I would believe that you and your teachers f the doctrines of men concerning Paul and yoking people today under the law are the liars and false teachers.

a reply to: Malocchio
Sorry I could not find the term "Apostolic church of God' anywhere in scripture. Therefore it must be someone added the doctrines of man as to this supposed church.

you fail to included all the additional apostles that are mentioned in the word of God, you only want the eleven and Mathias but no others. Which means you don't believe the word of God and have not the Holy Ghost.

If I am not mistaken LucianusXVII/Gnosisisfaith we have been over this throughout your numerous threads by your numerous false ATS accounts already.