who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[Vishvavajra]

Other than the fact that the scriptures have been tampered with and added to in such a manner as to have created a new religion called Christianity a la St. Paul. Yeshua did not teach nor believe in blood sacrifice, the virgin birth, nor bodily resurrection.

Paul didn't believe in bodily resurrection either. He scoffs at the idea, in fact. The problem is that his convoluted mystical explanation is hard to follow, so most people ended up coming right back around to bodily resurrection because they couldn't understand him, or didn't want to. By the time of the Gospels, at least, the resurrection of Jesus is being depicted in bodily terms, although it's not clear how literally the audience is supposed to take that (he disappears and reappears, shows up in locked rooms, walks among people without being seen, etc., and the Gospels are inconsistent about whether the disciples could touch him). At any rate, the idea that resurrection refers to the resuscitation of dead bodies is something that took a while to develop, probably as people became more literal-minded and dogmatic about the letter of the narrative over the greater meaning.

I'd say Paul also didn't believe in blood sacrifice, or at least thought it was wholly unnecessary, a sign of the Law from which people are naturally free. It's safe to say Jesus didn't think of himself as a blood sacrifice, but it's hard to say what he thought of the kind of sacrifice that went on in the temple. He doesn't speak against it (neither does Paul), but at the same time we don't see him participating or eating beef. And it's interesting that the Eucharist, though ritually identified as blood and flesh, is in fact a bloodless offering of bread and wine.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry. I don't buy the whole substitutionary atonement thing. God doesn't ask a life for a life.

I'm not sure...

For the sins of Israel there was, most of the times, the shedding of blood for a substitution.

It isn't so much a life for a life but rather, as Jesus said, "Greater love hath no man than this,that a man lay down his life for his friends." and we are called his friends.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not sure...

For the sins of Israel there was, most of the times, the shedding of blood for a substitution.

It isn't so much a life for a life but rather, as Jesus said, "Greater love hath no man than this,that a man lay down his life for his friends." and we are called his friends.

Not human blood. And that's what substitutionary atonement demands: human blood. I think our concept of God is a little more developed than that of our ancient forebears. The cross is a sign of God's self-giving -- not an instrument of punitive bloodshed.

 

[atpollard]

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.

Jesus founded Christianity ... it was he who taught Paul.
Romans explains the purpose of the Old Covenant, it's fulfillment in Christ and Hebrews declairs how superior the New Covenant is to the Old Covenant.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus founded Christianity ... it was he who taught Paul.

Paul never met Jesus historically speaking. Enough so we can say he was never a witness to Jesus.

He learned much about the movement hunting then down. People who hunt deer often know deer very well.

His communities claim of not learning from any man very well may be rhetorical, as his communities events differ greatly from those of Acts.

 

[outhouse]

Paul didn't believe in bodily resurrection either. He scoffs at the idea, in fact.

I thought the same thing and still keep equal footing because so much is lost in context, and he does elude both ways.

I think one can make a case both ways, but it is my own personal opinion the whole concept evolved from a spiritual perspective and later to a physical one.

 

[atpollard]

Paul never met Jesus historically speaking. Enough so we can say he was never a witness to Jesus.

He learned much about the movement hunting then down. People who hunt deer often know deer very well.

His communities claim of not learning from any man very well may be rhetorical, as his communities events differ greatly from those of Acts.

Paul says differently:

Galatians 1:11- 2:10

Gal 1:11 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.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephasfn and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

Gal 2:1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,fn just as Peter had been to the circumcised.fn 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephasfn and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.
​

Sorry, I take his word for it over yours.

 

[sojourner]

Paul didn't believe in bodily resurrection either. He scoffs at the idea, in fact.

I'm not so sure about that. The greek term Paul uses for "resurrection" literally is the same term one would use for "getting up" from sleep. So, at lest at some point, Paul did envision a physical resurrection. The trouble is that, for the new Christian Movement, resurrection is a reasonably newfangled idea, so Paul "tries on" different conceptions at different times, kind of flying by the seat of his pants, theologically.

 

[sojourner]

Paul says differently:

Galatians 1:11- 2:10

Gal 1:11 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.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephasfn and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

Gal 2:1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,fn just as Peter had been to the circumcised.fn 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephasfn and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.
​

Sorry, I take his word for it over yours.

Paul claims to have had a revelation from Jesus. But Paul never bodily met Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

Yeah.... That's simply not true.

Hilaria - Hilaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ides of March - Ides of March - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mamuralia - Mamuralia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pharmakos - Pharmakos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attis - Attis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cybele - Cybele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

et cetera, et ceterea

I checked it...

1 is irrelevant
All the others were done AFTER the Jews had already celebrated it. So, if anything, the pagans took after Jewish customs.

 

[Kenny]

Other than the fact that the scriptures have been tampered with and added to in such a manner as to have created a new religion called Christianity a la St. Paul. Yeshua did not teach nor believe in blood sacrifice, the virgin birth, nor bodily resurrection.

I don't agree. There were daily blood sacrifices given throughout etc.

 

[outhouse]

Paul says differently:

And what you may not know, is that of the mere 7 epistles we can attribute to Paul, these are a community effort and not just Paul's hand.

Its a common mistake to think Paul was the only author.


Each epistle header tells us who else was involved. How much were Pauls words or Tims or the others is unknown. But a community was responsible, not a single individual. This context is important when quoting text.

 

[Kenny]

Paul never met Jesus historically speaking. Enough so we can say he was never a witness to Jesus.

He learned much about the movement hunting then down. People who hunt deer often know deer very well.

His communities claim of not learning from any man very well may be rhetorical, as his communities events differ greatly from those of Acts.

A beautiful myth.

 

[Kenny]

Not human blood. And that's what substitutionary atonement demands: human blood. I think our concept of God is a little more developed than that of our ancient forebears. The cross is a sign of God's self-giving -- not an instrument of punitive bloodshed.

Yet, Gen 3 speaks of it in the sending of the Messiah whose heal would be bruised but the head of the Serpent would be crushed. Then it continues to Isaiah 53 not to mention Isaac on the mountain where Jesus was crucified.

 

[sojourner]

Yet, Gen 3 speaks of it in the sending of the Messiah whose heal would be bruised but the head of the Serpent would be crushed. Then it continues to Isaiah 53 not to mention Isaac on the mountain where Jesus was crucified.

1) The whole serpent thing had nothing to do with a messiah concept -- it simply isn't present in that story.
2) The whole Isaac thing never happened, did it? A sheep was provided.

Human sacrifice simply wasn't part of the picture.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I'm not so sure about that. The greek term Paul uses for "resurrection" literally is the same term one would use for "getting up" from sleep. So, at lest at some point, Paul did envision a physical resurrection. The trouble is that, for the new Christian Movement, resurrection is a reasonably newfangled idea, so Paul "tries on" different conceptions at different times, kind of flying by the seat of his pants, theologically.

I think Paul is doing his best to convey ideas that don't fit very well into conventional language. Especially not Greek, which is doggedly concrete in its imagery, even when it's trying to be abstract. It's just not easy to talk about what Paul's trying to talk about in the language he's using, or perhaps in any language. See for example the excursus in his letter to the Corinthians in which he talks about there being 3 types of "bodies," only one of which is actually a physical body as we would understand it, and it's explicitly not the one that pertains to resurrection. But one thing Greek does do is metaphor, so the literal meaning of "resurrection" in Greek doesn't at all refute what I'm saying. In fact, it's closer to my idea of what he's talking about, which is not so much a literal resuscitation of corpses, but rather an almost Buddhist-style Awakening from a state that is variously likened to sleep or even death. The way in which early Christian writers use the word "death" is a big clue there, as in many instances it clearly doesn't refer to the cessation of physiological processes; it's more like the unaware state in which the unsaved live their lives.

1) The whole serpent thing had nothing to do with a messiah concept -- it simply isn't present in that story.
2) The whole Isaac thing never happened, did it? A sheep was provided.

Human sacrifice simply wasn't part of the picture.

True, there's nothing in Genesis about Messiahs. That concept developed much later.

The Isaac thing is funny because I wonder if the ending of that story got revised at some point. It's terribly anticlimactic and incoherent even by mythographic standards, and it may be that what was originally a human sacrifice was later averted, despite the way in which it deflates everything and ends up sending all the wrong messages (e.g. that being willing to make your kid into a human sacrifice is laudable, as long as the right god asks you to). Or maybe I'm overthinking it and it is in fact original, based on the fact that it sends all the wrong messages, which tends to be the case with early myths, given values dissonance and all. It really is a horrid story by modern standards, in any case.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't agree. There were daily blood sacrifices given throughout etc.

What is your meaning? That Yeshua was part and parcel of daily blood sacrifices? When? Where? Yeshua was a Nazarene, correct?

 

[Vishvavajra]

I checked it...

1 is irrelevant
All the others were done AFTER the Jews had already celebrated it. So, if anything, the pagans took after Jewish customs.

Oddly enough, the one pagan holiday that Christianity did adopt and recontextualize was Saturnalia, a.k.a. Christmas—a.k.a. the only reason Jesus's birth is celebrated in December, since nobody has a clue when he was born—which wasn't mentioned. Otherwise the Christian calendar is pretty much cribbed from the Jewish one.

The dying-and-resurrected god stuff is a fair cop, but that's something that goes back millennia before Jesus and doesn't belong to any single culture. However, it might have influenced later ways of conceptualizing Jesus, as more and more Syrians and Egyptians and Greeks and other folks joined the Christian fold, bringing their ideas with them. And in any case I doubt Jesus would have chosen to be seen that way, if he'd had his druthers. At no point does he use any concept that wasn't already there in the Judaism of his day, although he does use some of them in novel ways.

 

[Vishvavajra]

What is your meaning? That Yeshua was part and parcel of daily blood sacrifices? When? Where? Yeshua was a Nazarene, correct?

"Nazarene" means someone from Nazareth. Not sure what his birthplace has to do with anything.

Well, after that it did refer to Christians, as it still does in some places, for reasons that probably don't need explaining.

 

[godnotgod]

"Nazarene" means someone from Nazareth. Not sure what his birthplace has to do with anything.

Well, after that it did refer to Christians, as it still does in some places, for reasons that probably don't need explaining.

We have no evidence of a 1st century 'town of Nazareth' having existed. There is no mention of a Nazareth in the OT, nor on any maps, etc. Josephus lived just one mile away from present day Nazareth in Japha, had written about 45 Galilean towns and villages, but no mention of Nazareth. But suddenly, Nazareth is mentioned 24 times in the NT, decades later.

We DO have a reference to Nazarenes as a SECT in Acts 24:5:

“We have found this man, who is a corruptor and agitator of tumult to all the Jews who are in every land, for he is the leader of the doctrine of The Nazarene.”
Aramaic Bible