who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[jonathan180iq]

"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?

I'm not arguing that a pervasive idea is correct. But if that pervasive idea manifests itself into an actual belief system, then it also can't be discredited as having an impact on Christian thought.

Prior to having their own set of scriptures, new Christian converts would have gone right along with whatever was taught to them, right? And that also doesn't equate to accuracy, as History has shown.

Christianity has taken countless different forms in the last 1,000 years. In it's modern incantation, and specifically after the protestant reformation, the writings that are commonly attributed to Paul have played a huge role in lending authority to ideas that have become commonplace theology.

While I know Paul didn't write Hebrews, does that stop countless numbers of people from believing that he did?

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Here is a link to Bible Hub, listing 21 Bible translations of John 1:1. Every single one of them uses the word 'God' with a capital 'G'.

John 1:1 says that Jesus is God. Are you saying John 1:1 is wrong?

 

[truthofscripture]

Here is a link to Bible Hub, listing 21 Bible translations of John 1:1. Every single one of them uses the word 'God' with a capital 'G'.

John 1:1 says that Jesus is God. Are you saying John 1:1 is wrong?

That's ok, the text from all the scrolls and pieces of scrolls found to date use lower case god. Most translations are not accurate anyway. Most are WAY off. But you go on believing whatever you want, but as for me, I choose accuracy, so I can know what God actually meant to say to us. I won't use any anymore that are changed by religions or politicians, such as King James, or Constantine the pagan emperor.

 

[godnotgod]

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

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.

We are not saved because our sin is washed away by divine blood.

And yet we are left with:

'Drink, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed unto many for the remission of sins'

What interpretation can there be other than that of salvation via blood sacrifice? The parable of the leaven says nothing of blood.

In addition, the passage specifically points to this blood as being that of the new covenant. Wasn't the old covenant inclusive of animal sacrifice as an inadequate means of sin remission, which Jesus is supposed to replace? This can only confirm the passage from the Last Supper as meaning that a real blood sacrifice is going to take place.

Add to this the fact that the passage includes the (symbolic) drinking of blood, pointing to the idea that divine blood has some kind of magical, transformative power.

 

[godnotgod]

That's ok, the text from all the scrolls and pieces of scrolls found to date use lower case god. Most translations are not accurate anyway. Most are WAY off. But you go on believing whatever you want, but as for me, I choose accuracy, so I can know what God actually meant to say to us. I won't use any anymore that are changed by religions or politicians, such as King James, or Constantine the pagan emperor.

So is John 1:1 saying that there are more than one god? If so, that means Jesus is A god. But John is not saying that 'the Word is with A god; and the Word is A god', is he? He is saying that 'the Word IS god', which can ONLY mean that there is but ONE god.

Now, if you really want to get a handle on this, you will go to the earlier Aramaic texts, which changes the meaning of the Greek texts completely. See here:

Mystery of Miltha

 

[truthofscripture]

And yet we are left with:

'Drink, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed unto many for the remission of sins'

What interpretation can there be other than that of salvation via blood sacrifice? The parable of the leaven says nothing of blood.

In addition, the passage specifically points to this blood as being that of the new covenant. Wasn't the old covenant inclusive of animal sacrifice as an inadequate means of sin remission?

Add to this the fact that the passage includes the (symbolic) drinking of blood, pointing to the idea that divine blood has some kind of magical, transformative power.

Salvation via JESUS' sacrifice. It had nothing to do with blood, but with Jesus' life. Jesus said to do this in memory of him. It meant annually, on Nisan 14, for the ANNOINTED ONLY to hold that ceremony. It's the ONLY ceremony in the scriptures that we are to adhere to. Yes, the law covenant included animal sacrifice, but it was because Israel was the way they were, and the covenant was temporary, until Jesus was born, and sacrificed his life. The law covenant was ended then, and the new covenant was made WITH THE ANNOINTED.

 

[sojourner]

And yet we are left with:

'Drink, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed unto many for the remission of sins'

What interpretation can there be other than that of salvation via blood sacrifice? The parable of the leaven says nothing of blood.

In addition, the passage specifically points to this blood as being that of the new covenant. Wasn't the old covenant inclusive of animal sacrifice as an inadequate means of sin remission, which Jesus is supposed to replace? This can only confirm the passage from the Last Supper as meaning that a real blood sacrifice is going to take place.

Add to this the fact that the passage includes the (symbolic) drinking of blood, pointing to the idea that divine blood has some kind of magical, transformative power.

What text are you using?

 

[sojourner]

Salvation via JESUS' sacrifice. It had nothing to do with blood, but with Jesus' life. Jesus said to do this in memory of him. It meant annually, on Nisan 14, for the ANNOINTED ONLY to hold that ceremony. It's the ONLY ceremony in the scriptures that we are to adhere to. Yes, the law covenant included animal sacrifice, but it was because Israel was the way they were, and the covenant was temporary, until Jesus was born, and sacrificed his life. The law covenant was ended then, and the new covenant was made WITH THE ANNOINTED.

Except that the word rendered as "memory" or "remembrance," is the Greek anamnesis which does not mean "an act of remembering a past event." It's more an act of participating in the event, itself.

 

[sojourner]

That's ok, the text from all the scrolls and pieces of scrolls found to date use lower case god.

No they don't. There are several problems with your post:
1) The early gospel manuscripts weren't in scroll form. They were found in codices.
2) The ancient Greek of the gospels was written in ALL CAPS, so it's impossible that your "early scrolls" used a "lower case."

 

[sojourner]

I'm not arguing that a pervasive idea is correct. But if that pervasive idea manifests itself into an actual belief system, then it also can't be discredited as having an impact on Christian thought.

Prior to having their own set of scriptures, new Christian converts would have gone right along with whatever was taught to them, right? And that also doesn't equate to accuracy, as History has shown.

Christianity has taken countless different forms in the last 1,000 years. In it's modern incantation, and specifically after the protestant reformation, the writings that are commonly attributed to Paul have played a huge role in lending authority to ideas that have become commonplace theology.

While I know Paul didn't write Hebrews, does that stop countless numbers of people from believing that he did?

I'm not discounting who believes it. I'm arguing for the facts. And the facts are that Paul didn't write the majority of the NT. He wrote 1/4 of the NT. So, it's untrue to say that, if Paul were taken out of the NT, it would collapse.

 

[godnotgod]

Salvation via JESUS' sacrifice. It had nothing to do with blood, but with Jesus' life.

But Jesus is clearly referring to the shedding of HIS blood for the remission of sins:

'Drink, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed unto many for the remission of sins'

..or do you wish to simply ignore the passage?

edit: re: blood as purifying agent we also have:

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9:22

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1 John 1:7

 

[sojourner]

But Jesus is clearly referring to the shedding of HIS blood for the remission of sins:

'Drink, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed unto many for the remission of sins'

..or do you wish to simply ignore the passage?

Again: Cite the text.

 

[godnotgod]

What text are you using?

Take your pick:

Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[truthofscripture]

But Jesus is clearly referring to the shedding of HIS blood for the remission of sins:

'Drink, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed unto many for the remission of sins'

..or do you wish to simply ignore the passage?

edit: re: blood as purifying agent we also have:

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9:22

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1 John 1:7

Were they actually drinking his blood? No. It's a figure of speech. Were they actually eating his flesh? No. It's a figure of speech. The law covenant WAS ENDED!!! If you get the sense of the scriptures, you realize that they're written TO the annointed (with holy spirit) 144,000 adopted sons of God. Those who go to heaven. The ONLY ones who go to heaven. Their job is to teach the world. But the scriptures are addressed to them, with the exception of the historical accounts in the pentateuch.

 

[godnotgod]

Were they actually drinking his blood? No. It's a figure of speech. Were they actually eating his flesh? No. It's a figure of speech. The law covenant WAS ENDED!!!

Was Jesus ACTUALLY crucified/sacrificed, as he said he was going to be, here?:

'Drink, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed unto many for the remission of sins'

Does it matter whether the eating/drinking of flesh/blood was actual or symbolic?

 

[sojourner]

Take your pick:

Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The earliest instance of this formula is found in 1 Corinthians, about the year 50, followed by Mark about the year 70. The reference is not found in John. It's found in Luke -- but its inclusion may be a later interpolation, as it's not found in some early manuscripts. So we're left with a Pauline tradition, and a Markan tradition (which Matthew borrows). Mark is highly Judaic, but Paul, while Judaic, is also trying on the Greek influences prevalent in his sphere of operation. The Judaic tradition would naturally lead one to believe that the blood sacrifice is efficacious (the passage alludes to a passage in, I believe, Isaiah 53, dealing with sacrifice). But the Greek tradition not so much.

The formula need not be understood as the blood, itself, being efficacious. The blood can be understood as the sign of the self-giving of Jesus. If you understand that the Eucharist is directly based on the Roman symposium -- and not on some Judaic ritual, then you understand the significance of the libation, or "toast." If you look at the Lukan version (which is borrowed from the Pauline tradition), you'll see that the form varies. In it, he passes the cup first, then breaks the bread, then passes a second cup (indicative of the libation ceremony). The libation isn't a sacrifice -- it's a toast. It's a toast to life -- not a toast to death. The blood is the life of Jesus -- not the death of Jesus.

The earliest depictions of Jesus do not involve the death. They involve Christ as the Pantokrator. In fact, it wasn't until later that the Roman church adopted the crucifix as its "main symbol" for Christ. The Orthodox still depict Christ sitting on the heavenly throne.

If the death of Christ -- the blood sacrifice -- were the central theme, none of the gospels would have bothered with his life and teachings. Hence, my allusion to the parable of the leaven. Substitutionary atonement is an OT concept -- not a Christian concept. Christians never participated in Temple sacrifice. The Eucharist infuses the Christian with Jesus' life -- not with sacrificial blood.

 

[truthofscripture]

Was Jesus ACTUALLY crucified/sacrificed, as he said he was going to be, here?:

'Drink, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed unto many for the remission of sins'

Does it matter whether the eating/drinking of flesh/blood was actual or symbolic?

He was killed on a torture stake, not a cross. But, yes, he was murdered by the Sanhedrin, vicariously, through the Roman secular authorities.

 

[sojourner]

He was killed on a torture stake, not a cross. But, yes, he was murdered by the Sanhedrin, vicariously, through the Roman secular authorities.

No. He wasn't murdered. Murder is a legal term. Jesus was executed by the state.

 

[godnotgod]

The earliest instance of this formula is found in 1 Corinthians, about the year 50, followed by Mark about the year 70. The reference is not found in John. It's found in Luke -- but its inclusion may be a later interpolation, as it's not found in some early manuscripts. So we're left with a Pauline tradition, and a Markan tradition (which Matthew borrows). Mark is highly Judaic, but Paul, while Judaic, is also trying on the Greek influences prevalent in his sphere of operation. The Judaic tradition would naturally lead one to believe that the blood sacrifice is efficacious (the passage alludes to a passage in, I believe, Isaiah 53, dealing with sacrifice). But the Greek tradition not so much.

The formula need not be understood as the blood, itself, being efficacious. The blood can be understood as the sign of the self-giving of Jesus. If you understand that the Eucharist is directly based on the Roman symposium -- and not on some Judaic ritual, then you understand the significance of the libation, or "toast." If you look at the Lukan version (which is borrowed from the Pauline tradition), you'll see that the form varies. In it, he passes the cup first, then breaks the bread, then passes a second cup (indicative of the libation ceremony). The libation isn't a sacrifice -- it's a toast. It's a toast to life -- not a toast to death. The blood is the life of Jesus -- not the death of Jesus.

The earliest depictions of Jesus do not involve the death. They involve Christ as the Pantokrator. In fact, it wasn't until later that the Roman church adopted the crucifix as its "main symbol" for Christ. The Orthodox still depict Christ sitting on the heavenly throne.

If the death of Christ -- the blood sacrifice -- were the central theme, none of the gospels would have bothered with his life and teachings. Hence, my allusion to the parable of the leaven. Substitutionary atonement is an OT concept -- not a Christian concept. Christians never participated in Temple sacrifice. The Eucharist infuses the Christian with Jesus' life -- not with sacrificial blood.

The idea of 'new life' is consistent with the efficacy of the blood, shed for the remission of sins, because that is what follows. But we still cannot escape one thing: that the verse is tying the shedding of blood directly to the remission of sins. And if this is largely Paul's doing, as we experience the text today, then the central doctrine of blood sacrifice in modern Christianity is still rooted in pagan ritual. I am not saying you are wrong, but most Christians today would think of the Crucifixion as the very shedding of blood the verse refers to. It is almost a mantra among Christians to say: 'Jesus died for your sins'.

If you can demonstrate how 'blood...which shall be shed' is not associated with '...for the remission of sins' , then you may have a case. But I still see them as inextricably tied in an airtight container.

In addition, we have the following:

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9:22

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1 John 1:7

 

[truthofscripture]

The idea of 'new life' is consistent with the efficacy of the blood, shed for the remission of sins, because that is what follows. But we still cannot escape one thing: that the verse is tying the shedding of blood directly to the remission of sins. And if this is largely Paul's doing, as we experience the text today, then the central doctrine of blood sacrifice in modern Christianity is still rooted in pagan ritual. I am not saying you are wrong, but most Christians today would think of the Crucifixion as the very shedding of blood the verse refers to. It is almost a mantra among Christians to say: 'Jesus died for your sins'.

If you can demonstrate how 'blood...which shall be shed' is not associated with '...for the remission of sins' , then you may have a case. But I still see them as inextricably tied in an airtight container.

In addition, we have the following:

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9:22

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1 John 1:7

No, it is tying the sacrifice of the second perfect human, to pay for what the first perfect human did against God.