Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Theologies are based on MEN's interpretation of what they feel is the word of God. It does not mean that is exactly what God is saying. God gives no room for us the Gentile church to replace Israel.

Go ahead and follow men and their Christianity and reject Paul all day ling. Because in the end you are wrong and God and his word is true.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

But what you think I should already know goes against what the word of God says.

No... no it doesn't...

HIS commandments consisted of two rules.... which all the law and the prophets hang on

again, you would know this if you got your head out of Paulian doctrine

you do not want to accept God's word where it speaks plainly and so you say "men wrote the Bible" or "it is corrupted by men"

Apparently neither do you... said laws are as clear as day...

And said book is both altered, and written by men

Who should I believe?

God who promised and preserved his words to this generation forever?

Or You who says the word of God was just written by men?

You are free to Believe whatever you like...

My grievance is this.

How can people who do not believe God is powerful enough to keep his word and preserve his words to every generation forever, then want to argue over those words when they have no assurety that what they FEEL is correct is actually correct at all?

It really has nothing to do with the power of God.... its about a book that was written over a long period of time by many people...

The issue is that you're so wrapped up in your own doctrine, which includes the absurdity of infallibility that you haven't even checked IF its actually true... or just a claim... You just believe, yet the same book says "prove all things"

As far as they know they could be wrong. We have only one truth to judge all things by and that is the word of God. If it is not preserved for us then we have no assurance of anything to be true because it could have been corrupted by men.

More nonsense....

What is true for one person is not always the same for the next...

I stand on God's promised and preserved word and when anyone disagrees with it and says it is wrong. I know they are wrong and God's word is true.

Well you go right ahead and base your entire life on a passage in Psalms

*shrug*

Its your life brother

a reply to: Akragon
again you don't believe in a preserved word of God and what you so believe is that it is written by men. In Either case why are you trying to argue scriptures when you don't believe it to be true.

How can you be sure what he commanded if you believe the word of God was written by man?

you are so sure that Paul created a false doctrine but then it all comes from something written from men.

Maybe those men created it to look as if Paul created a false doctrine so they could yoke men under the law of tithing to fleece the flock of God.

The sad part is this. the one bible that has all the verses says Paul's doctrine comes form Christ. Not from men

1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

As you can see it has all to do with the power of God. the power of God to preserve as promised and the power of God to inspire it at the time Paul received it.

Your problem like that of Malocchino and Matrixsurvier is the same. The denial that God could preserve his word as promised and then to do it. and that we have a preserved word of God today that we can hold in our hands.

You have a weaker stance than I in arguing the word of God with me. Your stand is it is men's work. It is my stand that God has preserved his word as promised and I hold it in my hand today.

I stand on the solid rock of the truth of God you stand on the weakness of men.

So please stop trying to use the Bible to prove your point. Unless you are willing to concede that God preserved his word to all generations forever.

Chester..read the Words of Jesus.. Just Him. It would do you a lot of good.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

again you don't believe in a preserved word of God and what you so believe is that it is written by men.

Pretty sure we covered this twice already.... why do you keep repeating yourself?

In Either case why are you trying to argue scriptures when you don't believe it to be true.

Why do you keep repeating yourself.... over and over again

you are so sure that Paul created a false doctrine but then it all comes from something written from men.

Maybe those men created it to look as if Paul created a false doctrine so they could yoke men under the law of tithing to fleece the flock of God.

The sad part is this. the one bible that has all the verses says Paul's doctrine comes form Christ. Not from men

No... it was written by men

Sure thats Pauls claim... Unfortunately theres no evidence in his writing of that... aside from his own claims

As you can see it has all to do with the power of God. the power of God to preserve as promised and the power of God to inspire it at the time Paul received it.

IF God preserved his word in that book, why did it change from OT to NT?

Why were verses added?

Your problem like that of Malocchino and Matrixsurvier is the same. The denial that God could preserve his word as promised and then to do it. and that we have a preserved word of God today that we can hold in our hands.

thats actually not a problem at all... and even if i did believe such things... i still would not trust Paul

You have a weaker stance than I in arguing the word of God with me.

Yet you have no argument... so i don't see how i could have a weaker stance on it... I know of the errors and contradictions... I know where John Calls out Paul in his own letters...

what do you have?

1 verse... basically, Nothing

our stand is it is men's work. It is my stand that God has preserved his word as promised and I hold it in my hand today.

Repetition is not a solid stance on anything... Kinda like your idol continuously repeating "i am not lying" in his letters...

I stand on the solid rock of the truth of God you stand on the weakness of men.

And again.... more repetition...

A building built on sand which washes away with the tide...

So please stop trying to use the Bible to prove your point. Unless you are willing to concede that God preserved his word to all generations forever.

guess what brother....

This is my thread.... meaning you do not dictate what participants use to make their argument

Unless you are willing to concede that God preserved his word to all generations forever.

Sure... Gods word is in the bible...

too bad you prefer Paul to the guy you call God...

Take Matrixsurvivor's advice... You might learn something

a reply to: Akragon

The repeating is to make it clear that one cannot argue scriptures if they don't believe they are whole, complete, true and preserved.

It is best just to start thread like this as , "It is my opinion the Paul created Christianity". And of course we know he was the first to call them such in Antioch Caesarea.

So therefore the answer to the OP is, NO, Paul did not invent Christianity but the Lord and Saviour of man created it.

No argument with scripture because none is needed.

All else from anyone who does not believe the word of God is not Whole, complete, inerrant, inspired or preserved is starting out on the wrong ground. That ground it unbelief.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

All else from anyone who does not believe the word of God is not Whole, complete, inerrant, inspired or preserved is starting out on the wrong ground. That ground it unbelief.

So, let me get this straight....you can believe and trust in Jesus and THE MOST HIGH God, but if you don't believe and trust in Paul, too....you're on the wrong ground and in "unbelief"?
Wow.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

And of course we know he was the first to call them such in Antioch Caesarea.

25 "Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. 26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." Acts 11:25

Interesting that even the word "Christian" is associated with Paul's influence. Didn't Barnabas leave Paul later on? Oh yea, there was a sharp disagreement between the two over John Mark.
Guess Paul forgot about his "love passage" in 1st Corinthians, lol.

a reply to: Joecroft

I have a theory you might be interested in.

The letters written under the name of Paul were written by a Hellenistic Grecian who used the Septuagint, a giant 'never that' for the Palestinian school of Gamaliel.

He couldn't have been a Pharisee at "the feet" of Gamaliel and a persecutor of the Ultra-Orthodox Nazarene sect because Gamaliel was neutral and a pacifist and Paul was a violent persecutor for the Sadducees and Rome by default at the least.

There are so many holes in Paul's story that you can find so many outrageous theories out there to try and explain away things that Christians are known to question like how could Luke write both that the men heard Jesus and then that they didn't and how Paul can violate the decision of the Holy Spirit to forbid eating idol meat, call it weak or for the weak and claim superiority for violating what he previously agreed to?

The true answer must be that though hired to write ''Paul" into the story ''Luke" was actually no fan of the writings of ''Paul" being close enough to the fraud that created him, wrote under the name.

Being far more learned than his peers this author made certain things that the Greco-Romans wouldn't notice apparent to the more educated of future generations and Jews of scripture then.

That Peter is on record as chosen by God in Acts to be the Apostle to the Goyim.

That it's only Paul claiming to be chosen by the Ascended Jesus to be the Apostle to the Gentiles/Goyim, nobody is recorded as granting him the exclusive privilege.

Paul is on record as forbidden from preaching in Asia by none other than the Holy Spirit.

John Mark and Barnabas went there separate ways leaving Paul because Paul could not stand John Mark or forgive him, 70 times in a day you should forgive says Jesus.

That accusations of anti Torah teachings were made and justified (by Paul himself).

And many other ''tells" for the educated reader to observe that Luke is not actually a Pauline man and just the opposite but hired to connect Marcion's Paul with the Apostles and he did while leaving what must be clues to tell the reader that Paul was actually not accepted by the 12 at all and they essentially shewed him out of Asia if he even existed at all.

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: Joecroft

I have a theory you might be interested in.

The letters written under the name of Paul were written by a Hellenistic Grecian who used the Septuagint, a giant 'never that' for the Palestinian school of Gamaliel.

He couldn't have been a Pharisee at "the feet" of Gamaliel and a persecutor of the Ultra-Orthodox Nazarene sect because Gamaliel was neutral and a pacifist and Paul was a violent persecutor for the Sadducees and Rome by default at the least.

There are so many holes in Paul's story that you can find so many outrageous theories out there to try and explain away things that Christians are known to question like how could Luke write both that the men heard Jesus and then that they didn't and how Paul can violate the decision of the Holy Spirit to forbid eating idol meat, call it weak or for the weak and claim superiority for violating what he previously agreed to?

The true answer must be that though hired to write ''Paul" into the story ''Luke" was actually no fan of the writings of ''Paul" being close enough to the fraud that created him, wrote under the name.

Being far more learned than his peers this author made certain things that the Greco-Romans wouldn't notice apparent to the more educated of future generations and Jews of scripture then.

That Peter is on record as chosen by God in Acts to be the Apostle to the Goyim.

That it's only Paul claiming to be chosen by the Ascended Jesus to be the Apostle to the Gentiles/Goyim, nobody is recorded as granting him the exclusive privilege.

Paul is on record as forbidden from preaching in Asia by none other than the Holy Spirit.

John Mark and Barnabas went there separate ways leaving Paul because Paul could not stand John Mark or forgive him, 70 times in a day you should forgive says Jesus.

That accusations of anti Torah teachings were made and justified (by Paul himself).

And many other ''tells" for the educated reader to observe that Luke is not actually a Pauline man and just the opposite but hired to connect Marcion's Paul with the Apostles and he did while leaving what must be clues to tell the reader that Paul was actually not accepted by the 12 at all and they essentially shewed him out of Asia if he even existed at all.

Totally agree about Luke.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The repeating is to make it clear that one cannot argue scriptures if they don't believe they are whole, complete, true and preserved.

Thats just a blatant lie...

I've known a good many people that are Atheist's that argue Christianity and its issues far better then most Christians...

In fact Most Christians are clueless as to what is actually in the bible

And a good portion of Atheists are actually recovering Christians because they're well studied

You're pretty delusional IF you think that belief in that book is required debate it

So therefore the answer to the OP is, NO, Paul did not invent Christianity but the Lord and Saviour of man created it.

Im going to have to disagree... based on weak logic

really has nothing to do with the OP... which you likely didn't watch anyways

a reply to: Akragon

I really don't think that john created christianity but
i really would lilke to know who did. Lots of books are out
there on it but they could be made up stories by story tellers
that lived back then. That's how i feel about it.

a reply to: DaisyPusher

The best theory yet is by Joseph Atwill in Caesars Messiah by connecting passages typologically to Flavius Josephus he demonstrated quite well that it was either written using Josephus War of the Jews and the rise of Vespasian as Messiah or even partially by Josephus himself.

But with so many Flavians in early Christianity including the two Clements and Constantine it's clear that what the first Flavians began was enforced by the Emporer.

But the Jewish ''Christianity" and the early Asian Churches did not have a Pauline theology.

My personal theory is that the Dead Sea Scrolls Messianics religion was adopted then adapted by the authors of the New Testament.

There are parallels with Josephus but the actual religious beliefs and structure not to mention the name Nazarenes/Ebionites/The Way and the Divine status of Melchizedek are all attached to the radical Zaddikim cult who did not survive while the Nazarenes and Ebionites did.

So they probably survived because they weren't willing to die or realized the error and futility of fighting with Rome while the Zaddikim Zealots perished at Masada.

So the element of the religion that comes from Jesus is from that sect, the Nazarenes and Ebionites (Poor) who are both mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls and New Testament leaving no doubt that it was originally them and that it was no human sacrifice cult at all.

If you want the true beliefs of the first "Christians" the actually Jewish ones, read the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, a book about the travels of Peter as old as the oldest New Testament as far ss extant ancient manuscripts but probably a first or second century work.

It's actually far more interesting than the sleepy New Testament after Jesus dies and makes a lot more sense, again no human sacrificial atonement elements though.

CCEL.com has it available anytime, I'd check it out. Just remember that Simon Magus is a stand in pseudonym for Paul.

Malocchio,
You've brought so much information to this thread....I thank you for that. I've read the Homilies and Recognitions (not fully, but some). They were eye opening, to say the least.

Akragon, you are just plain cool, lol.

I apologize for being so cantankerous at times. It's just, I've only recently come out of "Christianity" so realizing you've believed a bunch of stuff that isn't true for a long time, is a little off setting.

Chester, I really have no beef with you. My beef is with deception. I know you mean well....but, it would really do you some good to do some investigation into the history of Christianity and all the things that have been discussed on here.
I totally get being so dedicated to the Bible. I totally get being dedicated to God.
Here's the thing though....you CAN question and think for yourself. God is big enough to handle that. Plus, you might just learn a thing or two...and not lose your faith in the process. Take care.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The repeating is to make it clear that one cannot argue scriptures if they don't believe they are whole, complete, true and preserved.

Thats just a blatant lie...

Unfortunately, one of the tactics Pauline theology forces thr Christian to use in debate.

Although nobody forces anyone to make such blatant lies, if you have read it and know it it doesn't matter (actually helps) if you aren't a Bible thumping fundamental Christian. Anyone can debate anything they are knowledgeable in, obviously.

Unbelievable.

I've known a good many people that are Atheist's that argue Christianity and its issues far better then most Christians...

In fact Most Christians are clueless as to what is actually in the bible

The truest thing I have heard all day.

And a good portion of Atheists are actually recovering Christians because they're well studied

You're pretty delusional IF you think that belief in that book is required debate it

So therefore the answer to the OP is, NO, Paul did not invent Christianity but the Lord and Saviour of man created it.

Im going to have to disagree... based on weak logic

really has nothing to do with the OP... which you likely didn't watch anyways



Heh. You always make me laugh, I wish you made more comments though I have had a great time.

Thanks for making the thread. 40 pages is practically a website itself, maybe we didn't get to all of Paul's deceptions but we came close.

I'll add another:

Paul claims anyone who allows themselves to be circumcised ''Christ will profit you [them] nothing."

Yet forces poor Timothy to get circumcised and blames it on "the Jews" according to Luke.

What do the Jews have to do with Timothy's penis and foreskin? Even if it was done to gain entry to the Temple, the only plausible explanation, what about Timothy's poor relationship with Christ who now is of no use to poor Tim?

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The repeating is to make it clear that one cannot argue scriptures if they don't believe they are whole, complete, true and preserved.

Thats just a blatant lie...

Unfortunately, one of the tactics Pauline theology forces thr Christian to use in debate.

Although nobody forces anyone to make such blatant lies, if you have read it and know it it doesn't matter (actually helps) if you aren't a Bible thumping fundamental Christian. Anyone can debate anything they are knowledgeable in, obviously.

Unbelievable.

I've known a good many people that are Atheist's that argue Christianity and its issues far better then most Christians...

In fact Most Christians are clueless as to what is actually in the bible

The truest thing I have heard all day.

And a good portion of Atheists are actually recovering Christians because they're well studied

You're pretty delusional IF you think that belief in that book is required debate it

So therefore the answer to the OP is, NO, Paul did not invent Christianity but the Lord and Saviour of man created it.

Im going to have to disagree... based on weak logic

really has nothing to do with the OP... which you likely didn't watch anyways



Heh. You always make me laugh, I wish you made more comments though I have had a great time.

Thanks for making the thread. 40 pages is practically a website itself, maybe we didn't get to all of Paul's deceptions but we came close.

I'll add another:

Paul claims anyone who allows themselves to be circumcised ''Christ will profit you [them] nothing."

Yet forces poor Timothy to get circumcised and blames it on "the Jews" according to Luke.

What do the Jews have to do with Timothy's penis and foreskin? Even if it was done to gain entry to the Temple, the only plausible explanation, what about Timothy's poor relationship with Christ who now is of no use to poor Tim?

Lol ....right!

I just wanted to add:


When no disciple or Apostle trusted Paul for obvious reasons Joseph called Barnabas took a chance and forgave Paul for, among others, the murder of the righteous Stephen.

John Mark, while on a journey with Barnabas and Paul, turned back. The next planned journey came and Barnabas wished to take John Mark. Paul refused to forgive Mark for going back the last journey and Barnabas sided with Mark and left Paul and took Mark.

Barnabas had learned Jesus message and knew it was right to forgive so when Paul refused he must have known this man has not met or spoken with the Messiah or he would certainly know that forgiveness given him then refused others is The sign of an ingrate. Barnabas Epistle didn't make the New Testament.

a reply to: Malocchio

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Thanks you two...

Heh. You always make me laugh, I wish you made more comments though I have had a great time.

Sorry... but i stated at the beginning of this thread that i had planned to just see where it leads

Only reason i jump in now and again is because i can't resist when someone blatantly lies

gets my goat... lol

This has probably already been said, but Paul would have had no motive for fabricating Christianity. He was a well-established Jew that initially persecuted the Christian movement - he would not have left his respected position to make up Christianity, nor would he have had the resources to forego such an elaborate conspiracy.

a reply to: cooperton

Might i offer a possibility...

Considering he was apparently schooled under Gamaliel... someone who basically said Leave Christians to their own beliefs... Paul did the exact opposite

Perhaps he was rejected by his peers, and found a man whos name had great respect among some jews...

Thus he used that name in order to start his own religion?