Has Saint Paul hijacked Christianity?

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

I'm the one with the diatribe. It turns out that people who thought like Paul included his texts in there. I don't see the source of the confusion. Why do certain political wannabes use quotes and imagery from completely evil people? They LIKE them, that's why.


Only if they refuse to see people for what they are. It's not just Paul. David, Jacob, Moses ... there are tons of "heroes" in the bible who are considered great but in any other context would be villains.

Click to expand...

And that is what becomes the hope of the world. The reality of the ability for God to change a life and give a fresh start. History is filled with such cases that stand among those you just mentioned.

It isn't that people refuse to see it, but they see themselves in it and experience the same change.

Probably the worst person is the one who wants to throw the first stone and thinks that they are without sin.

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

There are such things as fines in the bible. That means not everything ends up with death.
I'm confused. I dislike Paul, not the words of God. Only idolators can't tell the difference.

Click to expand...

I wasn't attacking you. I just don't spend much time reading the Law. Like the lists of names, it just doesn't interest me. I have read it once and I had a general recollection that everything God said not to do was generally a capital offense. The only thing that I remember being punishable by fines was property crimes, like if I steal your goat I owe you 5 goats as punishment. But if I wear cloth made from wool and linen, isn't the penalty like, death or permanent exile? (did I mention it has been decades since I read it in detail)

You can dislike Paul if you want. I have no problem with that. I will just happen to disagree since I view all 66 books as the Word of God ... even the boring parts.
I was just curious about non-fatal punishments since I didn't remember any off the top of my head.

Ben Avraham said:

The Pauline Paradox

When Paul started preaching about Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, he never realized that he had created a huge paradox.

You see, for Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to be a biological son of Joseph's, who was the one from the Tribe of Judah, whose Tribe the Messiah was supposed to come from. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. She was of the family of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron the Levite. (Luke 1:5,36)

Since Jesus is also claimed to be the son of God, he could not be the Messiah, because God is not subject to human genealogies.

On the other hand, if Christians decided to grab the chance of at least to make of Jesus the Messiah by agreeing to drop the tale of the virgin birth, and to admit that he was indeed Joseph's biological son, he could not be son of God; and here the situation would get worse because even the doctrine of the Trinity would collapse.

That's indeed a huge paradox that can be accepted only by faith, which requires no explanation. But then again, where faith begins, knowledge ends. And for lack of knowledge, People perish. (Hosea 4:6)

Now, if there is anyone out there with enough wisdom to unriddle this paradox, I'll be more than happy to take my hat off to him or her. If not, the Sphynx will keep waiting patiently beside the Egyptian pyramids for the passers-by.

Good luck!

Click to expand...

I believe this is not enough evidence to say that Mary belonged to the tribe of Levi. Elizabeth had two parents and only one would be necessary to say she descended from Aaron.

I believe you can't be that dense. I believe God insists on keeping His promises so that means He is subject to them.

I believe that is more bull to the inch than I have seen in a long time. The Messiahship of Jesus does not depend on the virgin birth. However when Jesus claims to be God then the virgin birth is consistent with that claim.

metis said:

Well, then God must be a schizophrenic because Paul and James don't appear to be on the same page at times.

Hey, who knows.

Click to expand...

I don't believe so. It is easy to see that Paul is led by The Holy Spirit but it is not so easy to detect that in James. James seems to have a pragmatic approach rather than a spiritual one.

EtuMalku said:

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.

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, Paul founded Christianity soon after he spent a whole year together with Barnabas, a bachelor whom he lived with. What happened is that a Roman Emperor banished all the Jews from Rome and they went to Antioch and crowded the Nazarene synagogue and, James, the Chairman of the Sect of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to take care of the Synagogue of Antioch and, instead of going straight to Antioch, he went to Tarsus looking for Paul and invited him to join him. At the end of no more than a year, the local disciples started being called Christians. Paul had overturned that Nazarene synagogue into a Christian church. (Acts 11:26) That's how Christianity started. In other words, Paul had hijacked the Sect of the Nazarenes in Antioch.

Muffled said:

I believe this is not enough evidence to say that Mary belonged to the tribe of Levi. Elizabeth had two parents and only one would be necessary to say she descended from Aaron.

I believe you can't be that dense. I believe God insists on keeping His promises so that means He is subject to them.

I believe that is more bull to the inch than I have seen in a long time. The Messiahship of Jesus does not depend on the virgin birth. However when Jesus claims to be God then the virgin birth is consistent with that claim.

Click to expand...

Evidence for what! I remember to have said that it did not matter if Mary was from the Tribe of Levi or Judah; even if she had been a daughter of David. Tribal genealogy would come down only through the father, not the mother. Joseph, the husband of Mary was the one from the Tribe of Judah. If he was not Jesus' biological father, Jesus could not have been from the Tribe of Judah. He was simply a Jew without a Tribe in Israel. On the other other hand, he could not be son of God without an earthly father because the idea is not Jewish but Greek. You can believe whatever you please about my being dense. We are talking about a Jewish man, the son of a Jewish lady. How could I agree with a Greek doctrine for his birth? Jesus never claimed to be God, neither the Messiah, mind you! The Hellenists who wrote the gospels did all the forgery necessary to settle Jesus down as a Christian.

~;> jesus as a christian is just another bad translation or a bad interpretation coz the word christian was settled down unto those people before who
believed in jesus christ the only begotten son of god
our lord and saviour
for this is what the scripture says about him and his father
as it is written
:read:
Proverbs 30:4
Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has bound the waters in his garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is his son's name, if you know?
5 "Every word of God is flawless. He is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

when the only begotten son of god
took the form of a human being
the scripture is so precise unto its recorded facts
so as it is written
:read:
Psalms 4:6
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you have prepared for me.a
You have not required burnt offering and sin offering.
7 Then I said, "Behold, I have come. It is written about me in the book in the scroll.

by those recorded written facts
one prophet learned who is this son of god
who shall took the form of a human being as his vessel
so that humans shall know how the spirit and soul
became one with the flesh
and the most excellent way to proved this
is by means of christjesus who is a spirit
as the living word of the true god
but was made flesh
and that flesh was the very vessel
for the only begotten son
and from the writtings of this prophet
:read: (the scripture first then ask if someone is reading the same scripture as it is written)
Isaiah 53:3
He was despised, and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering; as one from whom men hide their face, and we despised him and we did not value him.

but the apostle of the gentiles
also learned the things
what the prophet Isaiah discovered about
the mystery of the son of god
so he also wrote it in his epistle
:read: (now if someone isnt familiar about this writings
simply becaused this is the first time it is interpreted accordin from the prophesy of one prophet in
the old covenant
so as it is written)
Romans 10:13
So then, "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
14 But how can people call on him if they have not believed in him? How can they believe in him if they have not heard his message? How can they hear if no one tells the Good News?
15 How can people tell the Good News if no one sends them? As Scripture says, "How beautiful are the feet of the messengers who announce the Good News."
16 But not everyone has believed the Good News. Isaiah asks, "Lord, who has believed our message?"


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

ukok102nak said:

~;> jesus as a christian is just another bad translation or a bad interpretation coz the word christian was settled down unto those people before who
believed in jesus christ the only begotten son of god
our lord and saviour
for this is what the scripture says about him and his father
as it is written
:read:
Proverbs 30:4
Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has bound the waters in his garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is his son's name, if you know?
5 "Every word of God is flawless. He is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Click to expand...

I know but, the problem is not with me but with you. You neither know, nor want to know. Even if you knew, it would not help you because you are under the spells of Christian preconceived notions. I'll try anyway. His name is HaShem aka Yahweh the Mighty God and, His son's name is Israel. If you don't believe what I am saying, read Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My Son" said the Lord. "Let My Son go that he may serve Me." Can you answer that question with a quote from the gospel of Jesus which was the Tanach? Give it a try.

Ben Avraham said:

I know but, the problem is not with me but with you. You neither know, nor want to know. Even if you knew, it would not help you because you are under the spells of Christian preconceived notions. I'll try anyway. His name is HaShem aka Yahweh the Mighty God and, His son's name is Israel. If you don't believe what I am saying, read Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My Son" said the Lord. "Let My Son go that he may serve Me." Can you answer that question with a quote from the gospel of Jesus which was the Tanach? Give it a try.

Click to expand...

:smoke: indeed
israel was also known with that term
accordin to the scripture
meaning
there are many writtings about the name israel
but let us know first
how the name israel came to exist unto this reality
as it is written
:read:
Genesis 32:26
The man said, "Let me go, for the day breaks." Jacob said, "I won't let you go, unless you bless me."
27 He said to him, "What is your name?"
He said, "Jacob."
28 He said, "Your name will no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have fought with God and with men, and have prevailed."

now
that we've learned some writtings about israel
most probably to expect somethin
where the answer unto a given questioned
should perfectly match
with your thoughts regardin Exodus 4:22,23.
( you've actually interpreted the verses
with your own words
thats why you came up with this conclusion
His name is HaShem aka Yahweh the Mighty God and, His son's name is Israel.
so even if you try anyway the problem is not with me
but with you.
You neither know, nor want to know.
Even if you knew, it would not help you because you are under the spells of a system of biblical interpretation taught by man )
cannot be allowed to happen
coz every interpretation that comes up
within the written words of god
the scripture speak for itself

as we could
give it a try as what you've said before
(you can read your post again so that you may compare it about the things we were sayin here)
but
we shall let the scripture speak for itself first
as a one of those many humble readers
of the holy scripture
yes we could share some scripture of the old covenant
which are corresponding from the things that
your were askin base on Exodus 4:22,23.
so as it is written
:read:
Genesis 50:23
Joseph saw Ephraim's children to the third generation. The children also of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were born on Joseph's knees.
24 Joseph said to his brothers, "I am dying, but God will surely visit you, and bring you up out of this land to the land which he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob."
25 Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, "God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here."
26 So Joseph died, being one hundred ten years old, and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.

even we are not all knowin
we could learn somethin
so let us observe if the verse of Genesis 50:23-26
would simply fit unto your understandin
when you quote our post
you've said:
"Israel is My Son" said the Lord. "Let My Son go that he may serve Me."

what we are sayin is all about the
ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD
WHERE HIS NAME
IS FAR TOO DIFFIRENT FROM ISRAEL
the main reason is
the name that is called Ya‛aqoḇ
which have been changed to Yisra’ĕla ,
because he have striven with Elohim and with men, and have overcome.”
and still
it cannot overcome the word itself
when moses was told to send THE WORD
unto the pharao during that time
just as THE WORD spoke inside of moses
so as it is written
:read:
Exodus 4:10
Moses said to the Lord,
"Oh, Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before now, nor since you have spoken to your servant; for I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue."
11 The Lord said to him, "Who made man's mouth? Or who makes one mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Isn't it I, the Lord?
12 Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth, and teach you what you shall speak."

Can you answer that question with a quote
from the good news of christjesus our lord and saviour
BY JUST SIMPLY
LET THE SCRIPTURE SPEAK FOR ITSELF
Give it a try.

by the way
first of all you should learn
how to spot the written words of god
from the scripture
also
you could atleast test your sight
with the followin passage
that is
written beneath this message if there are
diffrences or similarity
between them if we may so

Exodus 3:13
And Mosheh said to Elohim, “See, when I come to the children of Yisra’ĕl and say to them, ‘The Elohim of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His Name?’ what shall I say to them?”
14 And Elohim said to Mosheh, “I am that which I am.” And He said,
“Thus you shall say to the children of Yisra’ĕl,
‘I am has sent me to you.’ ”
15 And Elohim said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘יהוה Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Aḇraham, the Elohim of Yitsḥaq, and the Elohim of Ya‛aqoḇ, has sent me to you.
This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all generations.’


John 1:13
who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.
14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testified about him. He shouted out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me.'"
16 For of his fullness we all received, and grace upon grace.
17 For the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth were realized through Yeshua the Messiah.
18 No one has seen God at any time.
The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

Luca85 said:

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

Click to expand...

Think of the movie Gladiator. First God gave a law that nobody can keep perfectly. Now he sits on a throne in heaven, king of kings, Ceasar of Ceasar. It's a given that everyone has broken the law and sinned, but with a simple thumbs up to God, God will give a thumbs up to you.

as it is written
:read:
2 Chronicles 1:8
Solomon said to God, "You have shown great loving kindness to David my father, and have made me king in his place.
9 Now, Lord God, let your promise to David my father be established; for you have made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude.
10 Now give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people; for who can judge this your people, that is so great?"
11 God said to Solomon, "Because this was in your heart, and you have not asked riches, wealth, or honor, nor the life of those who hate you, neither yet have asked long life; but have asked wisdom and knowledge for yourself, that you may judge my people, over whom I have made you king:
12 wisdom and knowledge is granted to you. I will give you riches, wealth, and honor, such as none of the kings have had who have been before you; neither shall there any after you have the like."


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

Muffled said:

I believe this is not enough evidence to say that Mary belonged to the tribe of Levi. Elizabeth had two parents and only one would be necessary to say she descended from Aaron.

I believe you can't be that dense. I believe God insists on keeping His promises so that means He is subject to them.

I believe that is more bull to the inch than I have seen in a long time. The Messiahship of Jesus does not depend on the virgin birth. However when Jesus claims to be God then the virgin birth is consistent with that claim.

Click to expand...

Jesus never claimed to be God and, he was a Jew and, according to the gospels, he never lost his mind. Now, the virgin birth is consistent only with the Greek concept of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

Sir, you are doing your utmost to "hijack Christianity."

It isn't going to happen, though.

Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Isaiah prophesied Christ as did many other of the prophets you believe in.

So why do you not believe them? Because you are blind to the Gospel. I encourage you to open your mind to God in prayer.

Kemosloby said:

Think of the movie Gladiator. First God gave a law that nobody can keep perfectly. Now he sits on a throne in heaven, king of kings, Ceasar of Ceasar. It's a given that everyone has broken the law and sinned, but with a simple thumbs up to God, God will give a thumbs up to you.

Click to expand...

So God is less interested in consequences as He is His own emotional whims?

No wonder why I think the Dharmic system is written better....

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

So God is less interested in consequences as He is His own emotional whims?

No wonder why I think the Dharmic system is written better....

Click to expand...

Well, not whims so much as Gods plan. God made a narrow path that people can take to escape destruction. Like an escape hatch on a sinking ship. He put a big sign on it, emergency exit. Some people read the sign and go through the exit, some people do not. What is that, evolution?

Reggie Miller said:

Sir, you are doing your utmost to "hijack Christianity."

It isn't going to happen, though.

Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Isaiah prophesied Christ as did many other of the prophets you believe in.

So why do you not believe them? Because you are blind to the Gospel. I encourage you to open your mind to God in prayer.

Click to expand...

What would I hijack Christianity for? I am just trying to recover Jesus' reputation as a Jew which the NT is taking advantage that he is dead to rob him of his Jewish identity, that's all!

Ben Avraham said:

What would I hijack Christianity for? I am just trying to recover Jesus' reputation as a Jew which the NT is taking advantage that he is dead to rob him of his Jewish identity, that's all!

Click to expand...

Reggie Miller said:

Click to expand...

Do you always frown at the truth like that?

Reggie Miller said:

Sir, you are doing your utmost to "hijack Christianity."

It isn't going to happen, though.

Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Isaiah prophesied Christ as did many other of the prophets you believe in.

So why do you not believe them? Because you are blind to the Gospel. I encourage you to open your mind to God in prayer.

Click to expand...

Can you show me a quote from the prophets about Jesus? I don't think so. I didn't either. I am aware that "Christ" is the way but, who was "Christ?" Do you happen to know the meaning of the word "Christ?" Christ means anointing; the Anointed One of the Lord. Now. read Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Christ is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the Son of God. (Exodus 4:22,23) "Israel is My Son," said the Lord."Let My Son go that he may serve Me."

Luca85 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.