• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did the Pharisees Purposely Make up Christianity?

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
As far as I can see from the Bible, I believe we can show Paul & Simon the stumbling stone (petros) purposely corrupted the teachings of Yeshua to a more Pharisaic ideology - Creating Christianity between them in Antioch (Acts 11:25-26) with the help of the Sanhedrin.

Where it is also possible to show that the Gospel of John was purposely made up by the Sanhedrin, to corrupt Yeshua's original message.

It is being questioned historically, that the original followers of Yeshua were the Ebionites; which stemmed from the Essenes, then the Nasoraeans & Mandaeans.

It is questioned James the Just was Head of the church of Jerusalem, and an Ebionite; where the terminology 'Poor Ones' was prophesied in Zechariah 11:11 prior to the 2nd temple destruction.

The idea that the Nasoraeans/Mandaeans fled Jerusalem prior to the destruction, is because they were following Yeshua's teachings.

Paul & Simon taught an idea that the Jews were now under Grace, as Christ had died for them; rather than what scripture shows, that they were placed under the Curse of Moses (Deuteronomy 28), because their Worthless Leaders (Sadducees, Pharisees, Levites) rejected the Messiah for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:1-14).

Proof that the Curse was placed is that in Zechariah 11:9, it repeats the idea that they will eat each others flesh as found in Deuteronomy 28:53-55; where we can show historically, that at the Siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, they literally eat each others flesh due to being starved to death.

To me it is clear that the book of James in the Bible is standing against Paul, on some of the similar concepts that were debated between them. Some of these contrary points, are Paul kicking people out who didn't want to follow his sacrificial Messiah's death & resurrection doctrines, impartially deciding who is worthy of being part of Pauline Christianity, Abraham being faithful, and thus doing good works, etc.

When Revelation 2:2 says about the False Apostle who tried to get them to follow his fake Gospel, Paul also stated that he was rejected by the Church of Asia Minor with his own version of the Gospel (2 Timothy 1:15).

Because over time Christianity has become the main orthodox view on the teachings of Christ, the original ideas have been partially overwritten; yet it is still possible to see from the texts alone, that the original message is still there in the Synoptic Gospels.

I understand it could be possible for us to fix this as part of Messianic prophecy; otherwise in my understanding scripture says God will condemn the Rabbinic Jews for having lied to humanity (Jeremiah 5:26, Isaiah 29:20-21).

It appears to me that what the Pharisees did, is try to cover up the prophesied concepts they'd been cut off, to make the Gentiles follow a system supporting them, and in doing so creating the false representation of the Messiah.

Thus when there are Jewish texts called the Sefer of Zerubbabel that refer to a true, and false Messiah both in Rome; the problem I find, is that the Rabbinic Jews don't realize they've made up the false Messiah contrary to the real one, that they have overwritten. Thus when in Ezekiel 22:3, and other places, it says they made their own idols, this is talking about how they made the Messiah into an idol.

I believe as a provable return of the Messiah it is possible for me to redeem, and fix this situation (Isaiah 52:3-7) - if I can get the support from the Rabbis, to help fix what they've messed up; otherwise Judgement Day will come, and God will just keep the Enlightened Saints who've already noticed.

To quickly summarize the difference between the original followers, and the Pharisaic Christianity: Is that the Pharisees taught an Oral Tradition, that "the death of the righteous, can atone for the sins of that generation"...

Where Yeshua challenged the Sanhedrin, and cut them off, for saying that the murdering of the prophets counted as atoning sacrifices in Matthew 23:27-38, Mark 7:1-13, and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19).

Yeshua is prophesying in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen that the Pharisees will corrupt his message, teaching you get an inheritance from his death; when instead it is saying many will be condemned by God at Judgement Day for believing such a thing.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
As far as I can see from the Bible, I believe we can show Paul & Simon the stumbling stone (petros) purposely corrupted the teachings of Yeshua to a more Pharisaic ideology - Creating Christianity between them in Antioch (Acts 11:25-26) with the help of the Sanhedrin.

Where it is also possible to show that the Gospel of John was purposely made up by the Sanhedrin, to corrupt Yeshua's original message.

It is being questioned historically, that the original followers of Yeshua were the Ebionites; which stemmed from the Essenes, then the Nasoraeans & Mandaeans.

It is questioned James the Just was Head of the church of Jerusalem, and an Ebionite; where the terminology 'Poor Ones' was prophesied in Zechariah 11:11 prior to the 2nd temple destruction.

The idea that the Nasoraeans/Mandaeans fled Jerusalem prior to the destruction, is because they were following Yeshua's teachings.

Paul & Simon taught an idea that the Jews were now under Grace, as Christ had died for them; rather than what scripture shows, that they were placed under the Curse of Moses (Deuteronomy 28), because their Worthless Leaders (Sadducees, Pharisees, Levites) rejected the Messiah for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:1-14).

Proof that the Curse was placed is that in Zechariah 11:9, it repeats the idea that they will eat each others flesh as found in Deuteronomy 28:53-55; where we can show historically, that at the Siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, they literally eat each others flesh due to being starved to death.

To me it is clear that the book of James in the Bible is standing against Paul, on some of the similar concepts that were debated between them. Some of these contrary points, are Paul kicking people out who didn't want to follow his sacrificial Messiah's death & resurrection doctrines, impartially deciding who is worthy of being part of Pauline Christianity, Abraham being faithful, and thus doing good works, etc.

When Revelation 2:2 says about the False Apostle who tried to get them to follow his fake Gospel, Paul also stated that he was rejected by the Church of Asia Minor with his own version of the Gospel (2 Timothy 1:15).

Because over time Christianity has become the main orthodox view on the teachings of Christ, the original ideas have been partially overwritten; yet it is still possible to see from the texts alone, that the original message is still there in the Synoptic Gospels.

I understand it could be possible for us to fix this as part of Messianic prophecy; otherwise in my understanding scripture says God will condemn the Rabbinic Jews for having lied to humanity (Jeremiah 5:26, Isaiah 29:20-21).

It appears to me that what the Pharisees did, is try to cover up the prophesied concepts they'd been cut off, to make the Gentiles follow a system supporting them, and in doing so creating the false representation of the Messiah.

Thus when there are Jewish texts called the Sefer of Zerubbabel that refer to a true, and false Messiah both in Rome; the problem I find, is that the Rabbinic Jews don't realize they've made up the false Messiah contrary to the real one, that they have overwritten. Thus when in Ezekiel 22:3, and other places, it says they made their own idols, this is talking about how they made the Messiah into an idol.

I believe as a provable return of the Messiah it is possible for me to redeem, and fix this situation (Isaiah 52:3-7) - if I can get the support from the Rabbis, to help fix what they've messed up; otherwise Judgement Day will come, and God will just keep the Enlightened Saints who've already noticed.

To quickly summarize the difference between the original followers, and the Pharisaic Christianity, is that the Pharisees taught an Oral Tradition, that "the death of the righteous, can atone for the sins of that generation"...

Where Yeshua challenged the Sanhedrin, and cut them off, for saying that the murdering of the prophets counted as atoning sacrifices in Matthew 23:27-38, Mark 7:1-13, and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19).

Yeshua is prophesying in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen that the Pharisees will corrupt his message, teaching you get an inheritance from his death; when instead it is saying many will be condemned by God at Judgement Day for believing such a thing.

In my opinion. :innocent:
I think the Catholic Church made up a significant portion of Christianity. Imo of course.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
I think the Catholic Church made up a significant portion of Christianity. Imo of course.
Christianity evolved over a period of time.
The Catholic church had a series of ecumenical councils .. so yes .. the faith is "man-made" in that sense.

One could argue that all the participants in councils over the centuries were Divinely inspired .. but a lot of the voting was / is political..
In my opinion, of course.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I am staunchly convinced that the Pharisees paid Saint Paul to hijack Christianity.
In order to create a false theology and in order to distort the pure and clear meaning of the countless Gospels that were written in the first century AD.
Since they were preoccupied with the great success of this new religion among Gentiles.

So I will never believe the story of the illumination in Damascus. As it is not credible.
I have never believed that Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would have healed his mind. Yet many psychiatrists observe how this man was probably bipolar. Or suffering from dissociative identity disorder.
I can quote countless passages from the epistles where this is astonishingly evident.

There is a passage in Galatians 2:11 where he tries to hijack Saint Peter's work.
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
I think the Catholic Church made up a significant portion of Christianity. Imo of course.
I'd agree with you the Catholic Church clearly added to the texts, where out of the letters ascribed to Paul, some of them do not match his writing style; yet still build upon the Pharisaic ideas of Simon's & Paul's ideologies.

Yeshua I find to be teaching the Dharma in the Synoptic Gospels, and after they've tried to make the religion exclusively Babylonian Bigoted Judaism.

Yet within all of this, I find it to be an amazing work that could be used for education; as within in noticing the contradictions between these authors, it can be used to teach people to be more discerning (Bodhi).

Thus the Synoptic Gospels Vs the Gospel of John is literally laid out like a morality IQ test; as in noticing the differences, it makes someone have to address what the right answers are.

In noticing the differences between where Paul, the Catholic Church, & Simon are man-made Pharisaic doctrine Vs the teachings of Yeshua within the Law, and the Testimony (Synoptic Gospels), helps people see why the higher ideals are Heavenly qualities, not earthly religiousness.

In my opinion.
:innocent:
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I am staunchly convinced that the Pharisees paid Saint Paul to hijack Christianity.
In order to create a false theology and in order to distort the pure and clear meaning of the countless Gospels that were written in the first century AD.
Since they were preoccupied with the great success of this new religion among Gentiles.

So I will never believe the story of the illumination in Damascus. As it is not credible.
I have never believed that Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would have healed his mind. Yet many psychiatrists observe how this man was probably bipolar. Or suffering from dissociative identity disorder.
I can quote countless passages from the epistles where this is astonishingly evident.

There is a passage in the Acts where Saint Peter, who had understood all this plot, wanted to hit him.

What is that passage in Acts and who would you believe that and not the story of the Damascus illumination in Acts?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
What is that passage in Acts and who would you believe that and not the story of the Damascus illumination in Acts?
I meant Galatians 2:11

It is Saint Paul who said he fell from his horse.
I might believe that...but that doesn't eliminate the issue with his mental problems (probable bipolarism DID and MPD).
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
I can't see where you are getting 99% of that.
Then ask specific questions, and we can go into detail of where I believe this can be shown...

Please do take into account that I believe we can prove I'm the return of Christ, here trying to save many of your existences, and though I'm using ReligiousForums as a method of dialogue with the world, much of where I'm coming from has been inspired by God. - In other words, I'm on your side.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I have always known @wizanda 's vision of Christianity.
If I have understood correctly he believes that Ebionites is true Christianity, hijacked by both Peter and Paul.

Obviously I believe Jesus is God...but I think Paul's theology is flawed and clearly adulterated.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Then ask specific questions, and we can go into detail of where I believe this can be shown...

Please do take into account that I believe we can prove I'm the return of Christ, here trying to save many of your existences, and though I'm using ReligiousForums as a method of dialogue with the world, much of where I'm coming from has been inspired by God. - In other words, I'm on your side.

In my opinion. :innocent:
I have to say, anyone who points to themselves as Messiah must be trying to lead people astray!

To deny the calling of Paul and John is also, lMO, a sure sign of heretical views. Sorry, but it needs to be said!
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
What we need to understand is that Yehoshua named Simeon petros (small stone, like a pebble) as a fulfilment of prophecy in Zechariah 3:9 & Isaiah 8:14-16, as when Simon said "you are the Christ the son of the living God" (Matthew 16:13-20), that's a Pharisaic terminology.

Then when Simon rebuked Yeshua for saying he was going to destroy Jerusalem (Matthew 16:21-23), Yehoshua called him satan (Zechariah 3:1-2) saying "he followed the ways of man more than God".

Simon and Judas went to betray Yeshua that day at the Sanhedrin, as within the fabricated Gospel of John by the Sanhedrin, it said they knew two of the Disciples (John 18:15); which in my understanding is where Simon then denied him 3 times on the way back, as he felt guilty.

In the Parable of the Seed sower the Seed that falls on Stony-Ground is plural of petros, Petrodes, and we know that Pebbles are found in a farmer's field.

Thus when you're showing that the Rabbinic Rebels have doctrine saying Simon was one of them, I'd agree based on what the Bible shows, and I'd say Yehoshua knew this, so prophetically named him petros (Stumbling Stone).

Just in case you think Zechariah 3 is about Yehoshua son of Yehozadek after the Babylonian Exile, it doesn't say that name specifically, and thus is open to this later interpretation.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What is that passage in Acts and who would you believe that and not the story of the Damascus illumination in Acts?
The idea that Paul would have any legal authority in Damascus seems a bit far fetched. Damascus at that time was not part of Israel or Judea. It would have been a bit like Mexican police crossing the border to arrest some Mexicans for something illegal in Mexico but not in the US.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The epistle of James is clearly an invitation to follow right Christianity.
Because Saint Paul has created a personal version of Christian hamartiology, where all sins are equally grave in the eyes of God.
The Paul who persecuted Christians (probably participated to Saint Stephen's martyrdom), is the same Paul who reproaches a young Corinthian for sleeping with his own stepmother.

Sins are grave. But the sins of the flesh are infinitely less grave than murder, which is an irreparable sin.
So Paul is the one who looks at the speck of dust in the neighbor's eyes, forgetting about the big log within his own eye.

One more thing about hamartiology.
Paul perverts Jesus Christ's Gospels, by making the sins of the flesh unforgivable, and condoning the sins of selfishness and fraud.

Jesus Christ forgives the adulteress and Mary Magdalene. He doesn't forgive the moneychangers at the Gates of the Temple of Jerusalem.
Which means: there are emendable sins and there are sins that will provoke God's wrath and punishment.
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
If I have understood correctly he believes that Ebionites is true Christianity, hijacked by both Peter and Paul.
That is close; yet Christianity is a specific terminology appointed to Paul and Simon in Antioch - Where I understand they've both been given prophetic naming to show this...

Like Saul is spelled the same as Sheol (Hell) in Hebrew.

The Ebionites meaning the poor ones, are what is stated at the start of the book of Acts, where they all gave up wealth, and lived in a big hippy commune, this effected the amount of taxation the Romans were getting...

So the Romans went mad at the Sanhedrin insisting they had to do something to restore their occupation; so they sent Saul to end the Ebionites/Nasoraeans/Mandaeans, yet the more he tried, the more they grew, so then Paul with help from the Sanhedrin made up Christianity to rewrite it.
Obviously I believe Jesus is God.
In understanding the language of the Bible better, we can see Yeshua is an Eloh (אלה - H430), which implies a Divine Being, something manifest by God the Source (El - אל - H410).

To be fair on Paul's comprehension of theology, he recognized we have One God, and One Lord; where the Messiah is that physical manifestation sent to be king.

Yet there is no Godhead, as God doesn't have any images, like the 2nd commandment relays...

The Divine Council (Elohim - אלהים - H430) are like Archangels interacting with reality for Source, and this has been muddled up since Babylon - Where God has sent me to try to fix it (Isaiah 46:11), as El and Elohim are not the same thing (Isaiah 46:9).

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
That is close; yet Christianity is a specific terminology appointed to Paul and Simon in Antioch - Where I understand they've both been given prophetic naming to show this...

Like Saul is spelled the same as Sheol (Hell) in Hebrew.

The Ebionites meaning the poor ones, are what is stated at the start of the book of Acts, where they all gave up wealth, and lived in a big hippy commune, this effected the amount of taxation the Romans were getting...

So the Romans went mad at the Sanhedrin insisting they had to do something to restore their occupation; so they sent Saul to end the Ebionites/Nasoraeans/Mandaeans, yet the more he tried, the more they grew, so then Paul with help from the Sanhedrin made up Christianity to rewrite it.

In understanding the language of the Bible better, we can see Yeshua is an Eloh (אלה - H430), which implies a Divine Being, something manifest by God the Source (El - אל - H410).

To be fair on Paul's comprehension of theology, he recognized we have One God, and One Lord; where the Messiah is that physical manifestation sent to be king.

Yet there is no Godhead, as God doesn't have any images, like the 2nd commandment relays...

The Divine Council (Elohim - אלהים - H430) are like Archangels interacting with reality for Source, and this has been muddled up since Babylon - Where God has sent me to try to fix it (Isaiah 46:11), as El and Elohim are not the same thing (Isaiah 46:9).

In my opinion. :innocent:

That's very interesting, thank you.
What do you think of Mary?
The all three Gospels mention Mary, and they underline her own specific role.
 
Top