• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Has Saint Paul hijacked Christianity?

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Are you certain Rome isn't mentioned in Revelation one way or another. How about 666? How about Babylon the Great? It's been a long rime since I read it, but I think it actually says a lot about the Roman persecution of the early church.

Also, are you familiar with Ignatius of Antioch's letter to Clement of Rome and what's in it? It was written somewhere around 100, but I'd have to look it up to be certain.

Let me just mention this point, namely that I have to heavily rely on my memory, as flawed as it may be. because my study of the early church was largely done for over two decades that ended about 20 or so years ago. Since then, I have only read occasional articles on Christian theology as my focus went elsewhere. So, if you see me hesitating about some things I post, now you'll know why. And let me tell ya that it ain't getting any easier as I get ol-- er, more mature. :rolleyes:

Have a nice "day of rest" for you and yours.

Me'tis
Will check it out...

May the Lord bless you and keep you!
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I think you just changed the subject. They had said that King David was just a analogy and never existed. They have had to retract what they have said and they continue to do so on a regular basis as new discoveries are made.
Okay so far.

When enough discoveries are made validating what was written, the more one can assume that the rest happened also. If on the stand witnesses establish certain aspects of a case to be true, the more one can believe the rest of what they said to be equally true.
Nope. If I tell you a list of facts and include one lie, you can't assume the lie is the truth because the other stuff was true as well.

OBVIOUSLY, you will never have a photograph or a video recording of a man sleeping with a woman because they didn't exist. However, to correct your story, he slept with his wife and then had her husband killed.
I see, so that's better then. *rolls eyes*

At this point, my position becomes more validated by archaeology than your position of simply "I don't believe what was written happened". (At least that is the appearance of your position until otherwise stated)
What validations other than names of people and places? What about archaeological evidence that suggests there was no Exodus and basically it was just one Canaanite tribe separating themselves xenophobically from all the others? We can use DNA to discover our place in the animal kingdom. Can you do the same if you're descended from a man made out of dirt? What about anachronisms in the bible? What happens if an ancient tale says camels or Philistines existed centuries before archaeology says they did?

Jesus said it best, "For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad."
There was a Wikileaks back then too?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
What validations other than names of people and places?

Are you saying that Rome never destroyed Jerusalem and razed it to the ground?
What about archaeological evidence that suggests there was no Exodus and basically it was just one Canaanite tribe separating themselves xenophobic ally from all the others?
Please be more specific.
We can use DNA to discover our place in the animal kingdom.
Please be more specific
Can you do the same if you're descended from a man made out of dirt?
You mean when flesh and bones decompose, it isn't dirt? What is it then?

What about anachronisms in the bible? What happens if an ancient tale says camels or Philistines existed centuries before archaeology says they did?
please be more specific

There was a Wikileaks back then too?
Yes... it is called letters.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
What I think is that mainstream Christianity has been totally and inexorably influenced by Saint Paul's philosophical speculation which doesn't match with the most important principles of the evangelical message (the Gospels) To sum them up, it is sufficient to say that the Gospels clearly speak of the Kingdom of God, which is attainable only through men's efforts, so therefore Heaven is reached only through free will, that is, the choice of Good and the rejection of sin.
On the contrary, Paul speaks of a mankind that can't do but sin, and only through the faith in Jesus' blood it can be redeemed. So..according to this Anatolian philosopher, it is sufficient to believe that Christ was crucified to save us from sin, and that all our sins are forgiven through this simple act of faith.

I would like to ask rationalists here :...do you think there's something logical in this? I think there's nothing more twisted, anti-Christian and illogical than this theological principle.
This contradict all Jesus' parables, which clearly say that only the choice of good and altruism is the key to both worldly and otherworldly happiness.

You don't need to be a psychologist to understand the reason why Paul invented this concept.
Paul had been a wicked person who persecuted Christians (among whom St Stephen) and probably executed some of them. Suddenly and miraculously, he was enlightened by God and found out he was doing evil. Once he saw the light, he surely was ashamed of himself. And this shame was accentuated by the fact that there were so many Jews and Pagans, whose behavior was irreproachable: Jews whose life was very spiritual and Christian-like, and Pagans (especially after the Pagan renewing movement) who had never hurt anybody, but practiced abstinence and chastity.
The only way to feel better than these people was to create a concept that excluded Non-Christians from salvation.That is, inventing the concept of salvation by faith alone, making us believe that all sins are equal and redemption is earned by faith, regardless of personal merits.
Saul said to himself: "How can I feel a better person than those people? Simple: I rely on the story that Jesus's blood redeems people and erases sin. So, no matter how good and sinless Jews and Pagans are, I will always be better than them, because I believe that Jesus' blood has saved me."


I don't want to deny that there are lots of Christian-like concepts in Paul's epistles. Nevertheless, reading his works as a whole, it is clear that his personality was very tormented, surely devoured by a grave inner conflict.

I know that some Christians will "massacre" me...that's why I would really use the help and support of @wizanda and @Kelly of the Phoenix

Since Paul's teachings--100% of them--are found in the Hebrew scriptures, there is no reason to reject Paul's teachings. The people who do have no textual evidence for doing so, but tend to have philosophical speculation. We can use your reasoning above to eliminate any NT author or speaker. Indeed, people often give similar reasons for rejecting Jesus Himself, "Jesus had an agenda because He..."
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Since Paul's teachings--100% of them--are found in the Hebrew scriptures, there is no reason to reject Paul's teachings. The people who do have no textual evidence for doing so, but tend to have philosophical speculation. We can use your reasoning above to eliminate any NT author or speaker. Indeed, people often give similar reasons for rejecting Jesus Himself, "Jesus had an agenda because He..."
So simple.
 

atpollard

Active Member
The Pauline Paradox

When Paul started preaching about Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, he never realized that he had created a huge paradox.

You see, for Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to be a biological son of Joseph's, who was the one from the Tribe of Judah, whose Tribe the Messiah was supposed to come from. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. She was of the family of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron the Levite. (Luke 1:5,36)

Since Jesus is also claimed to be the son of God, he could not be the Messiah, because God is not subject to human genealogies.

On the other hand, if Christians decided to grab the chance of at least to make of Jesus the Messiah by agreeing to drop the tale of the virgin birth, and to admit that he was indeed Joseph's biological son, he could not be son of God; and here the situation would get worse because even the doctrine of the Trinity would collapse.

That's indeed a huge paradox that can be accepted only by faith, which requires no explanation. But then again, where faith begins, knowledge ends. And for lack of knowledge, People perish. (Hosea 4:6)

Now, if there is anyone out there with enough wisdom to unriddle this paradox, I'll be more than happy to take my hat off to him or her. If not, the Sphynx will keep waiting patiently beside the Egyptian pyramids for the passers-by.

Good luck!
I don't know if anyone ever got around to correcting you on this, but Mary and Elizabeth were cousins ... Their mothers were sisters ... so Mary was from the house of Judah and David and Elizabeth was from the house of Levi and Aaron.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
I don't believe he hijacked it. I view his testimony and his story as no different than reading about Job's story, etc. IMO, the Bible can teach me about what led to Jesus' live, death and resurrection, but it doesn't supply me with my faith. It is not the beginning and the end of my faith, and only if someone allows it to be...will they view Paul as having more weight than he should have, when it comes to Christianity.
 

atpollard

Active Member
yep....I don't follow Paul

did I miss it?.....did anyone note?
Paul (allegedly) never met Jesus
Actually, only sort of ... allegedly

Galatians 1:11-12

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Actually, only sort of ... allegedly

Galatians 1:11-12

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Also in 1 Cor 11
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I don't believe he hijacked it. I view his testimony and his story as no different than reading about Job's story, etc. IMO, the Bible can teach me about what led to Jesus' live, death and resurrection, but it doesn't supply me with my faith. It is not the beginning and the end of my faith, and only if someone allows it to be...will they view Paul as having more weight than he should have, when it comes to Christianity.
but now where to draw a sure line....

believe all testimony of Jesus....whether there was personal following or not?
or trust your rational and diligently seek that security of faith?
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that Rome never destroyed Jerusalem and razed it to the ground?
If I find out that Troy existed, does that mean that Apollo shot Achilles in the heel?

You mean when flesh and bones decompose, it isn't dirt? What is it then?
Without scavengers and decomposers, we are not dirt. Only when we are eaten by macrobes or microbes are we turned into "dirt", which is basically decomposer bowel movements.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
but now where to draw a sure line....

believe all testimony of Jesus....whether there was personal following or not?
or trust your rational and diligently seek that security of faith?

Part of the problem that I have with the Bible and maybe always will…is that everyone has individual experiences of faith. For me to tell you how to worship, how to pray, how to respond to Jesus, how to view Jesus, etc…it’s all my own interpretation based on my readings of the Bible. I do know that there are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways to view the Bible, of course, but Paul had an experience of faith, and so many people over the ages have viewed his testimony as more important than their own experiences. We probably all could write an addendum to the Bible, with our own stories (believers, that is) and would those stories suddenly mean that everyone should view God as we suggest them to? I can offer my experience and understanding of the Bible, but looking at Paul or anyone else in the Bible, as more than what they really are…is dangerous, IMO.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Part of the problem that I have with the Bible and maybe always will…is that everyone has individual experiences of faith. For me to tell you how to worship, how to pray, how to respond to Jesus, how to view Jesus, etc…it’s all my own interpretation based on my readings of the Bible. I do know that there are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways to view the Bible, of course, but Paul had an experience of faith, and so many people over the ages have viewed his testimony as more important than their own experiences. We probably all could write an addendum to the Bible, with our own stories (believers, that is) and would those stories suddenly mean that everyone should view God as we suggest them to? I can offer my experience and understanding of the Bible, but looking at Paul or anyone else in the Bible, as more than what they really are…is dangerous, IMO.

The problem is that Saint Paul talks about the necessity of Christ's sacrifice. This illogical and absurd principle practically nullifies free will, and destroys the deepest significance of History. In other words, history is the result of human actions and human actions derive from our free will. The Gospel clearly says that Jesus was tried and condemned by two political authorities: Caiaphas and Pilate. Jesus didn't want to be crucified, so therefore if he hadn't been executed, there would have been no atonement. The Augustinian theology is based upon Paul's conjectures, which, once they are analyzed logically, collapse like a house of cards.
Or maybe we should believe that God awarded Pilate and Caiaphas with Heaven, because they made atonement possible.
Which is quite horrible in my opinion.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
If I find out that Troy existed, does that mean that Apollo shot Achilles in the heel?
When does one decide that reality is reality? If I find an original Declaration of Independence, does that mean the Revolutionary War didn't happen?
Without scavengers and decomposers, we are not dirt. Only when we are eaten by macrobes or microbes are we turned into "dirt", which is basically decomposer bowel movements.
Beam me up Scotty.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The problem is that Saint Paul talks about the necessity of Christ's sacrifice. This illogical and absurd principle practically nullifies free will, and destroys the deepest significance of History. In other words, history is the result of human actions and human actions derive from our free will. The Gospel clearly says that Jesus was tried and condemned by two political authorities: Caiaphas and Pilate. Jesus didn't want to be crucified, so therefore if he hadn't been executed, there would have been no atonement. The Augustinian theology is based upon Paul's conjectures, which, once they are analyzed logically, collapse like a house of cards.
Or maybe we should believe that God awarded Pilate and Caiaphas with Heaven, because they made atonement possible.
Which is quite horrible in my opinion.
Unless one takes this "sacrifice" in a symbolic way. When "the Way" was no longer welcomed in synagogues and in the Temple area, then one could take the approach that it was unnecessary to perform animal/grain sacrifices because Jesus was more important, he being "the final sacrifice". Also, it become rather clear that they were gradually walking away from at least the letter of the Law, and the Temple sacrifices are spelled out in the Law itself even though there's previous precedent for it.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Without saying you have to believe as I believe (because there is free will)
The problem is that Saint Paul talks about the necessity of Christ's sacrifice. This illogical and absurd principle practically nullifies free will, and destroys the deepest significance of History.
.
I disagree. Certainly you haven't supported this position in any fashion

.
In other words, history is the result of human actions and human actions derive from our free will.

I completely agree. :)

The Gospel clearly says that Jesus was tried and condemned by two political authorities: Caiaphas and Pilate.
According to scripture, I agree.

Jesus didn't want to be crucified, so therefore if he hadn't been executed, there would have been no atonement.
I completely disagree that he didn't want to be crucified (according to scripture.) Scripturally, he said that no one takes his life, he gives it freely. Additionally, he exercised his free will by saying "not my will but thine be done". If he didn't want to be executed, he could have simply called on legions of angels to stop it; walk through them as he did twice before; or run when those who came to take him fell backwards or any other means.

However, in Christian understanding, without the crucifixion there would be no atonement.

The Augustinian theology is based upon Paul's conjectures, which, once they are analyzed logically, collapse like a house of cards.
.

This statement is illogical and hardly substantiated. No one has established that Paul had "conjectures". Was your position conjectured? :)

Or maybe we should believe that God awarded Pilate and Caiaphas with Heaven, because they made atonement possible.
Which is quite horrible in my opinion.

There is a two questions/viewpoints that arrises with these statements:

1) God is the judge and not us
2) It suggests a position of "I'm better than you". However, if looked carefully, we were no better than the two of them when compared to God's perfect holiness.

However, in human understanding, we would think that is horrible. Any sin is horrible IMV. And, quite frankly, there is none good but God.
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Part of the problem that I have with the Bible and maybe always will…is that everyone has individual experiences of faith. For me to tell you how to worship, how to pray, how to respond to Jesus, how to view Jesus, etc…it’s all my own interpretation based on my readings of the Bible. I do know that there are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways to view the Bible, of course, but Paul had an experience of faith, and so many people over the ages have viewed his testimony as more important than their own experiences. We probably all could write an addendum to the Bible, with our own stories (believers, that is) and would those stories suddenly mean that everyone should view God as we suggest them to? I can offer my experience and understanding of the Bible, but looking at Paul or anyone else in the Bible, as more than what they really are…is dangerous, IMO.
and the question...the addendum.... will come your way...

after your last breath...the angelic will appear....and ask
what do you believe?....and why do you believe it?

and the true danger will be right there....
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
and the question...the addendum.... will come your way...

after your last breath...the angelic will appear....and ask
what do you believe?....and why do you believe it?

and the true danger will be right there....

Or maybe Jesus will simply ask me...''who did you love?'' :heart:
 
Top