Has Saint Paul hijacked Christianity?

[2ndpillar]

The reality is that there is simply no reference to a Jesus figure in the Tanakh, and the vast majority of the supposed "messianic" references are taken out of context. However, if you believe that Jesus is the messiah, that's quite OK, imo.

The reason I asked the question about the "you" is that so many Christians end up using that as a reference to all Jews, portraying them all as being despotic, which is not what is actually being said in the Tanakh if one reads these verses in context.

Dear metis,
Deuteronomy states "The Lord your God will raise up a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him". All kings, and prophets of Israel are considered "anointed".

A second verse would be Hosea 3:5, where "afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king.....in the last days". Hosea 5:11-6:2, defines the timeline as 2 days/2000 years as the period "I will go away and return to My place" (Hosea 5:14). It is 2000 years that "I am like...rottenness to the house of Judah.....For I will be like a young lion to Judah. I, even I, will tear to pieces and go away" (Hosea 5:14).

The "you" would refer to all of Israel, including Ephraim, but Zech 13:7, specifically was pointed towards Judah, as Ephraim, at that time, was already "scattered among the nations" (Joel 3:2)


New American Standard Bible
"The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.

 

[metis]

Dear metis,
Deuteronomy states "The Lord your God will raise up a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him". All kings, and prophets of Israel are considered "anointed".

A second verse would be Hosea 3:5, where "afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king.....in the last days". Hosea 5:11-6:2, defines the timeline as 2 days/2000 years as the period "I will go away and return to My place" (Hosea 5:14). It is 2000 years that "I am like...rottenness to the house of Judah.....For I will be like a young lion to Judah. I, even I, will tear to pieces and go away" (Hosea 5:14).

The "you" would refer to all of Israel, including Ephraim, but Zech 13:7, specifically was pointed towards Judah, as Ephraim, at that time, was already "scattered among the nations" (Joel 3:2)


New American Standard Bible
"The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.

I am very familiar with this as I taught it for 14 years, and what I stated in my previous post is correct. The "you" simply cannot refer to all Jews without taking it out of context, plus the issue of the "prophet" without a doubt cannot be applied to Jesus in reference to your citations. Even "Jerome's Biblical Commentary" states as such, including what Aquinas concluded.

Again, if one believes the Jesus is the messiah, that's all fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Rise]

Responding to Lucas85's original post:

Paul's letters are in line with everything Jesus taught. If you believe otherwise, you lack a full understanding of the content contained in either the gospels or the epistles. A fuller study of both the gospels and epistles will show that they are in harmony with each other.

First, let's define some terms according to what they Biblically mean:
-What is the Kingdom of God? It is the the rulership of God in our life.
-What is Good? God is good. He defines good by who He is. Anything can only be said to be good insofar as it lines up with who God is.
-What is sin? Sin is rebellion against what God has said we must do.
-What is belief? It is not merely mental acknowledgement of something as true. The Greek word for belief implies that you live your life as though something is true, that you build and rest your life on that truth. There is action associated with it as proof that you really believe it.

Your first mistake is equating choice with effort.
We have a choice to obey God, but we cannot by any action of our own enter into Heaven.
We enter into Heaven by our choice to follow Jesus, who through His work has provided us the way to enter Heaven.
The idea that man cannot save themselves and enter Heaven by their own works, apart from the work of Jesus, is a concept we see in the Gospels and letters of the other disciples - It is not just a concept we find in Paul's letters.

John 3:13, John 8:21-24.
Nobody has ever ascended into Heaven, except Jesus. In fact, they can't on their own.

Mark 10:18
Nobody is good but God

Matthew 19:24-26
It is impossible for man to enter into the Kingdom of God and save themselves, but with God it is possible.

John 10:9, John 3:14-16
Jesus is the door to salvation.

John 8:24
Jesus specifically said we must believe in Him to be saved.
Without Jesus, we will not have eternal life, due to sin.

John 5:39-40, John 4:13-14.
You cannot find life apart from Jesus

John 10:11
John 3:14-16
Matthew 26:27-28
Jesus gave his life in a sacrifice for the forgiveness of thier sins, to bring salvation to His people. We may make the choice to follow Jesus, and we may make the choice to partake of what He offers us, but it is Jesus who leads us to salvation and provides the way. Nobody in history ever has been able, or will ever be able, to have what He offers by their own efforts. He is the sole source of salvation.

John 10:16, John 10:27
Those who are Jesus's people are those who obey Him (follow His voice).

John 8:24
There is something fundamentally different about people compared with Jesus.

John 3:5, 1 John 3:9.
Entering the Kingdom of God requires a spiritual rebirth.

Matthew 7:21
Entering the Kingdom of God requires doing the will of God.

Mark 9:47
To sin is to not be in the Kingdom of God.

Paul merely expounds and elaborates on these truths.



Your second mistake would be to think that Paul is preaching a message that puts no responsibility on the individual. That is not true.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5
Here we see Paul telling them to discipline a man who is in blatant rebellion to God, so that he might repent of his rebellion and have eternal salvation.

Neither Jesus, Paul, nor the other disciples taught you could live anyway you wanted, in rebellion to God, never making an choice to reform in any way, and be ok because you claimed that you believed Jesus died for your sins. As James said, even the demons believe, but faith without works is not real living faith (James 2).



Third; there's nothing in the text itself which would lead us to conclude your view of Paul is true, that he felt the need to invent a religion to feel better than others by being more exclusive. You cannot expect to find the truth by engaging in Eisegesis, inserting your own ideas into the Bible text. Instead, you must let the Bible text speak for itself (Which is Exegesis).

 

[2ndpillar]

I am very familiar with this as I taught it for 14 years, and what I stated in my previous post is correct. The "you" simply cannot refer to all Jews without taking it out of context, plus the issue of the "prophet" without a doubt cannot be applied to Jesus in reference to your citations. Even "Jerome's Biblical Commentary" states as such, including what Aquinas concluded.

Again, if one believes the Jesus is the messiah, that's all fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned.

Dear metis,
Excuse me for taking up your time. If you are a follower of Jerome and Aquinas, then your foundation has apparently been laid out by deceased "Christian" church "scribes" (Jer 8:8).

 

[metis]

Dear metis,
Excuse me for taking up your time. If you are a follower of Jerome and Aquinas, then your foundation has apparently been laid out by deceased "Christian" church "scribes" (Jer 8:8).

I'm not a follower of either of them. They both were very intelligent, no doubt, but they're not my cup of tea.

However, maybe you should thank Jerome for being instrumental in the formation of the canon of your Bible, and then also Aquinas for being amongst the brightest of Christian theologians.

BTW, you ain't taking up too much of my time since I'm retired, but thanks for being concerned anyway.

 

[2ndpillar]

I'm not a follower of either of them. They both were very intelligent, no doubt, but they're not my cup of tea.

However, maybe you should thank Jerome for being instrumental in the formation of the canon of your Bible, and then also Aquinas for being amongst the brightest of Christian theologians.

BTW, you ain't taking up too much of my time since I'm retired, but thanks for being concerned anyway.

Dear metis,
I think the booby prize for the NT canon would go to Athanasius. And it is not my canon, for it is composed mostly of the testimony of the false prophet Paul, and his associates. Not something you would want your kids to run across. As for the "brightest", if you read what is said by Yeshua, he praised "Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes." (Mt 11:25)

If these "brightest" of "Christian" men are not your cup of tea, why do you base your position on their ramblings.

 

[metis]

If these "brightest" of "Christian" men are not your cup of tea, why do you base your position on their ramblings.

The major impact that both had on the church, especially in some very crucial areas, such as the selection of the canon, the issues surrounding war, defense of the faith against heresies, etc.

With Jesus and the apostles long gone, some like these men had to step up to the plate and work on dealing with some very crucial issues. Remember, the Bible you use was a by-product of Jerome's and some others work, and without the selection of the canon, where would your knowledge of Jesus and your opinions be taken from?

 

[Muffled]

As a matter of fact, Paul founded Christianity soon after he spent a whole year together with Barnabas, a bachelor whom he lived with. What happened is that a Roman Emperor banished all the Jews from Rome and they went to Antioch and crowded the Nazarene synagogue and, James, the Chairman of the Sect of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to take care of the Synagogue of Antioch and, instead of going straight to Antioch, he went to Tarsus looking for Paul and invited him to join him. At the end of no more than a year, the local disciples started being called Christians. Paul had overturned that Nazarene synagogue into a Christian church. (Acts 11:26) That's how Christianity started. In other words, Paul had hijacked the Sect of the Nazarenes in Antioch.

I believe the church started in Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, The church did not have to be called the Christian Church to be the Christian Church. In other words, Paul expanded the church with his evangelism.

 

[Muffled]

Evidence for what! I remember to have said that it did not matter if Mary was from the Tribe of Levi or Judah; even if she had been a daughter of David. Tribal genealogy would come down only through the father, not the mother. Joseph, the husband of Mary was the one from the Tribe of Judah. If he was not Jesus' biological father, Jesus could not have been from the Tribe of Judah. He was simply a Jew without a Tribe in Israel. On the other other hand, he could not be son of God without an earthly father because the idea is not Jewish but Greek. You can believe whatever you please about my being dense. We are talking about a Jewish man, the son of a Jewish lady. How could I agree with a Greek doctrine for his birth? Jesus never claimed to be God, neither the Messiah, mind you! The Hellenists who wrote the gospels did all the forgery necessary to settle Jesus down as a Christian.

I believe the prophecy does not say He has to be from the tribe of Judah, only that He needed to be descended from David.

I believe this argument doesn't hold water because God can do what He wants and doesn't need to get his ideas from men.

I believe you were right about God not depending on genealogies but as I said in the previous sentence that helps prove He can be the Messiah not that He isn't. Do I have to show you your logical error?

I believe He said I and my Father are one. And there is much more than that.

I believe He said it here:
John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

I believe then Moses and the law is a forgery of the Canaanites who worshipped false gods. Anyone can make a false accusation as you can see.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus never claimed to be God and, he was a Jew and, according to the gospels, he never lost his mind. Now, the virgin birth is consistent only with the Greek concept of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

I believe demi-gods are sons of gods but Jesus is the Son of God. There is no comparison. Maybe God liked the way the gods did things and decided it was a good idea. That is a lot better than thinking it is a bad idea because you are Jewish and Greeks are not.

 

[2ndpillar]

The major impact that both had on the church, especially in some very crucial areas, such as the selection of the canon, the issues surrounding war, defense of the faith against heresies, etc.

With Jesus and the apostles long gone, some like these men had to step up to the plate and work on dealing with some very crucial issues. Remember, the Bible you use was a by-product of Jerome's and some others work, and without the selection of the canon, where would your knowledge of Jesus and your opinions be taken from?

Dear metis,
Aquinas was born in the 13th century, 1000 years after the canon of your bible was first compiled in 367 AD. Jerome simply was commissioned by the bishop of Rome to produce an authoritative Latin version (the Vulgate), in the late 4th century. Jerome did not select the books within the canon. He was a young 26 year old monk at the time the canon was published.

 

[metis]

Dear metis,
Aquinas was born in the 13th century, 1000 years after the canon of your bible was first compiled in 367 AD. Jerome simply was commissioned by the bishop of Rome to produce an authoritative Latin version (the Vulgate), in the late 4th century. Jerome did not select the books within the canon. He was a young 26 year old monk at the time the canon was published.

My reference to Aquinas had nothing to do with the selection of the canon but related to the issue of messianic interpretations and why a literalistic approach to that didn't work, in his opinion.

As far as Jerome is concerned, he was commissioned to put together then first formal edition of the canon as you say above. The selection process certainly was not his alone. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon#Jerome_and_the_Vulgate

 

[2ndpillar]

My reference to Aquinas had nothing to do with the selection of the canon but related to the issue of messianic interpretations and why a literalistic approach to that didn't work, in his opinion.

As far as Jerome is concerned, he was commissioned to put together then first formal edition of the canon as you say above. The selection process certainly was not his alone. See: Development of the Old Testament canon - Wikipedia

Dear metis,
The selection process was not his at all. The NT canon was already done in the festal letter of Athanasius in Alexandria Egypt, in the year 367 AD. At the time, Jerome was a young monk in the Syria. Your reference to the OT canon seems to be a bit of obfuscation

 

[metis]

Dear metis,
The selection process was not his at all. The NT canon was already done in the festal letter of Athanasius in Alexandria Egypt, in the year 367 AD. At the time, Jerome was a young monk in the Syria. Your reference to the OT canon seems to be a bit of obfuscation

I knew that Jerome was in the canon-selection process, but I mistakenly thought it was more dealing with the N.T., so thanks for the heads-up on that. However, this is what I wrote which has been confirmed by the source I posted:

However, maybe you should thank Jerome for being instrumental in the formation of the canon of your Bible,

So, where were we?

 

[e.r.m.]

He's not lying, true, but it's still a falsehood he's peddling.

I think it's more likely the modern day interpreters of Paul who are spreading false teachings, that Paul would not approve of.

 

[allfoak]

I think it's more likely the modern day interpreters of Paul who are spreading false teachings, that Paul would not approve of.

Yup

 

[e.r.m.]

Dear er,
The jihadist think they are serving God and setting up his kingdom by killing others and then dying by blowing themselves up. The fact is they lead very few to "destruction" versus the 2 billion that Paul has led.

Oh great! You're comparing Paul to the Muslim jihadists who kill innocent men, women, and children, who gang rape women to convert them to Islam, and who deny Jesus.

 

[e.r.m.]

Yup

Thank you.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Responding to Lucas85's original post:

Paul's letters are in line with everything Jesus taught. If you believe otherwise, you lack a full understanding of the content contained in either the gospels or the epistles. A fuller study of both the gospels and epistles will show that they are in harmony with each other.

First, let's define some terms according to what they Biblically mean:
-What is the Kingdom of God? It is the the rulership of God in our life.
-What is Good? God is good. He defines good by who He is. Anything can only be said to be good insofar as it lines up with who God is.
-What is sin? Sin is rebellion against what God has said we must do.
-What is belief? It is not merely mental acknowledgement of something as true. The Greek word for belief implies that you live your life as though something is true, that you build and rest your life on that truth. There is action associated with it as proof that you really believe it.

Your first mistake is equating choice with effort.
We have a choice to obey God, but we cannot by any action of our own enter into Heaven.
We enter into Heaven by our choice to follow Jesus, who through His work has provided us the way to enter Heaven.
The idea that man cannot save themselves and enter Heaven by their own works, apart from the work of Jesus, is a concept we see in the Gospels and letters of the other disciples - It is not just a concept we find in Paul's letters.

John 3:13, John 8:21-24.
Nobody has ever ascended into Heaven, except Jesus. In fact, they can't on their own.

Mark 10:18
Nobody is good but God

Matthew 19:24-26
It is impossible for man to enter into the Kingdom of God and save themselves, but with God it is possible.

John 10:9, John 3:14-16
Jesus is the door to salvation.

John 8:24
Jesus specifically said we must believe in Him to be saved.
Without Jesus, we will not have eternal life, due to sin.

John 5:39-40, John 4:13-14.
You cannot find life apart from Jesus

John 10:11
John 3:14-16
Matthew 26:27-28
Jesus gave his life in a sacrifice for the forgiveness of thier sins, to bring salvation to His people. We may make the choice to follow Jesus, and we may make the choice to partake of what He offers us, but it is Jesus who leads us to salvation and provides the way. Nobody in history ever has been able, or will ever be able, to have what He offers by their own efforts. He is the sole source of salvation.

John 10:16, John 10:27
Those who are Jesus's people are those who obey Him (follow His voice).

John 8:24
There is something fundamentally different about people compared with Jesus.

John 3:5, 1 John 3:9.
Entering the Kingdom of God requires a spiritual rebirth.

Matthew 7:21
Entering the Kingdom of God requires doing the will of God.

Mark 9:47
To sin is to not be in the Kingdom of God.

Paul merely expounds and elaborates on these truths.



Your second mistake would be to think that Paul is preaching a message that puts no responsibility on the individual. That is not true.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5
Here we see Paul telling them to discipline a man who is in blatant rebellion to God, so that he might repent of his rebellion and have eternal salvation.

Neither Jesus, Paul, nor the other disciples taught you could live anyway you wanted, in rebellion to God, never making an choice to reform in any way, and be ok because you claimed that you believed Jesus died for your sins. As James said, even the demons believe, but faith without works is not real living faith (James 2).



Third; there's nothing in the text itself which would lead us to conclude your view of Paul is true, that he felt the need to invent a religion to feel better than others by being more exclusive. You cannot expect to find the truth by engaging in Eisegesis, inserting your own ideas into the Bible text. Instead, you must let the Bible text speak for itself (Which is Exegesis).

Great post. Anyone who thinks that St. Paul "hijacked Christianity" is either just willingly ignorant or very, very stupid.

 

[2ndpillar]

Oh great! You're comparing Paul to the Muslim jihadists who kill innocent men, women, and children, who gang rape women to convert them to Islam, and who deny Jesus.

Dear er,
Dead is dead. The number of people Paul has led down the "broad" road to "destruction" (Mt 7:13), far surpasses those killed by the jihadists. The jihadists are for the most part killing other jihadists. Zech 14:13," the hand of one will be lifted against the hand of another". The Shi'ites and the Sunni are killing each other. I think what you should be worrying about is the 58 million innocent babies killed by the U.S. Those kind of numbers kind of attracts the wrath of God. If you are worrying about rapes, why did you help elect Bill Clinton for a second term? If you look at Europe, the rapes being committed by the Muslims have nothing to do with converting the victims. It is a matter of simply someone believing they are justified by means of faith. The same reasoning used by Paul, who also murdered God's messenger on the basis of his supposed faith.