'Christianity' or 'Paulism'? (Jesus Christ, priests, Earth, gospel, crucified)

[A. Ben-Shema]

Paul teaches that Jesus' death was actually a necessary sacrificial offering for the sins of mankind, without which, our sins could not be forgiven.

However, according to some passages in the NT, Jesus Himself contradicts this view. Jesus clearly states that He had authority to forgive sins while living, without any necessity for/of His death:
Matt 9:5-6 "Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . ."

It is also clear that Jesus bestowed this authority to certain of His close 'initiated' disciples:
John 20:22-23 "And with that he [Jesus] breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

This is plainly in contradiction to the false theology of Paul.

Peace & Love

[wizanda]

John is also fake and contains "EGO I-Mee" ("I Am Christ"), contradicts the old testament loads ("vine to burn", "eating of flesh or blood", etc)
It is an egotistical representation of Yeshua that present him as a dragon and Contains many false bits ("temple destroyed", "silently lead too Pilate", "house of Israel only")...Quite a few articles within my site on the gospel of John Nicodemus being Pharisee and other points that keep noticing showing it to be false.
All I will say on Paul, Simon and John is Balaam! God does not sacrifice!

[Mister Emu]

Christianity

The Apostles were still alive when Paul was writing... if Paul was writing anything contradictory to what Christ taught, I would be the apostles would have been all over it... but, as far as we know, they weren't.

[wizanda]

The apostles got killed by Saul and you say they should defend against Paul?
Even the high council didn’t know how too and they made him….

Act 23:12-15
(12) And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
(13) And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.
(14) And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.
(15) Now therefore ye with the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you to morrow, as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him.

Acts has more then one Author and I can only presume who ever wrote the end of it, would have been with Paul/Saul, as their account is more accurate near his bits….

Anyways as a follower of Yeshua, why defend someone who contradicts Yeshua on so many points?….

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Christianity

The Apostles were still alive when Paul was writing... if Paul was writing anything contradictory to what Christ taught, I would be the apostles would have been all over it... but, as far as we know, they weren't.

James and Peter were constantly at war with Paul over doctrine. Paul won some with peter, lost some with both. There is fairly good evidence james turned Paul over to the Romans at the end.

Galatians 2:11-21
Paul Opposes Peter

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ( why did people such as the Apostle James still believe that the law regarding food should still be applied? If Jesus came to replace the law, then why are they still following the law?) 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (so, Peter, James and Barnabas are wrong?)
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. ( why are they arguing over following the law or not? Why are they not in agreement of doctrine?)
17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"[d]

<FONT color=#ff0000><B>Paul condemns all Jewish Christians including Peter and Barnabas. We only have Paul’s side of the story but Peter’s recollection of this story is not given to us in the New Testament.

[Popeyesays]

Paul versus James:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~moorea/paul_james.html


"

The Jerusalem Conference

Acts 15 gives an account of a Conference in Jerusalem that has created a template for dealing with
internal 'issues' for all versions of authoritarian Christianity ever since.
The trouble is Pauls letters indicate that this account is a total fabrication.
According to Acts it goes like this:

●

A minority group of converted Pharisees come to Antioch where Paul is, and they preach on the
necessity of Jewish circumcision and keeping Law. (Acts 15 vs 1)

●

Paul and Barnabas dispute with them. (Acts 15 vs 2)

●

The Antioch Church sends Paul and Barnabas to get a ruling from the Apostles and Elders in
Jerusalem (Acts 15 vs 2)

●

In Jerusalem Peter speaks in defence of Paul's position (Acts 15 vs 7-11)

●

Paul and Barnabas also speak in defence of their position (Acts 15 vs 12)

●

James hears all submissions and pontificates, clearly states that those preaching circumcision in
Antioch had no authority to do so, and hands down a mini law for Gentiles to keep (Acts 15 vs 13-
29) that is drafted into a letter

●

The Commandments were

●

abstaining from meats offered to idols

●

abstaining from things strangled

●

abstaining from fornication;

●

Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch with the letter accompanied by Silas and Judas, 2 senior men
from the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15 vs 22 )

●

Paul wants to revisit the Churches of his previous missionary journey but has a falling out with
Barnabas over who should go(Acts 15 vs 39 ), and takes Silas the Jerusalem delegate instead of
Barnabas (Acts 15 vs 40 )

●

Paul and Silas revisit the churches, strengthening them (Acts 15 vs 41) and then in Acts 16 we see an
accommodating Paul not only circumcising Timothy (Acts 16 vs 3 ) but also delivering the
Jerusalem Councils 'decree' to every church they visit (Acts 16 vs 4 )

Paul's version of this episode is contained in Galatians Chapter 2, and is very different

.

●

In Galatians 2 Paul's trip to Jerusalem is prior to the visit of the Circumcision delegation to Antioch
(Galatians 2 vs 11)

●

Paul does go to Jerusalem with Barnabas (Galatians 2 vs 1), but he is not sent by the Church in
Antioch, he goes of his own volition (Galatians 2 vs 2)

●

The meeting in Jerusalem is private and not a public conference (Galatians 2 vs 2)

●

Paul makes no mention of any Jerusalem decree, other than a request from Jerusalem that they
“remember the poor” (Galatians 2 vs 10)

●

Paul does not credit the Jerusalem hierarchy with any authority over him (Galatians 2 vs 6)

●

There is clearly dissension between Paul and the circumcision group that comes to Antioch

●

The group however are not acting as a rogue element, they 'come from James' (Galatians 2 vs 12)

●

Peter's position subsequent to the visit of the men 'from James' is to acquiesce to the premise that
Gentiles are required to 'Judaise' to become Christians (Galatians 2 vs 14)

●

There is dissension between Paul and Barnabas, however this is not over who goes on a trip, this is
because Barnabas like Peter submits to the men 'from James' (Galatians 2 vs 13)

●

Paul's attitude to the content of the Acts decree is certainly not what portrays. And he certainly
doesn't go about preaching it as per Acts 16 vs 4.

Paul’s position on the 'Jerusalem Decrees'

Regards,
Scott

[wizanda]

Thanks glad some people help, good case assessment
They have hidden Cephas (peter):
Gal 2:9
(9) And when James, peter (Cephas), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

The Apostles were still alive when Paul was writing... if Paul was writing anything contradictory to what Christ taught, I would be the apostles would have been all over it... but, as far as we know, they weren't.

According to the New Testament, they were. But Popeyesays has already elaborated on that subject.