Has Saint Paul hijacked Christianity?

[e.r.m.]

I have always thought that Paul invented Christianity . . . Judaism was difficult to join and follow, so Paul invented a Judaic Apocalyptic Cult 20 years after the alleged death of Yeshua in order to fill a demand. Simple as that.

Simple and wrong.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe that is a total mis-judgement of Paul.

We finally agree.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe I don't see Paul as using philosophy but as speaking with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Yup.

 

[e.r.m.]

I think Paul was the antichrist Jesus predicted, not the only one, but the first.. I see him as basically evil, no different than when he was massacring Christians, I think his conversion was a fake, he made up the whole thing, no one else saw any vision of Jesus, he is everything that Jesus is not. The worst thing to happen to Jesus' simple message.

It says in the same sentence where they didn't see Jesus that they did hear the voice. Peter's, Paul's, and Jesus's message agree.

 

[e.r.m.]

I have my doubts Paul "saw the light" for anything other than a Hellenized realization that if you can't win the battle, be the Trojan Horse and doom them from within. I consider him a virus.

I don't believe Paul would live and then die for a lie.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Lots of people die for lies. The problem is that they believe the lies are true.

 

[e.r.m.]

Lots of people die for lies. The problem is that they believe the lies are true.

If Paul believed he was serving Christ and His kingdom, then it's not a lie.

 

[2ndpillar]

If Paul believed he was serving Christ and His kingdom, then it's not a lie.

Dear er,
The jihadist think they are serving God and setting up his kingdom by killing others and then dying by blowing themselves up. The fact is they lead very few to "destruction" versus the 2 billion that Paul has led.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If Paul believed he was serving Christ and His kingdom, then it's not a lie.

He's not lying, true, but it's still a falsehood he's peddling.

 

[2ndpillar]

He's not lying, true, but it's still a falsehood he's peddling.

Dear kp,
Paul was actually lying. He was all things to all men. He was a Greek to the Greeks, and a Pharisee of Pharisees to the Jews. He was a fraud, supposedly collecting tithes for the widows and orphans in Jerusalem. He showed up in Jerusalem, and it took 2 cohorts of Roman soldiers to get him out alive.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I know he's lying. I was just saying that if he really believed it, it's not technically a lie but still false.

 

[12jtartar]

What I think is that mainstream Christianity has been totally and inexorably influenced by Saint Paul's philosophical speculation which doesn't match with the most important principles of the evangelical message (the Gospels) To sum them up, it is sufficient to say that the Gospels clearly speak of the Kingdom of God, which is attainable only through men's efforts, so therefore Heaven is reached only through free will, that is, the choice of Good and the rejection of sin.
On the contrary, Paul speaks of a mankind that can't do but sin, and only through the faith in Jesus' blood it can be redeemed. So..according to this Anatolian philosopher, it is sufficient to believe that Christ was crucified to save us from sin, and that all our sins are forgiven through this simple act of faith.

I would like to ask rationalists here :...do you think there's something logical in this? I think there's nothing more twisted, anti-Christian and illogical than this theological principle.
This contradict all Jesus' parables, which clearly say that only the choice of good and altruism is the key to both worldly and otherworldly happiness.

You don't need to be a psychologist to understand the reason why Paul invented this concept.
Paul had been a wicked person who persecuted Christians (among whom St Stephen) and probably executed some of them. Suddenly and miraculously, he was enlightened by God and found out he was doing evil. Once he saw the light, he surely was ashamed of himself. And this shame was accentuated by the fact that there were so many Jews and Pagans, whose behavior was irreproachable: Jews whose life was very spiritual and Christian-like, and Pagans (especially after the Pagan renewing movement) who had never hurt anybody, but practiced abstinence and chastity.
The only way to feel better than these people was to create a concept that excluded Non-Christians from salvation.That is, inventing the concept of salvation by faith alone, making us believe that all sins are equal and redemption is earned by faith, regardless of personal merits.
Saul said to himself: "How can I feel a better person than those people? Simple: I rely on the story that Jesus's blood redeems people and erases sin. So, no matter how good and sinless Jews and Pagans are, I will always be better than them, because I believe that Jesus' blood has saved me."


I don't want to deny that there are lots of Christian-like concepts in Paul's epistles. Nevertheless, reading his works as a whole, it is clear that his personality was very tormented, surely devoured by a grave inner conflict.

I know that some Christians will "massacre" me...that's why I would really use the help and support of @wizanda and @Kelly of the Phoenix

Luca85,
If you believe that Paul was a false teacher, as you are claiming, who do you think that Paul wrote 14 books that are included in the Sacred Scriptures!?!?
Anyone who does not believe what Paul wrote cannot be a Christian!! Paul explained many doctrines, especially in Romans an Hebrews.
Paul knew more about Christianity than all the other Apostles put together. Read 1Corinthians and 2Corinthians, and see the instructions that he gave for the congregation of God and Jesus.
Paul was the greatest teacher of Christianity, because Jesus did not actually teach Christianity, because he was a Jew, and it was strictly against The Mosaic Law Covenant to preach another religion, Galatians 4:4, Hebrews 7:14, Deuteronomy chapter 13.
One reason that people cannot understand Paul's writings is, you must have God's spirit to understand the deep things of God, 1Corinthians 2:10-16. Physical or fleshly people cannot understand even simple things of God, but the spiritual man can!!

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah, Paul knew more about Christianity than Jesus too, be contradicts Jesus all the time, In fact Christianity is Paul's religion, not Jesus'!!

 

[2ndpillar]

Luca85,
If you believe that Paul was a false teacher, as you are claiming, who do you think that Paul wrote 14 books that are included in the Sacred Scriptures!?!?
Anyone who does not believe what Paul wrote cannot be a Christian!! Paul explained many doctrines, especially in Romans an Hebrews.
Paul knew more about Christianity than all the other Apostles put together. Read 1Corinthians and 2Corinthians, and see the instructions that he gave for the congregation of God and Jesus.
Paul was the greatest teacher of Christianity, because Jesus did not actually teach Christianity, because he was a Jew, and it was strictly against The Mosaic Law Covenant to preach another religion, Galatians 4:4, Hebrews 7:14, Deuteronomy chapter 13.
One reason that people cannot understand Paul's writings is, you must have God's spirit to understand the deep things of God, 1Corinthians 2:10-16. Physical or fleshly people cannot understand even simple things of God, but the spiritual man can!!

Dear 12j,
Paul taught the gospel of grace, which is the foundation of "Christianity". Yeshua taught the "kingdom of heaven" which is antithetical to the gospel of grace. Yeshua was and is speaking to Mount Zion, whereas Paul's followers are of the Mountain of Babylon, in the form of the daughters of Babylon the Great. One message leads to "life", and one message leads to "destruction" (Mt 7:13). Per Mt 13:39-42, Paul's message of "lawlessness" is coming to an abrupt end, as we are now at the "end of the age".

 

[Ben Avraham]

Gospels clearly speak of the Kingdom of God, which is attainable only through men's efforts, so therefore Heaven is reached only through free will, that is, the choice of Good and the rejection of sin.

Not only, in fact, man has the infentisimally smaller portion. The kingdom is unattainable without Jesus's sacrifice and unless God enables us.

On the contrary, Paul speaks of a mankind that can't do but sin, and only through the faith in Jesus' blood it can be redeemed.

Paul never taught that only through the faith in Jesus' blood it can be redeemed.

As a result of God's revelation, the Prophets of the Most High have taught that no one can die for the sins of another. (Ezekiel 18:3,20) Besides, Jesus taught that the Kingdom is attainable only by listening to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31. Now, as redemption is concerned, it is achieved only by setting things right with God so that our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow through repentance and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19)

 

[2ndpillar]

As a result of God's revelation, the Prophets of the Most High have taught that no one can die for the sins of another. (Ezekiel 18:3,20) Besides, Jesus taught that the Kingdom is attainable only by listening to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31. Now, as redemption is concerned, it is achieved only by setting things right with God so that our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow through repentance and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19)

Dear Ben,
What you stated is true, except that you left out Isaiah 1:26, "I will turn My hand against you.... and remove your dross..... Then I will restore your judges as the first". I think Zech 13:9, goes into a more detailed description of what is going to be brought about to fulfill Ez 37: 23-25.

 

[metis]

Dear Ben,
What you stated is true, except that you left out Isaiah 1:26, "I will turn My hand against you.... and remove your dross..... Then I will restore your judges as the first". I think Zech 13:9, goes into a more detailed description of what is going to be brought about to fulfill Ez 37: 23-25.

The question begs what is the "you" in that verse?

 

[2ndpillar]

The question begs what is the "you" in that verse?

Dear metis,
That would be answered from the given verse of Ez 37:23-25, which would be the stick of Judah, and the stick of Ephraim (Ez 37:19). The verse Zech 13:9 was also given, but it is a little less direct. It is referring to "the sheep" that were "scattered" when the "Shepherd" was struck. For confirmation of who the "Shepherd" in question is, the same verse is quoted in Mt 26:31, and the sheep would have been Judah, for Israel/Ephraim, were already "scattered among the nations" (Joel 3:2), and were referred to as the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 10:6).

 

[Ben Avraham]

Has Paul Hijacked Christianity?

No, he has not; he has rather caused Christianity to rise. He did hijack the most recent Jewish Sect of the First Century aka the Sect of the Nazarenes organized by the Apostles of Jesus on his behalf in memory of the fact that he was from Nazareth.[/quote]

 

[metis]

Dear metis,
That would be answered from the given verse of Ez 37:23-25, which would be the stick of Judah, and the stick of Ephraim (Ez 37:19). The verse Zech 13:9 was also given, but it is a little less direct. It is referring to "the sheep" that were "scattered" when the "Shepherd" was struck. For confirmation of who the "Shepherd" in question is, the same verse is quoted in Mt 26:31, and the sheep would have been Judah, for Israel/Ephraim, were already "scattered among the nations" (Joel 3:2), and were referred to as the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 10:6).

The reality is that there is simply no reference to a Jesus figure in the Tanakh, and the vast majority of the supposed "messianic" references are taken out of context. However, if you believe that Jesus is the messiah, that's quite OK, imo.

The reason I asked the question about the "you" is that so many Christians end up using that as a reference to all Jews, portraying them all as being despotic, which is not what is actually being said in the Tanakh if one reads these verses in context.