Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: Joshuabennone
You are being disingenuous in the least and a liar at best, for you say you believe Jesus and the 12 But have not compared the scriptures with the scriptures, that present the facts that are evident in the New testament that Paul has expounded and expanded all the teachings of Jesus as they pertain to our waiting for his return.

Even Peter affirmed that Paul taught in his letters the same things a s Peter just mentions and more. All topics that are underlined are just a few of the things Paul taught that the Apostles and Jesus taught. But what is even more amazing is that Peter equates Paul's writings with all scriptures.

2Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Seeing how you may be the resurrections of TP and the rest you will not even search he scriptures to see what I say is true.

Here are but a few topics that Jesus, the Apostles and a Paul all taught.
1) Love one another
2) Learn the scriptures
3) Be holy
4) Live righteously
5) Honor one another
6) the Lord's Super
7) the Lord's Death was ransom for many

that is just to name a few. If you are who I think you are then you already know I possted all these thins=gs. If not go back tot he beginning of this thread and come and reply after reading all the posts.

Also, let's be honest, Paul added literally nothing positive to the religion of Christianity. It is not that he didn't try, he just didn't have the power of prophecy and never should have been included.

Just look at the 50,000 Churches that have splintered from a Universal Church to two, three and then thousands, not because of harmony but because nobody knows what the religion is about and can't agree on anything.

People thinking speaking in tongues makes them spiritual when they look like idiots and tongues is an idiom for languages, real ones and not gibberish.

Protestant theologians who place Paul in the position of innovative prophet should have noticed a long time ago that Paul never met Jesus and THAT is why his teachings have been a plague on the world for 2000 years, not because of the Pope.

He only took away from, paradoxically, Christian spirituality and replaced the smooth logic of the gospels with madman rants like the neighborhood old man who says "Dag gum kids, get off my lawn, in my day..."

Basically an old crank who when nobody listens to goes on rants and talks about nonsense. To be honest I think he was mentally ill.

To tell the truth, I don't think Paul had the intelligence or mental stability to organize an Empire wide new religion in the world of first century Rome, could not do it today if alive because nobody would believe him beyond the few ever ready nuts who will believe claims of talking to dead prophets they would have murdered and who murdered many disciples of.

Either Paul went insane from guilt and convinced himself that he was a prophet and apostle of Christ who had many private revelations from him and was his best disciple with charge over the Roman Empire by decree of God...

Or he tried to infiltrate the Jerusalem Church, got set up for assassination by James and was rescued by 400 ROMAN soldiers, and never returned to Jerusalem but wrote a few letters and swindled some wealthy folks in Rome. And died there or disappeared in roughly 66AD.

Either way it was not Paul who gave us Christ, or Christianity, but Christianity gave US Paul who should have been filed under "future research into mental disorders."

4 Gospels and the stories about the apostles that didn't make the Canon would be much better as a morals based religion and have went with the OT much better. And added 2,3 or 4 times the amount of sacred literature.

When did a short letter become scripture? Romans wrote epistles and Greeks but not as the foundation of a religious philosophy. Why would the letters of some rapture spewing fool make a good religion?

That is why Paul is known for the legend of Acts, a ridiculous tale, and a few quotes that are often quite out of context, cancelation of the Mosaic law among people it never applied to in the first place as if that is actually doing something, and having written some letters.

Letters.

Quite frankly it seems rather insulting to the friends of the Messiah and the Messiah himself to purposely exclude the stories of the Acts of the individual apostles and include one single Act focused mostly on a man who murdered his fellow Jews for being disciples of a great man.

Paul obviously didn't mind sensless violence and was a total traitor to the entirety of Jewry and his people more so than Josephus was, Paul was always on Romes side, he knows relatives of Herod, Aristobulus, the aristocratic party, and not a model Jew like he claimed. I also don't believe he was an Israelite from Tarsus, where Pharisees didn't live that anyone knows of and Augustine said he was from somewhere else, Jewish Messianics said he was Greek and converted so exactly who this Paul was is anyone's guess but he doesn't belong to the religion of John, Jesus, James and Peter and John the apostle.

James was friendly with zealots if not a leader of the faction called Zealots of who Simon of Cana was and Judas a Sicari, Iscariot being a corruption of. And it seems the only 2 apostles without an "Acts of" attributed to them are Judas for obvious reasons and Simon. Matthias I think has a story about him and Peter.

You have Infancy Gospels, Revelations of Peter, another John, Matthew and the story of the virgin, another with her death and the Gospel of Nicodemus which to be fair has some weird things in it but tells of the descent into hell of Christ.

And much about Peter and the real apostles to the point it is like, "we gave up all this for Paul's rubbish?"

That is all from Orthodoxy too, not Gnostics but the real books read by Christians until Athanasius decided to censor religion and many died for possession of Apocryphal scriptures.

What is with this whole apostle to the gentiles, what the hell is an apostle to the gentiles?

Jesus told everyone before he died to make disciples of ALL NATIONS and I don't think he ascended to heaven and changed his mind and appointed Saul to do this enormous task himself and keep the Jews preaching only to Jews instead.

Which would require Jesus to have erred and needing to repair his mistake by replacing Peter with Paul.

We all know that Peter preached to Romans and Greeks and everyone because he was apostle numero uno abroad. James is probably the only one who stayed in Judea most of the time among mostly Jews but he was the head of the Jewish community outside of the aristocracy and friendly with the other Jewish parties, but he was not anti gentile and wrote fluent Greek, so we know he also dealt with gentiles.

Augustine was baffled at the excellence of James Greek.

a reply to: Joshuabennone

Just another Unbeliever in the word of God.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Joshuabennone

Just another Unbeliever in the word of God.

What about the unbeliever?

Because if an answer to my question what is a gentile, I was being sarcastic and know what is intended by the word gentile, which does not have a Greek equivalent, other than the word for nations or Greeks.

In Hebrew it's goy or goyim and is derogatory.

Point? Gentile and goy mean the same thing, not a Jew or outsider, and the NT has no need to invent words in English that originally only meant Greek or nations, and turn a non identification into a superior identification and Paul at best is A disciple to SOME goyim.

From reading his letters I would say not as many as legends tell, I actually don't believe a word that fool says so I doubt he had much if any actual connection to James, Peter and John or the apostles.

They care less to practically nothing about mentioning him, one letter outside of the Acts and epistles of Paul mentions him and his teachings are said to have a negative effect on people even then.

I don't think they considered him a fellow apostle, they certainly didn't go out of the way to vouch for him and it seems to me like Paul was an apostle of a dead imaginary Christ.

They were friends, disciples AND apostles, some blood relatives, and were all told to preach to gentiles, which is more important than the meaning of gentiles as it undermines Paul's claim (unverified) to divide the church into a Jew or not Jew, race based religion AND makes it seem as though they were on board with his ideas, though they weren't, nor he theirs.

What we have is 2 religions. The religion of the Messiah and the religion of Paul who makes a mockery of the religion of the Messiah.

Or was it just a comment about me, who is certainly not the topic?

If that's the case, and I think it is, the world is full of religious beliefs, all equally valid, so unbeliever is actually NOT applicable to me.

I just don't believe PAUL, who is nobody.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Although if your answer was to my question, "what is 'the apostle to the gentiles'?" it is certainly not a believer in the teachings of Christ who told ALL his disciples to preach to all nations, i.e. gentiles.

Which means anyone claiming to be THE apostle to the gentiles didn't know that. Which makes sense because Paul claimed to be that AND didn't know Jesus.

The book of Acts also contradicts itself applying the term to Peter, or Cephas, which explains why he was the target of Paul, calling him a hypocrite and boasting publicly in a letter about it, the closest thing to announcing it in the Times for a first century world.

Paul was a terrible guy.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Joshuabennone

Just another Unbeliever in the word of God.

I see what you mean, you THINK my rejection of the "apostle" (of who, he did not know Jesus?) means I don't believe in God.

But I don't reject God, just false prophets who are murderers of pacifists.

Nope, me and the big G man are on good terms, I love God and all my neighbors, even my enemies. And I don't pretend that disagreeing with me (or Paul) means someone is "JUST another unbeliever" because I can't read minds and Paul is nobody in the world of religion outside of Christianity.

Non Christians like Jesus but couldn't care less about Paul, most probably don't know who he is even. I bet they know Mohammed though or Buddha, Krishna.

You know, important religious figures, not marginal add on figures.

How you conclude I don't believe in God from my rejection of Paul leads me to believe Paul is your God. And is kind of intolerant, rude.

With all the other faiths out there, it's an assumption that makes no sense. Paul has nothing to do with God.

If the religion of the Messiah and the Baptizer offered forgiveness of sin and a way to the Kingdom of God, then the epistles of some guy who never knew him can add nothing to it, try though they do, it is the Pauline elements that turn people off.

And on that note Paul is unnecessary, as you can see the Kingdom of God without liking or believing a man called Paul.

I read Paul, he "Added nothing to me."
😀

a reply to: ChesterJohn


Although you can call me whenever you want, doing so doesn't address the facts I bought up and is a cop out from someone who can't handle the issue being discussed or debate about the facts because they just believe, but don't know.

a reply to: Joshuabennone

Don't think you are fooling anyone.

a reply to: Joshuabennone

How you conclude I don't believe in God from my rejection of Paul leads me to believe Paul is your God. And is kind of intolerant, rude.
With all the other faiths out there, it's an assumption that makes no sense. Paul has nothing to do with God.

originally posted by: Joshuabennone
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Although if your answer was to my question, "what is 'the apostle to the gentiles'?" it is certainly not a believer in the teachings of Christ who told ALL his disciples to preach to all nations, i.e. gentiles.

Which means anyone claiming to be THE apostle to the gentiles didn't know that. Which makes sense because Paul claimed to be that AND didn't know Jesus.

The book of Acts also contradicts itself applying the term to Peter, or Cephas, which explains why he was the target of Paul, calling him a hypocrite and boasting publicly in a letter about it, the closest thing to announcing it in the Times for a first century world.

Paul was a terrible guy.

RIGHT ON. Dang dude...keep it coming.

originally posted by: Joshuabennone

If the religion of the Messiah and the Baptizer offered forgiveness of sin and a way to the Kingdom of God, then the epistles of some guy who never knew him can add nothing to it, try though they do, it is the Pauline elements that turn people off.

And on that note Paul is unnecessary, as you can see the Kingdom of God without liking or believing a man called Paul.

I read Paul, he "Added nothing to me."
😀

Paul only added "gooblygop".

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: Joshuabennone

If the religion of the Messiah and the Baptizer offered forgiveness of sin and a way to the Kingdom of God, then the epistles of some guy who never knew him can add nothing to it, try though they do, it is the Pauline elements that turn people off.

And on that note Paul is unnecessary, as you can see the Kingdom of God without liking or believing a man called Paul.

I read Paul, he "Added nothing to me."
😀

Paul only added "gooblygop".

True dat.

I was borrowing a quote from Paul about "those who seemed to be pillars"..." Whatever they where means nothing to me,... those who were supposed to be something... Added nothing to me. "

But they gave and he accepted" the right hand of friendship. " Allegedly.

Why, if they were nothing, added nothing to him, does he need and boast about receiving the right hand of friendship?

From people he just and consistently talks trash about?

Also in Revelation, the Ephesians are congratulated for rejecting fake apostles, another church rebuked for following the doctrine of Balaam who led Israel astray by teaching it was OK to eat idol meat.

"What is an idol to me? " Says Paul and that as long as your " spiritually weak brothers " aka the "Judaizing, circumcision faction" aren't around, chow down that Molech sandwich.

"All those who are in Asia have rejected me."

I guess the "7 churches in Asia" ALL spotted the false apostle because Paul laments they did and prefixes it with "This you KNOW" so I would say that the entire Apostolic Church of Asia rejected Paul... because he says it himself.

Time to go to the pagans of Rome and corrupt the name of the Nazarene and religion of.

"Apostle" (of Caesar) to the nations/gentiles.

At least the Apostles got to live without Paul from the time of his arrest and for 400 years Jews had a Paul free "Christianity."

a reply to: Akragon

Well I watched the whole thing and the conclusion of the whole ignorant video with the ignorant speaker was this: (Spoiler alert!!!!)

Did Paul Invent Christianity? its not clear to me....its a matter of semantics.

Tadaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well I don't know about you, but I'm just ready to quit my relationship with Jesus Christ right now after this shocking and authoritative revelation!!! Or not.
This fool even said he uses Islamic scholars as his corresponding evidence for his "new found believe".

Once again, this is nothing more than an alibi to sin and live like you want to without submitting to the Authority of Jesus Christ and His words that He spoke through Paul.

All his arguments I could answer as soon as he said them. They have all been played before in his dangerous game of chance he's playing. He better hope he is right and Jesus is wrong, else he will lose his eternal soul on this wager.

a reply to: Hilkiah1611

welcome back...

How did you manage to watch the video in under a half hour?

originally posted by: Hilkiah1611
a reply to: Akragon

Well I watched the whole thing and the conclusion of the whole ignorant video with the ignorant speaker was this: (Spoiler alert!!!!)

Did Paul Invent Christianity? its not clear to me....its a matter of semantics.

Tadaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well I don't know about you, but I'm just ready to quit my relationship with Jesus Christ right now after this shocking and authoritative revelation!!! Or not.
This fool even said he uses Islamic scholars as his corresponding evidence for his "new found believe".

Once again, this is nothing more than an alibi to sin and live like you want to without submitting to the Authority of Jesus Christ and His words that He spoke through Paul.

All his arguments I could answer as soon as he said them. They have all been played before in his dangerous game of chance he's playing. He better hope he is right and Jesus is wrong, else he will lose his eternal soul on this wager.

You speak like one who believes it is impossible to have a relationship with Jesus unless you believe Paul.

Well, as I said, people were given the Way by Jesus and through the 12 apostles, looooong before Saul was reinvented as Paul the "apostle" by someone who may not have understood that 12 apostles is a fixed number or that Paul didn't qualify...

That's right, I forgot, Luke wrote Acts (I didn't forget) so he was the one who wrote the rules for qualifying to be an apostle and then later ignores them, odd, don't you think?

Point being enough evidence exists in the Bible to come to the conclusion Paul is fake, the guy in the video is not being ignorant nor is it dumb to cite Muslim scholars, you really have offered no refutation, just an opinion from someone who doesn't seem to want to let go (of Paul).

If your relationship with Jesus depends on Paul being or not being the founder of Christianity (which he was) which has nothing to do with the religion of the Nazarene Jews of Jerusalem, you don't have much of a relationship to begin with.