Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

Madison Ruppert ^ | 06/24/2014

[boatbums]

I read an article some time ago which argued that Paul was probably not a Jew by blood, it had a lot to say on the subject which I have forgotten.

So, now Paul was lying about that, too?

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. (Philippians 3:4-6)

We have no record of anyone disputing his words or calling him a liar back then. I imagine if the Jewish religious leaders were looking for anything to condemn him about, THAT would have been a juicy one!

[not2be4gotten.com]

greatest minds of world history

This is one of the best posts I have ever read on FreeRepublic.com

[metmom]

Your argument is with the Holy Spirit who inspired the verses of Scripture that I posted that flat out contradict the claims made by Catholicism.

Don’t tell me I’m wrong. Tell the Holy Spirit HE is wrong.

[mitch5501]

To be fair Vlad has certainly done a fine job in #112

[metmom]

Catholics don’t think ANYONE can understand anything spiritual as well as them.

They think they have a corner on the spiritual market because the Catholic church gave us the Bible, which includes all the OT writings that comprise Jewish Scripture. They claim ownership of all that and claim all the authors of Scripture are Catholic.

[Cvengr]

Outstanding post

[metmom]

It’s pretty basic. Mostly Scripture.

Not my work except for compiling it.

Hmmm, in certain circles, that apparently actually gives me the right to claim it for myself.

In that case.....

Thank you. it was nothing.

[metmom]

Do you think I’ll get accused of cherry picking verses out of context?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Are you just saying that to make me think you are actually believing I said something vulgar? I guess I should have said as much as Paul seems to.

I did not say you wrote something vulgar. I said such opinions are repulsive, and they are. They are repulsive and offensive to 2000 years of Christianity. They are repulsive to common sense (are we to believe that Peter and all the Apostles weren't in on the Paulian conspiracy?). They are offensive to the very words of scripture. And lastly, assertions like this are also quite obnoxious as well. Anyone can sit around saying "Well, Paul worshipped the devil! He even said so," and other inane comments, but proving it is something else.

I would not mind telling you if it had anything to do with the comment which I made but it don`t.

Whether I am talking to a Cultist who denies the doctrine of the Trinity and teaches other weird things is very important. Once I know what you are, I can start testing your claims off of Christ and the rest of the Holy Scripture, without the use of Paul at all. The idiots who claim that Paul changed Christianity, are often so ignorant in the first place that they don't know that the whole of the Holy Bible is their enemy. Getting rid of Paul can't save them.

But how about we do it this way? And this is relevant: Tell us, what IS the true form of Christianity? Can you tell us about the Godhead, about sotierology, practice, organization, etc? Most importantly, the means by which a man is saved. After this, we can then see if you really represent the "red letters" of Jesus Christ or not. Is that not relevant?

I Believe Paul was a Christian, at the same time I can see that the contradictions in which the ones use who are thinking of Paul as a little shady speak for them selves for any one who can read.

Shady to cultists, sure, who don't find it shady that their cult leader goes to bed with all the women. Not shady to any of us who aren't members of a creepy religious cult.

And if you refuse to see it then I should ask what demonic cult you belong to but since it is none of my business I won`t ask.

I am an Orthodox Presbyterian. We are Trinitarians and are regarded by all of Christendom as, in fact, being Christian. Mormons, JWs, Oneness Pentecostals, Armstrongites, etc etc., are, by definition, not Christian at all, due to their denial of the Trinity and other central doctrines of Christianity.

[ravenwolf]

And they are very sparse on things such as ecclesiology and eschatology.

---

What do ecclesiology and eschatology mean?

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind

38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.

40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Do you know of any one who honor these two simple commandments which takes in the rest of the commandments?

You can write a hundred thousand words to explain them but they are so simple that Jesus explained them in the little old parable of the sheep and goats Matt 25:31 to 46

This is all we need, we do not have to have a DR.s certificate, a masters degree or any thing else, that’s it.

He had many more things to reveal,>>>>>

Yes he told his twelve apostles.

John 16
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Peter wrote down some things to come and John wrote Revelation and it does not change our way to salvation any at all.

So my question to you would be if there is something else we need to know why didn’t John Or peter tell us?

[ravenwolf]

So, now Paul was lying about that, too?

---

I did not say he was lying, I just said I had read of those who said he was.

We have no record of anyone disputing his words or calling him a liar back then. >>>>>>

That is not true, there are scripture wrote by Paul himself which shows that at least one of the Churches in Asia had departed from his teaching, calling him a liar and denying that he was an apostle.

[Cvengr]

Thank you. Great post.

[Cvengr]

That’s OK. If they doubt Paul, nothing surprises me.

I’ve always been dumbfounded that anybody with any intellect can be so intellectually dishonest as to claim Paul didn’t understand Judaism. Both his parents were Jewish and his father a Pharisee, labeled a Hebrew of Hebrews and endorsed by the Chief Priest with authority to go out and persecute Christians based upon his firm grasp of Judaism, Saul of Tarsus was the quintessential Hebrew scholar.

52% of the New Testament books were written / attributed to him. If somebody has problems with Paul, they have much larger problems elsewhere.

[ravenwolf]

They are repulsive to common sense (are we to believe that Peter and all the Apostles weren’t in on the Paulian conspiracy?).
-———————————————————————————— What in the world are you talking about? talk about being obnoxious, repulsive and offensive.

Are you trying to put words in my mouth or are you saying the whole thing was a conspiracy?

I did not use any such words so they have to be your words,
you have a right to your opinion but you should stick to what some one actually say rather than blow it all out of whack..

Once I know what you are, I can start testing your claims off of Christ and the rest of the Holy Scripture, without the use of Paul at all.>>>>>>>

I can see you get all shook up so I will try to not see any ones point that does not fit your approval from now on.

If I knew anything I would be rich but if any one can not see that there are contradictions concerning Paul they are about as spiritual as a fence post.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Are you trying to put words in my mouth or are you saying the whole thing was a conspiracy?

Since you are so painfully illogical, you do not realize that the Apostles, of necessity, must have been in on Paul's desire to "change" Christianity.

1) First, in their agreement in doctrine in all the Gospels, as well as in their writings. Paul's teachings on salvation by grace alone and predestination of the elect can be found in the Gospels, especially that of John, who is the most explicit in the teachings on election.

2) Next, in the affirmation of all of the Apostles of Paul's authenticity, as affirmed by Paul himself (but then, perhaps you will say he is a liar), the book of Acts, and Peter's epistle, wherein Paul's writing is given the title of "scripture."

3) In the lack of any writing by any of the other Apostles condemning Paul, and contradicting what we read of in Acts and in Paul's own writings. To ignore this, we must then believe that the Apostles either did condemn Paul, but that no evidence of it existed, whether in the enemies of Christianity, or in any writings by the Apostles or anyone, since none bothered to take the time to defame Paul.

So, we are only left with one real conclusion: That the Apostles were all in on the same eeeevil conspiracy to "change" Christianity.

If I knew anything I would be rich but if any one can not see that there are contradictions concerning Paul they are about as spiritual as a fence post.

Notice that the apparent member of an non-Christian religious cult does not bother to even defend his absurd claims.

[BlueDragon]

Sal,
Should I even ask how this question of yours

Are you saying that Jesus Christ was not true God and true man?

arose in response to a man saying (or asking)

Jesus and the Apostles were all baptized by John the who? So that would make them...

Tell me Sal,

Was John the Baptist a true man...or did all those locusts (along with a some bread scraps brought by ravens?) washed down with honey turn him into a twin-hulled catamaran?

Does that sound crazy to you? It does to me...

But I was trying to match 'ol Salvation stride for stride in the non sequitur department, but went a bit overboard (that's a boat joke) while making a little splash (that's a water joke).

The answer is wet. Baptizing them would make them wet.

Or Baptists.

hey, don't get mad at me... at least I didn't say episcopalians. or pentecostals -- yikes!

OK -- now that that's out of the way, where next to turn all the blame-shifting towards, about just who it was that "highjacked" Christianity?

I didn't read the rest of the thread yet.

I see some usual suspects blaming some usual suspects that are blaming some usual suspects. How much those cancel out, who knows? Triple-word score scrabble scores always went to sister and the moose who bit her where I used to play the game.

I think it was a conspiracy.

God knows and the shadow lies, like the darkest depths of Mordor Who am I to judge?

Smile -- say "cheese", you are on candid camera. We are all playing starring bit roles in each others movies. One frame-up at a time. ha-chacha-chacha

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man to be capricious or mortal to change His mind. Would He speak and not act, promise and not fulfill? ( Tanakh, Jewish Publication Society)

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man that He shall lie, nor a son of man that He shall repent. Has He said,and will not do, or has He spoken, and will not make it good? (NKJV)

GOD IS NOT A MAN. HE DOES NOT CHANGE HIS MIND. Thus Jesus is not God.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

GOD IS NOT A MAN.

It says "God is not a man that He shall lie." It does not end after "man" at all, but keeps on going. This is very different from saying: "The Word shall not be made flesh, and dwell among us," using John's verbiage.

[ravenwolf]

Since you are so painfully illogical, you do not realize that the Apostles, of necessity, must have been in on Paul’s desire to “change” Christianity.

---

There was nothing to change, Jesus Christ is what the apostles taught, that is what it was all about, Jesus died so those who believed in him could have eternal life.

that is what the apostles taught and that is what Paul taught, I said nothing about this, why are you arguing with me about this?

I did not say the other apostles accused Paul of any thing, if you think I did then copy and paste my words if you know how to do that.

What I said was that Paul was by his own words accused of being a liar and of not being an apostle, I will not give you the verse because I have already did that.

2) Next, in the affirmation of all of the Apostles of Paul’s authenticity, as affirmed by Paul himself>>>>>>>

It was affirmed by Peter, yes.

So, we are only left with one real conclusion: That the Apostles were all in on the same eeeevil conspiracy to “change” Christianity.>>>>>>>

Are you saying that you believe there was some kind of conspiracy, I don`t know what you are talking about.

Notice that the apparent member of an non-Christian religious cult does not bother to even defend his absurd claims.>>>>>>

I do not know anything about the Orthodox Presbyterian but I would not go so far as to say they are a cult.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

that is what the apostles taught and that is what Paul taught, I said nothing about this, why are you arguing with me about this?

Because you are arguing that Paul "changed" Christianity, and is a "shady" Apostle. But now you appear to be saying that Paul taught what Christ taught.

I did not say the other apostles accused Paul of any thing,

It does not appear that FRs cultists are even conscious, most of the time. This was exactly my point to you: The Apostles not only did not condemn Paul, they endorsed him.

What I said was that Paul was by his own words accused of being a liar and of not being an apostle, I will not give you the verse because I have already did that.

You double-talking sophist, so after declaring that you are not against Paul, you are saying 'Well, some people hated Paul" to claim that there are separate branches of Christianity? One with all the Apostles, and the other without it, and that they are equal? Stop posting, seriously.