Did Paul Invent Christianity?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Paul got it from Christ.

Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

So "Paul" says....and ONLY Paul says. You have no other witnesses to corroborate Paul's testimony. NONE. Zero, zip, nada. Just Paul's word against anyone who refutes him. So, you are taking what Paul said on blind faith, because IT'S IN THE BOOK. That's the ONLY reason. You can NOT rightly divide truth, because if it's IN THE BOOK, then it MUST BE TRUE.
Therein lies the problem. If you automatically believe that whatever is in the Bible is true, you CAN'T see the truth.

(from Chester John)
And who is deciding what is Bible and what is not? Men of course.

Aren't you a man? Then why do you even trust the Bible you read? What version is it? You must have the correct one, since you seem to put so much faith in it.
Are YOU deciding what is Bible and what is not?
Not you or Seede have been able to refute anything Mallochio has pointed out. NOT ONE of his points.
You, Chester, always go back to the Bible (rightly dividing the "word of truth") and yet, you have not once rebutted all the things he's shown you.
You, Mr. Seede, have actually gone outside the Bible for support of your argument...yet, you have not been able to refute his points either.
How bout this? Take everything Mallochio has said, and rebut them one by one. ALL of it. Hey, even use scripture to do it. Just don't use Paul to defend Paul. Use Jesus to defend Paul.

a reply to: glend

Even though I do accept that one can become enlightened through Christianity (like MLK) by accepting the words of Jesus (or more correctly Joshua/Yeshua) himself.

That's it....bottom line. You are so correct. If people would JUST listen to Jesus, the division and dualities in religion would not exist. Unfortunately, Paul's doctrine and teaching threw a wrench in it all. That's why it's so jacked up (Christianity).

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

If people would JUST listen to Jesus, the division and dualities in religion would not exist.

They think we are the evildoers. I pray for their sake they are not wrong.

Matthew 7: 17-23
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

riiiiiiight!!!!!

That is why Peter mentions him and his writings (plural) because no one knew Paul in the first century.

Like I said, ""you err not knowing the scriptures" Jesus Christ"

They will immediately explain that away and say 2 Peter is a fake epistle.

originally posted by: Malocchio
...Marcion in Rome who started the idea of a New Testament (not the New Covenant, the book) and his version was the first and rejected the Old Testament and the God of Israel. This is when Gospels begin to be quoted from in the early Roman writings.

Let's see if you got your timing right.

The Bible’s Viewpoint

Does God Change?

ANTHROPOLOGIST George Dorsey described the God of the “Old Testament” as “a savage God.” He added: “Yahweh is . . . utterly unlovely. He is the God of plunderers, of torturers, of warriors, of conquest.” Others have reached similar conclusions regarding the God of the “Old Testament”—Yahweh, or Jehovah. Thus, some today wonder whether Jehovah was in fact a cruel God who eventually changed his character to become the loving and merciful God of the “New Testament.”

Such an idea about the God of the Bible is not new. It was first propounded by Marcion, a semi-Gnostic of the second century C.E. Marcion repudiated the God of the “Old Testament.” He considered that God to be violent and vindictive, a tyrant who offered material rewards to those worshiping him. On the other hand, Marcion described the “New Testament” God—as revealed through Jesus Christ—as a perfect God, a God of pure love and mercy, of graciousness and forgiveness.

Source: Does God Change? Awake!—2000

Outside the Scriptures themselves there is evidence that, as early as 90-100 C.E., at least ten of Paul’s letters were collected together. It is certain that at an early date Christians were gathering together the inspired Christian writings.

We read that “near the close of the 1st cent., Clement bishop of Rome was acquainted with Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth. After him, the letters of both Ignatius bishop of Antioch and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna attest the dissemination of the Pauline letters by the second decade of the 2nd century.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by G. W. Bromiley, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 603) These were all early writers—Clement of Rome (30?-100? C.E.), Polycarp (69?-155? C.E.), and Ignatius of Antioch (late 1st and early 2nd centuries C.E.)—who wove in quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, showing their acquaintance with such canonical writings.

Source: Canon: Insight, Volume 1

Marcionism was an Early Christian dualist belief system that originated in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144.[1]

Source: Marcionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

(from Chester John)
And who is deciding what is Bible and what is not? Men of course.

Not you or Seede have been able to refute anything Mallochio has pointed out. NOT ONE of his points.
...
How bout this? Take everything Mallochio has said, and rebut them one by one. ALL of it. Hey, even use scripture to do it. Just don't use Paul to defend Paul. Use Jesus to defend Paul.

Well your comment did encourage me to go have a look at Mallochio's latest commentary in this thread but somehow I think my comment above won't quite make you happy even though I didn't use Paul to defend Paul (and btw, why is he not allowed to defend himself as well against his accusers?). Especially those who twist what he was teaching (creating straw man arguments; in that case, the only proper defense is showing what he really said).

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

because you lack understanding of the context of the whole Preserved word of God (mainly because you read a corrupted bible of men), you will see that there are no dualities. As far as divisions they exist because God put a division between his people Israel Israel and the Heathen Gentiles.

And he put a division between the Kingdom promise to Israel and the Body of Christ at this age because of his dealing with the iniquity of his people.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I have and it always leads back to one thing UNBELIEF.

I showed the errors of his and yours not knowing the scriptures.

Come back after 20 plus years of reading the preserved word of God, maybe then you will have changed your minds.

But in this age of instant and quick knowledge (not necessarily wisdom). You all choose to quote men rather than the word of God, except when it can be used to remove 15 books of the NT

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

NO what I have used to defend Paul is the preserved words of God. Which just happen to be part of the NT. If you apply your warped understanding of Paul's writings (though he did not pen the words himself) to Ezekiel, Daniel, Isiah, David, Solomon and Job. Most if not all of the Bible would not even be usable.

Your argument is that the Bible is merely written by men. Therein lay the flaw of your argument, though many of the 350 plus Bibles are the works of men only one is the preserved word of God.

Two things must have to be and that is inspiration and preservation and both are of God by his power.

It is either all divinely inspired or none of it is. If it is not God's word he would not have made a promise to preserved his words forever to every generation.

There is only one Bible today in English that is preserved find it and believe it.

a reply to: glend

no matter who begotten through the gospe0,l the fact that no Greek word for father is in any manuscript copies we have is where the perversion lay. No only that you must remember if God is moving in his power to preserve his words then it will not have father so that he would not make it look like Paul violated Jesus words.

Many words were added, with out Italics, that does not clarify but adds confusion and questioning. That is not of God's preservation that is of men who wanted to get people in this age to follow the kingdom gospel which has been set aside for a time, so they could fleece the the people who follow them of their money through an OT kingdom command to Israel to tithe, giving the priest the power to forcefully take the tithe.

To charge Paul with saying he was father when he didn't is an error of Biblical proportions.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

That is not of God's preservation that is of men who wanted to get people in this age to follow the kingdom gospel which has been set aside for a time, so they could fleece the the people who follow them of their money through an OT kingdom command to Israel to tithe, giving the priest the power to forcefully take the tithe.

Jesus said, "freely you have received, therefore freely give".

Paul was very much like other Pharisees -- Paul neglected the Law except provisions used by the religious elite to guilt people into financial support for themselves.

The Pharisees inspected people's vegetable gardens to collect the tithe - an agricultural cut of 10%, but from self-interest. They no doubt thought they served the same job as Levites who would collect tithes, and take a 10% cut, and so the Pharisees evidently collected the tithe with the same intention. See Neh 10:38

Paul could not cite the tithing law to guilt Gentiles to whom he wrote as tithing only applied to "sons of Israel," just like circumcision only applied to "sons of Israel." See Law of Tithing on Gentiles? Thus, not surprisingly, the only command from the Torah-law which Paul taught Gentiles as still applicable to them is found in 1 Corinthians 9:9 -- the Mosaic Law that you cannot muzzle an ox -- preventing it from feeding from the field -- while it is treading out the corn (Deut 25:4). Paul said this Mosaic law implies you must support those teachers who teach you -- implying Paul had a right to financial support based upon Deut 25:4. However that command of animal husbandry had nothing to do with supporting financially one's teacher. (from Jesus Word's Only site).

In fact, Jesus taught us not to take wages for preaching and teaching. (Matthew 10:8.) And thus Paul made of no effect the commandment of Christ by virtue of a commandment of a man -- Paul, a Pharisee -- based on an extremely wild application of Deut 25:4.

My initial discovery of the illegitimacy of the character Paul in the New Testament came about only because I determined that I was going to read and know the Bible better than anyone (an admittedly vain yet necessary motive) and desire to truly understand it, not just the individual facts on paper but the spirit of the Words. I wanted the scholarly factual knowledge to get to the esoteric meaning behind the outlandish gore fests and miraculous tales of the Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans and eventually Christ. What I got was less esoteric wisdom and more polytheistic coverups besides even the admitted lapses into idolatry, evidence of a distinctly Canaanite structure to the mythology of El, Elohim, Baal, Asherah and Molech with human sacrifice to Molech forbidden yet prevalent and sometimes attributed as to Yahweh himself who does not equate The Most High God or El Elyon and was only the chief God of Israel until late ''Second Temple" after the fall of Babylon and rise of Darius and later Cyrus.

Most of the Old Testament is pseudepigraphal, if not all. The most fascinating characters are Solomon and Elijah, Solomon is based off Shalman-ezer the Assyrian King and his Temple is also based off an Assyrian Temple. This ancient King and fabulous Kingdom was not Israels but little did it matter to Hebrew slaves looking to the future. Cyrus the Messiah had come and the stories were rewritten and written using memories, tradition and the known history of the ancient world from Egypt to Babylon and Canaan as well as Chaldean and Assyrian, Akkadian, whatever could be compiled and made into a Hebrew story about Judea/Israel and the 12 tribes and ancient priesthood that always did better without a King showing a bias towards any King that wasn't looking loyal to Yahweh aka the priesthood and the disastrous consequences of disobedience to the Elect of God and ''Israel."


And then Greek culture and it's influence is not mentioned until the New Testament and it is not a hateful one but the Romans are universally despised by Judahites except the corrupt priesthood that is now under a goyim King and an evil High Priest with allegiance to Rome. The party of the Pharisees is sociable with Jesus and even against harming his sect under Gamaliel and the only really evil ''Pharisee" is Paul who is employed by the Herodians and Sadducees to stalk and imprison or kill the followers of Christ. Roman hatred for the Rabbis and Jews in general certainly influenced the worst passages about the Pharisees in the New Testament and seem exaggerated.

Christ taught how to live an honorable life and embraced the Holy Spirit and Wisdom, Truth and Love. He wasn't a theologian but a role model and prophet and Spiritual Messiah whose Crucifixion was an unfortunate but strategic decision that he claimed was what his Father decreed, not for the remission of sins but to ressurect and teach the mystery of the ressurection which is after being born again and not an after death event. Baptism is of water, Spirit and Fire, after Fire is the Ressurection, the separation and destruction of tare. Ascension is death and reunion with Heaven but all is the Kingdom of God.

Then comes Paul setting new rules and bad mouthing the leading Apostles of the 12 Apostles and then claiming to be one without ever meeting Christ except through private revelation and so says Luke a Damascus road conversion and hearing of the voice of ''Chris.''


The story stunk to high heaven until I started to find actual passages that prove and predict that Paul was the false prophet and an antichrist with story elements of serious dispute to back it up.

I was left with the conclusion, two religions were attempted to be synchronized using older material. Someone decided to tell a story about a false prophet but disguise it as a harmonious tale of the genesis of Christianity and it's Apostles, mostly Paul.


Whoever could figure out after reading this that Paul was a false prophet would be considered true to the teachings of Jesus and an astute disciple and much gained regarding their intelligence, loyalty and courage.

Meanwhile the rest of the mostly illiterate population had to rely on Paul's basic rule based theology and had no access to anything that wasn't read by a wealthy person or priest.

a reply to: Akragon

No Ron Paul didnt invent Christianity.

He's just a shining example of what it should be and how it should be practiced.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Malocchio

What rightly dividing means basically in modern English is "apply the correct context". Meaning, don't apply something written to first covenant Levite priests and apply it to new covenant Gentile Christians. For example.

"Rightly divide" IS in modern English already so you don't need to translate it into English because I speak English, and, no, that is not the meaning of ''rightly divide."

Dividing something is seperating it into portions, and has no relation to context but specifically the ''word of truth" which could only mean the Gospels as Paul teaches it vs the Gospels the Apostles teach and the teachings of Jesus.

It's a method used by the early Church interpolaters to seperate the teachings of Jesus from Gentile Christianity that weren't convenient for Gentile Christianity as Jewish teachings.

It's not rocket science to conclude that dividing in Christian terms is Jew vs Gentile, in the context of the story it is just ridiculous rhetoric that sounds like something only a complete follower would listen to, dividing truth, thats elitism or racism, take your pick.

I can imagine Hitler saying, "Ve must divide the truth, so nobody has all of it except us.''

I don't see how that could be reinterpreted to mean ''proper context" because your ''explanation" and English to English translation don't explain the details of, whats divided between who? There are no "Levite Priests" in Christianity for them to miss apply segments of Levitical law for priests to Greeks and wouldn't do anything so utterly absurd even if the average person in Pauls time hide access to the Septuagint or Tanakh they have no use for it being Greek and having no New Testament the only "word of truth" for them would be Paul or the Apostles themselves.

Why divide the truth at all?

It's a bit silly to say that it means context, I don't know what drove you to draw that conclusion but it is faulty for many reasons.

a reply to: Malocchio


No, "rightly" and "divide" are modern words, but not a modern saying. Nobody speaks that way in regards to literature today, what we commonly use in speech today is "proper context". Modern Bible versions will translate that Greek as "accurately handling" or "correctly teaching".

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Aren't you a man? Then why do you even trust the Bible you read? What version is it? You must have the correct one, since you seem to put so much faith in it. Are YOU deciding what is Bible and what is not? Not you or Seede have been able to refute anything Mallochio has pointed out. NOT ONE of his points. You, Chester, always go back to the Bible (rightly dividing the "word of truth") and yet, you have not once rebutted all the things he's shown you. You, Mr. Seede, have actually gone outside the Bible for support of your argument...yet, you have not been able to refute his points either. How bout this? Take everything Mallochio has said, and rebut them one by one. ALL of it. Hey, even use scripture to do it. Just don't use Paul to defend Paul. Use Jesus to defend Paul.

My land, what in the world are you talking about? So much ranting and saying nothing that makes sense. Settle down a bit and discuss one specific thing at a time. Between you and your companion, that you champion, it looks as though you may have an anger problem. Please do not blame Chester for my errors and if you have a debatable valid subject then please address it to me or Chester whichever the case may be.

Mallochio is responsible for what he writes the same as I am responsible for what I write and you also are the same. We need no unqualified referee to determine theology. That is why it is theology and not university science. No I have not rebutted each and every word that anyone writes because I do not have the time or desire to do so. Simply because I choose my subject matter to debate does not mean the one being debated is correct. My silence means that either I do not have the time or that it is not profitable to me to debate.

Now you addressed me [" You, Mr. Seede, have actually gone outside the Bible for support of your argument...yet, you have not been able to refute his points either."] May I ask you what points? Be more specific please. You are correct in that at times I do use outside literature to make a point. I try to give sources in those cases simply because in theology we use historical facts as well as theological understandings. The two are intermixed as literature. The bible is not complete even though true. There is no one source that can be used in all circumstances simply because the authors of the bible are not in every place at a given time to complete their message. I assumed you knew that but apparently was mistaken in that assumption.

So now I must give you a reason in not addressing all that Mallochio has written.

Mallochio
Quote
“Christianity is just pagan sun worship with a fancy story about a Jew that has no historical basis.”
Unquote --

There is your reason and the person that you champion. Nothing further can be debated. After lengthy debate and a final statement such as that then it is silly to waste my time with such mindsets.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Come back after 20 plus years of reading the preserved word of God, maybe then you will have changed your minds.

I have spent 25 years reading the Bible. The one I have currently is falling apart, duct taped, and written all in. Do you really think I don't know what it says, just because I found contradictions and a false apostle in it? I was ALL IN for those 20 plus years, Chester. I would have defended the inerrancy of it, just as you are. Not anymore. I finally stopped being afraid of really digging into those things in scripture that didn't add up or feel right to me. It's been a five year journey of unlearning all the indoctrination and relearning much more.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Aren't you a man? Then why do you even trust the Bible you read? What version is it? You must have the correct one, since you seem to put so much faith in it. Are YOU deciding what is Bible and what is not? Not you or Seede have been able to refute anything Mallochio has pointed out. NOT ONE of his points. You, Chester, always go back to the Bible (rightly dividing the "word of truth") and yet, you have not once rebutted all the things he's shown you. You, Mr. Seede, have actually gone outside the Bible for support of your argument...yet, you have not been able to refute his points either. How bout this? Take everything Mallochio has said, and rebut them one by one. ALL of it. Hey, even use scripture to do it. Just don't use Paul to defend Paul. Use Jesus to defend Paul.

My land, what in the world are you talking about? So much ranting and saying nothing that makes sense. Settle down a bit and discuss one specific thing at a time. Between you and your companion, that you champion, it looks as though you may have an anger problem. Please do not blame Chester for my errors and if you have a debatable valid subject then please address it to me or Chester whichever the case may be.

Mallochio is responsible for what he writes the same as I am responsible for what I write and you also are the same. We need no unqualified referee to determine theology. That is why it is theology and not university science. No I have not rebutted each and every word that anyone writes because I do not have the time or desire to do so. Simply because I choose my subject matter to debate does not mean the one being debated is correct. My silence means that either I do not have the time or that it is not profitable to me to debate.

Now you addressed me [" You, Mr. Seede, have actually gone outside the Bible for support of your argument...yet, you have not been able to refute his points either."] May I ask you what points? Be more specific please. You are correct in that at times I do use outside literature to make a point. I try to give sources in those cases simply because in theology we use historical facts as well as theological understandings. The two are intermixed as literature. The bible is not complete even though true. There is no one source that can be used in all circumstances simply because the authors of the bible are not in every place at a given time to complete their message. I assumed you knew that but apparently was mistaken in that assumption.

So now I must give you a reason in not addressing all that Mallochio has written.

Mallochio
Quote
“Christianity is just pagan sun worship with a fancy story about a Jew that has no historical basis.”
Unquote --

There is your reason and the person that you champion. Nothing further can be debated. After lengthy debate and a final statement such as that then it is silly to waste my time with such mindsets.

I'm female. So, what seems to you as "ranting" and an "anger problem" is me speaking with passion and emotion. That's the way women are wired. I'm not ranting, but yes.... a lot of this does make me angry. I can't stand Paul. Loathe would probably be a better word. I also loathe YHWH. Do you know why? NEITHER of them are GOOD. I've stated repeatedly that Paul was a braggart, totally full of himself, a misogynist, and a liar. YWHW is blood thirsty, a misogynist, blesses conditionally, and kills whomever and whatever he pleases. He is no good god.
So, Mallochio has explained much of what I've found as well, but much more. I went on the same journey as he/she did. I studied and studied some more. By this time, my mindset was simply to find the truth.
You call him my champion? I appreciate that he's speaking the truth and it resonates with me.
Christianity is BS and YHWH is not the true God.

oops!