Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: JerryMH

Just stating the facts. It is not my Judgement but that of the Lord Himself. The verse speak for themselves.

But to those who do not believe the Bible is preserved, whole, complete, without error or corruption, and inspired of God. Even the truth of the verses is despised.

The rejection of God's word is in and of itself blasphemy against the Holy Ghost for that is how the God inspires and preserves his words to to every generation forever as promised in Psalm 12:6, 7.

Sometimes love is just stating the truth. And the verse actually say they will know you by your love for one another not "by their love"

[b[John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is specifically attributing the works of the Spirit to Satan.


It's a particular sort of blasphemy that is unforgivable, which is different than blasphemy of God, which can be forgiven.

I have a feeling that you are not very well versed in Christian theology. Actually it's a deduction based on your almost always incorrect interpretations.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: SethTsaddik

All of Paul's teachings are expansions on what Jesus taught in the four Gospel books of Matthew Mark, Luke and John, the only exception is Sabbath observance and the Kingdom preparation teachings for Israel. Anyone who want to take an AV Bible (the only Bible with all the verses in it) and go through it over and over listing out all that Jesus taught and you will find Paul taught much of the same things but with more explanation. It was necessary for Jesus to give expansions of his teachings seeing he was not coming back right away. If you studied just the Bible with the Bible as the Holy Ghost does and teaches then you would see it. You are willfully ignorant and blind to the truth of God's Holy words.

I listed out part of it in an earlier post but you did not even search the scriptures to see if what I said was true. Because if you did or anyone else did, you would find in fact that I am correct.

Anyone who denies Paul's legitimacy is is fact committing the unpardonable sin of Blaspheming the Holy Ghost because it was he who chose to send Paul. For he is the one who called Paul and seeing John says that the father, the Word(Jesus Christ) and the Holy Ghost are one then it is literally Jesus who called Paul. The the book of Acts if factually true and all Paul's letters are in fact God inspired and are for doctrine to live until Jesus Returns.

Acts 13:2-4 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
Matt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come]/b].

Anyone who says Paul is a liar and rejects the book of Acts and all of Paul's letters is in fact rejecting that which the Holy Ghost has done and blasphemies against the Holy Ghost.

Paul was a false prophet who never met Jesus or was taught his teachings.

No expansion of Jesus teachings, just the dumb words of a despicable person.

Paul has "my gospel" the apostles had Jesus' Gospel. One is the true teachings of Jesus and the other is Paul's (Marcion).

originally posted by: JerryMH
Chester.. that really grieves me. What shame you bring in Jesus name, so quick to judge and condemn. Please think of what you are saying and are. Says you'd know them by their love. You are so far from Him. This is why religions need to be torn down.

Yes, this is very true, although I don't believe in eliminating religion I do believe that Christian Churches need to man up and recognize what they ignore, that is, Paul's claims are lies and he wasn't a friend of the apostles.

Modern scholars with no Christian bias and many Christian scholars at least recognize the fact that the 12 apostles and James were not teaching what Paul was and that there was a serious rivalry. Because the Bible says as much, in Paul's words, James and by comparing Jesus teachings with Paul's.

I can only guess, buy it's a very educated guess, that the Pauline epistles are responsible for the disturbed minds within Christianity.

Not naming names, I have seen it in my community and on the internet, there is nobody more full of crap than a Pauline Christian.

Get rid of Paul, problem solved. Replace it with the Apocrypha that tells the legends of the 12 and H&R and you have a good theology with good stories instead of letters written to 6ithch about the apostles and demonize Jews.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: SethTsaddik

All of Paul's teachings are expansions on what Jesus taught in the four Gospel books of Matthew Mark, Luke and John, the only exception is Sabbath observance and the Kingdom preparation teachings for Israel. Anyone who want to take an AV Bible (the only Bible with all the verses in it) and go through it over and over listing out all that Jesus taught and you will find Paul taught much of the same things but with more explanation. It was necessary for Jesus to give expansions of his teachings seeing he was not coming back right away. If you studied just the Bible with the Bible as the Holy Ghost does and teaches then you would see it. You are willfully ignorant and blind to the truth of God's Holy words.

I listed out part of it in an earlier post but you did not even search the scriptures to see if what I said was true. Because if you did or anyone else did, you would find in fact that I am correct.

Anyone who denies Paul's legitimacy is is fact committing the unpardonable sin of Blaspheming the Holy Ghost because it was he who chose to send Paul. For he is the one who called Paul and seeing John says that the father, the Word(Jesus Christ) and the Holy Ghost are one then it is literally Jesus who called Paul. The the book of Acts if factually true and all Paul's letters are in fact God inspired and are for doctrine to live until Jesus Returns.

Acts 13:2-4 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
Matt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come]/b].

Anyone who says Paul is a liar and rejects the book of Acts and all of Paul's letters is in fact rejecting that which the Holy Ghost has done and blasphemies against the Holy Ghost.

Paul is a liar. Paul is not the Holy Spirit or representative of, was even forbidden by the Spirit from preaching in Asia ACCORDING to Acts.

Because he was a liar.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Asia at that time was north and east of what we call Turkey today.

Your wrong and guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in denying Paul's calling.

He has more biblical proof than you do in that he the expands on the teachings of Jesus and that under the guidance by inspiration of the Holy Ghost to establish the church and many were added to the church by his ministry.

Acts 16:5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

So what that Paul was not called to go east of where he ministered. He heard the Spirit and did not go but was called by a vision to go west. You are trying to make something out of nothing. Peter did go east as far as Babylon. After that Peter is never heard fro again.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

ALL said with absolutely no Biblical proof what so ever. So that makes it one of your assumptions or opinions.

Paul has more biblical prof than you do, except in this.

2 Peter 2:1 -2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: SethTsaddik

I showed you what the Bible says and it does not say that James in act 15 is in fact James the brother of Jesus, and it very well could be James the son of Alpheus aslo know as James the Less.



I don't put trust in men like Josephus because he was not a saved man. I don't trust anything outside the preserved word of God.

The fact that you only trust what you think is a saved man, and not an "unsaved" Jewish historian, is absurd, and a cop out because you know that the James of Josephus confirms the mystery of the Bible "which James is Jesus brother?" and corroborates Paul's statement that James was the brother of the Lord, as when Paul speaks of James or men from James it's both the brother of the Lord and the 'chairman' of the Jerusalem council, the same James, and all that is needed is corroboration.

That is entirely within context, I am beginning to doubt if you know what that means. Nobody seriously thinks anyone other than James the Just was the brother of the Lord spoken of by Paul, because he always talked about that James and Peter, the two leaders, John, the pillars of the Church, and no other James or apostles by name.

There is a good chance a ''saved" Christian interpolated that passage in Josephus, many to most scholars think that is an interpolation and almost all think the other testimony about Jesus in Josephus is an interpolation.

"Pious fraud" is a statement that applies almost exclusively to the "saved" Christians of that era. Most Christian Church father's have been discovered to be pathological liar, nothing about the origins of the Nazarenes is known for the most part and Catholicism or Christianity is equally problematic historically.

But as far as the Bible is concerned Paul's James is James the Just, the brother of the Lord, men from James are from that James, it's very easy to see by reading the letters of Paul, whose James is the James of Acts also, as he is clearly in charge though humble, and has men willing to follow his orders or men from James.

I repeat, I think you are missing something when it comes to understanding the meaning of ''context" in or out, and you are guided by preconceived notions and what you want to be true as well as a fringe church that is fanatical.

There was no such thing as a Muslim I the sense of an Islamic,

You worded this sentence to the point where it makes no sense. Islamic is an adjective and could describe Jesus perfectly in any sense, making him a Muslim Prophet, even if retroactively, they were Prophets of the same God as were Moses and Isaiah.

at the time of Christ.

If you are trying to be smart and say he is one who is submitted to God that is true

I don't try to be smart, I'm blessed with the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit. And it is true, he submitted to God, which is why he is a Muslim Prophet.

I have already explained that Islam didn't have to exist for all Prophets are from the same God and Jesus would have known about it, being a Prophet he was able to see the future, and the religion of Jesus and the religion of Mohammed are the same, although Mohammed was more of an Old Testament Jesus (Joshua) than a New Testament Jesus(Yeshua, Joshua, Issa), this was God's plan to eliminate the idolatry of worshipping the Messiah instead of the one God and paganism in one Prophet.

Give people a true Monotheistic faith that didn't reject Jesus but honored him as Messiah. Mohammed was tolerant of Judaism and Christianity and converted many from both faiths, Islam did not persecute either because he recognized the common origins and similarities instead of the differences, though they do have them.

They were Prophets of the same God, and therefore Jesus and Mohammed are Muslims, officially and technically, literally based on the definition of Islam.

Submit to God's will is the meaning of Islam and what being a Muslim is, and Jesus did that and is a Muslim Prophet.

Zarathustra is also a Prophet in Islam, because he taught about the one true God, even though Persia was converted to Islam some stayed, some fled to India. I believe they had to pay a tax if they didn't convert, but this is much better than the Catholic Inquisition where the slightest deviation could mean death, and more people than any organization in history were killed by Orthodox Christianity, despite their previous reputation for sob stories about being persecuted themselves, they were the worst persecutors in history for a LONG time, murdered people who wouldn't convert with zero tolerance for deviations.

Neither religion is perfect, but God is, and Allah is God is Hashem/ Elohim, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael and Jacob.

Ishmael also had 12 sons and tribes.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Paul has zero Biblical proof, the testimony of a lone individual is not proof, and nobody saw him ever talk to Jesus, Acts doesn't mention names and is second hand and Paul is according to Biblical edict not to be believed without witnesses.

Indeed his nonsense was said by Peter to lead people astray. That's not corroboration, Peter didn't say he saw Paul talk to Jesus, to boot 2 Peter is admitted to be pseudepigraphy by the Church and scholars as are the Pastorals and probably more of Paul's epistles, I believe the Marcion found epistles are the ones considered genuine or at least written by the same author.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Asia was where the 7 Churches of Revelation are located, where Paul was forbidden from preaching in and ''All those who are in Asia have turned away from me" are the words of Paul.

Basically the apostolic Nazarene region, the Holy Spirit forbid him from preaching there and he was forced outside of Rome, because the Jews hated him, Nazarenes and Pharisees.

Paul and Christianity are NOT the teachings of Jesus or based on them, they are all based on the deranged mind of Paul and his epistles, or the ones attributed to Paul.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

i'm no bible nut
but
wasnt there a story of paul encountering " the light " but
he could only hear it
not see it

it being a spirit tricking paul

also more claims about Christianity

indiatoday.intoday.in...

www.stephen-knapp.com...

a reply to: kibric

Acts tells the story from the authors words, again but from Paul's mouth directly contradicting the first account, which I suspect was on purpose to make Paul seem dishonest, discreetly enough to make it to today.

The third account is Paul's testimony and also contradicts and embellishes on the first two accounts.

People say that was the light Jesus beheld falling from the sky, the light Paul saw.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik

You are really bright and you know some stuff over all your accounts I have seen this of you.

Now, it is a fact that Paul was not just in Ephesus he was also in Colosse, Lydia, Smyrna, Thyratira, Phrygia, Mysia, Troas and Pegamos all located in the area called Asia, if we can trust old maps that label as such(which I try not to trust anything but God's word).

Paul went through the upper coasts of Ephesus but Ephesus is not on the coast at all. Coast was an old term used to mean borders. Now Mysia is north of Ephesus by some distance and when they wanted to go to Bithynia the Spirit would not let them.

So at a certain time the Holy Ghost did not allow them to preach in Asia but it would seem God did allow him to later because he will plant churches and establish elders in Ephesus.

So just because at one time God says no does not mean he could never ever go there. And obviously later he did. So this does not make Paula liar. One verse saying he was not allowed to does not prove that later he was outside the will of God or disobedient to God when he did.

So using that argument is a weak one to build a doctrine of Paul being a liar and a deceiver and creating a false gospel.

Give god a little room to be God and don't put all your argument on one verse that took place but later looks as if God allowed him to do what he earlier said he could not.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: kibric
People say that was the light Jesus beheld falling from the sky, the light Paul saw.

What people are you saying say this?

Connecting the verse where Jesus says he saw Satan falling like lightening is not the same as when Jesus shows himself as the Lord. To connect these two verse is truly a form of wrongly joining the word of Truth.

Luke 10:17-20 the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

Acts 9:3-5 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Not even the contexts are the same. let alone that one is lightening and he other is a light that shines from heaven.

Beware of listening to what "people say". Search the scriptures and see if what they say is true to the word of God. And of course and in this case it is false.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I have made it my earnest study this last year when I first read a post by a now banned account of Lastdays. Basically you and him and a hundred other now banned accounts have all parroted this same thing about Paul. In short that his teachings were all lies, he is a liar, false apostle, not a follower of Christ.

So I went through the Gospels and listed out what Jesus taught. Then I went through the letters of Paul and found that Paul expands the teaching that helps in the establishment of the church. Paul also expands on the Lords supper, Peace, Joy, the Death and Resurrection of Christ and its reason, Belief on Jesus Name, Prayer, forgiveness of sins, Repentance, How to treat parents, Marriage, widows, righteousness, Loving god and one another, the Godhead, oneness of God with the son, oneness of God and the christian, children of God/sons of God, Holy Ghost, Spiritual gifts, Law of Moses and much more.

There is no conflict between the teaching of Paul and that of Christ. Faith is what is needed to get saved at any time. I have outlines below how people are saved by faith at different times. There are slight differences but all are by faith. The first one is faith alone and God gives you the grace of eternal life, and good works follow because of what God has done proving your faith is true. In the second, one is saved by faith but will do good works to prove his faith is real and when he dies God will give him the grace of eternal life. In the third, one sees Jesus, has the knowledge of his work, follows what is commanded to do proving their faith, after they die God gives them the grace of eternal life.

I expand a little in the next few paragraphed but salvation is always by faith

1) Today through ones faith and immediately receives the grace of God eternal life along with forgiveness of sins, imputed righteousness of Christ, Justified in sight of God, a promise of a new body when one dies or is gathered unto the Lord in the clouds, Judgement of God took place on the cross. Is made holy and much more, all this applies to the Christian the moment he believes. This leads them to do good works, change ones life and serve God.

2) Before and at time of Christ before his death. One was saved by faith, by keeping all the laws of Moses, doing good to others, be merciful, be fair in all your dealings with men and your family, and when he died he would go to a place to await the resurrection, at which time he would be judged and receive the grace of God which would include all that is mentioned above in 1.. This will also be active way of salvation during the tribulation.

3) In the kingdom one will see Christ on his throne ruling and judging the world daily. And you exercise faith on what he did, knowing what he did on the cross and see the nail prints in his hands and feet. If you keep all that he requires like bringing oblations and attendance of the feasts, possibly the law of Moses will be in affect. you do all that and die you are judged and given the grace of God which includes all that was said above in 1).

I just got the bad news that my package of three books, 40$, was stolen off my porch. My mailman knows where to hide them so don't see how it could happen but my neighbor saw them and didn't bring them in the hallway, though he cared enough to ask if I got them I guess he didn't care enough to take two seconds and bring them in the hallway. It's ultimately my fault... and I just reordered but still.

But I'm going to take it out on Paul, and so Chester John can't employ his answer for everything, "Out of context" I will be using only Romans, though I might mention another book if warranted and if I offer an opinion I will label it as such, which I think I am pretty consistent with doing, but I will try to just explain it without my opinion.

Like the Christians do, literally.

Romans 3:7

But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds, why am I still being condemned as a sinner.?

Two facts can be ascertained with certainty, Paul is admitting to lying in a way he thinks has an effect on God's truthfulness, his lies make God's truthfulness abound.

He was being condemned as a sinner for it and thinks he is being treated unfairly, though he was lying.

Romans 7:7

What should we say? That the law is a sin? By no means! Although if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I wouldn't know what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet.". Despite the fact that wanting something you don't have is natural and occurs in places it isn't illegal. It's an emotion, not something caused by learning the word for it.

Careful to begin with the statement that the law is not a sin Paul shifts and says it just causes sin. That covetousness is a result of the law against it, which makes it the cause.

If a monkey is starving and sees another monkey eating he will covet, even fight for and steal it, because it's an instinct.

Likewise an illiterate and uneducated person who has never heard a single law in his life, lives in the jungle and never goes into the city will covet something at some point in his life, even in small villages people covet more than they have, it is human nature and the cause of the law, not the other way around. You can't make a law about covetousness if covetousness doesn't exist. The concept has to develop before a law is made banning it. Covet existed as a word before Moses.

7;9 -13

I once was alive,apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

Paul is clearly saying that "the commandment", whatever one he means that promised him life, was the conduit for sin seizing an opportunity IN the commandment, deceived him.

I wonder how a commandment from God could lead one to sin, since God makes the commandmens following them is not sin, can't possibly be or lead to sin.

He says sin was revived, as if it had died, and the coming of this commandment was what revived sin and this commandment promised him life, but gave him death.

After all this talk of the commandment as being the cause of sin, blaming the law for the sin, he has the nizzies to say:

So the law is holy, the commandment is just and good.

Which makes, following Paul's twisted pseudo logic, reviving sin just and good. Because the commandment does that, and it deceives, leads to a metaphorical death, and without it or law there is no sin.

Yet it is just and holy. I can't believe this is what Christianity calls Scripture, and they historically mocked every competing ideology, theology or philosophy. Hypocrisy is a Pauline virtue.

I am going to take a break but am not finished.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Paul has zero Biblical proof, the testimony of a lone individual is not proof, and nobody saw him ever talk to Jesus, Acts doesn't mention names and is second hand and Paul is according to Biblical edict not to be believed without witnesses.

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

the men which were with him did hear the voice speaking to Paul, but did not see the person who was speaking. So there were witnesses. And the other witness is that of God via inspiration. So they and the word are two witnesses, plus Jesus and the Holy Ghost also so their are at least five witnesses for Paul and none in context that prove your view.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Paul we defending himself against false claims. He was not saying he was lying but rather they were falsely reported he was saying that they were claiming they do evil that good will come from is.

Roms 3:-8 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

for someone as bright as you you sure don't understand what is going on in the context of the section of scriptures.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Some things to think about your take on Romans 7:7;

I feel Paul brought this up in the sense that for every decision there are consequences.Pain or love are two great teachers in life.Free will permits one to chose, and learn for themselves.

Your perspective on covetousness may change.Wanting something you don't have is most natural, wanting to have something of anothers is where it crosses the line.It's fine to want something, but being to tempted to take somebody else possession can become unhealthy.I think it would be good to reflect on the difference between needs and wants as well, contrasting needs like food, clothing or shelter with wants doesn't make for a fair comparison.Often the needy show greater appreciation for the little graces life has to offer,

Romans 7;9-13;

Do you think his persecution of the early church and what is mentioned about Stephen being stoned for his testimony could have anything to do with this?

He could very easily be reflecting on the way his zeal blinded him, in the earlier part of his life.Perhaps when he saw the light, a part of him realized the damage he was doing to himself the whole time he persecuted others?A part of us tends to die, when we realize our own reflection in others eyes...