Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Well IF God is love like john says... and love is not Jealous...

how could the OT god be love?

Clearly he/she/it isn't love... And thus... not God

a reply to: JimNasium

Maybe Apostle Paul knew & wanted to give hints that there are other son of God, beside Jesus Himself to help Him minister those whom inherit salvation!!! ...

>>>Hebrews 1:14 Modern English Version (MEV)
14 Are "they" not all ministering spirits sent out to minister to those who will inherit salvation?

When describe about the Son whom inherit all things, in the last verse or to be exactly in >>>Hebrews 1:14 above, Apostle Paul wrote it by using plural personal pronouns not singular (or "they" instead of using "He" or just Jesus Himself), ... ???

So IMHO, ... it mean in above whole >>>Hebrews 1💬💬💬, it describes not just about Jesus Himself as the Son, but tell also that there is one other son of God or ministering spirit to minister those whom inherit salvation, and the other son of God is the reincarnation of King Solomon!!! ... thanks 😀😀😀


See my guess & opinion in below link:

plus.google.com...

.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Well IF God is love like john says... and love is not Jealous...

how could the OT god be love?

Clearly he/she/it isn't love... And thus... not God

My thoughts exactly.

a reply to: Akragon

Jealousy is part of love, as we can see all love lyrics poems etc. Although we may think of better way to love all people, as the Chinese medieval teachings go, still in life we have just the opposite. We love one, two, three, and in most cases the lover (partner) is only one.

Therefore in the OT the idolatry was compared to adultery: i.e. one abandons his real love (God) and goes after another one (the idols, the alien "gds" etc). That is a big question and I just mark it.

Today on earth we have certain rules of how to behave under "Love" condition. May be those rules are not applicable to the life in heaven or to the life on other planets. But we are still not there in first place.

My post was meant not just to answer your interesting post, but also to comment on Paul. For his time, Paul was the necessary change in the Christian doctrine. However his time passed many times over. I do not understand how Paul would be considered canonical as much important as the words of Jesus himself. We need new Pauls to redefine the words of Jesus in our time. As we are talking of love, in Middle ages it was appropriate to marry the boys and girls at the age of 12 so they do not sin and do not go to hell... Obviously that was never said by Jesus, although early marriages were something common in the Middle Eastern cultures. We need desperately a new reread of the Holy books and new updated interpretation of what sin is, of what God's will is, and what the normal human behavior should be expected to be.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Jealousy is a petty human emotion... not something Godly... or a trait any God should have...

Said god is Jealous because he knows there are others... but what could THE true God be jealous of?

When said God is unequaled... Jealousy isn't even an issue

One of the many issues with the OT god... He/she/it is likely man made...

Though IF said entity is real... it can not be The Father

a reply to: Akragon

well Im not going to convince you that jealousy is inseparable of any real human love. If it misses, it could mean you could love not only this pretty girl but also the next one and the next one, and so she could...and that goes too far from the idea of one original couple created by God. God speaks in human terms when he delivers his Bible messages thru prophets.

As long as the other gds or better say alien entities who shaped the civilizations, that is really long topic. First of all we have to determine their polarity, their own wars between themselves, as the Sumer books write about (wars that saw destroyed planets) and only then we could have a better view of their own relation to God of OT and NT. We lack facts in first place. it is good that the Jewish scholars now accept the Sumer books as history, factology, including the story of Nibiru. I.e. they gave up the antagonism described in the HISTORICAL part of the OT and now sit down to research the facts first and foremost. (let we also make difference between what is history in OT that is pretty bloody, what is Divine revelation, and what is human interpretation how that Divine revelation should be implemented in practical terms - i.e. all those multiple laws that are not part of the 10 commandments).

I justw ant to add about my previous post, that we need reread of the words of Jesus not to much of the canonical gospels, but also of all the words including apocrypha of John and other texts. It is unwise in 21st century to repeat the gross error of Constantine. Jesus said more than the 4 canonical gospels 3 of which are so identical, and we all know that. John himself wrote that Jesus said and did much more.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Such things would never come to light unless by surprise... like Nag Hammadi

I personally believe such information about Jesus is locked tightly away where the world will never see it...

Or buried in some stash of ancient documents... In any case all we can do is wait

Though i believe there is more then enough info in the 4 books

a reply to: Akragon

OK, I just started a new thread about love, Jesus' sexuality, how it should be today, or anything else you might think of it...
www.abovetopsecret.com... And I do not have the answers!

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: ChesterJohn

You have done such a twist on 2 Corinthians 11 that is truly worthy of an Emmy. However I know what you have done as "sleight of men" Which is why I don't bite at your bait.

2 Corinthians 11New International Version (NIV)

Paul and the False Apostles

11 I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness. Yes, please put up with me! 2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.”[a] 6 I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. 7 Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. 10 As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11 Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!

12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

So, WHO pray tell....were the "super apostles" Paul was speaking about??? (this ought to be interesting).

OH WAIT!!! I just thought of something else!!
Didn't PAUL say himself, in 1 Corinthians "Love is patient, love is kind and IS NOT JEALOUS; love does not brag and is not arrogant,"

OH MY GOODNESS......Paul just contradicted HIMSELF. Because LOVE isn't JEALOUS.
Wait, let me quote Paul again in SECOND Corinthians....."I am JEALOUS for you with a GODLY JEALOUSY".
Huh....so which is it?? Is love jealous? Or is it not?


Oh...forgot something else (Paul just can't seem to quit hanging himself).....did you notice that in 1st Corinthians (you know, the LOVE VERSES)....he say's love does not BRAG AND IS NOT ARROGANT.
So, how does Paul get away with bragging and being arrogant...when he says (HIMSELF, ,mind you), that love doesn't do those things?
Paul can't seem to keep his own doctrine straight.

Good stuff. It seems Chester has no textual retort for... anything said about Paul in this thread. He hasn't approached anything logically and just says "Your opinion" "Deciever" and whatever else he can to distract from the fact that he has gotten in over his head.

Most people in online debates utilize the quote option when debating, Chester chooses not to because it would be impossible for him to make his false claims with the truth right above his false rhetoric.

It makes this easy...and fun!

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You have done such a twist on 2 Corinthians 11 that is truly worthy of an Emmy. However I know what you have done as "sleight of men" Which is why I don't bite at your bait.

2 Corinthians 11New International Version (NIV)

Paul and the False Apostles

11 I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness. Yes, please put up with me! 2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.”[a] 6 I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. 7 Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. 10 As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11 Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!

12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

So, WHO pray tell....were the "super apostles" Paul was speaking about??? (this ought to be interesting).

OH WAIT!!! I just thought of something else!!
Didn't PAUL say himself, in 1 Corinthians "Love is patient, love is kind and IS NOT JEALOUS; love does not brag and is not arrogant,"

OH MY GOODNESS......Paul just contradicted HIMSELF. Because LOVE isn't JEALOUS.
Wait, let me quote Paul again in SECOND Corinthians....."I am JEALOUS for you with a GODLY JEALOUSY".
Huh....so which is it?? Is love jealous? Or is it not?


Oh...forgot something else (Paul just can't seem to quit hanging himself).....did you notice that in 1st Corinthians (you know, the LOVE VERSES)....he say's love does not BRAG AND IS NOT ARROGANT.
So, how does Paul get away with bragging and being arrogant...when he says (HIMSELF, ,mind you), that love doesn't do those things?
Paul can't seem to keep his own doctrine straight.

There is no question that the super apostles are the 12 Apostles because he is concerned about his inferiority to them.

"I think I am not the least inferior to these super-apostles."

Nobody with any sense would try saying Paul speculated about his inferiority to some unknown to history false apostles pretending to be Christians at such an early stage.

It is not only improbable but nobody in Church history ever said anything about a group of false apostles that Paul was insecure about his status among, it is preposterous!!!

Good stuff.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

An opinionated twisted mess.

It proves nothing.

No, it's what the books says.

"An opiniated mess" that "proves nothing" is not exactly a scholarly rebuttal so I think it is safe to say that my analysis has proven much and you can't counter it with anything other than, as usual, false claims.

Now if you could tell me what it is that I said that's a mess or even opinion that might help you but we know it is not my opinion but what the Bible says.

My interpretation of the eternal sin is theologically correct even in Churches, it's the given interpretation in any Bible or at any study of.

My logic is sound. If you wish to prove otherwise I recommend quoting me over blind accusations without a comment to base them on.

Problem with that is you know that I am not guilty of that which you (worthless though I find your opinion to be) so falsey claim.

You are not going to convince anyone with your tactics of baseless accusations and repeated use of falsehoods and the word opinion, it's the equivalent of saying nothing.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

Your Comments do not the Bible make.

You have done such a twist on 2 Corinthians 11 that is truly worthy of an Emmy. However I know what you have done as "sleight of men" Which is why I don't bite at your bait.

really you need to grow up

Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

They do when I quote from it, which I have done heavily, so your statement is meaningless. I noticed you don't like to quote my comments, could it be because I do quote the Bible and never claimed that my personal comments (not quotes) were the Bible?

Because I never claimed that and do quote from the Bible heavily while you don't even quote the comments you are lying about.

I have not twisted anything and if anyone needs to grow up it's obviously your very immature self who can't muster a legitimate rebuttal to anything but just keeps saying the same ineffective rhetoric thinking that it has an effect.

I assure you, unless you choose a specific point, quote me and tell me how I am incorrect (at which point you know I will rebutt immediately and destroy your "rebuttal"), you have nothing but anger and angry words that serve no purpose and fool no one.

a reply to: Akragon


If you have not read it, Homilies and Recognitions, one of the oldest Christian documents in existence and the most sophisticated theologically, is a book that reveals much and is easy to find online.

It's a part of the Clementine literature that includes the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, letters from Peter and Clement to James and a satire of Paul using Simon Magus and a far from illiterate fisherman Peter teaching the true doctrine of the True Prophet or Christ.

I think you can Google Clementina or CCEL has it but I will get you a link if necessary.

a reply to: Malocchio

quotes are exact quotes but in your supposed quotes of a corrupted Bible mixed with personal opinion. Sorry that is injecting the text with your Opinions.

Simply said it is "OPINIONATED" Therefore the words of a man not the words of God.

I don't quote your post because I don't want to spread your poison via my replies throughout the thread. That is why I don't quote you. But you are wrong anyway.

However I did post some of your replies in your "Scapegoat Irony" thread.

a reply to: Malocchio

No It was what yo wanted the verses in 2 Corinthians to say. If you kept it in context you would know "who", "what", "when", "where", "why" and the "which" but you did not study the text or you would have did some sentence charting of the scriptures, as not to get the scriptures all twisted up in your mind. Charting the text is a very important step in Studying to show they self approved unto God, that helps to answer the 6 "w's" above as well as a how.

a reply to: Malocchio

NIV that is just a book I would expect you to have. It is not a word for word translation as any reliable version would be.

There are many instances in the NIV where a Hebrew or Greek word has many or multiple meanings, in the AV the Lord preserved the word in English that was literal and represented the Hebrew word more correctly in its duplicity of meanings. But in the NIV they have chosen the word in English that is just one of the possibilities of the translation of the Hebrew. This done all by inspiration of God via the Holy Ghost unto the translators.

For an example the word "Escheweth" as in Job "Escheweth evil". The English word chosen has multiple meanings just like the Hebrew has many meanings. It means to "hate", it means to "turn away", it means "not to wink an eye at", it means to "abhor", it means to "flee from", it means "not to rub elbows with", "remove oneself", to "depart from", to "rebel from" and much more. So the preserved word of God puts Escheweth so that when you are studying out the words of the text you can see the many meanings and have good application as a servant of God.

While the NIV chooses only "one" of the meanings of the Hebrew. Remember the NIV is an Opinionated Bible, that is it is what those translators Placed into the text what they felt was the best meaning for the word. thereby limiting the text to only one of the meanings of the Hebrew. This is why other versions have a different word there other than Escheweth" and this goes on throughout the text of the NIV and these other versions. That is why there is so many questions as to why bibles don't agree, they are choosing a singular meaning for a word where a broad meaning word is needed.

Just like"super" is one of the meanings of the Greek (huper) as well as "chiefest", or "best", "highest" or "superior". God inspired chiefest because it would represent those who were before him better than super did. Remember there were a lot of those early apostles that were martyred and died by the time of the writing of this Book. And there were a lot of itinerant preachers going around just like today fleecing the flock of the churches of God. In the case of huper, the word super cannot and does not make a good translation. If they had put superior that might have been a better choice but would make some apostles better than others (there were more than 12).

Plus there is no way from the text to indicate Paul was being sarcastic towards the original apostles, James, the brother of Jesus my Lord was an elder not a apostle, and he was not the writer of the book of James.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

your problem is NO RIGHT DIVISION and RIGHT UNDERSTANDING of scripture until then you will see everything through your rose colored glasses.

The Kingdom Gospel and the gospel of the grace of God, both given by Jesus are different and irreconcilable.

However, there are instances where their teachings are the same and very similar on certain issues but not the ones you want to hear.

Until you see the differences of the Gospel then you wont understand. But when it comes to 2 Corinthians 11 sorry you and Malocchino are in error and God is true.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

your problem is NO RIGHT DIVISION and RIGHT UNDERSTANDING of scripture until then you will see everything through your rose colored glasses.

I disagree. Matrixsurvivor has a scholarly grasp on the scriptures that escapes you and anyone who can't admit that Paul has issues within Orthodoxy that can't be resolved with the teachings of Jesus.

Anytime anyone displays a knowledge exceeding yours you claim they don't understand scripture, a rather ineffective tactic that you overuse to hide from the fact that you have yet to offer a sound refutation for the exposed false prophet Saul's many instances in scripture where he proves this himself.

The Kingdom Gospel and the gospel of the grace of God, both given by Jesus are different and irreconcilable.

Now that is a perfect example of a pseudo interpretation, interesting that you accuse me of something you are clearly guilty of yourself.

Who goes into which Kingdom, Chester?

If you admit to their being different and irreconcilable you effectively admit that Paul is a false prophet with his own ''gospel" that is at odds with Jesus and the 12.

Pardon the expression but, duh? We have been saying this all along but that Paul's gospel, being, as YOU said, irreconcilable with Jesus, is that of a false prophet.

Exactly as Jesus warned about in Matthew 24:23-

However, there are instances where their teachings are the same and very similar on certain issues but not the ones you want to hear.

Until you see the differences of the Gospel then you wont understand. But when it comes to 2 Corinthians 11 sorry you and Malocchino are in error and God is true.

Actually, "in error" is what you constantly refer to as opinion and just yours. It's a meaningless statement showing you are defeated textually and even though you admit that Paul has a separate gospel you can't see it for what it is, a lie.

Putting you in error. Not once have you selected a point brought up about Paul that proves his falseness and offered a rebuttal.

How many times can you accuse people of being wrong without offering any evidence?

a reply to: Malocchio

Eh man, did you listen to what the op brought to the table?

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

I can't answer that question without specifically knowing what was brought to the table.

The OP seems content to watch what he set in motion in relative non interference.

Maybe he is a deist!(jk).