Did Paul Invent Christianity?

originally posted by: cooperton
This has probably already been said, but Paul would have had no motive for fabricating Christianity. He was a well-established Jew that initially persecuted the Christian movement - he would not have left his respected position to make up Christianity, nor would he have had the resources to forego such an elaborate conspiracy.

OR....Paul was being used by the "enemy"...and I have my theories on who that is (ahem...YHWH).

You might find it interesting but some of the decrees of the council of Trent 1563 are relevant to this discussion.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone..., let him be anathama.

Galatians 3:10-14, Ephesians 2:15 Romans 10:9, all espouse fail alone is salvation.

"Man is not justified by works of the law but ONLY through faith in Jesus Christ."

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins...let him be anathama.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathama.


Pretty strange since I am sure these men read Paul and are well aware they are anathematizing Paul over and over. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

Heres the link Muslim Times 13th "apostle"

It is a great source if you are interested in Islam's perspective on the false prophet Saul of Tarsus.

cooperton
This has probably already been said, but Paul would have had no motive for fabricating Christianity. He was a well-established Jew that initially persecuted the Christian movement - he would not have left his respected position to make up Christianity, nor would he have had the resources to forego such an elaborate conspiracy.

I think it is pretty obvious his motivation.

Murdering and imprisoning people was ineffective in snuffing out the problem, his original hired position on behalf of Rome who was fighting revolutionary groups at the time left and right.

Then it was decided to infiltrate and neutralize the movement and create a competing brand of The Way acceptable to pagan Rome.

Paul's ideas about subservience to authority (of Rome) and subservience of women to their husbands, slaves to their masters (especially) were crucial to its success among the Romans.

Eventually the Pagan form of Christianity, Catholicism became the religion of the Empire by law and the original Jewish Nazarenes and Ebionites were sought out as heretics and likely killed as were the Gnostic Christians of Egypt and Syria all disappearing from history with their books destroyed.

Except...we found some. Nag Hammadi scriptures for the Gnostics and the Jewish Apocrypha that tells the stories of the 12 Apostles and a large body of scripture three times the size of the New Testament as well as the proto-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls. Together these texts could keep an interested person busy for a while and make you think again about trusting the New Testament that focuses on Paul and only grudgingly and by necessity has the Gospels and Jewish scripture attached but the focus in Church is on Paul because cult leaders and pastors like other cult leaders and Paul is the original OG heresiodox.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

OR....Paul was being used by the "enemy"...and I have my theories on who that is (ahem...YHWH).

originally posted by: Malocchio

I think it is pretty obvious his motivation.

Murdering and imprisoning people was ineffective in snuffing out the problem, his original hired position on behalf of Rome who was fighting revolutionary groups at the time left and right.

Then it was decided to infiltrate and neutralize the movement and create a competing brand of The Way acceptable to pagan Rome.

Paul's ideas about subservience to authority (of Rome) and subservience of women to their husbands, slaves to their masters (especially) were crucial to its success among the Romans.

Eventually the Pagan form of Christianity, Catholicism became the religion of the Empire by law and the original Jewish Nazarenes and Ebionites were sought out as heretics and likely killed as were the Gnostic Christians of Egypt and Syria all disappearing from history with their books destroyed.

Except...we found some. Nag Hammadi scriptures for the Gnostics and the Jewish Apocrypha that tells the stories of the 12 Apostles and a large body of scripture three times the size of the New Testament as well as the proto-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls. Together these texts could keep an interested person busy for a while and make you think again about trusting the New Testament that focuses on Paul and only grudgingly and by necessity has the Gospels and Jewish scripture attached but the focus in Church is on Paul because cult leaders and pastors like other cult leaders and Paul is the original OG heresiodox.

I thought the OP meant that Paul made-up/fabricated Christianity.

I read Paul's works as I would any author and I don't think he was a double-agent for the state so to speak. He spoke some fallible words, and I consider them as much as I would the words of any other Christian (or any person for that matter). He admitted to being ignorant to the true mystery of marriage, so his words regarding such don't hold weight in my opinion (Ephesians 5:31-32). Much of his writings, in my opinion, resonate with truth. For example:

" I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed." (Romans 8:18-19)

You can see his maturation process in his writings, which I think is relevant towards our own journeys into spiritual understanding. Later in his life, he probably looked back at some of his old letters and thought "oh man, that was way off the mark". Surely his writings are far from perfect, but I don't think he had evil intent whether it be consciously or unconsciously.

originally posted by: Malocchio

Except...we found some. Nag Hammadi scriptures for the Gnostics and the Jewish Apocrypha that tells the stories of the 12 Apostles

The apocryphal acts of the apostles are amazing. Here's from verse 69 of the Acts of John:

“But before all things it is needful that the believer should look before at his ending and understand it in what manner it will come upon him, whether it will be vigorous and sober and without any obstacle, or disturbed and clinging to the things that are here, and bound down by desires.”

This also coincides with 1 John 1 in which the Kingdom of Heaven (Light) is being revealed to their perception.

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
The true answer must be that though hired to write ''Paul" into the story ''Luke" was actually no fan of the writings of ''Paul" being close enough to the fraud that created him, wrote under the name.

Being far more learned than his peers this author made certain things that the Greco-Romans wouldn't notice apparent to the more educated of future generations and Jews of scripture then.

Which certain things…did you have something in mind…?

Originally posted by Malocchio
That Peter is on record as chosen by God in Acts to be the Apostle to the Goyim.

Yeah exactly, Peter was supposed to be the Rock on which the Church would be built (according to Jesus) and the one who would bring the message to the Gentiles…But then Paul arrives on the scene and assumes the position…

Originally posted by Malocchio
That it's only Paul claiming to be chosen by the Ascended Jesus to be the Apostle to the Gentiles/Goyim, nobody is recorded as granting him the exclusive privilege.

I’m pretty sure Jesus would have appeared to the 12 Apostles as well just to let them know that he had met with Paul. That would have been the perfect way to confirm that Paul was a true witness, but no such thing happened…

In an ideal world we should have a “Gospel of Jesus” and 12 Gospels of all the Apostles, and maybe a few extra accounts by other disciples of Jesus. The 12 Apostles of course would focus on Jesus life and teachings and not on themselves or their own ideas…etc.

But instead we have 4 anonymous Gospels, authors unknown. And the only reason 4 were chosen, is because of some crazy idea by Irenaeus that there are 4 directions so therefore there should be only be 4 Gospels…

Originally posted by Malocchio
And many other ''tells" for the educated reader to observe that Luke is not actually a Pauline man and just the opposite but hired to connect Marcion's Paul with the Apostles and he did while leaving what must be clues to tell the reader that Paul was actually not accepted by the 12 at all and they essentially shewed him out of Asia if he even existed at all.

The way I look at this, is that Jesus choose the 12 so that they could learn his teachings and be witnesses first hand to his life.

The idea that Jesus now needs to come back (after his death) to get one extra disciple (Paul) and to make him an Apostle who’s writings will make up 50% of the New Testament…which effectively superseded all of the other Apostles, that Jesus picked and taught first hand…seems highly suspect…IMO

Added to which, Paul only ever quotes Jesus once…and brings in teachings and ideas which Jesus never even talked about…


- JC

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
Then it was decided to infiltrate and neutralize the movement and create a competing brand of The Way acceptable to pagan Rome.

Paul's ideas about subservience to authority (of Rome) and subservience of women to their husbands, slaves to their masters (especially) were crucial to its success among the Romans.

Eventually the Pagan form of Christianity, Catholicism became the religion of the Empire by law and the original Jewish Nazarenes and Ebionites were sought out as heretics and likely killed as were the Gnostic Christians of Egypt and Syria all disappearing from history with their books destroyed.

I agree, this is exactly what happened i.e. A religion was subverted and moulded/edited by Rome…IMO…but in order to do that effectively you have to keep some truth of Jesus intact…

Although I’m not sure why you include the Ebonite's into the equation. The Ebonite's were said to have an identical version of the Gospel of Matthew, with the only difference being that they removed the virgin birth. It was for this reason that the Ebonite's were declared heretics by the early Roman Church…


- JC

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
The true answer must be that though hired to write ''Paul" into the story ''Luke" was actually no fan of the writings of ''Paul" being close enough to the fraud that created him, wrote under the name.

Being far more learned than his peers this author made certain things that the Greco-Romans wouldn't notice apparent to the more educated of future generations and Jews of scripture then.

Which certain things…did you have something in mind…?

Originally posted by Malocchio
That Peter is on record as chosen by God in Acts to be the Apostle to the Goyim.

Yeah exactly, Peter was supposed to be the Rock on which the Church would be built (according to Jesus) and the one who would bring the message to the Gentiles…But then Paul arrives on the scene and assumes the position…

Originally posted by Malocchio
That it's only Paul claiming to be chosen by the Ascended Jesus to be the Apostle to the Gentiles/Goyim, nobody is recorded as granting him the exclusive privilege.

I’m pretty sure Jesus would have appeared to the 12 Apostles as well just to let them know that he had met with Paul. That would have been the perfect way to confirm that Paul was a true witness, but no such thing happened…

In an ideal world we should have a “Gospel of Jesus” and 12 Gospels of all the Apostles, and maybe a few extra accounts by other disciples of Jesus. The 12 Apostles of course would focus on Jesus life and teachings and not on themselves or their own ideas…etc.

But instead we have 4 anonymous Gospels, authors unknown. And the only reason 4 were chosen, is because of some crazy idea by Irenaeus that there are 4 directions so therefore there should be only be 4 Gospels…

Originally posted by Malocchio
And many other ''tells" for the educated reader to observe that Luke is not actually a Pauline man and just the opposite but hired to connect Marcion's Paul with the Apostles and he did while leaving what must be clues to tell the reader that Paul was actually not accepted by the 12 at all and they essentially shewed him out of Asia if he even existed at all.

The way I look at this, is that Jesus choose the 12 so that they could learn his teachings and be witnesses first hand to his life.

The idea that Jesus now needs to come back (after his death) to get one extra disciple (Paul) and to make him an Apostle who’s writings will make up 50% of the New Testament…which effectively superseded all of the other Apostles, that Jesus picked and taught first hand…seems highly suspect…IMO

Added to which, Paul only ever quotes Jesus once…and brings in teachings and ideas which Jesus never even talked about…


- JC

Mr. Joecroft....you have seen the light, lol. Good deductive reasoning, by the way.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Malocchio

In an ideal world we should have a “Gospel of Jesus” and 12 Gospels of all the Apostles, and maybe a few extra accounts by other disciples of Jesus. The 12 Apostles of course would focus on Jesus life and teachings and not on themselves or their own ideas…etc.

The apocryphal acts are nice because they show what happens to those who begin to fully devote their life to Christ - including the forfeiture of every material possession. In the Acts of Thomas it goes into detail regarding the sacred embrace of Man and Woman, and it is said that Jesus came to instruct the couple after they took Thomas at his word:

"if ye be persuaded and keep your souls chaste before God, there will come unto you living children whom these blemishes touch not, and ye shall be without care, leading a tranquil life without grief or anxiety, looking to receive that incorruptible and true marriage, and ye shall be therein groomsmen entering into that bride-chamber which is full of immortality and light." Acts of Thomas verse 12

This account even matches with Orthodox gospel, when The woman at the well asks Jesus where to find the well of eternal life, in which he tells her to call her husband - presumably so he can teach them an intercourse of a spiritual nature. And so the two will become one. The Nag Hammadi texts are truly amazing, and I can see why they were deemed heretical by the misogynist church hierarchy.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Originally posted by Matrixsurvivor
Mr. Joecroft....you have seen the light, lol. Good deductive reasoning, by the way.

Thanks…you’ve made some pretty good posts yourself in this thread alone…

Yes, I’ve seen the light and now I am the Light!!!…lol

Everyone who get’s through this stuff, becomes a “Matrix Survivor” lol or at the very least a “Maze Survivor”…

Don’t get me wrong though, I’ve studied the History, read many Apocryphal writings and the Gnostic texts, and the writings against the Gnostics etc…My deductive reasoning's just make it easier and clearer for everyone else to see…

To be honest from the very outset I tended not to focus on Paul at all…I focused mainly on Jesus words, which is what led me into the truth that I have today…

Most Christians don’t trust where the Spirit of truth is leading them because it begins to conflict with the (false) Doctrines of men, so they begin to doubt themselves.


- JC

a reply to: cooperton

Paul's words were inspired of God.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: cooperton

Paul's words were inspired of God.

So were Thomas's, so were Phillip's, etc, so why weren't these included in the bible? I try to make sense of everything that is said in the Bible, and assume I am the one in ignorance when I cannot come to an understanding of what is said within it... but there are times in Paul's writings when I perceive that he is writing from a worldly perspective... in fact, it almost seems like an imperfect word through Paul (sometimes) is required to closer someone to the perfect word of Christ. Paul sets out dietary guidelines - those lacking in faith should stick to vegetables while the faithful can eat meat; whereas Christ simply says, what goes into your stomach cannot defile you. For those who are farther from the truth, more rules are required to deal with their doubtful lifestyle.

I believe I understand most of Paul's writing, and I see how it is directed at people at varying distances along the straight and narrow path towards the heavens.

a reply to: Joecroft

To be honest from the very outset I tended not to focus on Paul at all…I focused mainly on Jesus words, which is what led me into the truth that I have today…

You and me both. That's so awesome!! It is so cool to see other's who "get that". It really, really, is.

Most Christians don’t trust where the Spirit of truth is leading them because it begins to conflict with the (false) Doctrines of men, so they begin to doubt themselves.

That is EXACTLY what happened to me once I joined an organized church. Before that, I was just listening to the "Spirit", and she told me the TRUTH, but then I got involved in mainstream Christianity and doubted myself...constantly. Well, I was torn between that voice of truth inside me and the one shutting it down. I spent TWO decades doing that wavering. Goodness, don't do that. Listen to that voice that is showing you truth...that's what the Holy Spirit is...TRUTH.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: cooperton

Paul's words were inspired of God.

Oh Chester....I simultaneously want to hug you and smack you upside the head...but in a loving way. Good grief, QUESTION the religion you have staked your whole life on...I mean, truly research it. If there is nothing to be found that would "circumvent it", then what are you afraid of?'
Do you honestly think God would abandon you for actually "questioning"? If He did, then He's not a truly loving God.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: cooperton

Paul's words were inspired of God.

So were Thomas's, so were Phillip's, etc, so why weren't these included in the bible? I try to make sense of everything that is said in the Bible, and assume I am the one in ignorance when I cannot come to an understanding of what is said within it... but there are times in Paul's writings when I perceive that he is writing from a worldly perspective... in fact, it almost seems like an imperfect word through Paul (sometimes) is required to closer someone to the perfect word of Christ. Paul sets out dietary guidelines - those lacking in faith should stick to vegetables while the faithful can eat meat; whereas Christ simply says, what goes into your stomach cannot defile you. For those who are farther from the truth, more rules are required to deal with their doubtful lifestyle.

I believe I understand most of Paul's writing, and I see how it is directed at people at varying distances along the straight and narrow path towards the heavens.

This is said with love....but, you are "getting it". It's that "division" that is causing you problems. The "why" never goes away does it? Just stick with Jesus. Heck, His two commandments would make this world a MUCH better place, wouldn't it? (I kinda also think He meant that for the critter's, as well).
The Beatitudes are a good place to start.
I think if Christians would just dump Paul, they'd be a lot more in harmony with one another...A LOT more.

a reply to: cooperton

Originally posted by
The apocryphal acts are nice because they show what happens to those who begin to fully devote their life to Christ - including the forfeiture of every material possession. In the Acts of Thomas it goes into detail regarding the sacred embrace of Man and Woman, and it is said that Jesus came to instruct the couple after they took Thomas at his word:

"if ye be persuaded and keep your souls chaste before God, there will come unto you living children whom these blemishes touch not, and ye shall be without care, leading a tranquil life without grief or anxiety, looking to receive that incorruptible and true marriage, and ye shall be therein groomsmen entering into that bride-chamber which is full of immortality and light." Acts of Thomas verse 12

That verse from the Acts of Thomas is about a spiritual teaching. Although various parts of the New Testament do borrow the exact same concept of the bride and groom metaphor when speaking of the union between Jesus/God, man and the Church…

Originally posted by
This account even matches with Orthodox gospel, when The woman at the well asks Jesus where to find the well of eternal life, in which he tells her to call her husband - presumably so he can teach them an intercourse of a spiritual nature. And so the two will become one. The Nag Hammadi texts are truly amazing, and I can see why they were deemed heretical by the misogynist church hierarchy.

Hmmm, the Woman at the well had 5 husbands, that’s not exactly living a Chaste life style lol…Plus Jesus asked her to get her husband because he knew the man she was currently with, wasn’t even married to her…Jesus was really just testing her…

The two becoming one, is encoded into the Bride and groom metaphor, and is referring to the Father and Son becoming One…IMO…

The bridal Chamber is where the New Creation or New Son is given birth too… This is where the phrase “birthed into the Kingdom” comes from, and why the Holy Spirit has so often been feminised in various sources found outside of the Bible…

The Holy Spirit = The union between Father and the Son…When this takes place one becomes birthed into the Kingdom, and becomes a new creation. The New creation is a Son who has now become One with the Father. Jesus prayed for this in John 16; he prayed for his disciples to become one with the Father, just as he was one with the Father…


- JC

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Originally posted by Matrixsurvivor
That is EXACTLY what happened to me once I joined an organized church. Before that, I was just listening to the "Spirit", and she told me the TRUTH, but then I got involved in mainstream Christianity and doubted myself...constantly. Well, I was torn between that voice of truth inside me and the one shutting it down. I spent TWO decades doing that wavering. Goodness, don't do that. Listen to that voice that is showing you truth...that's what the Holy Spirit is...TRUTH.

I see a big parallel between the Christian Church and this verse in Matthew 23...below…

Matthew 23:15
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.”

Religion teaches the outward symbolism, which really just ends up becoming a replacement for the real thing. Jesus taught direct from the Spirit with Wisdom and truth, and he wanted us to do the same.

Jesus wanted people to worship in Spirit and truth, so that the people would become the authority and not the scribes. It is us who are meant to become the Living Epistles…that is how the true Church is meant to be built up…

The Popes and the Preachers are nothing but modern day Pharisees…IMO...The names have changed but the functions are still the same…


- JC

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: cooperton

"if ye be persuaded and keep your souls chaste before God, there will come unto you living children whom these blemishes touch not, and ye shall be without care, leading a tranquil life without grief or anxiety, looking to receive that incorruptible and true marriage, and ye shall be therein groomsmen entering into that bride-chamber which is full of immortality and light." Acts of Thomas verse 12

That verse from the Acts of Thomas is about a spiritual teaching.

Ehh, it is Jesus talking to a newly married couple, and telling them to be patient in their intercourse... Although I know it holds symbolic value, he is also literally talking to newlyweds.

Although various parts of the New Testament do borrow the exact same concept of the bride and groom metaphor when speaking of the union between Jesus/God, man and the Church…

The bridal chamber is an initiation of heaven uniting with earth and male uniting with female - this is what Jesus is teaching the married couple in the Acts of Thomas.

Hmmm, the Woman at the well had 5 husbands, that’s not exactly living a Chaste life style lol…

Who would be the first to throw a stone? All can be forgiven

Plus Jesus asked her to get her husband because he knew the man she was currently with, wasn’t even married to her…Jesus was really just testing her…

Yes he knew the occasion, but it does not take away from the fact that he is indicating that the well of eternal life is within the male-female bond.

The two becoming one, is encoded into the Bride and groom metaphor, and is referring to the Father and Son becoming One…IMO…

Yeah, it is a union of all faculties:

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female... then you will enter [the kingdom]." Thomas 22

The bridal Chamber is where the New Creation or New Son is given birth too… This is where the phrase “birthed into the Kingdom” comes from, and why the Holy Spirit has so often been feminised in various sources found outside of the Bible…

Exactly - good stuff. Where have you been on this forum?? To be fulfilled is The Pleroma. The "filling" of the womb of your soul - this is why the people "had their fill" (Pleroma):

"When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost."

Jesus said, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread?"

Which fulfills when he said this:

He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you... Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. "

The Gospel of Truth goes into great detail about the fulfillment of the pleroma and the inheritance - this is the "room in your Father's mansion" that Jesus was talking about.

The Holy Spirit = The union between Father and the Son…When this takes place one becomes birthed into the Kingdom, and becomes a new creation. The New creation is a Son who has now become One with the Father. Jesus prayed for this in John 16; he prayed for his disciples to become one with the Father, just as he was one with the Father…

What is a Son to a Father?? The Son develops into the Father's inheritance, assuming the Son follows the discipline and teachings of the Father. Does a Son know more than the Father? Of course not, yet we as children so often think we do - not knowing the Good and Perfect discipline from the Father that is teaching us into His Kingdom.

This is how Spiritual reproduction occurs to manifest new conscious individuals into the infinitude of the Spiritual Realms.

a reply to: Joecroft

The Popes and the Preachers are nothing but modern day Pharisees…IMO...The names have changed but the functions are still the same…

Exactly, my friend. The other thing the religious rulers of that time did, was tell everyone you couldn't be "forgiven" apart from bringing some poor, defenseless, animal to them to atone for your sins.
Funny....Jesus accepted EVERYONE. No sacrifice needed...and this was before He was murdered.
However, I don't see Jesus as a "blood sacrifice". I see Him as the complete embodiment of TRUTH....THAT'S why they killed Him. He went up against the religious order of the day...the same religious order we SEE today. The only difference is they fleece your wallets through manipulation and guilt, instead of an animal sacrifice.
The other sects of Jews at that time (like the Essene's and Ebionites) were vegetarians who didn't hold to the same Torah the Sadducee's and Pharisee's did. Oh, and they didn't believe Paul either.

a reply to: Joecroft

In an ideal world we should have a “Gospel of Jesus” and 12 Gospels of all the Apostles, and maybe a few extra accounts by other disciples of Jesus. The 12 Apostles of course would focus on Jesus life and teachings and not on themselves or their own ideas…etc. But instead we have 4 anonymous Gospels, authors unknown. And the only reason 4 were chosen, is because of some crazy idea by Irenaeus that there are 4 directions so therefore there should be only be 4 Gospels…

Why don't we? If this was a ploy by the Romans to control people then why didn't they put it together in an ideal way so that we would all be convinced, making an open and shut case. Why invent a week opponent to Jesus like Paul. Sloppy work by the Romans?, Rookie propagandist?