Did Paul Invent Christianity?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: SethTsaddik

Without the Pauline letters the Trinity has no foundation in scripture.

I have yet to find the word trinity anywhere in the Bible.

But I did find this

1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Comma Johanneum

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I have no doctrine of separation. Let's make it more accurate I hold to "The doctrine of right division of the word of truth"

Except you do... watch

Well if you use Jesus words only then you have to get rid of the Old Testament, most of the New Testament except Revelation, and even then you would have to get rid of most of the book of Revelation as well.

Would you say that Jesus quoted the OT extensively... or kinda cherry picked the good stuff?

We're talking 4 books with Jesus actually spoke... compared to 66ish.. give or take

A religion was created by Jesus when he called Paul and set him on his mission to testify of the gospel of the grace of God.

why would he send this guy on a "new" mission when he already established his 12 while he was living?

Send him to teach a "doctrine" that is different then what he taught while HE was Alive?

I believe that when God postponed his dealing with Israel. (calling those who were invited to the feast to come and they made excuses, so He is now calling those who are not on the invite list). So He gave expanded wisdom based on his teachings and works to Paul.

I would love to know who you believe wasn't on the invite list?

The gospel talk about Jesus as the Lamb of God, the lamb was a sacrifice. in those four gospel books we learn his life would be given for many.

Right... again you can narrow those down to a single verse or two... not an extensive topic in the gospels

Paul merely expands on it via inspiration of God that Jesus died for our sins a sacrifice once for all if believed on. Jesus prays about how he and the father are one and that he wants us to be one with him and each other. Paul expanded on that teaching and we have the Body of Christ and the indwelling of not just the Holy Ghost but the fullness of the Godhead.

this is a perfect example of how people mix Jesus and Paul with each other...

its like Oil and Water...

The video never gives any real proof Paul created it, but the Christian religion is guided by the inspired teachings of Paul, we could say he started it but he did not create it.

well thanks for the back up... im unsure of the difference here

but...

The true Christian religion is based on JESUS CHRIST not Paul. Remember Paul and Barnabas first called them Christians in Antioch Ceasarea but all the teachings are of Jesus Christ and how men who believe on Jesus ought to live and act in this world until Christ comes..

then ask yourself... why do you know Pauls letters, and the rest of the NT better then you know the gospels?

But Today's money hungry Christian Religious organizations was not in any of Paul's writings.

Are you sure about that?

a reply to: Akragon

I have answered all that in previous posts and other threads.

If you took just "Jesus words" there would not be even four complete Gospels. a few verses in Acts one and a verse or two in Revelation.

I believe Jesus is God and therefore he spoke and inspired all the words preserved in the Holy Bible.

a reply to: Akragon

That comma is an opinion of man.

But if you believe that why not believe that Jesus set Israel aside and went to the world with Paul and started Christianity?

It is basically a big comma

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I with Christ I am in Christ and he in me and I in Him seated in the heavenly places just as Jesus said I would be with him.

I have the real deal and if you would compare Jesus teachings ALL of them with Paul's you will find he an Jesus agree on a lot.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

"how did Jesus fulfill the law when He obviously broke all of them"?

Here is my answer

Without getting into some long drawn out sophistical explanation I would venture to say that the Lord Jesus Christ "UPHELD" (i.e. sustained or supported) The Law by His sinless life (something that no other person on earth had ever done), while at the same time proving the righteousness of The Law [Deuteronomy 4:8]. And He "FULFILLED" The Law by meeting Its requirements (i.e.a perfect & sinless life), and thus becoming the perfect sacrifice (or "propitiation") "for the sins of the whole world" [1 John 2:2], but applicable only for those who believe on Him [John 1:12; 6:29; 7:39; 9:35-36; 11:48; 17:20; Romans 4:24; Philippians 1:29; 1Timothy 1:16].

a reply to: ChesterJohn

If you took just "Jesus words" there would not be even four complete Gospels. a few verses in Acts one and a verse or two in Revelation.

Thats all that is necessary in the bible... and i don't even factor in acts or revelation

That comma is an opinion of man.

That "comma" is factual... its not found in any of the earliest texts we have

But if you believe that why not believe that Jesus set Israel aside and went to the world with Paul and started Christianity?

According to the book Jesus already set his people, and Paul wasn't one of them... in fact Peter was supposed to be the one to go to the gentiles, but Paul changed that even though peter said he was appointed by God for said mission

a reply to: Akragon

ALL text we have are copies that cannot be verified because we do not have any originals. That means the oldest copies we have could be in error but we have no way to verify it.

So preservation was needed to give the English speaking world today the promised words of God.

Don't trust wikipedia for any facts.

John 5:7 is found in the both the Ethiopian Bible and the Syrian Bible both of these date back to the second century.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Said text was clearly added to give weight to something none of the apostles or Jesus were familiar with... same goes for Matthew 28:19...

the book proves these verses to be false without any doubt

a reply to: Akragon

Or was it inspired of God when he preserved it to our generation in English as promised?

It would look added to you but it was always part of Gods word and brought back into the preservation by inspiration to the AV translators.

If I am right about God preserving his word to us it means all those so called old texts are in error and corrupt.

Yes, I stand firm on my belief of God preserving his words to us in English as promised. And even if I am wrong it won't hurt my salvation because that is secure in Christ.

When Jesus was crucified, the NT reports the Temple veil being torn.

The word in Hebrew for that veil was Masach or Mashach. The word for Messiah is Maschiach, and since Hebrew had no vowel symbols then they are the same word.

Clever word play was common in Hebrew scriptures, rarely surviving translation and usually losing the meaning.

But I interpret it to mean not that the Mashach was torn, but the Maschiach, the Messiah, by the false teachings of Paul and the true teachings of Christ and his disciples.

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha or "the place of the skull" i.e. the head. Meaning he didn't actually get crucified, die and ressurect.

It is something that happened in the minds of the myth makers and anyone who properly comprehends the meaning behind the mystery.

After all, if the NT is reporting history then people were ressurected EN MASSE from the grave at the time of the ressurection of Jesus and went into town.

I have never met a Christian who literally believed that element of the myth, and if it is not literal it is something else besides history and applicable to the whole story.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ChesterJohn

If you took just "Jesus words" there would not be even four complete Gospels. a few verses in Acts one and a verse or two in Revelation.

Thats all that is necessary in the bible... and i don't even factor in acts or revelation

That comma is an opinion of man.

That "comma" is factual... its not found in any of the earliest texts we have

But if you believe that why not believe that Jesus set Israel aside and went to the world with Paul and started Christianity?

According to the book Jesus already set his people, and Paul wasn't one of them... in fact Peter was supposed to be the one to go to the gentiles, but Paul changed that even though peter said he was appointed by God for said mission

The interesting thing about this is it is allegedly Luke recording that Peter was chosen by God to be the apostle to the goyim. But Paul, and only Paul, claims he was appointed by dead, ressurected and ascended Jesus to the same position.

"Luke" had to have read the Pauline epistles so I don't think it is an oversight, the Gospels also acknowledge the LIVING Jesus appointed Peter to be the foundation of his church. This is what Rome uses to justify being the successors to Peter.

Why would Luke make a liar out of Paul and write that Peter was the apostle to the nations (gentiles, goy, Greeks)?

Church folk will use the ''change of plans" argument to gloss over the obvious fact that Paul is a liar, that Acts does not vouch for his absurd claims and invents one too (Damascus road trip), inconsistently at that.

Christianity has great teachings if you don't treat them as history. Repent, die (to ego) ressurect (reborn) and ascend (realize goals). Or however you wish to interpret it.

But the historical approach leads to... Chester Johns.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

"how did Jesus fulfill the law when He obviously broke all of them"?

Here is my answer

Without getting into some long drawn out sophistical explanation I would venture to say that the Lord Jesus Christ "UPHELD" (i.e. sustained or supported) The Law by His sinless life (something that no other person on earth had ever done), while at the same time proving the righteousness of The Law [Deuteronomy 4:8]. And He "FULFILLED" The Law by meeting Its requirements (i.e.a perfect & sinless life), and thus becoming the perfect sacrifice (or "propitiation") "for the sins of the whole world" [1 John 2:2], but applicable only for those who believe on Him [John 1:12; 6:29; 7:39; 9:35-36; 11:48; 17:20; Romans 4:24; Philippians 1:29; 1Timothy 1:16].

Well, that's all well and good, but it STILL doesn't explain WHY Jesus didn't stone the adulteress, when YHWH would have demanded her death.
Can you explain how Jesus could NOT keep that part of the law, and still be fulfilling the law??

originally posted by: SethTsaddik

When Jesus was crucified, the NT reports the Temple veil being torn.

The word in Hebrew for that veil was Masach or Mashach. The word for Messiah is Maschiach, and since Hebrew had no vowel symbols then they are the same word.

Clever word play was common in Hebrew scriptures, rarely surviving translation and usually losing the meaning.

Interesting. The veil of the temple was what separated the high priests from the rest of the tribe - only the high priest could go behind the veil of the temple. Now with Jesus tearing the veil from the top to bottom, all have access to God and not just the High Priests. The depth of scripture is mind-boggling.

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha or "the place of the skull" i.e. the head. Meaning he didn't actually get crucified, die and ressurect.

It is something that happened in the minds of the myth makers and anyone who properly comprehends the meaning behind the mystery.

If he didn't actually die and resurrect then the entire point of Christianity is erroneous. The Truth manifests on many planes - symbolic, literal, etc.. Many see the symbolic without seeing the importance of the literal and vice versa. Perhaps Golgotha, albeit a literal place, indicated that our own individual cross or passover is to occur within the place of our skull; the Kingdom Within.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I kinda have a different reason for why the veil was torn. I think the TRUE Father (the Most High God) was pretty ticked that His Son was just murdered.
I mean, to me, Jesus not only stood up for the "least of these" (and I include animals in that), but He challenged the false deity "YHWH".
Now, not to long after that....Paul enters the scene, and changes EVERYTHING. He changed the message Jesus brought.
Somehow, someway, Saul of Tarsus took AWAY from the truth of Jesus' message and made it his own.
One doesn't have to look any further than the "church" today. THAT is the ROTTEN FRUIT of a false apostle being believed as a true one.
Divisiveness, contradiction in scripture, "believers" who can't even come together due to doctrinal differences, and 40,000 plus denominations just in AMERICA alone.
You think maybe there's a problem there? Ya? Well, I can tell you one thing....those problems DO NOT stem from the Son of Man (Jesus...though that's not His real name), nor do they stem from the true disciples Jesus picked (whom His Father told Him to pick)....they stem from a lying, braggart, who claimed apostleship without being one.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Jesus had mercy on her because of who he is God almighty in the flesh

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Ex 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Lu 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

My my my something Jesus and Paul agree on.

a reply to: cooperton

Interesting. The veil of the temple was what separated the high priests from the rest of the tribe - only the high priest could go behind the veil of the temple. Now with Jesus tearing the veil from the top to bottom, all have access to God and not just the High Priests. The depth of scripture is mind-boggling.

OR....the High Priests were never necessary to "being in the presence of the TRUE GOD", but they sure made all the common people believe so.
Jesus coming upset their whole "apple cart".
The high priests followed YHWH. Jesus didn't. His Father was NOT YHWH.
What did Jesus tell the High Priests? (their father was the devil).
Funny....because those priests were following YHWH'S laws to the "T".....yet, Jesus said their father was the devil.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

In short Cooperton she doesn't believe a lick of the word of God

a reply to: SethTsaddik

And you use the goyim excuse to gloss over the fact that God is true and you are liar, deceiving people and turning them from the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Jesus had mercy on him because of who he is God almighty in the flesh

It was a "her" and not a "he" that I was asking about (you know, the adulteress story??)
Jesus was not GOD ALMIGHTY IN THE FLESH. That is a false doctrine. Jesus told EVERYONE who listened to Him to WORSHIP HIS GOD, THAT WAS ALSO OUR GOD.
THAT GOD (the one Jesus came to show us) was NOTHING LIKE YHWH.
Hey, I challenge you to show how YHWH and the Father Jesus represented are one and the same.
Good luck.