Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: Akragon

Without going over the whole vid and making a list of points I will mention this one ,where what he claims he also refutes with the evidence he provides . Paul said he persecuted the church prior to his conversion . Paul also studied under Gamaliel, . He said that there was no persecution of the early Christians and for evidence he provides a statement from Gamaliel to not bother with them and if it was from God it would stand but if not it would die out .

Now why would Gamaliel make such a decree if there was no Jews persecuting the Christians . You don't tell people not to do this or that if they are not doing it . That would be nonsensical .As to the rest well lets just say that he being a apostate would fit his attempt to discredit what the Church recorded and has passed down to us .

a reply to: dashen

Paul never changed the Sabbath. the Sabbath is the Sabbath but Christian assemble on the fist day of thee week, the day after the Sabbath

a reply to: dashen

Paul didn't change the Sabbath. The first people you see in the NT saying Gentile converts are not bound by the Mosaic law are James and Peter in ACTS chapter 15. That specific issue came up that the Jerusalem council ruled on.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

That is just foolishness
Not once does Paul suggest what you have insinuated

Go read Paul's letter to the Romans 14
how can you suggest Paul is demanding anything relating to worshiping on a Sunday

Seems desperate

a reply to: ChesterJohn

There is no rule for what day Christians should assemble
This is the issue, many are blaming Paul for demanding Sunday worship when in fact Christians are called to worship everyday

Paul abolished the Torah for both Jews and Gentiles. He abolished all of the law, including the 4th Commandment:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you."

Galations 5:3
Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

If men who allow themselves to become circumcised have fallen from grace, how much more so have those who rest on the Sabbath and make it holy fallen from grace?

a reply to: windword

James makes the exact same point as Paul, that someone following the law is obligated to follow all of it and to fail in one point is failure of all of it. And as I mentioned above, it was James and Peter at the Jerusalem council who declared that Gentiles didn't have to be circumcised and follow he law in Acts chapter 15. So Paul's statement in Galatians isn't some new thing, that was the ruling of James and Peter in Jerusalem.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: ChesterJohn

There is no rule for what day Christians should assemble
This is the issue, many are blaming Paul for demanding Sunday worship when in fact Christians are called to worship everyday

That's the point I bring up to Adventists. We are to worship in spirit and truth every day of the week, not just once a week and at a specific building. That's what Jesus was teaching the woman at the well.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Did you watch the lecture in the OP?

Acts was written at least a decade after Galatians. So, your time line is irrelevant, besides the fact that James never said that Jews didn't have a need to honor the Torah, and Gentiles never were under the law anyway.

Also, Paul tells his followers not to listen to or follow the apostles, who were in disagreement with Paul, to ignore them, that they were teaching a false gospel. So again, your argument is moot.

Paul abolished the Torah for everyone, including the 4th Commandment, which isn't about gathering for worship but honoring God by resting.

a reply to: Akragon

None of what is presented as factual is disputed.

Paul wrote his own 7 or less letters 40 years before Acts was written.
at least 30 years before the first Gospel was written.
Jesus wrote zip.

The Synoptic Gospel version of Jesus presents a Judahite perspective for Judahites. Any Gentile, heathen viewed with favor is noted as a notable exception.

Paul's message was for Gentiles.

The bottom line is this:
Does the Torah present a righteous god worth following? Yes or No.
If yes, then by all means be a Jew or convert to Judaism so as to be 1st class citizen of the Jewish controlled World Empire which is the End Game of the Age to Come.

Or be a Noahide, non-citizen but rather subject of the World Empire.

If, on the other hand, you consider the Torah to present something less than righteousness, then to hell with the whole thing, Torah, Messiah, One Jewish dominated World Empire, and be an atheist or Pagan or Heathen or agnostic and consign anything and everything tainted by Torah to the toilet. And don't forget to flush. And be sure to wash your hands before handling any food. You wouldn't want to accidently take back in what you were disposing of.

I thought Charlton Heston invented Christianity.......

No-one mentions the Persian Zoroastrian teachings, which are apparently 1000+ years older than Christianity.

How much did they influence "Paul".

My understanding of the times in the Middle East, there were dozens of separate religious beliefs around. Jesus and his followers were just another bunch of crazies, with their own ideas.
Had the Romans not taken over the whole shebang, they would have faded like most of the others.
And other crazies like Mohamood, came to prominence with their wild claims, as well.

Lets Face it, ALL Middle Eastern religions are crazy madeup myths, and stories...basically cults to serve as a madman leaders personal bank, and satisfy their fetishes.

The Zoros, at least were a Civilizational (Persians) religion, unlike Islam and Christianity.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Did you watch the lecture in the OP?

No

Acts was written at least a decade after Galatians. So, your time line is irrelevant, besides the fact that James never said that Jews didn't have a need to honor the Torah, and Gentiles never were under the law anyway.

Paul talks about the outcome of the Jerusalem council in the 2nd chapter of Galatians.

Also, Paul tells his followers not to listen to or follow the apostles, who were in disagreement with Paul, to ignore them, that they were teaching a false gospel. So again, your argument is moot.

No, Paul calls the judaizers false brothers. The people teaching that new Christian converts had to be circumcised and follow the law.

Paul abolished the Torah for everyone, including the 4th Commandment, which isn't about gathering for worship but honoring God by resting.

Yes, that was the decision James and Peter established at the Jerusalem council, recorded in Acts chapter 15. That was the purpose of the council, Pharisee believers had accused Paul before the council that the Gentiles were not being circumcised or following the Law.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Did you watch the lecture in the OP?



No

The idea here was to watch the video... ye know

a reply to: NOTurTypical

It's really tedious and redundant, trying to have a conversation about the video lecture with someone who hasn't watched said video.

Paul talks about the outcome of the Jerusalem council in the 2nd chapter of Galatians.

You mean this?

9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

That is not an apostolic declaration that abolished the Torah for Jews! That's Paul's self aggrandizing and Paul's claim that 3 Apostles (The important ones, "Pillars, according to Paul) gave him their blessing to preach to Gentiles and remember the poor.

It's Paul's, and his alone, whose gospel completely eliminates the importance of, or the need for the Torah, "The Law'. No more Abrahamic covenant of circumcision, no more temple sacrifices, no more Sabbath resting, no more genetic Jews.

a reply to: Akragon

Just finished watching the lecture, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I thought some very good points were made (I too will remain vague). Would appreciate more views on this, from those who trust Paul. I'd say this is a bonafide conspiracy in religion. I want to know more...

Again, thanks for posting!

Okay Akragon, I need another to watch. Hook me up please!

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

glad you enjoyed it...

Theres a link in the OP that leads to a bio of the man in the video... On that site there is a stack of videos to watch if you like...

I plan on checking out the video on the first page offered by another member later tonight

Excellent video which gives a balanced view of the New Testament from a scholars viewpoint. So Jews don't believe Jesus was a Messiah, Koran tells us Jesus wasn't a Messiah, lastly we have the Mandaeans which might be the remnants of original teachings, telling us, Jesus wasn't a Messiah.

The Mandaeans believe John the baptist (Yahya ibn Zakariyya) was a prophet of Mandaeism and Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist.

Mandaeans maintain that Jesus was a mšiha kdaba "false messiah"[25] who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John. The Mandaic word k(a)daba, however, might be interpreted as being derived from either of two roots: the first root, meaning "to lie," is the one traditionally ascribed to Jesus; the second, meaning "to write," might provide a second meaning, that of "book;" hence some Mandaeans, motivated perhaps by an ecumenical spirit, maintain that Jesus was not a "lying Messiah" but a "book Messiah," the "book" in question presumably being the Christian Gospels. This seems to be a folk etymology without support in the Mandaean texts.
Link

Interestingly, the Mandaeans also reject writings by Abraham and Moses which also questions the authorship of Torah as well.

a reply to: gort51

No-one mentions the Persian Zoroastrian teachings, which are apparently 1000+ years older than Christianity.

It's closer to 600 years before Christianity. It was a major influence on Greek philosophy, and a major source for Post Exile Judean idea of monotheism, which didn't exist within Judean thought until exposure to Persian Empire after Babylon got absorbed into the Empire. Judah was a province of Persia for centuries.

How much did they influence "Paul".

Besides the Zoroastrian influence inherent within Pharisee teaching, Paul was also familiar with middle-platonic philosophy also Zoroastrian influenced. He was strongly influenced by Stoic philosophy and used many of the technical words associated with Stoic thought.

a reply to: Akragon

And now to answer the question. No, Paul did not invent Christianity.

My criticism of the video. He says paraphrase, "Paul wrote his letters 40 years before Acts was written by whoever. So listen to what Paul says about himself more than what Acts says about him. Acts says this and Acts says that and in Acts it is stated that this and that... and Acts, Acts, Acts."

Then, he has this mysterious knowledge of what the disciples taught for 37 years without presenting any citations whatsoever. You know the hypothetical teachings of the Nazoreans/Ebionites. Of whom there are no writings prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The closest we can come to knowing what they taught would be through the teachings of the Assyrian Church of the East, founded in Mesopotamia in the 1st Century by Thomas the Apostle, Thaddeus of Edessa, and Bartholomew the Apostle.

This Church had no direct contact with Paul. Being within the Parthian Empire, they had very little influence from Rome on account of the Roman–Parthian Wars which went on for 719 years.

On the other hand there were some Jewish-Christian character in Mesopotamia at the time also who had a book that had been revealed by an angel ninety-six miles high, sixteen miles broad and twenty-four across the shoulders, whose footprints were fourteen miles long and four miles wide by two miles deep. This giant angel was the Son of God, who was accompanied by His Sister, the Holy Ghost, of the same dimensions. A new remission of sins had been proclaimed in the third year of Trajan (AD 100), and a baptism which would impart this forgiveness even to the grossest sinners. see Elcesaites.

Now I'm positive that an Angel like that with a book is to be given much greater credibility than a guy receiving visions of a guy he'd never met in person.

a reply to: pthena

that sounds very familiar...

Where did you get that monster angel story from... i know i read it somewhere