Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

I quoted Peters exact words and they speak for themselves only those who cannot understand plain 6th grade English would post such blather.

I don't understand why you are not postng the quotes of the bible I gave you in my reply earlier, except to say I ever supplied the words for you.

but for the sake of those reading that they my know you are a liar here they are again as above.

2 Peter 3:14-18 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

I quoted Peters exact words and they speak for themselves only those who cannot understand plain 6th grade English would post such blather.

I don't understand why you are not postng the quotes of the bible I gave you in my reply earlier, except to say I ever supplied the words for you.

but for the sake of those reading that they my know you are a liar here they are again as above.

2 Peter 3:14-18 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

I actually did use your quote so I have no idea what you are trying to do by saying that I didn't... but I did.

Regardless, I am not going to try and squeeze mango juice out of an orange.

I quoted 2 Peter long before you did for the purpose of highlighting it for the subtle anti Pauline polemic it is and last time I messaged you I said that you didn't quote me because it was irrefutable and you could only quote the same passage from a book that uses a form of English nobody speaks.

Then you accused me of not quoting you when I most certainly did.

You are a dishonest person who can't handle debating because the truth is not on your side.

I will say it again, go back, look, and notice then acknowledge that I did quote you, you are scared to quote me, and that you are incapable of refuting my analysis of 2 Peter.

originally posted by: TerriblePhoenix

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

that is right the BIBLE.

It alone is true, it alone has the way of salvation, it alone is the source of life and godliness. Just a Peter said.

Even though he saw the Lord transfigured, and heard God's voice from heaven, he testified that we have a much more sure word of Prophecy, that is the scriptures and that none of them came by private means or interpretation but by HOLY men who spoke as they were moved by Holy Ghost.

So yes Bible, Bible, BIBLE! If it does not agree with scriptures I will take scripture any day of the week and will stand before God on and through his very words through faith, for the just shall live by faith and by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

BTW, Peter did not say that Paul's letters did not make sense.

He said Paul's words confirm that which he is teachings in his letter and that in all Paul's epistles he teaches the same things Peter is teaching,

Really? I find it odd you can't supply those words from 2 Peter yet say it as though it was true.

Actually you always do stuff like that and exactly that, claim people said things they never did.

This is just one instance of you making up things.

Where does Peter say that?

to which some of thing Paul taught were hard to understand. Not make sense is not a equal statement and thereby creates a lie and a false teaching. You pervert the words of God in saying such lies. It says and I context with the unstable that wrest them.

I actually just explained the words, I didn't pervert them, Paul's teachings don't make sense and lead people astray.

I would say hard to understand is, in this case, equal to saying they are nonsense and should be avoided lest you be led astray.

You made up words that Peter never said up above, there is no hint of your words in 2Peter claiming him and Paul teach the same thing.

They don't, and Peter nor Paul say that. Paul claims his gospel is the true gospel and works are not required, only faith.

Peter says the OPPOSITE. When did same start meaning opposite?

THAT was perverting the Bible.

2 Peter 3:14-18 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,

It may say hard to understand, I never denied that in English, but it is the same thing as saying it doesn't make sense, otherwise people would understand it through the Spirit.

The Spirit didn't inspire Paul, and hard to understand is just as good as saying unintelligible or nonsensical as he is not talking about anything that should be complicated.

If faith was all it took why write all that other nonsense?

Nothing about Paul's theology makes sense, you can pretend it does but you are living proof it leads people astray.

He isn't endorsing Paul, the epistle is against Paul and he is the subject of the entire letter written by a clever author that leads astray no one, so clever you think he is complimenting Paul when he is insulting him.

Which was the point. The reason it's allegedly pseudepigraphal is scholars figured this out and Christian scholars since before Eusebius said that about James and 2Peter because they both are against Paul.

"Senseless man, do you need to be told faith without works is dead? "

unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked,

Lawless or wicked, lawless being a better translation in a Bible that is not centuries out of date, clearly points to Paul and is probably why the KJ Bible preferred to use wicked.

Read. Between. The. Lines.

fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge

Paul: Knowledge puffs up...

of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

You do realize that I already posted this verse in modern English, right?

Because a different translation doesn't change the fact that Peter is not a supporter of faith alone salvation theology and clearly you have no ability to utilize the quote option for the purpose of refuting me because there is nothing to refute.

My commentary was accurate as was my exegesis, I didn't make a single claim that wasn't backed up by scripture.

These are my responses to your quotes, anyone who needs to see your quotes can quote me and read what the computer doesn't put on the screen or go back a page and just look.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Where are the scriptures I quoted too you?

Why are they not in my responses to you?

You quote but only partially. Either you are doing it on purpose or you don't know how to use ATS functions and end up not having the quote in it as it should be.

which means you are removing something from the context of the conversation and a whole lot of other text is left out because of that.

Which means you are either inept at using the ATS quote function correctly or you are a liar who is hiding the truth on purpose.

a reply to: ChesterJohn



Are you ok CJ?

I told you, either go back a page and see or click on the quote option because I quoted myself and the computer only put my responses which I already CLEARLY explained.

I am starting to think that you don't know what truth is.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

It's written at the bottom, right underneath my self quotes, the instructions how to see your quotes and the reason why they are not in MY SELF QUOTE.

Do you just deliberately ignore reality or something? You don't have a droplet of honesty in you, do you?

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I just realized your beef with 2 Peter was misogyny, I can not defend that actually, though I don't believe that Peter was a misogynist because he was a family man, and outside of the representation of Orthodoxy through the mouth of Peter in Gnostic scriptures, a philosophy that elevated women and likewise admired the historical Peter, I don't see any representation of him as that type of guy.

Those instances in Gnostic scriptures are actually about Catholicism and it was probably safer to put in the mouth of Peter because Catholics were extremely misogynistic and wouldn't take offense to Peter saying that, but if they had just outright said Catholics hate women they might have had a problem.

I do get your point though, but I just was dying to show CJ that 2 Peter was an anti Pauline polemic, not an endorsement, because I knew he would react the way he did and give me a chance to also display the irrationality of the argument that Peter endorsed Paul.

It was successful, but I apologize for missing the intent of your comment.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
You made up words that Peter never said up above, there is no hint of your words in 2Peter claiming him and Paul teach the same thing.

There is a hint in Peter's words are you without the ability to understand Plain 6th grade English look and the underlined words. Peter is clearly saying Paul that Paul wrote unto them about such things that Peter has been making mention of.

2 Peter 3:14-18 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Paul taught we are to peaceable as much as it lay with us to do so. Paul taught for us o be found in him without spot or blemish. Paul taught on the Longsuffering of the Lord and that we too should do so. as a matter of fact all of this are found in many places in his writings and can be seen especially in Galatians 5

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

originally posted by: TerriblePhoenix
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I just realized your beef with 2 Peter was misogyny, I can not defend that actually, though I don't believe that Peter was a misogynist because he was a family man, and outside of the representation of Orthodoxy through the mouth of Peter in Gnostic scriptures, a philosophy that elevated women and likewise admired the historical Peter, I don't see any representation of him as that type of guy.

Those instances in Gnostic scriptures are actually about Catholicism and it was probably safer to put in the mouth of Peter because Catholics were extremely misogynistic and wouldn't take offense to Peter saying that, but if they had just outright said Catholics hate women they might have had a problem.

I do get your point though, but I just was dying to show CJ that 2 Peter was an anti Pauline polemic, not an endorsement, because I knew he would react the way he did and give me a chance to also display the irrationality of the argument that Peter endorsed Paul.

It was successful, but I apologize for missing the intent of your comment.

No problem. You explained 2nd Peter very well. The things CJ was pointing out were actually from 1st Peter. I still don't think Peter wrote 1st Peter. One, it reads just like Paul would write (just compare 1st Peter with Paul's letters....it's the same style, vocabulary, teachings, etc..verbatim).

and Two, if you read the very end of that letter, you'll see that it was written from "Babylon", which was a euphemism for Rome in that time. So, WHY would Peter be in Rome?
I mean, PAUL was the one who was a ROMAN citizen..AND spent much time there.
CJ even says that it was PAUL who took the message to the gentiles, while Peter and the rest were to give the gospel to those of the "circumcision"..(which you and I know is false...but, Paul's teachings). So, once again...WHY would Peter be in Rome? Notice also that the two mentioned at the end of 1st Peter are Sylvanus and "his son Mark". Both of those were disciples of Paul. HOWEVER, Mark (also known as John Mark) accompanied PAUL and BARNABUS throughout their journey's.
Guess who eventually left Paul? Barnabus and Mark. I think they went back to join the true apostles, once they realized how full of it Paul was.



Personally, if Jesus wouldn't treat women that way, then I disregard it. He's the One we should look to for the truth. It goes back to WWJD? (you know, the acronym for "what would Jesus do?")
Which Christians like to tout, but in all reality, they usually end up behaving as Paul, so their acronym should actually be, "WWPD?"
The truth is Jesus treated women equally. It's why they were drawn to Him. It's why they loved Him so much.
How any female can like Paul is beyond me. He is the biggest braggart, egotistical, lying, misogynistic jerk. There is something that comes through in his writings that is so off putting and slimy, that one literally has to check their brain (or intuition and reason) at the door, to stomach it.
Anyway, carry on.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

So then why believe any of the Bible?

a bible believer believes it all not just parts of it they like.

Jut find another religion and go for it.

I don't follow any "religion". Jesus wasn't "religious". Jesus said HE was the WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE.
Why do I need to listen to Paul again? YOU think I should do what Paul says, because YOU believe Jesus called him. I don't.
I think I'll stick with just listening to the teachings of the ONE who spoke "not on His own authority", but the Father's.
A DIFFERENT Father than YHWH.
I don't HAVE to believe ALL of what is in the Bible. Not believing all of it does not condemn me to hell either.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Paul believed he was the way the truth and the life. It is not just Paul saying he is called, the elders accepted it and did not refute in their right hand of fellowship given to him, and in the affirmation that they were sent to the circumcised as Paul was sent to the uncircumcised.

Jesus used him by inspiration to expound on all his teachings to give the church instructions for the earthly promise of the kingdom was postponed. Jesus gave Paul the expounding on the Unity in Love of believers, oneness with God and each other, His ransom for many which was his death, burial and resurrection, living sinless lives, perusing righteousness, the giving of the Holy Ghost, the teaching of the Holy Ghost as a teacher to the believer, the Lord's table just to name some of the topics Jesus touched on but did not go into detail, and there are many more.

Peter, James, and John also teach these same things in their letters as well. With Peter affirming that Paul taught such things in his epistles as seen in 1 Peter 3 (just see above in my reply to TP who was once again was banned).

Do you believe Jesus life was a ransom for you? If so How was his life a ransom for your life?

Hoping tings are going better for you work and financial wise. Been praying for you to maybe get some better work or more of the same. That is what makes you more happier and prosperous.

I have a second interview with the president of a corporation I applied to work with. Praying for the Lord good, acceptable and perfect will be in this. It would mean an additional $1,000 per month from what I am currently making. I forgot to ask about health insurance at the last interview hopefully I Will have a chance tomorrow at this second interview.

You do realize that TP has been banned three times in this thread alone and about 50 times or more throughout the last year under many different ATS user acct names. Have you figured out why that is so?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Paul believed he was the way the truth and the life. It is not just Paul saying he is called, the elders accepted it and did not refute in their right hand of fellowship given to him, and in the affirmation that they were sent to the circumcised as Paul was sent to the uncircumcised.

Jesus used him by inspiration to expound on all his teachings to give the church instructions for the earthly promise of the kingdom was postponed. Jesus gave Paul the expounding on the Unity in Love of believers, oneness with God and each other, His ransom for many which was his death, burial and resurrection, living sinless lives, perusing righteousness, the giving of the Holy Ghost, the teaching of the Holy Ghost as a teacher to the believer, the Lord's table just to name some of the topics Jesus touched on but did not go into detail, and there are many more.

Peter, James, and John also teach these same things in their letters as well. With Peter affirming that Paul taught such things in his epistles as seen in 1 Peter 3 (just see above in my reply to TP who was once again was banned).

Do you believe Jesus life was a ransom for you? If so How was his life a ransom for your life?

Hoping tings are going better for you work and financial wise. Been praying for you to maybe get some better work or more of the same. That is what makes you more happier and prosperous.

I have a second interview with the president of a corporation I applied to work with. Praying for the Lord good, acceptable and perfect will be in this. It would mean an additional $1,000 per month from what I am currently making. I forgot to ask about health insurance at the last interview hopefully I Will have a chance tomorrow at this second interview.

You do realize that TP has been banned three times in this thread alone and about 50 times or more throughout the last year under many different ATS user acct names. Have you figured out why that is so?

Paull believed HE was the way, the truth, and the life?? Goodness gracious!! He WAS NOT in any way, shape, or form! How you can think Paul gets to STEAL that from Jesus...who IS that, and He ALONE is, blows my mind! You are seriously deceived, Chester... Seriously.
So, IF Peter was only called to the "uncircumcised", then pray tell me...who wrote 1st Peter, which came from Babylon...aka Rome?
If you believe Peter was only called to the "uncircumcised"...then there was no reason for him to be in Rome. Correct?
However, 1st Peter was supposedly written from Rome....oh, and Silvanus and John Mark were mentioned....who only traveled with Paul (and Barnabas). Hummmm ...not to mention that all of them deserted Paul... except for Silvanus.
Oh, and I certainly do hope that your financial situation improves. I really, really, do.

One more thing...I don't care one whit if the person you have a problem with was banned. What I do realize is he spoke more truth and pointed out more discrepancies that are in the "good book" you worship....than anyone on ATS.
And I've found much of the same...though he's much more informed than me.





Oh, and one more thing.....Jesus didn't need to "expound" on anything. What He taught, a child could understand...or a "6th grader" (in your own words).
Paul did nothing but take the simplicity of Jesus, and confound it to the point of ridiculousness.
So that people like you, or the majority of Christianity, has to sit for hours just to figure out what the heck he means!! Yea, such unity. NOT.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
a reply to: whereislogic

Hey diggers.

Back from holidays down the coast. Will have some thread reading to catch up on.

Looks like you got Padawan Googlemiser into a rage and banned.... yet again. Lol awesome.

But his gonna come back if not already.

Good work boys.

Coomba98

a reply to: Padawan Matrixsurvivor

Hey Padawan,

Anyone who thinks Yeshi was not a religious person either:
1. Doesnt know the Yeshi story;
2. Doesnt know the definition of religious.

Also youngling, your arguments give the feeling you actually believe that stuff, yet you say your not religous.

So i think its point 2 that is truth.

Master Coombapadawan.
(Lol thats your nickname for me no?)

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

No Paul believe Jesus was he way the truth and the life, Not himself but Jesus. Sorry for that confusion with the lack of a comma.

As Far a Rome being Babylon that is only based on RC tradition. We know that many Jews stayed in Babylon after Ezra and Nehemiah returned, that that included Daniel and his companions. So there is no reason to doubt that Peter went to Babylon personally to minister to the Jews there about Jesus Christ. Again RC tradition is responsible for saying Peter's letters were being written from Rome. No real proof to deny Scripture overt tradition.

Yes Jesus gave teachings for living in the kingdom which never cane so a whole facet of teachings were needed because that kingdom never came physically for the promise to Israel.


But like I said it is useless for me to argue the scriptures with someone who does not believe them.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

No Paul believe Jesus was he way the truth and the life, Not himself but Jesus. Sorry for that confusion with the lack of a comma.

As Far a Rome being Babylon that is only based on RC tradition. We know that many Jews stayed in Babylon after Ezra and Nehemiah returned, that that included Daniel and his companions. So there is no reason to doubt that Peter went to Babylon personally to minister to the Jews there about Jesus Christ. Again RC tradition is responsible for saying Peter's letters were being written from Rome. No real proof to deny Scripture overt tradition.

Yes Jesus gave teachings for living in the kingdom which never cane so a whole facet of teachings were needed because that kingdom never came physically for the promise to Israel.


But like I said it is useless for me to argue the scriptures with someone who does not believe them.

You're right... it's useless. This whole debate is useless. Know why? Because you will believe as you do and so will I. Neither of us will convince the other. It's sheer futility.
So, I wish you the best, Chester...I really do
Peace.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Padawan Matrixsurvivor

Hey Padawan,

Anyone who thinks Yeshi was not a religious person either:
1. Doesnt know the Yeshi story;
2. Doesnt know the definition of religious.

Also youngling, your arguments give the feeling you actually believe that stuff, yet you say your not religous.

So i think its point 2 that is truth.

Master Coombapadawan.
(Lol thats your nickname for me no?)

Peace to you too, Coomba.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Actually as I said be fore I will take God's preserved words over all of men's words.

As far as Jesus needing expounding on his teachings. You forget Jesus was sent to Israel only oe he had to send Paul, as apostles to the Gentiles, to expanded his teaching to include the gentiles in his teachings.

I love you Matrix and have been praying for you after hearing of your situation. I pray for something better to come your way.

We may not agree but as believers in Jesus we are siblings.

Blessings

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Cool..I honestly wish the best for you, your wife, son, and your cat. (and whoever else you love)

So what is here being proposed is that Christianity today is descended from the work of Paul, or is it his writings?

If his writings, everything written under the name of Paul, my answer is yes. I believe that the story of Jesus and the 12 apostles has nothing to do with Paul in the capacity of an ally at any point beyond Barnabas departure with Mark, from Paul who would go on to accuse him and Peter of being hypocrites. A likely made up story about "Men of James" visiting and the Jews immediately cease from eating with Barnabas, mainly Peter and Barnabas.

He is never writing to tell everyone thanks for listening, always telling people to do things differently and his way, and making claims about knowledge of all mysteries and gifts of prophecy without any of it making sense, but still the crux of what Christianity "teaches."

If there was no Paul you would have a much different religion, still Jewish but Nazarene Jewish and more like Islam but focused on Jesus and the Tanakh and the lives of the apostles instead of some rants known for leading people astray even then.

But the invention of Catholicism is akin to the invention of Christianity as we know it so I'd say Constantine and that trinitarians really deserve the credit, especially Ignatius and Irenaus, Justin Martyr and the Romans in general.

Within less than 3 centuries of Constantine Rome was collapsed. Islam revitalized Arabia and scientific inquiry, Greek philosophy and is closer to Jesus bring the sword religion of the Kingdom of God and Judgment day, hell and the Law being a part of God's eternal plan, built on Love and love.

Than this faith in the blood of Christ being the only way, that and confessing Jesus is Lord and Savior, to Heaven nonsense.