Paul invented his own religion

tommy_mylex

Then why do Trinitarian Christian keep saying Jesus ONLY meant the Ten Commandments?  Why did he not make it clear that all but ten laws no longer apply?  In fact, EVERY Jew who encountered Jesus during his life,or heard of his teachings for THIRTY YEARS AFTER HE DIED could ONLY conclude that he meant for ALL of the OT laws to be obeyed.  As you have just admitted.

So, when Paul comes along and says dozens of times in the NT that none or only a few or sometimes all of the OT laws have to be obeyed, depending on the audience or situation, while NEVER actually quoting ANY of Jesus's sayings, you can understand why to this day Christians debate which,if any of the OT laws to obey.

You must admit that Paul contradicts Jesus. Without ever mentioning (or displaying any knowledge of) what Jesus himself said.

Debmey

Moral rules remain, not the rituals. Remember Matthew 5 where the true meaning of the law was explained? Wasn't Jesus plain enough?

And yu are definitely wrong on this one, Christians never debate about OT laws. Looks like you must be from outer space Tommy, yu are starting to imagine stuff that don't happen.

I don't see Paul contradicting Jesus at all, not even once. Thats why I can easily debunk all those alledged contradictions yu brought up.
  
What else Tommy? What else? anything new? Hahahahahaahahahaha..............

cheers

tommy_mylex

This is what Jesus said: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles" (Matt. 10:5) and "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24), and "...for salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22)

Jesus is saying not to go to the Gentiles, and that he was sent only for the jews, and that salvation is for Jews. What is not clear about that?

Now, Paul says, "For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts 13:47) and "from henceforth, I (Paul) will go unto the Gentiles" (Acts 18:6) and "that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it" (Acts 28:28) and "that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles" (Rom. 15:16) and "that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ"

Jesus told his followers not to go to the Gentiles and Paul countermanded the order.

Jesus said: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles" (Matt. 10:5)
Paul said: "from henceforth, I (Paul) will go unto the Gentiles" (Acts 18:6)

Jesus said: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24)
Paul said:  "that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles," (Acts 28:28)

How clear does the disagreement have to be, before you will see it? All of this is clearly in context, and reading before and after verses does not change the meaning of what was said in any way. I know you are trying to suggest that somehow the meaning has been altered to invent a contradiction, but that is not the case! Jesus said not to to to the Gentiles and Paul said he was going. That is the point I was wanting to make

Debmey

This is what Jesus said: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles" (Matt. 10:5) and "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24), and "...for salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22)

Jesus is saying not to go to the Gentiles, and that he was sent only for the jews, and that salvation is for Jews. What is not clear about that?

I have dealt with that long long ago. Perhaps you never read it.
Jesus' ministry was divided into phases, first the Jews, then to the Gentiles.
This also taught by Paul.
Romans 1:16
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
You quoted Mat 15 but you forgot to read Mat 28 which came later.
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

So you see, yu have either not read the Bible before or you are trying to deceive us by not showing Matthew 28.

I'm sure those materials are not your own cos yu seem so ignorant of both the Bible and Christainity.

I suggest that you let me have the URL of the site you got your cut and paste from, I'll deal with all of them at one go.
It'll be easier for you & every one else,
1. yu don't have to look liek a fool anymore in front of everyone here
2. yu don't have to pretend to be something you are not and end up not being able to defend what you posted.
3. less effort on your part.
4. I get to tackle teh real guys behind all these junk and expose them directly, its more fun taht way cos yu always have no reply to me once your fallacy is exposed, simply because you have no substance of your own.

peace

tommy_mylex

Paul never met Jesus, they did not know each other. N.T. earliest writings are Paul's letters written A.D. 50-60 the Gospels were written about A.D.70 to 110. Paul's birthplace was in Tarsus, Acts. 9:11, 21:39, and 22:3 he claims he is from the tribe of Benjamin see Romans. II:2, and was a Pharisee according to Phillipians 3:5 claims he studied under Gamaliel Acts. 22:3 * it is important to note that Paul himself never mentions that he was a student of Gamaliel. Stephen was murdered and Paul is implicated in his death see Acts. 8:1. Paul harries the church and siezes Christians, Acts. 8:3. At the time of Paul's activities the High Priest was a Sadducee not a Pharisee! Paul claims he was a Roman citizen by birth meaning his father also was a Roman citizen. He was, however, flogged several times see Acts.26, and
II Corinthians 11:24 " Five times I have recieved at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one.25 Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned....
(he was flogged in total five times) this is problematical as under Roman law Roman citizens were not flogged.

Debmey

again old stuff that I dealt with long time ago.
So where is the URL for your materials? Where?

tommy_mylex

Paul was never a Rabbi ( ie. Pharisee ) he was a police officer for the Sadducee party in Jerusalem under the High Priest. Jesus and his followers were members of the Pharisee sect. Both James and Peter who founded the church after Jesus died were Nazarenes definately a Jewish sect. It was Paul who founded the new religion called Christianity. * Epiphaneus in his book "Heresies" Testified that Paul had no Pharisee background but that he was the son of Gentile parents who converted to Judaism in Tarsus. The Ebionites were the true successors of Jesus the word in Hebrew means the poor.

Debmey

Really? where is the proof of what you claim? You seem to contradict the Bible and all other historical accounts.

tommy_mylex

Before looking further into Paul's claim to have come from a Pharisee background, let us continue our survey of what we are told about Paul's career in the more accessible sources. The young Saul, we are told, left Tarsus and came to the Land of Israel, where he studied in the Pharisee academy of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). We know from other sources about Gamaliel, who is a highly respected figure in the rabbinical writings such as the Mishnah, and was given the title 'Rabban', as the leading sage of his day. That he was the leader of the whole Pharisee party is attested also by the New Testament itself, for he plays a prominent role in one scene in the book of Acts (chapter 5) -- a role that, as we shall see later, is hard to reconcile with the general picture of the Pharisees given in the Gospels.

Yet Paul himself, in his letters, never mentions that he was a pupil of Gamaliel, even when he is most concerned to stress his qualifications as a Pharisee. Here again, then, the question has to be put: was Paul ever really a pupil of Gamaliel or was this claim made by Luke as an embellishment to his narrative? As we shall see later, there are certain considerations which make it most unlikely, quite apart from Paul's significant omission to say anything about the matter, that Paul was ever a pupil of Gamaliel's.

Debmey

Does one need to name pass all the time just because one has a great teacher? Note that most of Paul's letters were written to Gentiles, they are not concerned with any Pharisee background or would they appreciuate such a background.

BTW doesn't it make yu silly to go into such trivials which does not matter? so what if Paul was or was not a pharisee, the important thing is that he was called of God to preach and minister.
Its like you receiving a present from a fren and then examine the packaging, criticising it and then rejecting the whole present w/o knowing the content based on what yu dislike about the wraper design. Hahahahahahahahaha...........

tommy_mylex

How should we understand the relationship between Jesus and Paul? We shall be approaching this question not from the standpoint of faith, but from that of historians, who regard the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament as an important source of evidence requiring careful sifting and criticism, since their authors were propagating religious beliefs rather than conveying dispassionate historical information. We shall also be taking into account all relevant evidence from other sources, such as Josephus, the Talmud, the Church historians and the Gnostic writings.

What would Jesus himself have thought of Paul? We must remember that Jesus never knew Paul; the two men never once met. The disciples who knew Jesus best, such as Peter, James and John, have left no writings behind them explaining how Jesus seemed to them or what they considered his mission to have been. Did they agree with the interpretations disseminated by Paul in his fluent, articulate writings? Or did they perhaps think that this newcomer to the scene, spinning complicated theories about the place of Jesus in the scheme of things, was getting everything wrong? Paul claimed that his interpretations were not just his own invention, but had come to him by personal inspiration; he claimed that he had personal acquaintance with the resurrected Jesus, even though he had never met him during his lifetime. Such acquaintance, he claimed, gained through visions and transports, was actually superior to acquaintance with Jesus during his lifetime, when Jesus was much more reticent about his purposes.

Debmey

What would Jesus himself have thought of Paul? We must remember that Jesus never knew Paul; the two men never once met. The disciples who knew Jesus best, such as Peter, James and John, have left no writings behind them explaining how Jesus seemed to them or what they considered his mission to have been.

Do you have a copy of the Bible with you?

Did they agree with the interpretations disseminated by Paul in his fluent, articulate writings? Or did they perhaps think that this newcomer to the scene, spinning complicated theories about the place of Jesus in the scheme of things, was getting everything wrong? Paul claimed that his interpretations were not just his own invention, but had come to him by personal inspiration; he claimed that he had personal acquaintance with the resurrected Jesus, even though he had never met him during his lifetime. Such acquaintance, he claimed, gained through visions and transports, was actually superior to acquaintance with Jesus during his lifetime, when Jesus was much more reticent about his purposes.

It is clear that Paul's ministry had the endorsement of other apostles who walked with Jesus. All you need to do is to read the book of Acts.
Have yu read the book of Acts?

Honestly Tommy, yu took your views from secondary sources. You didn't do your own basic research. Perhaps yu may have used teh Bible as a refernece to all these anti Christian materials which suited your agenda in the first place and yu never even want to challenge.
How do I know? You don't even know the Bible. I bet yu have never read it. Hahahahahahahahahaha...............

A piece of advice from this Chinese convert to Christianity. Be honest, read the NT over once carefully and take notes. Don't just one references from the anti Christianity crowd.

peace and have fun reading.

tommy_mylex

We know about Paul not only from his own letters but also from the book of Acts, which gives a full account of his life. Paul, in fact, is the hero of Acts, which was written by an admirer and follower of his, namely, Luke, who was also the author of the Gospel of that name. From Acts, it would appear that there was some friction between Paul and the leaders of the 'Jerusalem Church', the surviving companions of Jesus; but this friction was resolved, and they all became the best of friends, with common aims and purposes. From certain of Paul's letters, particularly Galatians, it seems that the friction was more serious than in the picture given in Acts, which thus appears to be partly a propaganda exercise, intended to portray unity in the early Church. The question recurs: what would Jesus have thought of Paul, and what did the Apostles think of him?

Debmey

People do clash and disagree.
Had there been any attempt to whitewash, the clash would not even been recorded in the first place would it.
By having the conflct recorded, it only proves that Acts was truthful.

there was endorsement of Paul'sministry by the other apostles.
What else Tommy? What else?
Come on, something stronger and more credible, no more frills OK? You are too light weight for my taste.

tommy_mylex

We should remember that the New Testament, as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the hero, and do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament. This is, of course, not the whole story, for the Gospels are based on traditions and even written sources which go back to a time before the impact of Paul, and these early traditions and sources are not entirely obliterated in the final version and give valuable indications of what the story was like before Paulinist editors pulled it into final shape. However, the dominant outlook and shaping perspective of the Gospels is that of Paul, for the simple reason that it was the Paulinist view of what Jesus' sojourn on Earth had been about that was triumphant in the Church as it developed in history. Rival interpretations, which at one time had been orthodox, opposed to Paul's very individual views, now became heretical and were crowded out of the final version of the writings adopted by the Pauline Church as the inspired canon of the New Testament.

Debmey

I don't see any problems with that. There was no way that Paul could have influenced the four gospels could he? There is also no reason to believe that they were influenced by Paul's writings in any way.

Well, I'm glad that at least yu finally realised that there is total consistency between the gospels and Pauls letters. That may have led you to believe wrongly that Paul's letters influenced the gospels but it really isn't, they do concur on the truth.

peace

tommy_mylex

This explains the puzzling and ambiguous role given in the Gospels to the companions of Jesus, the twelve disciples. They are shadowy figures, who are allowed little personality, except of a schematic kind. They are also portrayed as stupid; they never quite understand what Jesus is up to.

Debmey

Thats just your opinion, nothing more.
If they didn't know what Jesus was, how could they preach the gospel and establish the church?

tommy_mylex

Their importance in the origins of Christianity is played down in a remarkable way. For example, we find immediately after Jesus' death that the leader of the Jerusalem Church is Jesus' brother James. Yet in the Gospels, this James does not appear at all as having anything to do with Jesus' mission and story. Instead, he is given a brief mention as one of the brothers of Jesus who allegedly opposed Jesus during his lifetime and regarded him as mad

Debmey

Importance has nothing to do with how many times one appeared in any of the gospels. I don't see the point of contention nor the significance. Christians are not into the fame and glory game, the values of Christainity are not your ways, but yu try to impose your ways upon God. Thats the whole problem with you Tommy.