St. Paul: Did He Invent Christianity?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Thomas_Thumb

Are you telling me that Christianity was hijacked by Apostle Paul? Are you telling me that Paul blatantly picked apart Jesus' message and slightly tainted it to confound the world of the real Gospel?

No. I am saying that Messianic Judaism was hijacked by Apostle Paul, that Paul blatantly picked apart the apostle's message and gave it a gentile twist it to make the Gospel palatable to Gentiles.

Are you implying that Paul has more in common with Benny Hinn than Joel Osteen? Are you telling me that every time Apostle Paul lectured, he looked away from his followers and smiled sort of evil but nonchalantly?

I have never seen Benny Hinn in action and never even heard of Joel Osteen, but I imagine that Paul, was fervent, sincere and dedicated to his beliefs and totally, totally dishonest, mendacious and deceitful in his self -justifications.

Last scene:
Peter is being crucified upside down... his last moments, he sees Paul in the distance. Confused... then he realizes Paul's sinister grin. And Paul's face begins to morph into Simon Magus. And the omen music starts, with the scene phasing out to the credits.

Critics say "Awesome..Must see...I wept.."

[theflipflop]

Originally Posted by VTMonzstarr

I appreciate the honesty at the end, my response would have had to be a bit longer should you never have cleared that up. First off i can truly say that the very idea of Paul's creating today's view of Christianity is utter invention with a heavy dose of biased speculation...you see it would favor a certain religion if this could be true and i would assume you are of the religion it would favor(unless you are an atheist). Approaching Damascus a light from the sky flashed about him ACTS 9:4 'He fell to the ground and at the same time heard a voice saying, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?. ACTS 9:5 'Who are you sir?' he asked. I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting'. Here it clearly depicts Saul(Paul) being visited by Christ who orders him to 'get up and go into the city where you will be told what to do'( the men with Saul are the witnesses, they heard the voice)...He was 'unable to see even though his eyes were open(similiar to Muslims and Jews of these days). ACTS 9:15 'The Lord said to him(To Ananias who was to baptize Saul) "You must go! This man is the instrument i have chosen to bring my name to the Gentiles and their Kings and the people of Israel". Paul was chosen by the Word of God an his message is true, the reason why your type slanders Paul is because some of his letters were written as few as 15 yrs after Christs death and resurrection.

What self righteous nonsense. The Jews have exactly zero to benefit by Paul inventing your religion. Whether Chrstians believe the laws in Torah are obligatory or not is of exactly zero importance to the Jews. I could care less than Paul was a gentile, spurned by Jewish leaders of the time and so angry he created a mythology to appeal to pagans and Gnostics.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

...but I imagine that Paul, was fervent, sincere and dedicated to his beliefs and totally, totally dishonest, mendacious and deceitful in his self -justifications.

So, Paul can't control when he does his sinister nonchalantly smile. Awesome!!!

[VTMonzstarr]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I have split your post as they require two responses

The only way in which I suggest that Paul invented Christianity as we know it today is in the step of arguing that Jewish observances were not required. Apart from that I take the view that it was the apostles who invented Christianity in propounding the doctrine that Jesus had risen and gone to heaven and would return, and I think is pretty evidently the case.

The only was a non - Christian would differ from a Christian on that is in whether their belief was correct or not. To remove all doubt, I say it was wishful thinking on their part.



Supposed resurrection. Study of the gospels shows up pretty clearly that the resurrection accounts are so discrepant that they cannot be taken as reliable.

As I have argued, nothing in Acts deserves to be taken on trust. Paul's conversion on the way to Damascus is not even hinted at by Paul. The writer of Acts lies about the reason why Paul had to escape from Damascus.

The reason I say what I say about Paul is because of his letters, whenever they were written, so don't blame me for what he wrote.

All books even the heretical books(literally documents regarding Christ and the only accounts, those that make up books like what the Muslims believe about christ) mention Christ resurrection, the books given pauline authorship are the earliest gospels after Christ death and resurrection(as few as 15 yrs). This is why people like to make wild accusations regarding paul direction of Jesus's church. Simply because nothing attests better to the earliest christians beliefs.

The only way your question can be properly addressed is belief in the same scriptures you refute, as it is that the one's you dont believe in are even later than the one's that fill in 90 percent of there defense. I maintain that when Christ proclaims in a vision to Ananias that 'This man is the instrument i have chosen to bring my name to the gentiles, and there Kings, and(interestingly enough if you really delve into this next phrase)to the people of Israel' that he meant it fully aware of where Paul would take the Gospel. That is to suggest that when Paul makes remarks like that if an individual should cut of his foreskin he has severed himself from his lord, that these things are exactly where Christ knew and needed his church to go.

This is another inspiration debate, meaning if you dont believe in the inspiration of the first words than you wont believe in there completion.

Jesus said in Mark11:17 "Does not scripture have it, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all people's". What does "for ALL people's" mean to you?.

[TRANSPONDER]

I do regard Paul's writings as the earliest indications of what the apostles had been teaching. I further regard their content as arguing for their adaptation to his gentile fellow citizens - which that apostles had not taught and nor did Jesus.

If so (and it is 'if' - but I feel that an objective reading will support that 'if) then it means that Jesus cannot have been arguing against sabbath observance or clean food laws. Thus the gospels were written later, by Paulinist Christians and putting in Jesus' mouth the views - not just of Paul, but of Greek gentile Paulinists Christians with an antipathy towards Jews and Judaism that Paul himself didn't have (1).

Thus my response to:

Originally Posted by VTMonzstarr

...

Jesus said in Mark11:17 "Does not scripture have it, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all people's". What does "for ALL people's" mean to you?.

Is, it means what you take it to mean. But I say it was said by the person who wrote the original synoptic gospel - and it was not said by Jesus. I would say that we have not a single word that we can reliably attribute to the historical Jesus. Not even the ones attributed to him by Paul (1.Cor. 11.24) since he earlier speaks symbolically of the participation in Jesus' sacrifice through the communal taking of food and wine, (2) and of getting his material from a post - death vision of Jesus.

(1) though he had a dislike of the law - I believe because he didn't keep it very well himself and jumped at the chance to prove that it didn't matter for salvation, and notwithstanding his snarling at the 'super apostles' who were sending messengers to teach a 'different gospel' to the one he was teaching.

(2) which I suspect was seized on by early Christians to construct a last supper in which Jesus is shown as laying down this Christian ritual before his death. I also see indications that this was in fact originally the supper given in Lazarus' house before the anointing and before the Temple take -over (assuming that there is a basic story of a failed messianic attempt underlying the story) shifted to after the event - the discrepancy in the timing of the supposed Judas betrayal shows how this original very early Paulinist element was added to the story.