Did Paul Invent Christianity?

originally posted by: SethTsaddik

If you didn't come at me all self righteous because I find it funny that people call Jesus God when he clearly says he isn't several times in fact, denying it outright.

You're the one trying to rewrite scripture, and you mock others who disagree with you. Jesus and the Father are One... if you want to try to twist that to make it mean something else, go ahead, but don't chauvinistically force your gospel manipulation on others and ridicule anyone who doesn't follow along. You admitted to not believing the life of Christ in the flesh:

as if not believing in ''the passion" in a literal sense is hypocrisy or something.

It's not, it's logic.

the apostle John tells us that anyone articulating such a belief is being worked by the antichrist Spirit (2 John 1:7).

Stop.

a reply to: cooperton

Look kid, I am not doing anything you say I am now or have said before and I am not playing little games of ish talk with you so you and your little attitude are going to have to find someone else to play with, I said I was finished with you and should have left it at that but you are a lying little @##%&.

So now I am going to do what I said I was and end this itchy conversation.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: cooperton

Look kid, I am not doing anything you say I am now or have said before and I am not playing little games of ish talk with you so you and your little attitude are going to have to find someone else to play with, I said I was finished with you and should have left it at that but you are a lying little @##%&.

Seth, if you truly wish to be a Tzadik you must start with a strong foundation - belief in the One whom God sent. I promise you that is all that is lacking. You sound like an intelligent man. You know scripture well, just let go of perverse influences that tell you the Testimony of Jesus is incomplete.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: SethTsaddik

You can't blame it on him though...

that verse has been thought of as Prophecy for milenia...

its a christian thing.... they had 1800 years to dig though scripture to find any shred of evidence to promote their god

True. Isaiah is a like source 1 for alleged Messianic passages that are actually about Israel, like you said, as well as Babylon and Persia.

Passages about not Satan but a Babylonian King who thinks he's a God, called a son of Shachar, the Canaanite godess and the ''morning star" of almost universal mythology, are misinterpreted as talking to Satan, although neither Helel ben Shachar or Shachar are Satan and Helel is an adjective meaning shining one or to shine spoken to a Babylonian King who thought he was a God and not a name and probably sarcasm.

As with Ezekiel and the King of Tyre metaphors become literal statements so it sounds like the king is Satan. Misinterpreting OT prophecies already fulfilled sometimes even is the bread and butter of Christianity. For that matter the New.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor



no here iS the direct quote of what you asked found at the bottom is this post. a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You still haven't answered the question...."how did Jesus fulfill the law when He obviously broke all of them"?

Here is what you are saying now

No, I said Jesus did not keep ONE law that YHWH commanded.

Things that are different are not the same.

You made the claim Jesus did keep ALL, see the word ALL, that is what I want to know from you every scripture that shows that Jesus broke ALL the Laws of Moses. You have yet to give any.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor



no here iS the direct quote of what you asked found at the bottom is this post. a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You still haven't answered the question...."how did Jesus fulfill the law when He obviously broke all of them"?

Here is what you are saying now

No, I said Jesus did not keep ONE law that YHWH commanded.

Things that are different are not the same.

You made the claim Jesus did keep ALL, see the word ALL, that is what I want to know from you every scripture that shows that Jesus broke ALL the Laws of Moses. You have yet to give any.

Then I would have to post the whole Torah (or first five books of the OT). Jesus (once again) did nothing of keeping to the "Law of YHWH". Not only did He break the Sabbath commandment from YHWH of working on the Sabbath (so much so, that a man was stoned for even picking up sticks on "said Sabbath"...ordered by YHWH. So, how can Jesus somehow fulfill it spiritually if He challenged the whole order of YHWH? I mean, picking up sticks on the Sabbath is pretty miniscule...yet, YHWH ordered his death for doing so.
Then, here comes Jesus, who actually HEALS people on the Sabbath, and also stands by his disciples picking grain to feed themselves....and basically Jesus condones it.
So you tell me, Chester, what's the difference between picking up sticks (probably to make a fire and keep warm), to Jesus saying it was ok to help an animal in need, OR to let his disciples eat from stalks of wheat?
Is there any?
You STILL haven't answered how Jesus could circumvent the whole "stone an adulteress" command....when YHWH himself said that was basically instant death (being caught in adultery). How (in your mind) did Jesus get around THAT law?? Oh, and once again....it wasn't the "priests" who said to do NO WORK on the Sabbath...it was YHWH...who also (once again) said to kill a man who just picked up some sticks on the Sabbath. Such a kind, merciful, diety. Can you explain how that was ok? I'm REALLY curious as to how you can explain that stoning a man for picking up stick on the Sabbath, somehow shows a kind and merciful, diety.
Not to mention all the multitude of sacrifices required for lepers, menstruating women (you know....like the one who reached out and touched the hem of His garment, believing she'd be healed), or the myriad of others that were "outcasts" because they would be considered "sinners".
Do I really need to quote chapter and verses to you? Thought you went to cemetery (oh, I'm sorry...seminary). Oh, and in your own words....you were a "rebel", right?
So, show us your rebelliousness there, Chester.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor



no here iS the direct quote of what you asked found at the bottom is this post. a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You still haven't answered the question...."how did Jesus fulfill the law when He obviously broke all of them"?

Here is what you are saying now

No, I said Jesus did not keep ONE law that YHWH commanded.

Things that are different are not the same.

You made the claim Jesus did keep ALL, see the word ALL, that is what I want to know from you every scripture that shows that Jesus broke ALL the Laws of Moses. You have yet to give any.

Does not a Christian believe that the Law of Moses is done away with?

Did not Paul teach as much?

Yes and yes. So why do you think Jesus gave a damn about the laws of the Old Testament when he clearly preached that obedience to two commandments was equal to obeying them all?

Now, this is not literally true as some of the laws demand murder. Love and murder called execution by law are oil and water.

Which leaves the ten commandments as the only law that mattered to Jesus. But when you elevate the man Jesus to the position of God you violate the commandments, for there is one God, not two and not three.

Every Christian Church worships three Gods and pretends to worship one, that they are one.

I would stop worrying about Jesus breaking the Law, that you believe is done away with anyway, and worry about your polytheism.

Because Hindus have a Trinity also but you would consider them polytheistic, you consider your Trinity not polytheistic.

By definition that is hypocrisy.

a reply to: Akragon

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

No. Christianity is merely a latest reiteration on some old stories.

Paul did not invent anything.

Christianity or any other religion is not new, and was breaking strong even in Rome before Paul came on the scene. What Paul did was not invent Christianity, what he did was help market Christianity to a broader prospect and market.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: SethTsaddik

If you didn't come at me all self righteous because I find it funny that people call Jesus God when he clearly says he isn't several times in fact, denying it outright.

You're the one trying to rewrite scripture, and you mock others who disagree with you. Jesus and the Father are One... if you want to try to twist that to make it mean something else, go ahead, but don't chauvinistically force your gospel manipulation on others and ridicule anyone who doesn't follow along. You admitted to not believing the life of Christ in the flesh:

I did not say that Jesus didn't exist, get it right, I said that the crucifixion and resurrection were mythological.

Big difference, here is what I actually said:

as if not believing in ''the passion" in a literal sense is hypocrisy or something.

It's not, it's logic. End quote.

the apostle John tells us that anyone articulating such a belief is being worked by the antichrist Spirit (2 John 1:7).

Stop.

That is not at all what John says, and I sense the reason you didn't type in what the verse actually says.

Luckily I know by heart that none of John's epistles even mention the ''passion" the very thing I was articulating my beliefs on.

So it's flat out false that John said my perspective is antichrist, he didn't, he said anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus was the Christ/Messiah, or came "in the flesh" was against Christ.

A belief I don't hold. I just believe that his life was mythologized, a very common thing to do with religious figures. My views are that every word spoken by Jesus is instruction, everything he did and that happened to him a parable in its own right.

I believe we can all die, to the physical realm, spiritually speaking, and ressurect, ascend.

It's open to interpretation and my interpretation is perfectly logical, yours I find illogical, that's my opinion.

But you can't even rebut with accurate scripture as I said that the ressurection was a myth and you use an epistle that doesn't mention the ressurection, incorrectly state that it says this belief is akin to being antichrist when it doesn't say anything of the sort.

Learn your scriptures, then I will debate with you, you obviously know little and believe you know more than you do.

2 John 1:7

"... those who do not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh; any such person is the deciever and the antichrist..."

I wont bother with the rest as it never mentions the passion, so your claim that it says my beliefs on the crucifixion are antichrist are false.

"Everyone who does not abide in the teachings of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have Christ."

I have not gone beyond the teachings of Christ. The Churches have, by claiming he was God in the flesh and that the Gospels are literal, something not even corroborated by the general epistles.

You are just making this fun for me, keep getting it wrong, I will keep correcting you. 2 John is silent on the crucifixion so you can't say it says my views on the crucifixion are condemned by it.

Yet you did. You are either dishonest or lazy, but either way equally wrong.

Again.

Show me at what point 2 John states anything regarding the ressurection or "passion.''

Regarding the teachings of Jesus, I follow them as the Spirit reveals them to me.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Akragon

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

No. Christianity is merely a latest reiteration on some old stories.

Paul did not invent anything.

Christianity or any other religion is not new, and was breaking strong even in Rome before Paul came on the scene. What Paul did was not invent Christianity, what he did was help market Christianity to a broader prospect and market.

I would give the credit for that to Constantine, I don't think Paul even existed as no historian of the first century knows him.

The first Christians, the Nazarenes, did not know Paul, which is why Acts was written, to inject him in to the Roman version of the Nazarene way and marginalize the ''Judaizing" apostles who weren't Christians as we have today but Nazarenes and Jews with Greek converts.

Paul was likely the brainchild of Marcion, making him known as Saul was the work of Acts, and the story in Acts does not match what Paul says, he doesn't mention Damascus road trip and claims secret revelations, denounces the apostles.

Who would believe a jerk like Paul was the missionary extraordinare he is said to have been when he is not mentioned historically until Iranaeus?

State sponsorship was the boon Christianity needed and got from Constantine, who died a believer in Arianism, after persecuting them on behalf of the Trinitarians, who gave him ''redemption" from his dozen or so heinous murders, some of family and even (I think) boiling a wife alive, to death.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

hmm... Died believing in Arianism?

I know he was baptized by one on the side of Arianism... pretty sure he believed in roman gods though

IF he actually believed in what Arius believed, don't you think that side would have won at Nicaea?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: SethTsaddik

hmm... Died believing in Arianism?

I know he was baptized by one on the side of Arianism... pretty sure he believed in roman gods though

IF he actually believed in what Arius believed, don't you think that side would have won at Nicaea?

This was after Nicea, people do change opinions and affiliates from time to time and his wife he was married to at death was Arian.

It's something I read, I can't summon him to ask personally but I am pretty certain it is accurate that he first sided against Arius and later with, at death.

Christianity or Catholicism is pagan sun worship disguised as a Jewish based Messianic religion, though it is fully pagan in action.

Constantine was a devotee of Sol Invictus or Mithras, both are the sun deified, which is what Christ is, as Christmas and Easter prove.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

"Things that are different are not the same."

Says ChesterJohn.

I will go ahead and file that under "no #$%&."

Did you think that was profound or even worth saving?

Because it doesn't need to be said, everyone who can speak any language knows that things different are not the same.

It's why we have the word "different" and you took the most simple concept in the world and used it as though it were a profound sentiment.

Hilarious!

a reply to: ChesterJohn

And I can understand why Jesus was sensitive to the literature of his culture but he was not a Pharisee or a Sadducee and his sect the Nazarenes were despised by people in both parties.

But he was not a preacher of the archaic ritual law of Leviticus or anything other than the ten commandments, which are pretty much standard morals anywhere Monotheism is practiced.

He was an interpreter of the Law and his interpretation was very simple and profound, Love God and love your neighbor. He often quoted and interpreted the Old Testament in a way not to preach to kill the guilty for minor infractions prescribed by the laws of the Torah but that whoever did not sin themselves should be the one to carry out the order.

Knowing nobody could claim not to have sinned the infraction was not penalized and a woman not killed just for having sex with someone who wasn't her husband.

So you have no textual grounds to show that Jesus was a supporter of capital punishment or the various laws of the Torah that are morally reprehensible because he was in opposition to the literal interpretation of the Torah and was himself the teacher of his own oral law and tradition that he taught in parables in public and in private to his disciples he would give the straight forward explanation that we have little or, the Gospel of Thomas has over 100 sayings and parables that are mostly original to Thomas though some are in the Gospels.

He didn't allow the law of Moses to be carried out when he saved the woman from stoning so that is proof he didn't obey the Torah laws 100%.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
I just believe that his life was mythologized

The crux of the matter is - do you believe he was the Christ? Whoever does not believe he was the Christ is deceived:

"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist..." (1 John 2:22)

a reply to: SethTsaddik

it is not the saying that is important if was what was said that was different.

you can't see the trees through the forest.

I have completed a years long study and have compared scripture with scriptures as the Holy Ghost does as he teaches. I have found the following.
1) Jesus Started Christianity and he used Paul to organize it because he set aside his earthly kingdom for the time being.
2) Paul expanded on all the teachings of Jesus.
a) Love, and loving on another
b) peace
c) giving of the comforter, the Holy Ghost
d) giving of the Holy Ghost to teach
e) the indwelling of God in the believers, i.e. the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, God the father and Jesus.
f) the oneness of God with the believers and each other.
g) His Oneness not in quality or objectives but physically as a member of the godhead. Or being God, not a god but God in the flesh.
h) Salvation, the saving of mankind
i) his dying on the cross for mankind
j) righteousness given to mankind and how to live in that righteousness
k) justification and how to live in that Justification

3) Herein layeth the problem with those who oppose Paul or claim he created Christianity is that Christ Jesus used him via inspiration to expand on his teachings to help establish and organize the church. (Establish here is not created but to lay a firm foundation of Christ Jesus for all that we believe, teach and do, for it was going to be some time before Christ returns.

It is because of the expansion of His teachings by Paul via inspiration of God, that you claim a difference, all because Jesus never went into deeper explanation. The most detailed teachings Jesus did give is called the Beatitudes, which in context were teachings for Israel how to live in the earthly kingdom which has not been established on earth yet.

So rather than accept the expanded teachings of Jesus via Paul by inspiration you have assumed a greater wickedness than any before and have blasphemed the Holy Ghost, in claiming Paul's teachings are lies created to lead men away from Jesus.

I must and shall conclude that God is true and all others are liars.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

He didn't allow the law of Moses to be carried out when he saved the woman from stoning so that is proof he didn't obey the Torah laws 100%.

Exactly what I see, as well. However, Christians constantly say that Jesus "fulfilled the law", thus making Him the perfect sinless sacrifice for the world. He did not keep all of "YHWH'S" laws, so that negates Him "fulfilling the law". As a matter of fact, just as you pointed out, He cherry picked from the Torah and actually gave NEW commandments. (such as forgiving one's enemies, rather than an "eye for eye"...which was YHWH'S law.)
All those times Jesus said, "you have heard it said...but I SAY TO YOU", was Him changing and contradicting the very "god" Christianity believes is His Father.
He was murdered for telling the truth of WHO and WHAT the real God was like...AND showing just what He was like, which is why He said, "if you've seen ME you've seen the Father". That didn't mean you'd seen YHWH, it meant you were seeing the TRUE Character of the TRUE God. He was challenging the established religious system of YHWH and the High priests were incensed that He was doing so. He knew they would kill Him for it, that was why He kept telling His disciples that He was going to be turned over to "sinful men". He laid His life down, all to reveal the truth.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Being God and we to be like him, we to are to have mercy and love for one who is a sinner.

The Pharisees that brought the woman were not interested in obeying the law or they would have brought the man she was caught in adultery with her for him to be stoned too, that is the fullness of the law the two shall be stoned, not just the woman.

Thy brought forth the woman in hopes of convicting Jesus of some sin as you do. Remember he told them what things they should not have left undone which were greater than all the outwardly did. That is what Jesus did, he showed the full character of God but you do not.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

It is because of the expansion of His teachings by Paul via inspiration of God, that you claim a difference, all because Jesus never went into deeper explanation. The most detailed teachings Jesus did give is called the Beatitudes, which in context were teachings Israel how to live in the earthly kingdom which has not been established on earth yet.

Wow. Just wow.
Chester, you are basically saying that Jesus spent 3 1/2 years with 12 men, teaching them, breaking bread with them, being friends with them....yet, somehow forgot to mention ALL the things Paul somehow is given via some private revelation after Jesus is killed? So, the SON OF GOD never once bothered to inform any of those guys or the people who followed Him everywhere, hanging on every word of His....all of Paul's BS?
And the BEATITUDES ARE ONLY FOR ISRAEL???!!!!
Wow. (SMH)