Paul invented his own religion

tommy_mylex

How it came about that a brother who had been hostile to Jesus in his lifetime suddenly became the revered leader of the Church immediately after Jesus' death is not explained, though one would have thought that some explanation was called for.

Debmey

James wasn't hostile towards Jesus in the first place. You must be halucinating again.

But how does all that undermine the gospel? I don't see the relationship.

tommy_mylex

Later Church legends, of course, filled the gap with stories of the miraculous conversion of James after the death of Jesus and his development into a saint. But the most likely explanation is, as will be argued later, that the erasure of Jesus' brother dames (and his other brothers) from any significant role in the Gospel story is part of the denigration of the early leaders who had been in close contact with Jesus and regarded with great suspicion and dismay the Christological theories of the upstart Paul, flaunting his brand new visions in interpretation of the Jesus whom he had never met in the flesh.

sonny~~

:nerd:

hERICtic_algon

Who is Paul? Do we really know can we be sure any of the characters in the NT actually lived? Of all the issues of forgery, interpolations, alterations, and extreme vaiants in all manuscripts what can be considered truth?

We spend so much time on what was Jesus I never thought to question the existence of St. Paul. If Jesus can't be shown to have really lived, then everyone the Bible mentions may just be other charactors in this ancient Jewish puppet play.

Thanks hERICtic_algon for bringing up this superb thread.

A very well done research from Tommy and good debates here.

We can see clearly from those who have been there, Tommy, Fuzzman, Kennkid ex-christians, now devout Muslims whom all reject trinity which is after all, just a human invention by the name of Paul.

A very good question from you there, #105 for christians to answer.

p/s : Tommy have not been here for quite some time, wonder how and where  he is now.

if you all aint really here for discussing but only to talk nonsense , i suggest that you all dont even come to this forum. through the way now no one is convinced , nor no one is convincing.

to the one who really ask the question and really wanted the answer.
Paul is not one of the Jesus's followers during his days on earth. yet he is one of the great scholar that sits under the feet of Gamaliel , a well known teacher and lawyer at that time. therefore Paul never met Jesus yet he knew perfectly the truth concerning the Old testement.

how do we know that Paul really exist?
not only in the bible , but the incident of Paul is also recorded in Roman's history , and all other region around it. especially the incident of Paul voyage from Jeruselem to Rome because he have claim that he is a roman citizen and that he need to be brought to the emperor(Herod)  during his trial before King Agrippa. it is all recorded detailly in the history of Rome as well. Could you deny the fact that Paul was a man alive?
If you couldnt , nor can you deny the fact that Paul met the other christ followers as well , and through that you too could not deny that Jesus was once a living man on earth , and thousands had eye-witnesses him.
The only thing you could deny that He is God because it could not be explained by the way so called "scientifically"

by the way , Paul was once named Saul and when he was converted , he did not at once become a well-known person , but 1st learn through the person who accepted him , which is Barnabas.
and the new testament does not only consist of Paul's writing , but other writters as well. the book of Luke and gospel according to Acts was written by Dr. Luke , for examples. there were so many different writters concerning Jesus yet none of them seems to have contrast to each other, that prove that it was not merely a made-up story , but history.

anti_aktivis

Originally posted by ahseph at 4-1-2007 05:48 PM
if you all aint really here for discussing but only to talk nonsense , i suggest that you all dont even come to this forum. through the way now no one is convinced , nor no one is convincing.

to ...

errrrr

r u sure with below statement?

Ki ki

Jesus yet none of them seems to have contrast to each other, that prove that it was not merely a made-up story , but history.

Why dun u search my nick name in this forum , u will see many unawnser question.

alright... i'll check with it later.

by the way.. come back to the title , doesnt anyone have any objection about Paul's existance?

hERICtic_algon

Very interesting things about Paul, no fragments, no quoting or mention until after Marcion. Justin Martyr does not quote Paul in his arguments against Marcion. Marcion claimed as do the major Gnostics that Paul is the source of the mystery teachings. Marcion's real work and texts are lost no doubt to the convience of the Church history. Tertullian is the first to quote Paul as they brought the confusing mix of the carnal and Docetic Jesus into the developing canon. The Muratorian fragment states several letters of Paul were tossed from the canon for being claimed forgeries of Marcion! Half the letters of Paul currently in the NT are accepted forgeries of orthodox literalism against the Docetic Gnostics (Marcion). They were accepted as genuine letters of Paul for centuries as they supported the Church. Josephus was present and actively recording history in the same area and time of Paul, he never heard of him. Who is Paul? Do we really know can we be sure any of the characters in the NT actually lived? Of all the issues of forgery, interpolations, alterations, and extreme vaiants in all manuscripts what can be considered truth?

i212

I wonder.. correct me if i were wrong,

If Paul not even seen Jesus and have direct contact with Him, then, why there are writing from Paul in the Bible?.

How did he get that?

hERICtic_algon

Originally posted by i212 at 11-1-2007 03:40 PM
I wonder.. correct me if i were wrong,

If Paul not even seen Jesus and have direct contact with Him, then, why there are writing from Paul in the Bible?.

How did he get that?

That's a good question. If Paul did know about all this, why don't we see any evidence of it? He talks about a spiritual Jesus, but not a physical one. It is very odd indeed. Surely one or two manuscripts would have survived that demonstrate that he did know something of a physical Jesus. And yet we have found nothing.


If Paul knew anything about a real, historical Jesus, who lived on earth and walked and talked and performed this or that miracle, he didn't care about it enough to say anything about it. Stranger still, as others have pointed out, it would have been to his great advantage to say something about it.

We can assume anything we want, but it's reasonable to think that if he spoke very often about the life of Jesus he would have written it down somewhere, and if such writings were of interest to Christians (as they indeed would have been) that at least a few such writings would have survived.

i212

So.. thats mean, Paul writes according on what he think?
Write according on what he learn only?

Then it should not called as word of God writing right?

correct me if i were wrong...

[ Last edited by  i212 at 12-1-2007 05:26 PM ]

hERICtic_algon

Act's journeys and claims of Paul do not match what Paul states in "his"texts". If Paul existed we have to ponder where he gets his notions from for he claims he was taught by no man and recieved it in a visionary experience. Paul had a gnosis experience and all the Gnostic masters claim he is the source of their teachings of the mysteries. Holy David Koresh Batman! I think I am going to pen the phrase the Koresh Effect to explain how ancient persons can claim miraculous powers and divinity and there are always those to follow and believe them. One in every crowd, and a sucker born every minute, as the saying goes. Apparently more like a small group will simply believe anything. Koresh by the way as a little mystery, it's a name Waco boy got from the Hebrew for Cyrus the Persian who ended the exile and took Babylon. Apparently he wasn't comfortable claiming to be Jesus outright, a reincarnation was apparently more believable for the dimwits who followed this guy. A fine example on how one can be read the Bible and invent giberish and people will believe it. Let's speak in tongues.... polyvue france'?

hERICtic_algon

There are no less than 48 serious contradictions between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of St. Paul.

Jesus: Matt. 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

St. Paul: 1 Cor. 1:17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel...."

And this

St. Paul: Phil. 2:6, "Who [Jesus] being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

Col. 2:9, "For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

Jesus: John 14:28, "...for my Father is greater than I."

John 20:17, "...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God."

hERICtic_algon

Christians don't really believe the Bible. I doubt there ever was a devout Christian who read the Bible as it is; instead, we find people reading their own ideas into the Bible. For example, reading Jesus Christ into the Jewish scriptures. If Jesus was the fulfillment of the Jewish scripture, then using only Jewish scripture one should be able to reconstruct his life -- something that is simply impossible. Jesus is a square peg in the round hole of Jewish scripture.

And when Christians attend Bible Study classes they are given select verses to study AS IF they are studying the whole thing. It is dishonest to the core.

And by selecting the verses, one can teach anything; this is why Christianity is composed of 30,000 sects each believing its interpretations are the right one. Catholics believe in salvation by works, Protestants by faith, others by other things.

by hERICtic_algon

Tertullian is the first to quote Paul as they brought the confusing mix of the carnal and Docetic Jesus into the developing canon.

Is it true that he (earlier trinity founder) opted out and became a heretic?

this is why Christianity is composed of 30,000 sects each believing its interpretations are the right one.

What I know there are 94,000 sects now.
Have anyone read about Tom Cruise is now a " Jesus Christ ", the leader of Scientology religion?
Hmmph what would that make John Travolta, Moses?

Debmey

30,000 sects? Can you name just 300?

Obersliutenant

Coud you please elaborate on what the church of scientology Debmey ?

Debmey

I asked first