Christianity invented by "Paul" & NOT by Jesus

[benign6]

Todays christianity & concept of crucification was invented by Paul & NOT Jesus or any of his REAL companions:-


Paul never met Jesus while Jesus was in this world:-
ACTS 22:3 I(Paul) am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Also Acts 9:11, and 21:39
Then this former persecuter of followers of Jesus converted :-Acts 9:1-20


Then he made-up a gospel:- Did any other disciple claimed like “MY Gospel”???
ROM 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
ROM 16:25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
1COR 7:17: ….this is the rule I(Paul) lay down in all the churches


All who receive divine revelation get some kind of proof like miracles etc. BUT Paul did NOT provide any proof rather threatened who asked for proof:-
2COR 13:2 I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare:3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.


While ppl did NOT agree to Paul’s invented-story of “CRUCIFICATION”, Paul got angry with them:-
GAL 3:1:O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose(Paul’s)eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Another translation of same verse tells that jesus was just “PORTRAYED” as being crucifixed,So there was NO real crucifixion, it appeared so:-
GAL 3:1:You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.



Early followers of Jesus DID NOT believe what Paul proclaimed & Paul was a self-proclaimed disciple(i.e., an imposter):-
GAL 1:6: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one(Paul) who called you by the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel(of true disciples of christ like Peter).
A man(Paul) who NEVER met Jesus while he was in world, declares that Peter (who was the only disciple witness of attempted crucifixion) was wrong.
Gal:2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong


& other disciples contradicted with Paul:-
1COR 3:4 For while one saith, I follow Paul; and another, I follow Apollos; are ye not carnal?

2COR 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
2COR 11:5 For I supposeI was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.



Paul who never saw alleged crucifixion, proclaimed repeatedly that he was the ONLY one given the knowledge of crucification:-
EPH 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed (so no one before Paul believed that Jesus was crucified)unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs,(Jesus was sent ONLY for JewsMT:10:5-6&15:24&LK:19:9-10 So the religion Gentiles r following is NOT from Jesus but from Paul) and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

 

[benign6]

Christians before Paul DID NOT believe in crucifixion as clear from above verses Therefore todays christians r just following what Paul made-up:-
1COR 15:1-4(written by Paul):Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance, that Christ died for our sins(Paul’s invention) according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter(& the book written by Peter,The first one to see Jesus, was denied a place in todays Bible) and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me(Paul) also.
So none of so many ppl believed in crucifixion BUT it was revealed to Paul only ……. Amazing that ppl who were real companians of Jesus were NOT given knowledge of his crucifixion

If Jesus was crucified in public then public must’ve been aware of crucification, BUT they were NOT & Preachers were trying hard to convince ppl of this
made-up story of crucification, so ONLY preachers were aware of this & this was NOT a public fact.:-
1COR 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;


In summary:-
Before Paul NO one was given knowledge of crucification & other mysteries like “Jesus died for others’ sins” etc. EPH 3:3-5
Before Paul NO one believed in crucification.
While Peter said that Jesus did NOT die, Paul opposed him.
Revelation of Peter---vs--- Gal:2:11
Not only Peter, rather many were opposed to Paul’s inventions. 1COR 3:4
Paul did NOT give any proof of whatever he claimed. All who receive divine revelation, r given some kind of miracle as a proof. DID Paul gave any proof??????????????

Since Paul was the inventor of christianity, so he “edited” scriptures to prove himself right & everyone elde wrong.

He played-down the 12 deciples, made them look like NOT trustable.

Paul didn’t stop there. He also played-down James the brother of Jesus, by making ppl believe that James was a “mad” man & allegdly opposed Jesus. If James was a “mad” man then howcome he became leader of “Jerusalem Church” after departure of Jesus.??????? Yes, there is a cover-up story about James conversion after Jesus was gone.

Paul tried to put HIMSELF in best possible light.

 

[benign6]

What to talk of humans, paul even considered that God can be foolish & weak:-

1COR 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Word “FOOL” was prohibited even for humans, & Paul used it for GOD:-

MT 5:22 But I(Jesus) say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

So verdict for this blasphemy of Paul is:-

LEV 24:16:“And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him…

 

[benign6]

Paul himself admit that he made up things from himself:-
1COR 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

2TIM 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Paul himself admitted he was a liar:-
ROM 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
PHIL 1:18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives(pretence) or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

 

[benign6]

If u want to be saved from “Vengeance” from Jesus, follow ONLY “gospel of Jesus”:-
2THESS 1:7:“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:


So do NOT follow the gospel of Paul (what ever Paul wrote):-
ROM 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
ROM 16:25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.

Other wise:-

“You shall be punished with everlasting destruction” 2THESS 1:9


So don’t be of those who:-

“obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” 2THESS 1:7
& Jesus said :- MK 12:32:“And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master(Jesus), thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but He:

“None other” means neither “Jesus” nor “holy Spirit”, nor Muhammad, Nor any of HIS creations.

Jesus was so pleased with what this man said that he replied:-

MK 12:34:“And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God”.

So u should also be like this man & say that “there is one God; and there is none other but He. Neither Jesus NOR holy ghost are God or different forms of God. so that u will also be in kingdom of God(heavens).





Just believing in Jesus & calling him ‘Lord” will NOT take u to heavens:-

MT 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
So if someone hear what Jesus said & NOT do it, will be in trouble. Many things that jesus said were nullified by Paul,Like eating pork etc.
So would u go for Paul or for Jesus???



Paul told women to SHUT-UP:-

1TIM 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1COR 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

 

[dawny0826]

Perhaps you could summarize YOUR reasoning for believing that Paul "invented" Christianity as opposed to posting pages of scripture. If you place a reference by your opinions, people can refer to scripture accordingly and maybe we could actually engage in dialogue.

 

[logician]

It basically is true that Paul (if indeed he existed) invented much of modern Xianity, and certainly never knew or heard of an earthtly Jesus.

"Bible scholars and computer experts have gone to work on these letters, and it turns out that only four can be shown to be substantially by the same author, putatively Saul. g These are the letters known as Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. To these probably we may add the brief note to Philemon, a slave-owner, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians. The rest of the so-called Pauline epistles can be shown to have been written by other and later authors, so we can throw them out right now and not worry about them. "

"Saul tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:32 that King Aretas of the Nabateans tried to have him arrested because of his Christian agitation. Since Aretas is known to have died in the year 40 CE, this means that Saul became a Christian before that date"

"The...Pauline letters...are so completely silent concerning the events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were not known to Paul, who, however, could not have been ignorant of them if they had really occurred.

These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth'). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master. (They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.) These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many...
"

 

[Smoke]

All those different colors of type hurt my eyes. But as far as I can tell, I agree with you. Christianity is the invention of Paul, and has little if anything to do with the actual person of Jesus.

 

[Hope]

It basically is true that Paul (if indeed he existed) invented much of modern Xianity, and certainly never knew or heard of an earthtly Jesus.

That is a very bold, sweeping statement to make when you obviously know very little of which you speak.

"Bible scholars and computer experts have gone to work on these letters, and it turns out that only four can be shown to be substantially by the same author, putatively Saul. g These are the letters known as Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. To these probably we may add the brief note to Philemon, a slave-owner, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians. The rest of the so-called Pauline epistles can be shown to have been written by other and later authors, so we can throw them out right now and not worry about them. " {how are these shown to be written by other authors???}

"Saul tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:32 that King Aretas of the Nabateans tried to have him arrested because of his Christian agitation. Since Aretas is known to have died in the year 40 CE, this means that Saul became a Christian before that date"

"The...Pauline letters...are so completely silent concerning the events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were not known to Paul, who, however, could not have been ignorant of them if they had really occurred.

These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth'). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master. (They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.) These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many...
"

Where did you get these quotes? I am interested in a source to back them up, rather than you using them as your own opinions. They are actually very weak arguments, anyway. So what if Paul didn't mention all those things? That doesn't prove a thing. Nothing in his epistles contradicts what is contained in the Gospels and Acts. And, yes, what about Acts? Is this considered an invalid description and account of the early church and the conversion of Saul/Paul? If so, why?

Peter, one of Jesus' original disciples, obviously knew better than you whether Paul taught something different:

and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. ~2 Peter 3:15-16

Peter said some things Paul wrote were hard to understand, but he still said this within the context of an obvious endorsement of Paul's teachings. If Paul were teaching a different religion, I think one of Jesus' own disciples would have noticed this and rebuked him.

I just find the whole "Paul started Christianity" business as a lame attempt to divorce Jesus from Christianity. It doesn't hold any water if one is willing to really read the Bible for themselves and do some thorough research. A wonderful, scholarly book that contains a good refutation of the "pauline distortion" is The Historical Jesus, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary R. Habermas.

 

[Hope]

Benign6, no offense, but it seems your interpretation of Scripture is a little "out there."

 

[Hope]

"The...Pauline letters...are so completely silent concerning the events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were not known to Paul, who, however, could not have been ignorant of them if they had really occurred.

These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth'). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master. (They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.) These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many...
"

You know what's interesting? I just skimmed through the epistles of Peter and John, and I didn't see that they mentioned any of these things either!!! Whoah!! And Peter and John were Jesus' disciples. :tuna:

Yeah, like I said, weak argument.

 

[Hope]

What those who use the above-mentioned weak argument don't take into account is the difference between the epistles and the gospels. The Gospels were clearly written as historical documents. They documented the life and sayings of Jesus. That was their purpose. Even the author Luke stated this:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Ok. So that was the purpose of the Gospels. The epistles served a completely different purpose, and therefore contained less historical data. The epistles were letters written to people who already knew, one way or another, the historical basis of their faith. That they knew about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was a given, and therefore not expounded upon. The epistles were meant for exhortation and further teaching in the faith only. You could almost say the Gospels were written for those who had yet to believe, and the epistles were written for those who had already believed. Thus, the data contained in them is obviously going to be a bit different.

So, pretty simple explanation.

It's like going to the library and picking up a book called "A Beginner's Guide to Photography" and a book called "The Professional Photographer's Handbook" and wondering why the book for the professional photographer doesn't explain the basic workings of a camera. The books obviously serve two different purposes. The book written to the professional photographer assumes the reader is already intimately acquainted with the basic nuts and bolts of photography, and therefore sees any mention of the basics as superfluous. So it is with the Gospels and the epistles.

 

[sojourner]

I think that Paul helped to shape the Christian faith significantly. But I certainly don't think that Paul is singlehandedly responsible for "inventing Xy." What we have now is a religion about Jesus. Not the religion of Jesus. Incorporating Gentiles into the faith insured that.
There is also significant input from the other communities within the proto-Church, not just the Pauline communities.

 

[joeboonda]

Those opening threads are some of the biggest bunch of hogwash I have heard. Sorry, but I am not wasting my time in this thread.

 

[wizanda]

The gospel of John was by a Pharisee, Nicodemus…
Yeshua named Simon the stone (peter)…
The only places “Stone” and “Rock” are placed together, is where Simon is called Satan and in Isaiah 8, that God is the Rock; not Christ, as Simon misquotes and then adds his own interpretation, which is as Jeremiah 23 states, of a fake prophet definition.

So the very foundations are not based in Christ words, yet things that contradict his teachings.

1) They all teach as Balaam, God does not sacrifice (it is like saying, to break your own dog’s neck).
2) If you say it is right a son dies as Corban (offering), that then defiles the law; as it was placed into the potter’s field, so fulfilling Zechariah 11.
3) Zechariah 11 removes Grace (beauty) and Inheritance (bonds), this is re-written into the vine-dressers parable, where it is stated, many shall fall and stumble on that plummet line.

The relevance of this to Paul?
If all of these are Pharisees (Simon, John-Nicodemus, Saul/Paul) and 3 foolish shepherds (Zec 11) where to be removed (Pharisees, Levites and Sadducees all spoken against by Yeshua).
Yet one re-establishes and builds the city built on bloodshed (Hab 2), yet was blind in one eye, (that is the Quran’s definition of the Anti-Christ)...
That list is an intro to a HUGE quantity of supporting evidence in scripture….
:angel2:

 

[Valjean]

I think Benign has a point, though.

It's my understanding that it would never have occurred to Jesus or His disciples that they were anything other than Jews

 

[logician]

"They are actually very weak arguments, anyway. So what if Paul didn't mention all those things?"

So Paul didn't feel it necessary to mention the life and works of his savior god?

This is the strongest argument I can think of that he didn't know of such a man/god.

 

[Hope]

"They are actually very weak arguments, anyway. So what if Paul didn't mention all those things?"

So Paul didn't feel it necessary to mention the life and works of his savior god?

This is the strongest argument I can think of that he didn't know of such a man/god.

See my above posts. You apparently didn't read them.

Also, you have yet to cite your "source," or "sources," for your own argument.

 

[Hope]

I think Benign has a point, though.

It's my understanding that it would never have occurred to Jesus or His disciples that they were anything other than Jews

How is it your understanding? Have you read the Scriptures?

I'm tired of sweeping generalizations without a shred of good, solid reasoning behind them.

 

[logician]

See my above posts. You apparently didn't read them.

Also, you have yet to cite your "source," or "sources," for your own argument.

I did read them and they have little merit.

My sources come from

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html