Did Paul Corrupt Christianity?

[Phantasman]

What I would like you to do, is explain just how exactly those people back at the time, when Jesus was here on earth, how they could haved went by the New Testament, When in fact,
the New Testament hadn't even been written yet.

Therefore those people back there, only had the Old Testament to go by.The New Testament had not been written yet.
So when you refer to those people back there, remember they only had the Old Testament to go by.

The New Testament had Not been written, until about 70 years after the death and Resurrection of Jesus.

You just answered your own question. see it:

How could the people back then know (spiritual ) truth when the truth hadn't been given yet?

John:
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Those who followed Moses and Abraham died. Jesus said to eat HIS flesh to live (Word/truth became flesh). Those in the OT ate "bread" (knowledge) thinking it was from God in heaven. It was not:

John 6:
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

The men who ate that bread, died:

John 6:
48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

See the parable as spiritual truth:

Matthew:
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Colossians:
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

The Jews didn't have spiritual understanding, yet Jesus, when he arose, saved those that slept in Hades, that recognized the light. Their faith saved them.

Paul tells the Gentiles that the truth is available to all, not just the Jews.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

The law created robots of flesh. Knowledge creates the heart of Spirit, that the flesh follows through the understanding of true love (Father). The God of the OT was a god who loved those who loved him. The Father loves the entire immovable race (man/world). This is known as "unconditional" (true) love. Taught by the Spirit, that started within Jesus, and was given to man (that wrote of it.........gnosis).

Gospel of Philip:
For truth is like ignorance: while it is hidden, it rests in itself, but when it is revealed and is recognized, it is praised, inasmuch as it is stronger than ignorance and error. It gives freedom. The Word said, "If you know the truth, the truth will make you free" (Jn 8:32). Ignorance is a slave. Knowledge is freedom. If we know the truth, we shall find the fruits of the truth within us. If we are joined to it, it will bring our fulfillment.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You just answered your own question. see it:

How could the people back then know (spiritual ) truth when the truth hadn't been given yet?

You got to be kidding, They had Spiritual truth in the old testament.

Heck people to day, have both Old Testament and New testament and they still don't know truth.

John:
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Those who followed Moses and Abraham died. Jesus said to eat HIS flesh to live (Word/truth became flesh). Those in the OT ate "bread" (knowledge) thinking it was from God in heaven. It was not:

John 6:
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

The men who ate that bread, died:

John 6:
48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

See the parable as spiritual truth:

Matthew:
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Colossians:
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

The Jews didn't have spiritual understanding, yet Jesus, when he arose, saved those that slept in Hades, that recognized the light. Their faith saved them.

Paul tells the Gentiles that the truth is available to all, not just the Jews.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

The law created robots of flesh. Knowledge creates the heart of Spirit, that the flesh follows through the understanding of true love (Father). The God of the OT was a god who loved those who loved him. The Father loves the entire immovable race (man/world). This is known as "unconditional" (true) love. Taught by the Spirit, that started within Jesus, and was given to man (that wrote of it.........gnosis).

Gospel of Philip:
For truth is like ignorance: while it is hidden, it rests in itself, but when it is revealed and is recognized, it is praised, inasmuch as it is stronger than ignorance and error. It gives freedom. The Word said, "If you know the truth, the truth will make you free" (Jn 8:32). Ignorance is a slave. Knowledge is freedom. If we know the truth, we shall find the fruits of the truth within us. If we are joined to it, it will bring our fulfillment.

 

[Phantasman]

"You got to be kidding, They had Spiritual truth in the old testament."

Then what was the purpose of Christ (Jesus)?

Heck people to day, have both Old Testament and New testament and they still don't know truth.

Agreed. The "hidden" knowledge stays hidden because they don't seek it. The priests hid it in the recreation of the Holy of Holies. Only they can teach it, which is a lie.

At the present time, we have the manifest things of creation. We say, "The strong who are held in high regard are great people. And the weak who are despised are the obscure." Contrast the manifest things of truth: they are weak and despised, while the hidden things are strong and held in high regard. The mysteries of truth are revealed, though in type and image. The bridal chamber, however, remains hidden. It is the Holy in the Holy. The veil at first concealed how God controlled the creation, but when the veil is rent and the things inside are revealed, this house will be left desolate, or rather will be destroyed. And the whole (inferior) godhead will flee from here, but not into the holies of the holies, for it will not be able to mix with the unmixed light and the flawless fullness, but will be under the wings of the cross and under its arms. This ark will be their salvation when the flood of water surges over them. If some belong to the order of the priesthood, they will be able to go within the veil with the high priest. For this reason, the veil was not rent at the top only, since it would have been open only to those above; nor was it rent at the bottom only, since it would have been revealed only to those below. But it was rent from the top to bottom. Those above opened to us the things below, in order that we may go in to the secret of the truth. This truly is what is held in high regard, (and) what is strong! But we shall go in there by means of lowly types and forms of weakness. They are lowly indeed when compared with the perfect glory. There is glory which surpasses glory. There is power which surpasses power. Therefore, the perfect things have opened to us, together with the hidden things of truth. The holies of the holies were revealed, and the bridal chamber invited us in.- Gospel of Philip

Marcion and Valentinus followed Paul, who wrote first (by the Spirit). Gnosis is the continued knowledge Paul taught (his circle). Jesus words were a seed. Paul made the seed grow. The priests were the thorns who consumed the growing seed. Gnosis (from Spirit) nurtures the seeds growth. It worked in Paul and as it works in gnosis. The Jews never had it.

Thomas:
(57) Jesus said, "The kingdom of the father is like a man who had good seed. His enemy came by night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds; he said to them, 'I am afraid that you will go intending to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.' For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be plainly visible, and they will be pulled up and burned."

Those who have sowed the untruth into the truth will have their day.

Thomas:
(39) Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."

Luke 11:
52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

The catholics attacked knowledge. Irenaeus first book wasn't called "Against Heresies". It refuted knowledge.

"Irenaeus' major extant writing is the Adversus Haereses (the full title of which is the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge falsely so-called)".

When you read the early (catholic) church fathers, you see how the men created a false religion of flesh, even down to defaming women.

 

[Ingledsva]

Maybe, maybe not.

John 8:

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Read between the lines. As the Jews were being taught the truth (that they were following the wrong (path to) God), by the end, the "believing Jews" fell back and tried to stone Jesus.

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

It was difficult to take the Jews (who followed dead men) and make them see him as true life.

The words in John 8 were not in the former synoptic gospels, which is why they were important. The gospel of John aligns with non canon gnosis in greater detail and so does Paul and 1 John.

Actually, 58 is a Messiah reference. Translation again, look it up, and keep the words in order. It doesn't say before Abraham, I am. It says for Abraham to be fulfilled, I am.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Joh 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

John 8:58 Said he Jesus, verily, verily, saying to them, for Abraham to be (genesthai) fulfilled, I am.

Gen 18:17 And YHVH said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;

Gen 18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? (= Messiah.)

Gen 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of YHVH, to do justice and judgment; that YHVH may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

(MOSES) Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

(YHVH) Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

(Jesus) Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Abraham's seed fulfillment - the Messiah.)

So Jesus was not claiming to be God here, but the awaited Messiah.

EDIT for RBS - thanks.

*

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Actually, 58 is a Messiah reference. Translation again, look it up, and keep the words in order. It doesn't say before Abraham, I am. It says for Abraham to be fulfilled, I am.

John 8:58 Said he Jesus, verily, verily, saying to them, for Abraham to be (gonomai) fulfilled, I am.

The Greek phrase in John 8:58 is πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμ ( prin abraam genesthai ego eimi). This means ‘before Abraham to-be-becoming I am’. gonomai is not there. There is nothing about Abraham being fulfilled in John 8:58. Fulfilled would be plēroō, would it not?

 

[Ingledsva]

The Greek phrase in John 8:58 is πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμ ( prin abraam genesthai ego eimi). This means ‘before Abraham to-be-becoming I am’. gonomai is not there. There is nothing about Abraham being fulfilled in John 8:58. Fulfilled would be plēroō, would it not?

My bad. - I have no idea why I stuck an o in it. LOL. Apparently I got distracted with the base and didn't bring it to form when writing it out.

However it is obviously the same translation, and meaning.

John 8:58 ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι

John 8:58 Said he Jesus, verily, verily, saying to them, for Abraham to be (genesthai) fulfilled, I am.

Your "to be - becoming," - should be translated - "to be - fulfilled." To come to being = fulfilled.

*

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

My bad. - I have no idea why I stuck an o in it. LOL. Apparently I got distracted with the base and didn't bring it to form when writing it out.

However it is obviously the same translation, and meaning.

John 8:58 ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι

John 8:58 Said he Jesus, verily, verily, saying to them, for Abraham to be (genesthai) fulfilled, I am.

Your "to be - becoming," - should be translated - "to be - fulfilled." To come to being = fulfilled.

*

To be fulfilled would not be a proper translation in this context, or in almost every other context the word is used in. On only the very few occasions it is translated as to be fulfilled (3 times out of 678 in the KJV) does it refer to prophecies coming to be.
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Your interpretation does not account for the word prin ‘before’ being used. How do you fit that into your translation?

The sense of the preceding verse is that Jesus was around to see Abraham. Jesus responds that he was around even before Abraham.

John 8

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

A pre-existing Jesus is definitely what John has in mind. Read John 1 again.

 

[Ingledsva]

To be fulfilled would not be a proper translation in this context, or in almost every other context the word is used in. On only the very few occasions it is translated as to be fulfilled (3 times out of 678 in the KJV) does it refer to prophecies coming to be.
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Your interpretation does not account for the word prin ‘before’ being used. How do you fit that into your translation?

The sense of the preceding verse is that Jesus was around to see Abraham. Jesus responds that he was around even before Abraham.

John 8

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

A pre-existing Jesus is definitely what John has in mind. Read John 1 again.

Obviously I do not agree with you.

I used "for."

John 8:58 Said he Jesus, verily, verily, saying to them, for Abraham to be (genesthai) fulfilled, I am.

Tanakh has no Jesus, - unless we consider him the awaited HUMAN messiah, - which is all he claimed to be.

Jesus taught Tanakh, - thus no multi-trinity-God.

He never said he was God.

Thus it cannot mean he was around before Abraham.

Jesus is not God.

I'm sure you know that early Christians argued over Jesus being man, - or God.

*

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Obviously I do not agree with you.

I used "for."

John 8:58 Said he Jesus, verily, verily, saying to them, for Abraham to be (genesthai) fulfilled, I am.

Tanakh has no Jesus, - unless we consider him the awaited HUMAN messiah, - which is all he claimed to be.

Jesus taught Tanakh, - thus no multi-trinity-God.

He never said he was God.

Thus it cannot mean he was around before Abraham.

Jesus is not God.

'm sure you know that early Christians argued over Jesus being man, - or God.



*

prin means 'before'. It does not mean 'for' in the sense of because.

The Trinity was centuries in the making, the result of ongoing debate and even physical violence over how the various figures in the NT related to each other. Different parts of the NT portrayed different aspects of Jesus.

Paul concentrated on the meaning of Jesus in the scheme of salvation. He tells almost nothing of the living man Jesus. Instead he writes of a pre-existing Jesus who was somehow divine who was sent by God to be born as a human and who returned to God at the end of his time on earth. See Philippians 2:6-11 and Paul’s frequent reference to God sending his Son.

Mark portrayed Jesus as a man but not as any ordinary one. He uses Paul’s phrase of Son of God but without explanation. Mark also refers to Jesus as the Son of Man coming from heaven, a reference to Daniel 13-14.

Matthew has Jesus be both the Son of David, a traditional human Messiah, and also very literally Son of God. But Matthew says nothing of pre-existence.

Luke emphasizes the human aspect of Jesus and also his universality. (Matthew tends to focus on the Jewish aspect of Jesus.) As with Matthew, no mention of a pre-existing Jesus.

John reverts to Paul’s viewpoint strongly underscoring Jesus as having come from heaven and returning to heaven. Pre-existence is a very much part of his presentation as seen in John 1.

Paul and John see Jesus as the Son of God having come from heaven. To Paul this is of major importance. No other sacrifice could have the power to undo the Sin of Adam. It is noteworthy that Paul and John use concepts that can also be found in the works of Philo of Alexandria, namely Son of God and the Logos, which are two names for the same idea. To Philo this was the projection of God into the world, being in some fashion both part of God and also separate from God.

What exactly all this adds up to I am not going to address. My point is that different writers presented things different ways. John presents a pre-existing Logos / Son of God who was always with God and would have been around before Abraham.

 

[Sleeppy]

I think you're both right.

 

[Peter Sawrie]

did paul corrupt the original christianity as some believe?


He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”

Paul absolutely corrupted his followers by preaching a different gospel and contradictory message from what Jesus taught.

In 2 Timothy chapter 1 verse 15 we see that Paul was clearly rejected by all of asia and John who actually walked with Jesus wrote the book of Revelations to the churches of Asia because of their rejection of Paul. It should be noted that the very first thing mentioned to the very first church was how they tried those who claimed to be Apostles and found them to be LIARS. Paul is known as the "Spouter of Lies" of the dead sea scrolls. In Matthew 25:31-46 the king (Jesus) seperates the nations by their works and if they did good they make heaven. But Paul told the Ephesians that they were saved by grace through faith, "NOT BY WORKS": lest any man should boast. The church of Ephesus is the same church commended for rejecting Paul, by John, in Revelations 2:2.

It should be noted that the early church in Jerusalem was scattered in 70 A.D. by the Roman Armies and it was the descendants of Paul's followers that came together in the 4th century to create the catholic church and the current books that make up the bible. The early church in Jerusalem did not use the teachings of Paul and were committed to following the teachings of Jesus as the way of Salvation;
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name (this is what the earlier text originally stated):
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

The command of Jesus was to make disciples who were committed to following his teachings, not this garbage that Paul's followers embrace: which clearly contradict what Jesus told his followers to do. According to the teachings of Jesus: salvation was by works, not by faith without works.

 

[sooda]

People forget that the Apostle Paul was also the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus who studied under the teacher Gamaliel. Paul was a scholar, a Pharisee, and a devout Jew whose writings brought the events surrounding Jesus into an Old Testament context that would have been readily understood by the Jews of his day, but is difficult for us due to that lack of context and difficulties imposed by translation and culture. Michael Heiser's "Unseen Realm" addresses many of the cultural, contextual and translational difficulties we experience. And, IMO, we get a much richer understanding of Christianity from Paul's writings.

Michael Heiser’s The Unseen Realm (part 1)

 

[Marcion]

The command of Jesus was to make disciples who were committed to following his teachings, not this garbage that Paul's followers embrace: which clearly contradict what Jesus told his followers to do. According to the teachings of Jesus: salvation was by works, not by faith without works.

Indeed, mere faith alone does not work.
However, within the teachings of Jesus are also special spiritual techniques to surrender the doership of one's actions.
This effectively results in the disciple being involved in good acts or works, but not taking any of the credit for it (karma wise).
So the (original) author of the letters of "Paul" was right in the gnostic sense, that taking the doership of good works does not lead to salvation but to even more bondage.
Surrendering that doership to God or Christ is the only proper way to follow Jesus. Everything has to go through the love for and surrender to Christ, there is no other way. If you call that total surrender while doing good works 'faith', then the original author of the Pauline letters was correct after all.

But I don't think most Christians understand that gnostic teaching in the way that it was meant.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Paul absolutely corrupted his followers by preaching a different gospel and contradictory message from what Jesus taught.

In 2 Timothy chapter 1 verse 15 we see that Paul was clearly rejected by all of asia and John who actually walked with Jesus wrote the book of Revelations to the churches of Asia because of their rejection of Paul. It should be noted that the very first thing mentioned to the very first church was how they tried those who claimed to be Apostles and found them to be LIARS. Paul is known as the "Spouter of Lies" of the dead sea scrolls. In Matthew 25:31-46 the king (Jesus) seperates the nations by their works and if they did good they make heaven. But Paul told the Ephesians that they were saved by grace through faith, "NOT BY WORKS": lest any man should boast. The church of Ephesus is the same church commended for rejecting Paul, by John, in Revelations 2:2.

It should be noted that the early church in Jerusalem was scattered in 70 A.D. by the Roman Armies and it was the descendants of Paul's followers that came together in the 4th century to create the catholic church and the current books that make up the bible. The early church in Jerusalem did not use the teachings of Paul and were committed to following the teachings of Jesus as the way of Salvation;
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name (this is what the earlier text originally stated):
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

The command of Jesus was to make disciples who were committed to following his teachings, not this garbage that Paul's followers embrace: which clearly contradict what Jesus told his followers to do. According to the teachings of Jesus: salvation was by works, not by faith without works.

Paul absolutely corrupted his followers by preaching a different gospel and contradictory message from what Jesus taught.

If to what your saying above, is to be right, my question is, Why would Jesus Christ chose Paul to be his disciple, As Paul and two others that were with Paul walking down the road to Damascus.
The book of Acts chapter 9.
Clearly shows.




In 2 Timothy chapter 1 verse 15 we see that Paul was clearly rejected by all of asia and John who actually walked with Jesus wrote the book of Revelations to the churches of Asia because of their rejection of Paul. It should be noted that the very first thing mentioned to the very first church was how they tried those who claimed to be Apostles and found them to be LIARS. Paul is known as the "Spouter of Lies" of the dead sea scrolls. In Matthew 25:31-46 the king (Jesus) separates the nations by their works and if they did good they make heaven. But Paul told the Ephesians that they were saved by grace through faith, "NOT BY WORKS": lest any man should boast. The church of Ephesus is the same church commended for rejecting Paul, by John, in Revelations 2:2.

I see you have a hard time reading or you need classes, for 2Timothy 1:15 clearly shows, that in all Asia only two Phygellus and Hermogenes were the only two that turned away from hearing Paul.
So how is it you say all of Asia. When in fact it was only two in Asia.

As to how you get the disciple John turned away from Paul, When in fact disciple John is not even made mentioning of in the whole chapter 1, of 2 Timothy.
So how do you come by John in
2 Timothy chapter one.
As for Matthew 25:31-46, it's evidence that you have no clue or idea when this all takes place, and there is no where written that Jesus Christ separates the nation's by their ( Works) how did you come by that?

As to how you come by that all of Asia turned away from hearing Paul, When it's plain to see that only two turned away from hearing Paul.

Had you read the whole chapter 2 of
Ephesians, you would haved found,
Paul saying we are saved thru faith,
This being our faith in Jesus Christ.
That we are Jesus Christ workmenship created in Christ unto good works.

As for Revelation 2:2, Had you read the other 5 verses, you would haved found, the Ephesian church left the teachings of Paul's and now in Revelation 2:1-5, Jesus Christ is condemning the Ephesian church for leaving the teachings of Paul's.
Jesus Christ speaking, saying in Revelation 2:4---"Nevertheless, I have some what against you, because you has left your first love"
The first love being Jesus Christ and the teachings of Paul's.
That the Ephesian church left the teachings of Paul and their love for Jesus Christ and went right back into worshipping the goddess Diana of Ephesian.
It seems that you have a hard time in staying up with the program..

It should be noted that the early church in Jerusalem was scattered in 70 A.D. by the Roman Armies and it was the descendants of Paul's followers that came together in the 4th century to create the catholic church and the current books that make up the bible. The early church in Jerusalem did not use the teachings of Paul and were committed to following the teachings of Jesus as the way of Salvation;
Had you read, it was Paul and Peter who started the Roman Catholic Church in Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:20-26.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name (this is what the earlier text originally stated):
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

The command of Jesus was to make disciples who were committed to following his teachings, not this garbage that Paul's followers embrace: which clearly contradict what Jesus told his followers to do. According to the teachings of Jesus: salvation was by works, not by faith without works
Had you read the whole chapter 9 of the book of Acts, you would haved found it was Jesus Christ himself who chosen Paul to be one of his disciples and all the other disciples welcome Paul as a disciple.
It's evidence that you have a hard time in staying up with the program.

 

[blü 2]

Paul absolutely corrupted his followers by preaching a different gospel and contradictory message from what Jesus taught.

There's a difficulty with that. If there was an historical Jesus, none of the NT writers ever met him, including Paul; so everything our sources say about Jesus is hearsay and hearsay only.

And in that thicket of hearsay, Paul's version is first. If as is generally held, the crucifixion is dated to 30-33 CE, then Paul's earliest letters are at best 17 years after that event. And Paul has been dead maybe 15 years before the author of Mark writes the only biography of Jesus we have, the one re-written to taste by the authors of Matthew and Luke maybe ten years after that, and by the author of John 15 years on again. Each of those five writers is promoting a different vision of Jesus, and the one closest to Paul's is John's.

John who actually walked with Jesus wrote the book of Revelations.

The book of Revelation is dated to somewhere in the period 80-95 CE, some 50-65 years after Jesus' death. If there was an historical Jesus, there's no more reason to think that its author met him than that Paul did.

In Matthew 25:31-46 the king (Jesus) seperates the nations by their works and if they did good they make heaven. But Paul told the Ephesians that they were saved by grace through faith, "NOT BY WORKS": lest any man should boast.

They can't both be right, but they can both be wrong. Surely choosing to say one is right and one is wrong is a matter of personal preference?

descendants of Paul's followers that came together in the 4th century to create the catholic church and the current books that make up the bible.

Well, they consolidated the early church, which remained fairly solid till Rome's claims to rule the roost caused the schism of 1054, after which we had Roman and Orthodox claims of catholicism. That there were other views they could have taken at any particular point is not in dispute, but these things are the product of the cultures and politics of their time.

The command of Jesus was to make disciples who were committed to following his teachings, not this garbage that Paul's followers embrace: which clearly contradict what Jesus told his followers to do.

But (given there was an historical Jesus) we have no idea whether Jesus ever mentioned such things or not, and if he did, what he said. There's simply no final answer to what Jesus might have taught ─ with the possible exception of JtB's message, Get ready, the Kingdom is imminent, will happen in your lifetime!

 

[calm]

did paul corrupt the original christianity as some believe?

He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”

No, he didn't. Paul is a true messenger of God. Everything he said is consistent with Jesus' words.

 

[Muffled]

Paul absolutely corrupted his followers by preaching a different gospel and contradictory message from what Jesus taught.

In 2 Timothy chapter 1 verse 15 we see that Paul was clearly rejected by all of asia and John who actually walked with Jesus wrote the book of Revelations to the churches of Asia because of their rejection of Paul. It should be noted that the very first thing mentioned to the very first church was how they tried those who claimed to be Apostles and found them to be LIARS. Paul is known as the "Spouter of Lies" of the dead sea scrolls. In Matthew 25:31-46 the king (Jesus) seperates the nations by their works and if they did good they make heaven. But Paul told the Ephesians that they were saved by grace through faith, "NOT BY WORKS": lest any man should boast. The church of Ephesus is the same church commended for rejecting Paul, by John, in Revelations 2:2.

It should be noted that the early church in Jerusalem was scattered in 70 A.D. by the Roman Armies and it was the descendants of Paul's followers that came together in the 4th century to create the catholic church and the current books that make up the bible. The early church in Jerusalem did not use the teachings of Paul and were committed to following the teachings of Jesus as the way of Salvation;
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name (this is what the earlier text originally stated):
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

The command of Jesus was to make disciples who were committed to following his teachings, not this garbage that Paul's followers embrace: which clearly contradict what Jesus told his followers to do. According to the teachings of Jesus: salvation was by works, not by faith without works.

I don't believe there is evidence to support that view.

I believe that is not what turned away means here. I believe it means they were not communicating but were focusing on their own things.

I don't believe I know any such thing.

I believe there is no contradiction in this.

I do not believe that is historically accurate.

I believe Paul is not named in the verse so any idea that it is him is pure speculation.

I believe the early church simply did not have all the books of the NT together in one book.

 

[Peter Sawrie]

No, he didn't. Paul is a true messenger of God. Everything he said is consistent with Jesus' words.

The above is very ignorant and nieve. Jesus stated their are many righteous while Paul states there are none. Jesus states all nations will be judged by their works: Paul says men are saved not by works lest any should boast Jesus said his followers could not serve 2 masters and that they had one master which is Christ. Paul states wife can servev2 masters and to submit to their husbands as though they were the Lord. As well Paul told earthly slaves to server their earthly masters in certain ways while Jesus's teachings of loving your neighbors as yourself and having only one master (Christ) totally condemn such teachings Paul taught. Paul said those who bore swords are ministers of God to execute wrath on those who do evil, while Jesus stated his words came from his heavenly father and that the words that he spoke the same will judge all mankind and Jesus totally condemned executing wrath on those who did evil.

Paul is an absolute heretic as are all that embrace him.

 

[paarsurrey]

did paul corrupt the original christianity as some believe?


He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”

Yes, Paul is the "Corrupter of the teachings of Jesus", and those who spread/propagate NT Bible are "Anti- Jesus" or "Anti-Christ".

Regards

 

[OtherSheep]

did paul corrupt the original christianity as some believe?


He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”

The last NT canon corrupted the Gospel of the Kingdom, taught by Jesus.

Paul was a Babylonian Talmudist. He took the words of God and explained them away.