Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: Malocchio

Fair enough. I was wondering if you had a chance to listen to the presentation. It may help add some greater context...

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
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.

I don't even own an NIV, can't stand any Masoretic based translation especially the NIV.

All my quotes from my Bible have been NRSV/W APOCRYPHA, one of the most trusted modern translations and using the oldest available texts.

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.

Irrelevant to me, I have no idea what led you to the errant conclusion that I use the NIV but I use the NRSV all day.

Azazel is not mentioned in the NIV, you should know this, yet you know my Bible does mention Azazel because it is faithful to the true tradition of ancient Israel.

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.

I have already mentioned in this thread that James was not an Apostle which is why I say James and the 12 often, you don't notice anything do you?

Yes, it is indicated that ''super Apostles" was sarcastic as he goes on to compare them to Satan, maybe a paragraph or two later and denounced all the Apostles which is as good as denouncing Jesus, never mind James.

I would seriously stop pretending to be a Biblically knowledgeable person because you acknowledge ''super Apostles" as being a comment about the 12 but don't realize a few passages later he calls them false apostles and ministers of Satan.

You stink at debating, make things up out of the blue and hurl insults like shot puts at the Olympics but you clearly have no regard for the truth, what you want to be true is, to you, true no matter how much evidence and proof exists that it's not true.


I literally have no clue why you decided on an anti NIV polemic but I don't have one.

Tradition is that James the Just is the author of that Epistle, it matches his theology and either way I am not worried about it.

It's a refutation of Pauline theology is what's important, "Faith without works is dead."

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

I watched that video previously to him even making the thread, Jews who study Christianity have relatively vindicated Christ realizing that Paul was responsible for his deification and the terribly anti Semitic theology.


Muslim scholars also recognize this fact as do many Christian scholars, it's no secret, the Ebionites rejected Paul and they were first.

Even T. Jefferson said ''The first person who corrupted Christs teachings was Paul."

I believe this has been mentioned I am just saying it's not a theory just a matter of awareness regarding Paul being the enemy of Jewish Christianity is in the Bible.

He called the Apostles ministers of Satan for f's sake!!!

a reply to: Malocchio

Ok I give it to you it was Matrixsurviver in you reply post. I apologize but my reply is still true as to the renderings of any Bible for most if not all do the same and remove scriptures as well.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

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).

It doesn't matter if you use "super" or "superior". The point is, Paul was jealous of them. Big time. Those Paul IS jealous of are those whom Jesus CHOSE (which would be the 11, plus Matthias who replaced Judas).

Not only that, but just WHO said there were more apostles than 12? It wasn't Jesus. The only person who conveniently changed that and leaves that door open for himself would be Paul.
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;” Eph 4:11 (KJV)

Once again, can you show where JESUS said there were more than TWELVE apostles?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Fine. But the NRSV is as reliable an English translation as there is and while I don't consider the KJV a bad translation it has flaws that the NRSV resolves.

Any Masoretic based translation is inferior because the Masoretic replaced the word God with Israel:

Sons of God/Angels of God is rendered Sons of Israel.

In other words Israel is not God but according to the Masoretic texts it was the Sons of Israel that determine the number of nations.

This is not correct, the tradition is 70 nations with 70 angels/Sons of God, one per nation, is the true tradition.

So you don't have a leg to stand on claiming it the ONLY preserved word of God.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

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

You are correct....that they are irreconcilable. You are wrong that they were both given by Jesus, though.
You are spouting, Jesus decided to change His whole message after He was killed...and give it to one murdering Pharisee.

You still can't support Paul with Jesus' words. You have YET to do so.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: ChesterJohn

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).

It doesn't matter if you use "super" or "superior". The point is, Paul was jealous of them. Big time. Those Paul IS jealous of are those whom Jesus CHOSE (which would be the 11, plus Matthias who replaced Judas).

Not only that, but just WHO said there were more apostles than 12? It wasn't Jesus. The only person who conveniently changed that and leaves that door open for himself would be Paul.
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;” Eph 4:11 (KJV)

Once again, can you show where JESUS said there were more than TWELVE apostles?

I have mentioned this 5 times but it's appropriate to mention again.

Revelation 21:12 New Jerusalem

It has a great high wall with twelve gates, and at the twelve gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names of the TWELVE tribes of Israel...14 And the wall of the city has TWELVE foundations, and on them are the TWELVE names of the TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb.

John is clearly making a statement that Jesus supports only twelve Apostles, the importance of 12 in the passage is unmistakable proof that no possibility of Paul or anyone after Matthias can be an Apostle.

12 tribes, 12 Apostles. Numbers are important in Hebrew culture and the significance of 12 is sacred.

Paul is the only one who calls himself an Apostle without any Apostolic confirmation and in violation of the rules of eligibility that Acts records regarding being an Apostle.

Christian scripture is like a sick joke when you include Paul and I bet a running inside joke with the early Latin Church that only the elect were aware of.

a reply to: Malocchio

We are not saying the twelve in Rev is not his chosen disciples who are the chief apostles. But there were more than 12 after his resurrection, because an apostle is one who had seen Christ from his birth, his earthly ministry and seen his resurrection and his teachings after the Resurrection. There were more than 500 recorded. Though Paul did not see him at his resurrection or his few days after on earth, he did see him when he appeared to him in the light that appeared unto him on the road to Damascus and received teachings from him after after words, like the gospel of the grace of God he was to testify thereof.

Look you have a twisted view of Paul and his ministry I am not one to fall for your sleight of men's opinions

The other thing ''Wisdom" reveals in Revelation is ominous.

666 the Beast is Paul.

TRSV is how Tarsus would be rendered in English letters and their Hebrew equivalents in Gematria, Hebrew numbers having numeric value, equal 666.

Tarsus=666 because Paul is the beast.

Revelation 2:2
He is also one of ''Those who say they are Apostles, and are not, and [Ephesus] have found them to be false.

Although Acts specifically says Paul was "Forbidden from preaching in Asia" it seems he defied the Spirit and preached to Ephesus.

Evidently they tested him and rejected him as did "All those who are in Asia" the recipients of the book of Revelation.

Paul has no stake in the Kingdom of God or New Jerusalem.

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: ChesterJohn

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).

It doesn't matter if you use "super" or "superior". The point is, Paul was jealous of them. Big time. Those Paul IS jealous of are those whom Jesus CHOSE (which would be the 11, plus Matthias who replaced Judas).

Not only that, but just WHO said there were more apostles than 12? It wasn't Jesus. The only person who conveniently changed that and leaves that door open for himself would be Paul.
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;” Eph 4:11 (KJV)

Once again, can you show where JESUS said there were more than TWELVE apostles?

I have mentioned this 5 times but it's appropriate to mention again.

Revelation 21:12 New Jerusalem

It has a great high wall with twelve gates, and at the twelve gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names of the TWELVE tribes of Israel...14 And the wall of the city has TWELVE foundations, and on them are the TWELVE names of the TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb.

John is clearly making a statement that Jesus supports only twelve Apostles, the importance of 12 in the passage is unmistakable proof that no possibility of Paul or anyone after Matthias can be an Apostle.

12 tribes, 12 Apostles. Numbers are important in Hebrew culture and the significance of 12 is sacred.

Paul is the only one who calls himself an Apostle without any Apostolic confirmation and in violation of the rules of eligibility that Acts records regarding being an Apostle.

Christian scripture is like a sick joke when you include Paul and I bet a running inside joke with the early Latin Church that only the elect were aware of.

Thanks. I think Jesus might have just "mentioned" to John, that there were more than twelve, on that island of Patmos, lol. He also didn't say a peep about the "grace period for the gentiles". If you notice, all of the letters to the seven churches talk about DEEDS and WORKS....and keeping HIS (Jesus') WORDS.

It's also ironic that NONE of the true apostles, contradict Jesus. Their job was to simply repeat and teach what He taught them....to all the world.

It's only Paul who threw a wrench into all of it, and created the mess we see of "the church" today.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

We are not saying the twelve in Rev is not his chosen disciples who are the chief apostles. But there were more than 12 after his resurrection,

Not according to Revelation or Acts which both clearly state 12 and Acts limits the amount of eligible Apostles to two candidates and chooses one.

Because twelve is a fixed number, according to Acts and Revelation.

because an apostle is one who had seen Christ from his birth, his earthly ministry and seen his resurrection and his teachings after the Resurrection.

And Paul doesn't qualify so you are unwittingly admitting that you are wrong.

There were more than 500 recorded. Though Paul did not see him at his resurrection or his few days after on earth, he did see him when he appeared to him in the light that appeared unto him on the road to Damascus and received teachings from him after after words, like the gospel of the grace of God he was to testify thereof.

I think his story of meeting Christ is deliberately told in irreconcilably alternate versions and a load of crap.

Who are the two or one witnesses to corroborate the encounter? They don't exist.

Paul simply didn't know Christ and made up an encounter that matches the false prophet prophecy of Matthew 24:23 TO A T.

Look you have a twisted view of Paul and his ministry I am not one to fall for your sleight of men's opinions

I think ''twisted view of Paul..." is a mans, yours, opinion and not true.

I have the correct view of the false prophet Saul 666 the beast and you have been tricked by Balaam who is Paul, your stumbling block.

a reply to: Malocchio

Yeah and Chesterjohn and Malocchino also = 666 but that doesn't make me or you the antichrist. Nor does it Paul. Remember people must take the mark of the beast something that did not take place during the time of Paul. So Revelation is still future prophecy to be fulfilled.

Rev 2 is also talking of those Paul wrote about in 2Corinthians that were fleecing the flock of the churches of God. So Rev and 2 Cor are actually cross references to each other teaching the same thing. If it was Paul they would have named him outright because that is what would need to be done. You take the silence of scriptures of whom the false apostles are to mean Paul, but there is not proof it is speaking of him mainly because Paul was dead and gone by the time John wrote tot he seven churches.

a reply to: Malocchio

Once again you show that you do not believe God preserved his words as promised and has let a thief sneak in and steal his sheep.

God is mightier than your twist on Paul.

Sorry but I believe the preserved Bible over you.

You make Paul to be someone he is not. Many believe that the beast 666 will be a resurrected Judas Iscariot.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

Once again you show that you do not believe God preserved his words as promised and has let a thief sneak in and steal his sheep.

I just followed Jesus words and Paul is a false prophet and a test of loyalty that you failed. You are a Pauline and not of the Spirit.

God is mightier than your twist on Paul.

Sorry but I believe the preserved Bible over you.

You make Paul to be someone he is not. Many believe that the beast 666 will be a resurrected Judas Iscariot.

Paul made Paul who I have shown to be a false prophet with Biblical proof.

Not me. I didn't write his lousy letters.

Many believe a lot of stupid things, however I can show how Paul of Tarsus is 666 nobody I know thinks it's Judas, you have strange sources.

And still not a single rebuttal to a single point anyone has made.

You don't even realize that you effectively admitted Paul teaches a false gospel, you are just a disciple of that false gospel and reject Christ, failing the promised test of the false prophet.

a reply to: Malocchio

But how do you know any of Jesus words are recorded to be true if you don't believe God preserved his words to this generation as promised in Ps12:6,7?

Here is more Biblical proof that Jesus predicted Saul the false prophet:

Matthew 24:23

"Then, if anyone says to you, 'Look! Here is the Messiah!' or 'There he is!---do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Take note, for I have told you beforehand. So if they say to you, 'Look! He is in the wilderness, do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.

Paul's Epistles contain Omens, he claims to have done miracles, he claims to have secretly (inner rooms) in the wilderness (Damascus road, desert is wilderness in that area) met Jesus.

24:25 The parable of the faithful vs unfaithful ''slave." This is also applicable.

Unfortunately someone, or as ChesterJohn would say "some men" decided to include in the Bible the false prophet Saul.

It's but a test from God to see if you, like the men who killed Jesus, will reject Christ at the appearance of a false prophet.

It's a test of intelligence, a "Spiritual litmus©.'

a reply to: Malocchio

Same question, how do you know any of the Bible is true and recorded correctly if in fact you don't believe that God preserved his words to this generation?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

But how do you know any of Jesus words are recorded to be true if you don't believe God preserved his words to this generation as promised in Ps12:6,7?

If you have to ask an irrelevant question like this why not find another thread?

It's not a rebuttal to the proof that Paul is a false prophet, you know that you are incapable of this and are just being a judgemental and spiteful hater.

Your comment means nothing, what I believe has been stated and I have made it clear that I am loyal to the Apostles and James and Jesus but reject the false apostle Saul.

a reply to: Malocchio

There is no proof except your twisted logic that find Paul as being a false prophet.\Most of Acts records Paul's activities that he indeed was a true Prophet for his words came true as recorded in Acts. If he was not an apostle they would not have included Paul in the Acts of the Apostles.

But then again you don't believe God is powerful enough to keep his word, and preserve his words to this generation as he promised.