It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul Conspired to Hijack Christianity and Succeeded

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
The early church rejected Paul because he was the chief persecuter, going from church to church killing anyone who professed to believe in Christ. They believed a ruse by the Jews to infiltrate their ranks and be able to take down their leadership.

As to Paul's change in heart, that's clearly attested to in Acts, as Ananias and those who were with Paul could attest to. See this post earlier in the thread for that argument.

I still fail to see what Paul taught that disagrees with the Gospel and with the Old Testament.




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Pauls teachings made it easy for early church leaders to create a patriarchal based system.
And this is being looked at backwards, Pauls writings were adopted by the church because they justified concentrated power. NOT because they believed paul was writing on behalf of Christ.

I dont recall Christs teachings forbidding women to speak out, or to be leaders in their church. Pauls rambles on regarding many these that Christ simply never addressed or undermines what Christ taught.

This is what Christ refers too when he says many will be mislead and believe they are followers, when in fact they do not know Christ at all. They followed the corruption of the bible without regard to the divine truth.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Based on what?

Is it your claim that the old testament and gospels did not? Is it your claim that Paul adjusted all scripture, including, somehow, the Septuigent, a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was written 200 years before Christ?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
If Paul was a hijacker, why did the other Apostles not call him out as such?


I thought they did? Didn't Jesus' brother and his 'real' apostles' start some other church, and they and paul were always bickering and calling each other false?
I remember reading that somewhere, about the internal struggle between Paul and the other apostles.

I'll try to find a link or something...



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I think you're thinking of Acts 9:26-31


26When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. 30When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

31Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.


In Acts 13:1-3, Luke describes that the Lord spoke to the the church leaders regarding Paul and Barnabas, demonstrating that this contention was completely eradicated, and the leadership had fully embraced Paul as an apostle.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Paul and the early church:

en.wikipedia.org...

www.vexen.co.uk...

www.essene.org...

that's a start.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

In Acts 13:1-3, Luke describes that the Lord spoke to the the church leaders regarding Paul and Barnabas, demonstrating that this contention was completely eradicated, and the leadership had fully embraced Paul as an apostle.


Well, we all know that Luke was a Pauline sympathizer, and the only one at that. Also, since nobody is sure who wrote (or altered) the earlier writings (since the only documents we have are YOUNGER than Paul's writings), I can't exactly take them at face value when regarding Paul (as he could have easily have altered them).



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Iirc, Peter was somewhat misogynistic, as well. He barely tolerated Mary Magdelene. The difference he and Paul had was over preaching the Gospel to and taking meals with the uncircumcised.



Galatians 2:11-14
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"


The link below examines the differences between Paul and the Jerusalem Church.
Opposition to Paul

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
This thread is becoming very informative and very interesting, is nice to see views by others on this topic.

Thanks jungleJake for the links.
Religions just like politics can be discuss for hours,days and a life time and always people have the greatest topics and opinions base on believes, faith, studies or just none of the above and still keep it interesting.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Well, we all know that Luke was a Pauline sympathizer, and the only one at that.


Er..no, no we don't...The first part of that statement is sorta true, though phrased in such a way as though to say it was wrong, but the second half is not true at all...


Also, since nobody is sure who wrote (or altered) the earlier writings (since the only documents we have are YOUNGER than Paul's writings), I can't exactly take them at face value when regarding Paul (as he could have easily have altered them).


Based on what? And how would Paul have altered the texts? We have documentary proof that Pauls Epistles were among those that were regularly read at the major churches, including Jerusalem by 325 AD (and far, far earlier), which would imply the rest of the apostles were in agreement with Paul.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Christ taught that Heaven resides within you, you are holy and to treat yourself and others with love and humanity. This is a new concept and replaces OT theology with NT concepts of God and the manner we treat each other, that God is already a part of who you are. You need only recognize this.
Paul writes that humanity is a wretched vessel, that women are substandard and creates a second class, and goes back to OT theologies, it is a step backward and cements the corrupt path the Church now takes.
This conflicts with what Christ taught, and resistance to what paul teaches from the people that were actually there occurs.

The words Christ spoke do not need interpretation by someone that was not present when he spoke them. The church siezed upon these writings to present themselves as the intermediary between Man and God.

Christ came to earth to offer the new covanent, that Humans do not need an intermediary any longer. This is a grave threat to the structure of the church, there is no need for the organized religious system any longer.

Pauls writings were used to promote the idea that humanity is inherently sinful, that we should view ourselves as in constant state of sin, which flies in the face of Christ's teachings.
this works well into the organized church, which needs constant stream of guilty people to support itself.

Corrupt and tragic evolvement of the true teachings Christ left.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
El fuego gets it right. Saul (AKA Paul) is gonna get it right next time around.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by el fuego
Christ taught that Heaven resides within you, you are holy and to treat yourself and others with love and humanity. This is a new concept and replaces OT theology with NT concepts of God and the manner we treat each other, that God is already a part of who you are. You need only recognize this.


So I can better understand, what scriptures, specifically, ae you speaking of?

Something I believed until I started to get to know it was that the New Testament tossed out the Old and replaced it. As I've become more familiar with the Old Testament, I have seen not so much closure as fulfillment. Christ did not abolish the Old Testament. He is Alpha and Omega, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He does not break His covenants, His promises. Instead, it is our understanding of those covenants that needs correcting, as we saw with the Jewish leadership and scholars 2000 years ago.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
posted on 24-2-2007 at 03:45 AM (post id: 2979570) - single - this post REPLYQUOTE


quote: Originally posted by el fuego
Christ taught that Heaven resides within you, you are holy and to treat yourself and others with love and humanity. This is a new concept and replaces OT theology with NT concepts of God and the manner we treat each other, that God is already a part of who you are. You need only recognize this.


So I can better understand, what scriptures, specifically, ae you speaking of?

I tried to contain myself on this one, and I really am sorry, but I must speak; really, do we have to ask him what scriptures he is quoting in order to understand what he is saying? It is a holistic concept. I think he is referring to Christs I AM THE WAY, which is to say, each of US is the way. Its not even about OT versus NT, these are red herrings. The question is why do we need ANY scriptures at all to understand these things? WHY? How about a bibleless society as the ultimate in spirituality?



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
"The question is why do we need ANY scriptures at all to understand these things? WHY? How about a bibleless society as the ultimate in spirituality? "

This is the truth stripped down to its bare essential.

When Jesus wrote, he scribbled in the sand and then wiped it clean. This act speaks volumes of how carefull he was, to not to leave anything behind people would worship and replace as focus of their spirituality. Why didnt Christ write a book, in his own words..? he knew the book would become holier than the teachings.

Regardless of his example, the need to have physical items is overwhelming. The bible, the shroud of turin, the relics of the cross, the spear, anything remotely connected to the life of Christ becomes the object of desire. People will fly across the world to see items connected to their faith, without taking the time to understand the foundation of what they believe.

The people that assembled the Bible knew this, and took full advantage. They created something tangible for people to fear, the great book in which their soul is judged. When i was young it fascinated me to watch how people treated the Bible in churches...as if god existed within its pages. God does not.

God sent representation to earth to break the barrier between the creator and created, and still humanity cannot accept it.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

And how would Paul have altered the texts?


Just like anyone else would. Influence.



We have documentary proof that Pauls Epistles were among those that were regularly read at the major churches, including Jerusalem by 325 AD


So he was popular. It still doesn't make him right or true to Yeshua's teachings.


(and far, far earlier)


How much 'farther'? He wrote to Gentile's, not Jews. That's what made him so popular. And with Rome's influence, and Paul's popularity, of course his brand of christianity would flourish.



which would imply the rest of the apostles were in agreement with Paul.


I don't see the connection between 1) his popularity in Rome and 2) the other apostles 'agreeing' with him.

There more evidence of disagreement than agreement. And like we learn in history class. The winners write the history. Paul won the popularity contest (mostly because Jews did not go out of their way to convert people, in fact it was frowned upon if they did), and so his influence (maybe not directly, but through his followers) could EASILY have filtered through the documents we now have today. Especially since there is no proof that Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John actually wrote the gospels themselves. Unless we find the originals, I can't help do attribute them to Paul.

[edit on 2/24/2007 by Arcane Demesne]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
First, the problem with Paul modifying all of scripture, Old and New Testaments, is two fold. First, Paul did not posses a time machine, so he could not go back and modify the definitive source confirming the authenticity of the Old Testament predating Christ, the Septuagint. The other problem is the vast number of surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. As far as ancient works go, there are vastly more copies or portions of the New Testament writings than there are any other work in history.

To give you an idea, there are over 24,970 transcripts or portions of the New Testament in existence that have been discovered today from within 400 years of Christ. To help you compare, the next most numerous work of antiquity, Homer's Iliad, has a whopping 643 full or partial transcripts in existence. What's more, the earliest copies of Homer's work date 1,400 years after he wrote it! (Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 4)

To take that further, there are 14 languages they come in, Latin Vulgate, Ethiopic, Slavic, Armenian, Syriac Pashetta, Bohairic, Arabic, Old Latin, Anglo Saxon, Gothic, Sogdian, Old Syriac, Persian, and Frankish. So Paul didn't just have to push his influence on Rome, he had to do so to the entire known world, and do so in a hurry while planting churches throughout the Mediterranean. Maybe he did have a time machine, and a really nice lear jet, too...

As to the quotations, there are 14,035 extra Biblical quotes of the Pauline Epistles from before the Council of Nicea by bishops or other major Christian leaders, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Hippolytus. These are books these people wrote where they quoted Paul's letters.

At this moment I cannot find my sources with the dates and churches that listed the Pauline Epistles as part of their canon, but memory tells me it was pre 100 AD. and includes the church in Jerusalem. I will have to confirm that, though.

The evidence supports Paul working with the early church, not the other way around.

EDIT: Forgot I wasn't using FireFox 2, had to spell check...

[edit on 2/24/07/24 by junglejake]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
This can be seen in (1 Cor. 10:4) Paul, says,”They drank from that spiritual Rockand that rock was Christ”, this are the identical words to be found in Mithraic scriptures.

There is a story about a 'water miracle', where Mithras shot an arrow at a rock, and from it flowed water (and of course mithras was born out of a rock/cave).
And apparently it was taken as a meaning for wisdom, because it looks like intiates into the Mithras cult would at one point have an archer point an arrow at them, apparently they are the rock, and the cult is letting the water free, giving them wisdom, etc.

But at the same time, if Paul was a mithraist, then why convert to christianity? And if he converted, then what does it matter if he used to be a mithraist?
WHy would he pretend to be a christian apostle, spreading the religion everywhere, if he was really a mithraist, wouldn't he have written all those letters in support of mithraism?


Why did he changed? what made him a heretic of his own Jewish believes.

Why did any of hte apostles leave judaism and take up christianity. Christianity tried to say it was just a jewish sect, or a jewish fufilment, but it was obviously something entirely different, a radically new religion. If its beleivable that Peter would convert, why not Paul?


why then Paul was rejected by the early Church?

But the church didnt' reject him, it merely questioend whether gentiles need to become 'jews' first, that its, eat kosher food, get circumcised, etc.


He took Jesus Gospels, ignore them and presented a version of his own full with milthraistic believes

But where do we see a mithraic beleif over-riding a christian one?


His version was so attractive to the early church when it was gaining power that was easier transforming a man into a divinity for the early mases that were after all becoming very dependant of the church.

That at least requires that all the apostles were frauds, spiritual oppurtunists no? Heck, might as well just say that there was no jesus in the first place no?


liquid self
I think he is referring to Christs I AM THE WAY, which is to say, each of US is the way

That sounds more like he is saying christ is the way, not you independantly without christ.

The question is why do we need ANY scriptures at all to understand these things?

We wouldn't know any of these things if it weren't with the New Testament gospels and letters. No bible, no jesus worship. At best you'd have a small cult in and around jerusalem that has an oral tradition about a leader who was kileld and magically came back.


el fuego
Why didnt Christ write a book, in his own words..? he knew the book would become holier than the teachings.

Thats really irrelevant at this point. We have the gospels, they are the basis of the faith, and some are saying that Paul 'hijacked' them and inserted new stuff that had nothing to do with jesus into them. Whether or not jesus wanted a church, gospels, or any of that, its another issue.

God sent representation to earth to break the barrier between the creator and created, and still humanity cannot accept it.

But you wouldn't even be aware of that if not for hte gospels and church.




Arcane Demesne
I remember reading that somewhere, about the internal struggle between Paul and the other apostles.

They questioned whether he was authentic or not, but the also ended up sending him on evangelical missions. They ultimately agreed with him, that christians don't have to keep kosher, become jews, etc. I don't think that they'd do that if they beleived he was a fraud, or if he was preaching a message that was radically different from that of their original leader.


There more evidence of disagreement than agreement.

I think that them agreeing to send him off on evangelical religions, and agreeing with his position that you don't need to become a jew to be a follower of christ, shows that, whatever the initial reactions, they were in agreement in the end.

And if paul was really plotting, and somehow destroyed the authentic gospels, then forged new "pauline" ones, why would he include the business about him not being accepted in teh first place?
Heck, why didn't he say 'jesus said I am in charge, not peter' or something really different?

ANd why woudl he do this stuff, if he wasn't a jesus follower? Why woudl he spend the rest of his life evangelizing for jesus, and gettnig executed in the process, if he wasnt' a beleiver? Seems like he was a fanatic, not a fraud.


junglejake
What Paul eluded to is from Exodus 17, when Moses struck a rock with his staff and drew water from it

If Paul was a jew. If he was a mithraist, then probably it was a reference to the "Water Miracle".


[edit on 25-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Arcane Demesne
I remember reading that somewhere, about the internal struggle between Paul and the other apostles.


They questioned whether he was authentic or not, but the also ended up sending him on evangelical missions. They ultimately agreed with him, that christians don't have to keep kosher, become jews, etc. I don't think that they'd do that if they beleived he was a fraud, or if he was preaching a message that was radically different from that of their original leader.


I don't have any proof (but, of course, no one else here has any actual proof of anything either), but I think they sent Paul out to places to get him out of their hair.

Plus, Paul wasn't raised as a Jew, and he had NEVER met Jesus. I'm pretty sure that makes him a non-desciple, and therefore he has no place telling what the Church of Jerusalem (or anyone else) to believe about Jesus.




There more evidence of disagreement than agreement.


I think that them agreeing to send him off on evangelical religions, and agreeing with his position that you don't need to become a jew to be a follower of christ, shows that, whatever the initial reactions, they were in agreement in the end.


Is that the written consensus found in writings in the early church? Have ancient documents been dug up that predate Paul's letters?



And if paul was really plotting, and somehow destroyed the authentic gospels, then forged new "pauline" ones, why would he include the business about him not being accepted in teh first place?


I didn't say he himself did it. What I said was that his 'influence' would have changed them. Since the earliest one we have is from like what, 140 CE? Any one who favored Paul's messages could easily have changed a word here or there, not to mention mistranslations. Add that up a few generations, and bingo. Some parts favor Paul more than they should have!

I'm not saying it DID happen, just saying it is VERY POSSIBLE. And even probable.



Heck, why didn't he say 'jesus said I am in charge, not peter' or something really different?


I don't think he was in it for himself. He just wanted to be part of a new religion, and wanted a part in forming it. So he took the stories of Jesus, and embellished them, preached to people who had never heard of Jesus. So they took it at face value.



ANd why woudl he do this stuff, if he wasn't a jesus follower? Why woudl he spend the rest of his life evangelizing for jesus, and gettnig executed in the process, if he wasnt' a beleiver? Seems like he was a fanatic, not a fraud.


Again, it was a new and developing thing. He was probably some lonely dude, out of his native surroundings, who wanted to be part of a new in crowd. Especially since he was a hit man against those very people when he first got to that town and couldn't cut it as a pharisee. People do stuff like that today all the time. Even turning themselves in for crimes they didn't commit. People do stuff. I don't see any reason why Paul could have had many psychological problems. Especially after having a 'hallucination' about Jesus.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   
The basis of faith is not the gospels. If a Book was supposed to be the basis of faith, God would have sent a Publisher. Christ and these teachings exist with or without the Bible.
Setting this aside for the moment,


Why is there a need for Pauls writings to be included at all? Why does the church feel a person that never met Christ should have such
disporportional influence over the new faith? Why is there a need to intrepret what Christ taught?

Paul was born 12 years after Christ left the earth, so when paul refers to scripture, it is the old testament. the new testament does not exist. The interpretations and reasoning paul uses, are based on Old Testament Theologies, not on the new covenent that Christ Delivered.

It isnt like Christ used polynomic equations, it is very clear and simple; love your neighbor, feed them, house them, look after them, care for the incarcerated, suffer children and understand each of us houses God within themselves. The Kingdon of heaven exists within.

Paul teaches No, you are not worthy. Dont allow women to speak. You are sin. if you really Must be with a woman, ok, go ahead but that isnt preferred, look at your neighbor and judge if they are sinfull...these are not in accordance with what Christ taught.

It may be that Paul did not intend for his teachings to take up so much of the new testament, but the emperor, clerics and church leaders saw fit to include his writings and influence.
And the rest as they say, is history.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join