Did Paul Invent Christianity?

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: coomba98


SHUT UP.

I don't actually read this loons comments but I have a few times and though I hardly ever agree that telling someone to shut up is polite, it's probably the most polite thing you could possibly say without being dishonest as this guy has some serious issues... I am no shrink but I sense an inferiority complex that leads it to the Internet so he can safely troll, talk 5th grade level trash talk, and pretend it is smarter than it really is by obnoxiously challenging people who are clearly smarter than it is.

Which is the reason it is in this thread, only after I called it out on its previously described childlike and doltish behavior, it appeared on this thread and in one I made, though his comment was deleted for a manners violation and I never got to read it.

Paul would be friends with someone like this person, any loud mouth person uneducated but willing to pretend otherwise would be right up his ally and recruited immediately.

It will probably read my comment here and unload a barrage of comments at me that I will never read and scroll right past as I have been since the last message I sent it saying that that is what I would do.

Which will inevitably frustrate it to the point of near insanity as an attention craving person like this can't stand being deliberately ignored.

I find it hilarious.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Will do...

and of course you keep with your separation doctrine... and your dead faith... alone lol

I don't mean to speak for Ak, but I am rather certain he was not using sarcasm in this instance and was speaking about Chester John's belief that the Gospels theology was for Jews (what Jews?, when since the 5th century have their been a ton of Jewish Christians, they were declared heretics and exterminated for rejecting Paul.) while the Pauline epistles so called gospel was for goyim.

So that would be the doctrine of separation he is referring to.

Is my guess anyway, as I can't speak for Ak, I am just deducing what seems obvious.

This message is for whoever asked that question regarding sarcasm and thought ChesterJohn made some good points, although I have not seen even one tbh (good points made by ChesterJohn).

Chester John is actually a rude and angry person who often has online tantrums because hardly anyone ever agrees with anything he says.

So he probably needed the "pity #$%&" your "compliment" provided. I guess that is a good deed on your part.

a reply to: Padawan SethTsaddik

Padawan #1,

Again, bait taken and devoured. mmmm num nums.

You have got to be the most stupid of Padawans youngling. Hence, Padawan #1.

but i love you non the less.

originally posted by: Padawan SethTsaddik
I don't actually read this loons comments.

Padawan, your either an incompetent SOB or a lying turd. As if you dont read my comments!!! You not human? A Padawan human? Stupid welfare bludging turd!

originally posted by: Padawan SethTsaddik

as this guy has some serious issues...

Says the one who has had over 100 ATS accounts banned within the last 12 months. Yes 'I' have issues. lol. Stupid Padawan who doesnt know when to quit and leave when people dont like you.

Funny, your currnt persona has not once questioned why im calling you Padawan. Stupid Padawan!

originally posted by: Padawan SethTsaddik

I am no shrink but I sense an inferiority complex that leads it to the Internet so he can safely troll

No your not, you have to be way way smarter than you are to be a shrink Padawan. Stupid people cant apply to that profession.

Plus ive said many many times now... I love trolling trolls. Like you and the other Padawans!

Show me when I havent ohh stupid Padawan #1. Funny you keep bating me but you fail to realise I really dont care what you say about me. I just love responding to you stupid poo smelling government and parent bludging people.

Talk about a waste of space!!! Your what 35-36yrs old! And still living at home! What a loser!

originally posted by: Padawan SethTsaddik

talk 5th grade level trash talk, and pretend it is smarter than it really is by obnoxiously challenging people who are clearly smarter than it is.

I only appear to talk 5th grade trash talk cause thats all your brain can computate ohh brain dead Padawan #1. Your no challenge to me otherwise you would direct your posts towards me directly. Talk about a craven persona!!!

originally posted by: Padawan SethTsaddik

It [he] will probably read my comment here and unload a barrage of comments at me that I will never read and scroll right past as I have been since the last message I sent it saying that that is what I would do.

Had to correct you there as I understand your intelligence level to be vastly minute. It to he. As im a he not an it, but hay cant complain to a dumbarse Padawan, no? Yes cant compain younging.

If your a human you read my comments, siff you dont. lol. stupid Padawan! Why bait me so little one? Cause your stupid! Never read my posts suuuure. lol.

originally posted by: Padawan SethTsaddik

I find it hilarious.

You find it hilarious lol.

Your not the only one! Me and the rest of ATS see your posts and conclude its stupidity. lol.

Although Padawan #2 is vastly unintelligent.... you take 1st place younging.

Never met a mindless one such as you.

Ohh and thanks for the bait ohh impertinent little Padawan!

Master Coomba

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Idk, I mentioned it because I do like some of his points.I'm coming at it from a different perspective though.

I started to wade back through this thread, 80 pages is alot of material.Oh well, there's no rush.A part of me feels a little disappointed to see how some of the posts have been expressed.This kind of makes me feel a touch reluctant to contribute, but I won't let that stop me.This is just a busy time of the year for many of us.Lol, I probably take this stuff too serious at times, anyways.

Theological discussions of scripture of tend to focus on a more intellectual understanding of truth, it would be refreshing to listen to how the concepts hold water in a more practical sense.Verse can be tossed around till the cows come home, what's the point if one can't see how it relates to daily life?

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

I think I understand what you are saying.

Rather than concentrate on the fact that the New Testament portrays two opposing factions and theologies discuss who actually has the better teachings.

In that case it's no question, Jesus and by extension the apostles had the better teachings.

Paul was pro slavery, an admitted liar, swore oaths to God as Jesus said anyone who did was "of the evil one" engaged in bad mouthing his supposed colleages and invented a ridiculous theology from thin air while telling the ridiculous story that he received it from a revelation from Jesus.

The apostolic theology is best represented by what Jesus said and the epistle of James, 1,2,3 John and even 1 Peter, 2 Peter (despite the reference to Paul as brother his teachings are called nonsense or "hard to understand" to be polite and said to lead people astray). And they are all very short, towards the back of the Bible and given less prominence than Paul.

Acts portrays Paul as a loud mouth and trouble maker, somehow leading most people to the conclusion that he is the hero of the story I beg to differ, he is the villain disguised as the protagonist cleverly enough by its author and is prominent but not believable or admirable or likeable, consistent with his epistles in that regard though not others, like his conversion story and mode of revelation, private revelations in the epistles that don't mention the Damascus trip.

Theologically there is nothing of value in any of "Paul's" epistles, though Jesus and the apostolic writings do.

The best example of true apostolic theology is the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions which chronicle the theological disputes of "Simon Magus" and Peter, scholars seem certain, and I agree, Simon represents Paul, although it is veiled.

But Peter's theology is the focus and covers a vast amount of subjects, is considered to be a secret book for people who have proven trustworthy, and is far superior to everything in the New Testament, imho. It's as if Jesus really did teach it to Peter in private, and James who is in Jerusalem while Peter goes to Rome. It's from at least one of the first three centuries, I would say developed over all three with the final in the 2-300 ad range.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Hey friend....just wanted to say, I'm sorry for saying "Shut up" to you know who. It wasn't right how he spoke to you...and then me.... I should have just ignored him, but I did not appreciate how he was trying to degrade you. Anyway , back to ignoring him. Keep going, bro....you are doing an outstanding job.

a reply to: Padawan Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: Padawan Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: Padawan SethTsaddik

It wasn't right how he spoke to you...and then me....

Seems your talking about Chester John youngling.... then you say:

originally posted by: Padawan Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: Padawan SethTsaddik

I should have just ignored him,

Sounds like a response to me! How intelligent you are Padawan #3.

And yes... should have ignored me Padawan. Should have ignored me. Hahahaha. Stupid human.

originally posted by: Padawan Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: Padawan SethTsaddik

Anyway , back to ignoring him.

Good luck there Padawan, good luck!!
(I mean that)

originally posted by: Padawan Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: Padawan SethTsaddik

Keep going, bro.....

Ok, never have I ever heard a female say 'bro' to a male!!

And most of my friends are African!

You sure your a female? Not a fraudulent account of Padawan #1?

Master Coomba

originally posted by: SethTsaddik

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
a reply to: coomba98


SHUT UP.

I don't actually read this loons comments but I have a few times and though I hardly ever agree that telling someone to shut up is polite, it's probably the most polite thing you could possibly say without being dishonest as this guy has some serious issues... I am no shrink but I sense an inferiority complex that leads it to the Internet so he can safely troll, talk 5th grade level trash talk, and pretend it is smarter than it really is by obnoxiously challenging people who are clearly smarter than it is.

Which is the reason it is in this thread, only after I called it out on its previously described childlike and doltish behavior, it appeared on this thread and in one I made, though his comment was deleted for a manners violation and I never got to read it.

Paul would be friends with someone like this person, any loud mouth person uneducated but willing to pretend otherwise would be right up his ally and recruited immediately.

It will probably read my comment here and unload a barrage of comments at me that I will never read and scroll right past as I have been since the last message I sent it saying that that is what I would do.

Which will inevitably frustrate it to the point of near insanity as an attention craving person like this can't stand being deliberately ignored.

I find it hilarious.

Yup.

A part of me thinks that the New Testament author's, at least the Gospel of John, Hebrews and the Gospel editors, were influenced by Philo Judaeus allegorical method of interpretation of the Old Testament when finding proof texts for Jesus Messiahship and also used typology from Josephus and the Tanakh in Jesus' stories like fleeing to Egypt.

A lot was involved. Paul's epistles emerged at the same time as Marcion and before him there was no Paul. After probably creating the character and writing the "genuine" epistles himself. His sects popularity and love of Paul was probably his in with the Church, who probably did take his money, Epistles and excommunicate him after accusing him of raping a virgin, code for denying the virgin birth meant to slander him as a rapist.

Paul has plagued Christianity ever since, usurping Jesus in modern Churches in popularity though being a d&%$.

Another serious source for Christian theology is the sect who was responsible for writing the Dead Sea Scrolls, modern scholarship is recognizing that there is an undeniable connection of some sort, as Ebionim (Ebionites) and "The Way" were two ways they referred to themselves and there structure of leadership was 12 and 3 "pillars" just like the apostles.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: JerryMH

I am more amazed by the day at how many people have woke up to the plain truth that Paul was or whoever is behind his writings (I put my money, all of it, on Marcion) was in fact the enemy of James and Peter especially but the whole movement of Jesus until he wrote his last word.

He didn't even hide it, called them false apostles who resemble Satan masquerading as an an angel of light and had derogatory terms for them like ''circumcision faction" and "Judaizers" while James response to Pauline faith only soteriology was:

"Do you want to be shown, you senseless man, faith without works is dead"?

James speaks of the dangers of the tongue, two kinds of wisdom, of friendship with the world and says about faith ''Even the demons believe --and shudder." immediately before my last quote.

The general epistles are indeed thinly veiled anti Pauline theology polemics that got past the relatively unlettered Church fathers and made the Canon, as did heaps of hints that Paul is not what he claims or the churches claim and actually represents one faction of an early religion with Acts as the bridge attempting to connect the two historically opposed factions.

The Gospels are all from distinct sects and not one and heavily redacted and interpolated writings, Matthew comes from the Ebionites though it didn't have a virgin birth, had the Holy Spirit as Jesus Mother and Jesus only the adopted Son of God at baptism.

Mark is somewhat docetic and I suspect of Marcionite origin rather than Luke, I do not think that the author of Acts, if the same author as Luke or not, was sympathetic to Paul's theology but hid it by being very subtle and the Gospel of Luke is from an unknown source like the other all anonymous Gospels but I think it was a Greek or Roman for sure, which Luke was if not Syrian (I'm not sure actually) and educated enough to make errors on purpose to draw attention to the fact that Paul and the Jews, including Nazarenes, were enemies and the Jews who took a vow to not eat until Paul was dead were probably both Pharisees and Nazarenes as according to the Gospel Hebrew Matthew and the Clementine Homilies, Acts too, they were friends.

That was likely the most significant interpolation, that the Pharisees were so evil, because Rome was pretty anti Semitic.

It's all the answer to the question; "Why isn't the Catholic or Christian Church full of Jews if it started as a Jewish religion?"

Paul was the catalyst for anti Semitism in the Roman Empire with his heavily anti Semitic writings.

I believe in God Most High, call Him Father or Allah, but I can't stretch my imagination to the point of believing that Jesus is God. He never made that claim, he denied it. "My God and your God." was spoken by Jesus, and God doesn't have a God, just Jesus, who denied being good as "Only God is good" in a stern rebuke.

I marvel at the level of liar one must rise to in order to teach Jesus is God when he himself denied it in the New Testament several times. Either that or you must not be well acquainted with the Bible, because it's a messed up book. It actually doesn't teach much of what the churches teach at all and actually distorts Judaism and itself.

I think it is more about socializing or guilt than seeking truth or Jesus the Nazarene.

That's right on IMO. I totally agree Jesus was not god nor claimed it. His relationship is unique but Christianity has been built on that lie and a few key others. IMO the cornerstone was rejected which is the Humanity of Jesus. The Bible is the most worshipped idol today responsible for authorizing countless atrocities.
The whole thing needs to be torn down. Even the concept of 'saved' through believing with all the usual rituals is wrong IMO
But I'm drifting way off topic. Appreciate you chiming in here.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor
you are not my enemy, If anything you are an enemy of the cross.

don't worry about us God is always taking care of me and mine for over 21 years.

i just had hoped you would have seen the obvious historical and doctrinal contexts of the verse and and come to see the applications were not applicable in today's setting.

I am to tired to play the game any more.

good night.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor
you are not my enemy, If anything you are an enemy of the cross.

don't worry about us God is always taking care of me and mine for over 21 years.

i just had hoped you would have seen the obvious historical and doctrinal contexts of the verse and and come to see the applications were not applicable in today's setting.

I am to tired to play the game any more.

good night.

You and me both. I leave you to your beliefs. I still am willing to help you financially. Like I said before....it is sincere.

originally posted by: JerryMH

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: JerryMH

I am more amazed by the day at how many people have woke up to the plain truth that Paul was or whoever is behind his writings (I put my money, all of it, on Marcion) was in fact the enemy of James and Peter especially but the whole movement of Jesus until he wrote his last word.

He didn't even hide it, called them false apostles who resemble Satan masquerading as an an angel of light and had derogatory terms for them like ''circumcision faction" and "Judaizers" while James response to Pauline faith only soteriology was:

"Do you want to be shown, you senseless man, faith without works is dead"?

James speaks of the dangers of the tongue, two kinds of wisdom, of friendship with the world and says about faith ''Even the demons believe --and shudder." immediately before my last quote.

The general epistles are indeed thinly veiled anti Pauline theology polemics that got past the relatively unlettered Church fathers and made the Canon, as did heaps of hints that Paul is not what he claims or the churches claim and actually represents one faction of an early religion with Acts as the bridge attempting to connect the two historically opposed factions.

The Gospels are all from distinct sects and not one and heavily redacted and interpolated writings, Matthew comes from the Ebionites though it didn't have a virgin birth, had the Holy Spirit as Jesus Mother and Jesus only the adopted Son of God at baptism.

Mark is somewhat docetic and I suspect of Marcionite origin rather than Luke, I do not think that the author of Acts, if the same author as Luke or not, was sympathetic to Paul's theology but hid it by being very subtle and the Gospel of Luke is from an unknown source like the other all anonymous Gospels but I think it was a Greek or Roman for sure, which Luke was if not Syrian (I'm not sure actually) and educated enough to make errors on purpose to draw attention to the fact that Paul and the Jews, including Nazarenes, were enemies and the Jews who took a vow to not eat until Paul was dead were probably both Pharisees and Nazarenes as according to the Gospel Hebrew Matthew and the Clementine Homilies, Acts too, they were friends.

That was likely the most significant interpolation, that the Pharisees were so evil, because Rome was pretty anti Semitic.

It's all the answer to the question; "Why isn't the Catholic or Christian Church full of Jews if it started as a Jewish religion?"

Paul was the catalyst for anti Semitism in the Roman Empire with his heavily anti Semitic writings.

I believe in God Most High, call Him Father or Allah, but I can't stretch my imagination to the point of believing that Jesus is God. He never made that claim, he denied it. "My God and your God." was spoken by Jesus, and God doesn't have a God, just Jesus, who denied being good as "Only God is good" in a stern rebuke.

I marvel at the level of liar one must rise to in order to teach Jesus is God when he himself denied it in the New Testament several times. Either that or you must not be well acquainted with the Bible, because it's a messed up book. It actually doesn't teach much of what the churches teach at all and actually distorts Judaism and itself.

I think it is more about socializing or guilt than seeking truth or Jesus the Nazarene.

That's right on IMO. I totally agree Jesus was not god nor claimed it. His relationship is unique but Christianity has been built on that lie and a few key others. IMO the cornerstone was rejected which is the Humanity of Jesus. The Bible is the most worshipped idol today responsible for authorizing countless atrocities.
The whole thing needs to be torn down. Even the concept of 'saved' through believing with all the usual rituals is wrong IMO
But I'm drifting way off topic. Appreciate you chiming in here.

Interesting how so many others see Paul as the shyster he is. Welcome to the club.

a reply to: Padawan Matrixsurvivor

Padawan,

If your really serious about donating money how about donating it to a charity youngling?

Then post the receipt on ATS. Cause i doubt your serious about actually donating to the needy such as what you describe yourself to be.

Go on! Donate what little you have so you can bludge off the people in your life that you usually bludge off.

How very backwards way of living Padawan.

Master Coomba

Can we get back to the topic of the thread and stop going after each other here?

We are all members of the same forum... disagreements be damned...

its about discussion of the topic... not the people participating in...

Sigh

a reply to: Akragon

Akragon

Apologies, sometimes i cant help myself. I shall stop within this thread.

Coomba98
(but you have to admit... it was amusing )

a reply to: coomba98

I've enjoyed this thread thoroughly...

The issue is we're not only getting off the topic... we're getting off the idea of this very forum...

This and all threads are for discussion and debate of the original topic... but its turning into a bar brawl with no topic but the person that disagrees...

I hate to disappoint Molocchino, Matrix, SethTsadik and others, but my completed study of the book of Acts does not show or prove that the James mentioned in Chapter 15 is the brother of Jesus.

Context does not in any way lead to that conclusion seeing there were at least three other James who were disciples and Apostles alive during that time.

This by both immediate context of chapter 15 does not say if is the brother of Jesus, and the context of the book as a whole does not indicate this James was the brother either.

Paul mentions meeting with James the bother of Jesus upon his first trip to Jerusalem after coming our of Damascus and that is int he book of Galatians. But this is not proof that the James in Acts 15 is the Lords Brother. Nor does Acts I prove it is he either, it just let's us know he was present on the day of Pentecost.

The conclusion is that Molochino and others have imposed an opinion that helps to work their own theoretic doctrine that it is James the brother of Jesus. They could not have come to that conclusion with the context, so they either created the narrative of it being the brother of Christ by pretexting or adding to the text their personal opinion or they are parroting someone else's opinion.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
I hate to disappoint Molocchino, Matrix, SethTsadik and others, but my completed study of the book of Acts does not show or prove that the James mentioned in Chapter 15 is the brother of Jesus.

I am not disappointed, it's well known that James the Just (Zaddik) and Thomas were brothers, Jesus has a brother named James in the Gospels who wasn't a follower until the resurrection but became the successor to Jesus and is clearly in charge in Acts.

Paul also calls him the Lord's brother. I don't know what kind of disappointment you were expecting but there is none or a reason for.

I think you just don't like the fact that James and Jesus were brothers, but they were, biologically, unless you are Catholic they have the same mother.

Context does not in any way lead to that conclusion seeing there were at least three other James who were disciples and Apostles alive during that time.

Multiple James' doesn't change anything, just obscures things, probably on purpose.

This by both immediate context of chapter 15 does not say if is the brother of Jesus, and the context of the book as a whole does not indicate this James was the brother either.

It was already established in the Gospels and Pauline epistles, no reason to mention it again in Acts, we all know already, you are just using sophistry to disprove that which is not in dispute. Brother of the Lord is James, Lord meaning Jesus, and your arguments are spittle as usual.

Paul mentions meeting with James the bother of Jesus

See. You even disagree with Paul? You must really dislike James. How shocking.

upon his first trip to Jerusalem after coming our of Damascus and that is int he book of Galatians. But this is not proof that the James in Acts 15 is the Lords Brother. Nor does Acts I prove it is he either, it just let's us know he was present on the day of Pentecost.

Now you are just being nonsensical.

The conclusion is that Molochino and others have imposed an opinion that helps to work their own theoretic doctrine that it is James the brother of Jesus.

It's an Orthodox belief Chester, with the exception of Catholicism. It's not a personal or even a theory, just what the book says.

They could not have come to that conclusion with the context, so they either created the narrative of it being the brother of Christ by pretexting or adding to the text their personal opinion or they are parroting someone else's opinion.

You amaze me with your hypocrisy, your theology is not Orthodox, and whatever problem you have with James brother of Jesus, who had many brothers and some sisters, and a twin, whatever is meant by either is really not a big deal to me either way, is a silly problem and excuse to criticize someone smarter than you.

And whoever else honors the biblical tradition of James being Jesus brother.

Jesus had brothers and sisters, James was one, James the Just was one.