who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[Vishvavajra]

Actually, the direct statements that the word of God is inspired by Him are contained within the scriptures themselves, and statements exist within the scriptures saying that they are the absolute truth are also contained therein. As far as it being a "religious" doctrine, no. The scriptures condemn religions. Religious doctrine is in opposition to the scriptures, and the scriptures are in opposition to religions. The scriptures are in no way the product of any religious doctrine or tradition whatsoever. The scriptures DO predate religions. Religions are corrupt and false. The inspired word of God is not corrupt. Religions, and God oppose eachother. The teaching that they do not oppose eachother is false and only comes from religions. Religions had NO PART in the creation of the scriptures.

Since you're such a big student of the scriptures, you must know that they were written by certain people at certain times and that they do not predate religion as a phenomenon. You must also know that the decision of which texts would be canonized as scripture was something that happened at particular points in time, at the hands of certain religious authorities, so (1) no scripture was written with knowledge of the canon as a whole, since the final canon didn't exist when each individual text was composed, and (2) the decision of what counted as scripture was one that was made by people within the context of a religious institution. They didn't fall out of the sky one bright spring morning, fully canonized and hermetically sealed.

And that's not even to mention how the doctrine that scriptures constitute the "word of God" is something that developed historically. We can trace its origins and evolution. Some later scriptures show evidence of the beginnings of that doctrine, but for the most part the Bible is devoid of any such claims. Nor does the existence of a line in one text claiming to be the divine word then somehow magically apply to other texts that happened to be canonized alongside it. And as for how they were canonized and by whom... well, if you know anything about that, it doesn't really support your view at all.

 

[truthofscripture]

This is the part I am referring to. The "heavens and earth" have certainly not "passed away" as of yet. So, was this just an error in speach? And, certainly it cannot be said that "all has been accomplished," as Jesus is believed to be coming back to judge ...

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…"

You seem to be ignoring a great part of the inspired word of God. You're ignoring the Christian Greek scriptures. The law was fulfilled, even though the covenant was broken by Israel. God said "your house has been abandoned to you", and the New Covenant replaced the law covenant. The fulfillment of the law covenant was effected by Jesus. HE FULFILLED it. You continue to say it wasn't fulfilled, when it was. Your argument is with Jehovah God, not with me. You continue to ignore a large portion of His inspired word. You continue to be antichrist, in ignoring the messiah, Jesus. In opposing him, one is antichrist. That is the definition of the word antichrist. it seems that opposing a large portion of God's inspired word makes one antiJehovah as well. One either believes ALL of the inspired word of God, or believes none of it. One cannot pick and choose which parts to believe, and which parts to ignore, and still be in Jehovah's good favor.

Jeremiah 31:31 “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.”

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place. 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. 20 For I say to you that if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens.

See the end of verse 18? It says until all things take place. Well, all things HAVE taken place. Jesus fulfilled the covenant, Jeremiah prophecied about it's fulfillment, and the new covenant. You argue about it. God said it, it IS the truth.

 

[leibowde84]

You seem to be ignoring a great part of the inspired word of God. You're ignoring the Christian Greek scriptures. The law was fulfilled, even though the covenant was broken by Israel. God said "your house has been abandoned to you", and the New Covenant replaced the law covenant. The fulfillment of the law covenant was effected by Jesus. HE FULFILLED it. You continue to say it wasn't fulfilled, when it was. Your argument is with Jehovah God, not with me. You continue to ignore a large portion of His inspired word. You continue to be antichrist, in ignoring the messiah, Jesus. In opposing him, one is antichrist. That is the definition of the word antichrist. it seems that opposing a large portion of God's inspired word makes one antiJehovah as well. One either believes ALL of the inspired word of God, or believes none of it. One cannot pick and choose which parts to believe, and which parts to ignore, and still be in Jehovah's good favor.

Jeremiah 31:31 “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.”

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place. 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. 20 For I say to you that if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens.

See the end of verse 18? It says until all things take place. Well, all things HAVE taken place. Jesus fulfilled the covenant, Jeremiah prophecied about it's fulfillment, and the new covenant. You argue about it. God said it, it IS the truth.

Nope, not ignoring. I am disregarding them currently, but I know all about them. I am doing this because my question was not about scripture as a whole. I was asking for your explanation of this specific passage.

 

[truthofscripture]

Nope, not ignoring. I am disregarding them currently, but I know all about them. I am doing this because my question was not about scripture as a whole. I was asking for your explanation of this specific passage.

I explained that particular passage more than once.

 

[leibowde84]

You seem to be ignoring a great part of the inspired word of God. You're ignoring the Christian Greek scriptures. The law was fulfilled, even though the covenant was broken by Israel. God said "your house has been abandoned to you", and the New Covenant replaced the law covenant. The fulfillment of the law covenant was effected by Jesus. HE FULFILLED it. You continue to say it wasn't fulfilled, when it was. Your argument is with Jehovah God, not with me. You continue to ignore a large portion of His inspired word. You continue to be antichrist, in ignoring the messiah, Jesus. In opposing him, one is antichrist. That is the definition of the word antichrist. it seems that opposing a large portion of God's inspired word makes one antiJehovah as well. One either believes ALL of the inspired word of God, or believes none of it. One cannot pick and choose which parts to believe, and which parts to ignore, and still be in Jehovah's good favor.

Jeremiah 31:31 “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.”

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place. 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. 20 For I say to you that if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens.

See the end of verse 18? It says until all things take place. Well, all things HAVE taken place. Jesus fulfilled the covenant, Jeremiah prophecied about it's fulfillment, and the new covenant. You argue about it. God said it, it IS the truth.

LOL. How on earth can you assume to know what I believe. I didn't make any claims at all. I asked a question about a passage from the Bible. Be an adult and try civility before trying to judge me for something you know nothing about. Not very Christian, if you ask me.

 

[sojourner]

No, religions DO NOT TEACH WHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH, they only teach bits and pieces and they change what they do teach about them.

Have you taken an in-depth look at every single one in order to make that determination? Or are you presenting us with a baseless and biased, generalized assumption?

I am not creating a FALSE distinction.

Of course you are, because your premise (see above) is false. Religions do teach what the scriptures teach. They just don't teach what you think the scriptures teach. (Hint: It's not All. About. You.)

Pietism of the Reformation? That has NOTHING to do with God's inspired word or teachings at all. That has to do with RELIGION.

Funny thing, though, you sound just like them: "The church is false -- the church is wrong. Jesus never wanted us to be part of any church." So, either you're right, and it doesn't have anything to do with "God's inspired word or teachings at all," and therefore, your argument (which is identical to that position) doesn't have anything to do with "God's inspired words or teachings," either, or, Pietism does have something to do with all that. Which is it? You pick. Either way, using your own logic, you're going to be wrong.

"The movement", as you call it, has NEVER HAD DENOMINATIONS.

Apparently, it was comprised of caches of believers with some conflicting beliefs. That's a matter of historical fact.

Any straying from the one true faith and God's inspired word is "works of the flesh", a sin, and a sure fire way of gaining God's displeasure.

Of course, you've never "strayed" from any of that...

Paul NEVER represented any sects/denominations EVER.

Of course he did, because he stood in disagreement with the Jerusalem leaders -- you know: James, the brother of Jesus. Paul's communities believed differently from those in Jerusalem. That constitutes denominationalism, by definition.

You are making that up out of thin air.

Nope. It's historic fact and it's in the bible (Acts).

Stop trying to justify your learning which stems from religions and men.

I don't have to justify anything. It is what it is: unbiased, intelligent exegesis of the texts.

None of that is truthful. They all teach different things than what the scriptures teach.

We've heard all this before. thing is, you don't anything about my education. You don't know that it's "religious." So you don't really know what I was taught.

So you've spent 30 years learning them, you've still learned things OTHER THAN THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Believe what you want -- but you've got nothing to back up your claims. At least I've got verifiable evidence.

Nothing can change that, and none of your whining about it can change it either.

Nothing needs to change. And I don't see how pointing out facts constitutes "whining." Your problem is that you're making stuff up and presenting it as truth, when, in fact, it's nothing but meaningless rambling.

Facts are facts.

Yes they are. And I've presented them. You have yet to accept them.

Religions are false, and false translations stem from paganism.

To you I'm sure that's the case. But everyone else gets an opinion, too.

False religions also stem from paganism, which in itself stems from Satan.

Paganism has been around a lot longer than Satan. But I'm sure you won't believe that, either. Because it messes with your carefully-constructed house of cards.

 

[sojourner]

The irony of the sola scriptura position is that the idea that the Bible is of supernatural origin, the direct Word of God, contains absolute truth, etc., is a religious doctrine that is not found anywhere in the scriptures. It's just the most obvious example of how people who think they're reading the scriptures with no influence from religious doctrines and theories are just unaware of their own biases and where their ideas are coming from.

And that's not even getting into how the scriptures are themselves the products of centuries of religious doctrine, tradition, etc. They didn't just spring up out of thin air one day, divorced from all historical context and systems of human thought, nor do they predate the religious cultures that created them. If all religions are necessarily corrupt and decadent, then it follows that all scriptures must be too.

Yup.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, the direct statements that the word of God is inspired by Him are contained within the scriptures themselves, and statements exist within the scriptures saying that they are the absolute truth are also contained therein. As far as it being a "religious" doctrine, no. The scriptures condemn religions. Religious doctrine is in opposition to the scriptures, and the scriptures are in opposition to religions. The scriptures are in no way the product of any religious doctrine or tradition whatsoever. The scriptures DO predate religions. Religions are corrupt and false. The inspired word of God is not corrupt. Religions, and God oppose eachother. The teaching that they do not oppose eachother is false and only comes from religions. Religions had NO PART in the creation of the scriptures.

Why don't you stop braying about how the scriptures condemn religions, and cite some actual text that actually says such things?

 

[sojourner]

Religions had NO PART in the creation of the scriptures.

Who created the texts, then?

 

[sojourner]

Jesus taught "the one true faith", not a church or religion. It was Jesus, sent by his Father, to end the law covenant, and to make a new covenant with holy spirit annointed Christians. 144,000 of them to be exact. They were to teach others about the one true faith so that they may live forever in a paradise Earth where only the righteous would live. All those not righteous would be eliminated for opposing God the Almighty, after two thousand years of teaching and warning them. They're STILL being warned, and still refuse to be a part of that one true faith. Religions "claiming" to be Christian are lying. No man made religion is Christian, and the Catholic church IS a man made religion, as are all sects/denominations. It's important to note that not one word exists in the true inspired word of God whereby Jesus created a church, much less the Catholic Church. It was a creation of Emperor Constantine, who was the head of ALL pagan religions of his day. He began the Roman church, which was the new "state religion" for his subjects. It was, less than a hundred years later, renamed the Roman Catholic Church, from which stem almost all other sects/denominations. Galations says all sects are "works of the flesh", and produce no "fruitage of the spirit".

1) provide us with the specific passage in Galatians that says that
2) Jesus said, "You are Peter, and on this rock [of faith] I will build my church." The Greek word there is ekklesia, which means "assembly." Churches and denominations are assemblies or gatherings of believers.

 

[sojourner]

Since you're such a big student of the scriptures, you must know that they were written by certain people at certain times and that they do not predate religion as a phenomenon. You must also know that the decision of which texts would be canonized as scripture was something that happened at particular points in time, at the hands of certain religious authorities, so (1) no scripture was written with knowledge of the canon as a whole, since the final canon didn't exist when each individual text was composed, and (2) the decision of what counted as scripture was one that was made by people within the context of a religious institution. They didn't fall out of the sky one bright spring morning, fully canonized and hermetically sealed.

And that's not even to mention how the doctrine that scriptures constitute the "word of God" is something that developed historically. We can trace its origins and evolution. Some later scriptures show evidence of the beginnings of that doctrine, but for the most part the Bible is devoid of any such claims. Nor does the existence of a line in one text claiming to be the divine word then somehow magically apply to other texts that happened to be canonized alongside it. And as for how they were canonized and by whom... well, if you know anything about that, it doesn't really support your view at all.

This is well-spoken -- and it's the truth. But it won't do any good. Promise. Because the poster isn't really interested in truth. He's only interested in pushing his belief.

 

[godnotgod]

"The movement", as you call it, has NEVER HAD DENOMINATIONS. Jesus taught that such sects/denominations are false religion. Any straying from the one true faith and God's inspired word is "works of the flesh", a sin, and a sure fire way of gaining God's displeasure. Paul NEVER represented any sects/denominations EVER. You are making that up out of thin air.

Heh..heh..heh...that's a joke. The movement itself was a sect. Referring to Paul:

"For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes"

Acts 24:5

Jesus was a Nazarene, a mystical sect of Judaism. Nazarenes were a mystical sect of the Essenes, who derived their teachings from the East which included another Essene healing sect in Egypt and Greece called the Therapeuatae.

The protest to 'works of the flesh' most likely came from Paul, who had Gnostic leanings, and whose doctrine saw the flesh as corrupt. The truth of the scripture, however, is that 'the Word BECAME flesh', so the spirit must have been very fond of all things fleshy, including the material world, as God found it fanciful enough to have created it, 'and saw that it was good'.

 

[Unification]

yes i would like to know who was the founder of christianity? and if its Jesus why are christians not observing yom kippur and other jewish religious festivals that the man himself obviously did, if its Paul how did his idea of christianity take over the apostles version in particular James the just.

Jewish feasts are all supposed to be happening within the human.

Jesus taught the kingdom was "within."

Paul taught the Old Testament as the kingdom "within."

"Christian" is to be Christ like.... Not a title, think the vain church buildings got a tad out of hand.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Paul also refers (in Galatians, I think) to sectarian divisions even among the Christians of his day. He apparently had a cold relationship with Peter and James, ostensibly because Peter was too hidebound and attached to Jewish exceptionalism, whereas Paul thought Christianity should be a universal thing--but if you read between the lines, it's very likely that Peter and co. were not terribly happy with Paul's claims to have a direct line to Jesus, despite his never having met him in life.

 

[truthofscripture]

LOL. How on earth can you assume to know what I believe. I didn't make any claims at all. I asked a question about a passage from the Bible. Be an adult and try civility before trying to judge me for something you know nothing about. Not very Christian, if you ask me.

You continued to post that not one word of the law would be changed... If one believed the Christian Greek scriptures and studied them, then that one would know that the law covenant was broken by Israel and replaced with the New Covenant with the 144,000. That's how I made that assumption. If I am incorrect, I apologize.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Jeremiah is not a Christian Greek scripture.

And the context of Jeremiah is the Babylonian destruction of the Kingdom of Judah and the first temple of Jerusalem, although it's also true that Jewish and Christian authors like to draw connections between that event and the destruction of the second temple by the Romans, which was something both groups were trying to make sense of in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. And like most traditional cultures, the way Jews make sense of things is to draw connections to their cultural myths and literature.

For a similar use of Jeremiah, see the works of Josephus, particularly the Jewish War. It's even more fun in that Josephus frames himself as the new Jeremiah.

 

[truthofscripture]

Jeremiah is not a Christian Greek scripture.

And the context of Jeremiah is the Babylonian destruction of the Kingdom of Judah and the first temple of Jerusalem, although it's also true that Jewish and Christian authors like to draw connections between that event and the destruction of the second temple by the Romans, which was something both groups were trying to make sense of in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. And like most traditional cultures, the way Jews make sense of things is to draw connections to their cultural myths and literature.

For a similar use of Jeremiah, see the works of Josephus, particularly the Jewish War. It's even more fun in that Josephus frames himself as the new Jeremiah.

No kidding.

 

[Doug Shaver]

And you shouldn't. You should, if you wanted to know the truth of the matter, check the scriptures to see if it's true.

By "scriptures," I assume you're referring to the anthology of religious writings usually referred to by English speakers as the Bible. I have examined it. I have found its constituents to lack credibility. Their authors believed things that I cannot believe.

 

[Doug Shaver]

Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior is a Christian.

You say so.

 

[truthofscripture]

By "scriptures," I assume you're referring to the anthology of religious writings usually referred to by English speakers as the Bible. I have examined it. I have found its constituents to lack credibility. Their authors believed things that I cannot believe.

There was only one author.