who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[truthofscripture]

Well, no. It's the other way around: his human vulnerability allowed his crucifixion. IOW, he was human first; the crucifixion then followed as a consequence of his humanity.

There are no two ways of looking at it, as you imply. Jesus's words are clear: the shedding of his (divine) blood is the power that washes mankind's sin away. So here, it is not his vulnerability as a human being that has the power, but his divinity, which is the core Christian doctrine, which, when believed to be true, is the Christian's way of dealing with sin. As for context, his entire life was leading up to this point, which IS the point of his life, because in the larger context, God the Father sent 'his only begotten son' to Earth as sacrifice which in turn reopened the Gates of Paradise which the sin of Adam & Eve had closed for all men.

Jacob Maccoby, Talmudic scholar, tells us that this scenario is composed of two elements: that of the descending Gnosis as teacher to man, taken from the Gnostics, and that of a dying and resurrecing god-man, taken from the mystery religions, to which Paul had been exposed as a child in his native Tarsus. The third element is Jewish history as backdrop to the story to lend credibility to the myth.

Jesus is not God. God sent His only begotten son as a sacrifice to atone for the sin Adam committed. Adam was the first perfect human and sinned. Only the blood of another perfect human could atone for that sin, and the blood of God's son is what paid for it. It allowed mankind to be forgiven for sins, if man repents and asks for forgiveness. If they don't, then no forgiveness. God and Jesus are father and son, not one in the same. That is actually a pagan teaching, not Christian.

 

[godnotgod]

...Christian views through the limited perspective of a non-Christian. IOW, you don't really know what the Christian view is. You only know what your view of the Christian view is. Therefore, 0 authority to speak with any credibility.

Sorry, but FYI, I was raised as a Christian from the get-go, so I've earned my stripes. I KNOW, first hand, which doctrines a Christian is indoctrinated to believe, without question, as true.

 

[godnotgod]

Jesus is not God. God sent His only begotten son as a sacrifice to atone for the sin Adam committed. Adam was the first perfect human and sinned. Only the blood of another perfect human could atone for that sin, and the blood of God's son is what paid for it. It allowed mankind to be forgiven for sins, if man repents and asks for forgiveness. If they don't, then no forgiveness. God and Jesus are father and son, not one in the same. That is actually a pagan teaching, not Christian.

A perfected human is divine. He is one who has awakened and realized the full potential of his own divine nature. But besides that, the mainline Christian belief is that Jesus is in fact God incarnate, as expressed in the doctrine of the Trinity, for one, and in Jesus's own words:

'I and my Father are one'

In order to understand the divinity of Jesus, one must realize that Jesus was actually a mystic, and as a mystic, he makes no distinction between divine or not-divine. He points to man and says: 'the kingdom of God is within you', which is saying that all men are divine. This universal teaching comes from the East. IOW, the gifts of the Incarnation are not exclusive only to the historical Jesus, but to all men. This, too is the teaching of the Buddha, when he said that all sentient beings have Buddha Mind. The West has turned Jesus into a freak, a one of a kind exclusivity.

Alan Watts tells us, that if only Jesus had been born in India and went around professing that he was God, the Hindus would have celebrated him instead of crucifying him, as everyone is God in India. The Hindu would have told Jesus: 'Oh, good! You found out! Congratulations!'

 

[sojourner]

Well, no. It's the other way around: his human vulnerability allowed his crucifixion. IOW, he was human first; the crucifixion then followed as a consequence of his humanity.

There are no two ways of looking at it, as you imply. Jesus's words are clear: the shedding of his (divine) blood is the power that washes mankind's sin away. So here, it is not his vulnerability as a human being that has the power, but his divinity, which is the core Christian doctrine, which, when believed to be true, is the Christian's way of dealing with sin. As for context, his entire life was leading up to this point, which IS the point of his life, because in the larger context, God the Father sent 'his only begotten son' to Earth as sacrifice which in turn reopened the Gates of Paradise which the sin of Adam & Eve had closed for all men.

Jacob Maccoby, Talmudic scholar, tells us that this scenario is composed of two elements: that of the descending Gnosis as teacher to man, taken from the Gnostics, and that of a dying and resurrecing god-man, taken from the mystery religions, to which Paul had been exposed as a child in his native Tarsus. The third element is Jewish history as backdrop to the story to lend credibility to the myth.

Where the bible is concerned, there are always multiple interpretations available. The one you've laid out here is valid -- but not the only valid one.

In the parable of the leaven, Jesus says that the Kingdom of God is like leaven that a woman mixed in with the dough, until the whole lump was leavened. In that time, leaven wasn't yeast, like we have today. It was toxic. So, the Kingdom is like something dirty being mixed in with the dough, until the whole lump is dirty. The point: We cannot become clean enough to reconcile ourselves to God, so God becomes dirty -- thoroughly mixing in with the lump of humanity. Through God's act of becoming one of us, to the point of even dying like the very least of us (a dirty, toxic criminal), God reconciles humanity to God's self. It, therefore, is the act of Jesus becoming fully human, fully dirty, fully vulnerable, that reconciles humanity.

The death is necessary as a precursor to resurrection. Jesus had to be "laid down" in death, in order to be able to "get up." We are not saved because our sin is washed away by divine blood. We are saved because, since God became fully human (by becoming fully mortal), we, as human beings, participate in his "getting up." It (as you surmise) is a rather new concept that comes partly from the Greek notion of an afterlife, which wasn't fully present in the Judaic religious scheme.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, but FYI, I was raised as a Christian from the get-go, so I've earned my stripes. I KNOW, first hand, which doctrines a Christian is indoctrinated to believe, without question, as true.

I was also a cradle Christian -- both my parents and one of my grandparents were clergy; I've earned an M.Div., and been involved with many different congregations across several different denominations -- and not all Christians are indoctrinated to believe in substitutionary atonement. There are other valid theological and doctrinal constructs. Perhaps your experience was not so broad?

 

[truthofscripture]

Sorry, but FYI, I was raised as a Christian from the get-go, so I've earned my stripes. I KNOW, first hand, which doctrines a Christian is indoctrinated to believe, without question, as true.

You know what religions claiming to be Christian teach, but you don't know, more than likely, that the scriptures teach something different. Jesus isn't God. Religions teach that he is God. The scriptures teach that he isn't. They teach that very clearly. Everything I've posted comes from the scriptures, not from any religion. In fact, Galations chapter 5 says all sects or Christianity are false. Revelation says they will be destroyed.

 

[godnotgod]

Where the bible is concerned, there are always multiple interpretations available. The one you've laid out here is valid -- but not the only valid one.

In the parable of the leaven, Jesus says that the Kingdom of God is like leaven that a woman mixed in with the dough, until the whole lump was leavened. In that time, leaven wasn't yeast, like we have today. It was toxic. So, the Kingdom is like something dirty being mixed in with the dough, until the whole lump is dirty. The point: We cannot become clean enough to reconcile ourselves to God, so God becomes dirty -- thoroughly mixing in with the lump of humanity. Through God's act of becoming one of us, to the point of even dying like the very least of us (a dirty, toxic criminal), God reconciles humanity to God's self. It, therefore, is the act of Jesus becoming fully human, fully dirty, fully vulnerable, that reconciles humanity.

The death is necessary as a precursor to resurrection. Jesus had to be "laid down" in death, in order to be able to "get up." We are not saved because our sin is washed away by divine blood. We are saved because, since God became fully human (by becoming fully mortal), we, as human beings, participate in his "getting up." It (as you surmise) is a rather new concept that comes partly from the Greek notion of an afterlife, which wasn't fully present in the Judaic religious scheme.

Nah, not gonna buy it.

Whether toxic or not, the real point of leavening is to raise the dough via growth of the leaven (bacteria). In the same way, the kingdom grows when a catalyst is present:

"The parable describes what happens when a woman adds leaven to a large quantity of flour. The living organisms in the leaven grow overnight, so that by morning the entire quantity of dough has been affected.

In the Gospel of Luke, the parable is as follows:

And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid* in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

— Luke 13:20-21, KJV

Interpretation
This parable is part of a pair, and shares the meaning of the preceding Parable of the Mustard Seed, namely the powerful growth of the Kingdom of God from small beginnings. The final outcome is inevitable once the natural process of growth has begun."

Parable of the Leaven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the point of both the Mustard Seed Parable and the Leaven Parable is GROWTH of the Kingdom, which means spiritual awakening. Jesus and his followers, though small in number, are the catalyst, like the leaven, by which this growth of the Kingdom can take place. But blood sacrifice was not part of Yeshua's original teachings. An awakened spiritual teacher would never teach blood sacrifice as a means of sin redemption; he would teach forgiveness from the heart. Unfortunately, both elements are found in the scriptures, as they have become contaminated with pagan doctrines, such as blood sacrifice.

I will agree with you partly on one point, and that is about the humanity of Yeshua, but not about what you associate with it. If Christians were to drop the theme of blood sacrifice from their doctrines, and focus instead on forgiveness of oneself and of one another, their religion would mature from its current child stage. But ultimately, were Christians to realize that the key to their salvation lay in the realization that their humanity is, in fact, their divinity, that the two are actually one and the same, they would be on a par with Buddhism and Hinduism in terms of maturation.

'Are we humans trying to be spiritual, or spirits trying to be human?'
Cheri Huber, Zennist

*hid - The true nature of the spirit, of the Kingdom, is hidden within the Ordinary of everyday life. So the mystic realizes the oneness of the Miraculous and of the Ordinary. The key to this realization is that of the feminine essence; hence a woman who is the cook.

edit: interesting that the trials the Buddha underwent are likened to how ordinary dough became bread. The dough is a metaphor for man, and the bread a metaphor for a Buddha. So the Buddha put the dough (himself) into the oven over and over again, until he understood how a man could become a Buddha.

 

[truthofscripture]

Nah, not gonna buy it.

Whether toxic or not, the real point of leavening is to raise the dough via growth of the leaven (bacteria). In the same way, the kingdom grows when a catalyst is present:

"The parable describes what happens when a woman adds leaven to a large quantity of flour. The living organisms in the leaven grow overnight, so that by morning the entire quantity of dough has been affected.

In the Gospel of Luke, the parable is as follows:

And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid* in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

— Luke 13:20-21, KJV

Interpretation
This parable is part of a pair, and shares the meaning of the preceding Parable of the Mustard Seed, namely the powerful growth of the Kingdom of God from small beginnings. The final outcome is inevitable once the natural process of growth has begun."

Parable of the Leaven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the point of both the Mustard Seed Parable and the Leaven Parable is GROWTH of the Kingdom, which means spiritual awakening. Jesus and his followers, though small in number, are the catalyst, like the leaven, by which this growth of the Kingdom can take place. But blood sacrifice was not part of Yeshua's original teachings. An awakened spiritual teacher would never teach blood sacrifice as a means of sin redemption; he would teach forgiveness from the heart. Unfortunately, both elements are found in the scriptures, as they have become contaminated with pagan doctrines, such as blood sacrifice.

I will agree with you partly on one point, and that is about the humanity of Yeshua, but not about what you associate with it. If Christians were to drop the theme of blood sacrifice from their doctrines, and focus instead on forgiveness of oneself and of one another, their religion would mature from its current child stage. But ultimately, were Christians to realize that the key to their salvation lay in the realization that their humanity is, in fact, their divinity, that the two are actually one and the same, they would be on a par with Buddhism and Hinduism in terms of maturation.

'Are we humans trying to be spiritual, or spirits trying to be human?'
Cheri Huber, Zennist

*hid - The true nature of the spirit, of the Kingdom, is hidden within the Ordinary of everyday life. So the mystic realizes the oneness of the Miraculous and of the Ordinary. The key to this realization is that of the feminine essence; hence a woman who is the cook.

edit: interesting that the trials the Buddha underwent are likened to how ordinary dough became bread. The dough is a metaphor for man, and the bread a metaphor for a Buddha. So the Buddha put the dough (himself) into the oven over and over again, until he understood how a man could become a Buddha.

It's your choice to believe religion instead of God, but it's a poor choice. Taking a few scriptures out of context doesn't make your point either. It is the ENTIRETY of the scriptures that must be considered, not just a scripture here and one there. Religions are false according to the scriptures, and they will be destroyed according to Revelation to John. Not "buying" what God and what Jesus said is a pretty dumb thing to state and to do. Go for it and believe men and religions over God who inspired the scriptures. I'm sure that it makes sense to you, but not to God. He is the one that counts.

 

[sojourner]

Nah, not gonna buy it.

Whether toxic or not, the real point of leavening is to raise the dough via growth of the leaven (bacteria). In the same way, the kingdom grows when a catalyst is present:

"The parable describes what happens when a woman adds leaven to a large quantity of flour. The living organisms in the leaven grow overnight, so that by morning the entire quantity of dough has been affected.

In the Gospel of Luke, the parable is as follows:

And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid* in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

— Luke 13:20-21, KJV

Interpretation
This parable is part of a pair, and shares the meaning of the preceding Parable of the Mustard Seed, namely the powerful growth of the Kingdom of God from small beginnings. The final outcome is inevitable once the natural process of growth has begun."

Parable of the Leaven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the point of both the Mustard Seed Parable and the Leaven Parable is GROWTH of the Kingdom, which means spiritual awakening. Jesus and his followers, though small in number, are the catalyst, like the leaven, by which this growth of the Kingdom can take place. But blood sacrifice was not part of Yeshua's original teachings. An awakened spiritual teacher would never teach blood sacrifice as a means of sin redemption; he would teach forgiveness from the heart. Unfortunately, both elements are found in the scriptures, as they have become contaminated with pagan doctrines, such as blood sacrifice.

I will agree with you partly on one point, and that is about the humanity of Yeshua, but not about what you associate with it. If Christians were to drop the theme of blood sacrifice from their doctrines, and focus instead on forgiveness of oneself and of one another, their religion would mature from its current child stage. But ultimately, were Christians to realize that the key to their salvation lay in the realization that their humanity is, in fact, their divinity, that the two are actually one and the same, they would be on a par with Buddhism and Hinduism in terms of maturation.

'Are we humans trying to be spiritual, or spirits trying to be human?'
Cheri Huber, Zennist

*hid - The true nature of the spirit, of the Kingdom, is hidden within the Ordinary of everyday life. So the mystic realizes the oneness of the Miraculous and of the Ordinary. The key to this realization is that of the feminine essence; hence a woman who is the cook.

edit: interesting that the trials the Buddha underwent are likened to how ordinary dough became bread. The dough is a metaphor for man, and the bread a metaphor for a Buddha. So the Buddha put the dough (himself) into the oven over and over again, until he understood how a man could become a Buddha.

this only goes to show that a multiplicity of interpretations are possible.

 

[sojourner]

but you don't know, more than likely, that the scriptures teach something different.

You say this a lot. You'll have to show that that's really the case.

The scriptures teach that he isn't. They teach that very clearly.

Wrong.

Everything I've posted comes from the scriptures, not from any religion.

IOW: everything you've posted comes from your interpretation of what you've read.

 

[Doug Shaver]

If you actually read what I've written, you might stop being so trigger happy.

And if you'd take off that duck suit, you might be more comfortable.

 

[godnotgod]

You know what religions claiming to be Christian teach, but you don't know, more than likely, that the scriptures teach something different. Jesus isn't God. Religions teach that he is God. The scriptures teach that he isn't. They teach that very clearly. Everything I've posted comes from the scriptures, not from any religion. In fact, Galations chapter 5 says all sects or Christianity are false. Revelation says they will be destroyed.

Scripture teaches that Jesus is God:

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

Now, if you actually were to wake up, and realize what the Word becoming flesh actually means, you would go running wildly into the streets, screaming your bloody head clean off. Meanwhile, you are nice and safe behind the Color of Authority of the Holy Scriptures, which you think you understand, while ignoring what Jesus actually said about looking to the scriptures for eternal life instead of to him.

 

[godnotgod]

this only goes to show that a multiplicity of interpretations are possible.

Certainly there are many interpretations, but there is only one Reality. This is exactly why the mystic puts the scriptures aside as a secondary source and chooses the spiritual experience itself as primary source, and why Jesus made a point of looking to himself ('I Am') rather than to the scriptures for eternal life. Those who think the scriptures provide the primary answers are mistaken. They are merely looking at descriptions of the real thing, and, as we all know, the menu is never the meal.

 

[godnotgod]

And if you'd take off that duck suit, you might be more comfortable.

If you slowed down to take a closer look, you'd have realized that what you thought was a snake, was merely a rope moving in the wind. 'Duck suit' is only an idea in your head. So, are you ready to shed your duck suit?

 

[outhouse]

And if you'd take off that duck suit, you might be more comfortable.

Your smarter then this Doug. Don't reduce yourself for debate sake.

 

[truthofscripture]

Scripture teaches that Jesus is God:

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

Now, if you actually were to wake up, and realize what the Word becoming flesh actually means, you would go running wildly into the streets, screaming your bloody head clean off. Meanwhile, you are nice and safe behind the Color of Authority of the Holy Scriptures, which you think you understand, while ignoring what Jesus actually said about looking to the scriptures for eternal life instead of to him.

No, it does not. You are misunderstanding that scripture, and that argument is rediculous. It says god, not God. A god is not God Almighty. Your belief is antichrist.

 

[sojourner]

Certainly there are many interpretations, but there is only one Reality. This is exactly why the mystic puts the scriptures aside as a secondary source and chooses the spiritual experience itself as primary source, and why Jesus made a point of looking to himself ('I Am') rather than to the scriptures for eternal life. Those who think the scriptures provide the primary answers are mistaken. They are merely looking at descriptions of the real thing, and, as we all know, the menu is never the meal.

Well, duh! I've been saying this for years on this forum. Theological constructions are just that -- constructions. They describe, but do not define God. A description is an interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

No, it does not. You are misunderstanding that scripture, and that argument is rediculous. It says god, not God. A god is not God Almighty. Your belief is antichrist.

The writer of John was a monotheist. Why in the world would he say that Jesus was "a god," if, to him, there is only one God???

 

[jonathan180iq]

What do you mean? Only 7 letters are irrefutably attributed to Paul. That leaves 20 of 27 books.

There's that understanding of what was written by Paul, and then there is a very pervasive idea that 14 of those books were his. Leaving only 13 in total. 4 of those are the gospels. Math leaves 9...

How much of modern Christian theology comes from the writing of Paul, if not the majority?

Take away Romans and Hebrews, and it seems that most modern Christians would know very little about what they are supposed to believe.

 

[sojourner]

There's that understanding of what was written by Paul, and then there is a very pervasive idea that 14 of those books were his. Leaving only 13 in total. 4 of those are the gospels. Math leaves 9...

How much of modern Christian theology comes from the writing of Paul, if not the majority?

Take away Romans and Hebrews, and it seems that most modern Christians would know very little about what they are supposed to believe.

"Very pervasive" doesn't = "correct." Paul definitely wrote 7. Colossians and Ephesians are highly disputed. The rest are almost certainly not his. Paul didn't write Hebrews.

Christians do know what they're supposed to believe, because the earliest Christians had only the OT for scripture. There was no bible until about 450 C.E. "What we're supposed to believe" was taught and passed on orally in the beginning. What do you suppose people did who didn't have access to Romans or Hebrews?