who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[logician]

Constantine.

 

[Somkid]

But a Christian is a follower of Christ. Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, could hardly have been His own follower. He was the one who proclaimed the doctrines, ordinances and organizational structure of His Church.

Ok we have to look at this logically not based on opinion or what we want it to be.
Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi his followers were Jews not Christians. The most important day (holiday) in Christianity is Easter because it is the day Jesus "came back from the dead" thus starting the ball rolling for Christianity. Jesus used the old testament as there was no new testament thus he could not "proclaimed the doctrines" because they were not written until after his death. I have read many arguments that Jesus is the founder of Christianity because by spilling his blood the religion was founded but I don't like that argument because it is obvious Jesus didn't go forth and spread the teachings of Christianity nor did he found the church. However; Paul and his Gentile follower had the energy and organization skills that actually got Christianity off to its start. Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Well thats my idea anyway

 

[kai]

Ok we have to look at this logically not based on opinion or what we want it to be.
Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi his followers were Jews not Christians. The most important day (holiday) in Christianity is Easter because it is the day Jesus "came back from the dead" thus starting the ball rolling for Christianity. Jesus used the old testament as there was no new testament thus he could not "proclaimed the doctrines" because they were not written until after his death. I have read many arguments that Jesus is the founder of Christianity because by spilling his blood the religion was founded but I don't like that argument because it is obvious Jesus didn't go forth and spread the teachings of Christianity nor did he found the church. However; Paul and his Gentile follower had the energy and organization skills that actually got Christianity off to its start. Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Well thats my idea anyway

so i think the religion of jesus that jesus actually practised, his method of worship his outlook on life his adherence to the law , was really watered down altered and administered into the religion of Paul and the gentiles while the ministy of james and the church of jerusalem died out or went into obscurity

 

[Katzpur]

Ok we have to look at this logically not based on opinion or what we want it to be.

Evidently, what's logical to me is not logical to you, though.

Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi his followers were Jews not Christians.

His followers (at least the first ones), were indeed Jewish, but they accepted his message, which went far beyond what was recorded in the Old Testament.

Jesus used the old testament as there was no new testament thus he could not "proclaimed the doctrines" because they were not written until after his death.

So, if He'd written down His "Sermon on the Mount" it would have been His doctrine. Since someone else wrote it down some time later, it was not?

I have read many arguments that Jesus is the founder of Christianity because by spilling his blood the religion was founded but I don't like that argument because it is obvious Jesus didn't go forth and spread the teachings of Christianity nor did he found the church.

Well, I completely disagree with you, but I don't suppose that comes as much of a surprise.

However; Paul and his Gentile follower had the energy and organization skills that actually got Christianity off to its start. Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Paul followed the original twelve Apostles and Jesus gave Peter the keys of authority to direct the affairs of His Church after His death. Christ's disciples may not have been called "Christians" immediately after His death, but they definitely did believe themselves to be His followers. There were many who followed Jesus, long before Paul ever entered the scene.

 

[Katzpur]

Its not only the LDS interpretation that is different than yours, but I believe most every other christian denomination translates this scripture to say Jesus built his church on the revalation that he is the christ.

Its pretty plain to see in the scriptures that thats what he was saying there. For some reason , Catholics cannot see it or just refuse to change there stance. o well...

We believe that Jesus built His Church on the rock of revelation, not on a person. On the other hand, we do believe that He gave the keys of authority to Peter.

 

[kai]

We believe that Jesus built His Church on the rock of revelation, not on a person. On the other hand, we do believe that He gave the keys of authority to Peter.

i am more likely to beleive in giving over his leadership to peter than this paul, i think if it wasnt for paul christianity would be radically different

 

[Katzpur]

i am more likely to beleive in giving over his leadership to peter than this paul, i think if it wasnt for paul christianity would be radically different

Well, He clearly did give it to Peter -- at least initially. But I believe Paul to have been called as an Apostle later on, so I believe he acted with authority, too. On the other hand, I don't believe he was running the show alone. The Apostles acted as a unified body and would have all pretty much agreed on matters of doctrine and policy. Paul was obviously the most prolific of the group, but I don't believe he was saying anything the others would not have agreed with. Then, too, I don't believe we have a complete record of everything any of the Apostles said. Certain things Paul taught are probably misinterpreted to a certain extent, simply because we don't know the whole picture.

 

[kai]

Well, He clearly did give it to Peter -- at least initially. But I believe Paul to have been called as an Apostle later on, so I believe he acted with authority, too. On the other hand, I don't believe he was running the show alone. The Apostles acted as a unified body and would have all pretty much agreed on matters of doctrine and policy. Paul was obviously the most prolific of the group, but I don't believe he was saying anything the others would not have agreed with. Then, too, I don't believe we have a complete record of everything any of the Apostles said. Certain things Paul taught are probably misinterpreted to a certain extent, simply because we don't know the whole picture.

thanks it a subject i am very interested in , the transformation from judaism to the christianity of paul , and how the judaic principles were gradually taken out when jesus obviosly celebrated passover etc

 

[Somkid]

Like talking to a wall, people want proof of fiction you tell them what they want to hear and they say it is incorrect.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

IMHO Paul's lameness has overshadowed
the WONDER of Y'shua's message
to the point that "CHRISTianity"
has little to do with "the Christ message".

Might as well just call it "Paulianity".

I agree....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

yes i agree and you know what most Christians i know don't even know it, they think Paul was an actual disciple

I've been trying to tell them but I am just one crying foul in the wilderness that is RF......

Seriously, wasn't it Paul that took his preaching to the gentiles?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But a Christian is a follower of Christ. Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, could hardly have been His own follower. He was the one who proclaimed the doctrines, ordinances and organizational structure of His Church.

But where did he do that? He was a follower of the laws. He actually said none of those laws would pass. He was often found in the temple teaching as well as preaching to the masses. I don't think Paul taught the gentiles to follow the Abrahamic laws (okay, okay...may the big 10)....

Just my opinion....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

what if you suspected through research that that tradition was wrong or corrupted and that the teachings and traditions of jesus himself were still being followed by some sect in transjordan unaltered from then till now.

I agree. The catholic tradition was not the only tradition back then.

 

[godnotgod]

My take:

The real flesh and blood man was Yeshua, a Jewish mystic of the Nazarene (Nazorean Essene) cult, whose teachings did NOT include blood sacrifice, bodily resurrection, nor a virgin birth. Yeshua's teachings were EASTERN teachings, strongly influenced by Buddism, which traveled along the Silk Route from India into the Middle East, especially via the Therapeutae, an Essene healing sect established in Egypt and Greece, and which was connected to Yeshua's Mt. Carmel Essene monastery just 10 miles outside of modern day Nazareth. These teachings were based on the breath as the life force, as contrasted to pagan and modern Christian teachings, which are blood based. The Eastern based teachings required difficult inner spiritual work to achieve realization, and therefore, had no mass appeal. Paul and Rome wanted to convert the pagans to the new religion, but the pagans already had the promise of eternal life in Mithraism. So Paul simply overwrote the breath based teachings of the Essene Yeshua with the blood based pagan doctrines of Mithra* in order to lure the pagans for conversion into his new religion. The convert only had to submit to 'Jesus' as his personal Lord and savior. He didn't actually have to KNOW anything, or do the difficult inner work required of Yeshua's teachings. Therefore, this new doctrine had mass appeal, something both Paul wanted from a religious POV, and Rome wanted from a political POV. The teachings of Yeshua were largely destroyed by Rome and lay in shambles by the roadside for centuries. Only lately have they come to be restored. Some of them survived and are in the Biblical texts. Here is a link to those teachings and how the Church contaminated them:

Yeshua before 30 CE

*Paul was born and raised in Tarsus, a seaport and center of Mithraic teachings.

 

[roger1440]

neither

 

[godnotgod]

neither

"....the mystery religion that Paul was exposed to in his hometown Tarsus, in the province of Celicia, was NOT Roman Mithraism but Persian Mithraism. Celicia was at the outskirts of the former Persian Empire, right at the border of the Greco-Roman world and the Persia world. In fact, Encyclopedia Britannica provides support of this thesis of mine. For it explains how Mithraism was marginalized in its native land, Persia, because of its central ceremony, the sacrifice of the bull. Since Zoraster denounced bull sacrifice, it became an abhorrence for every Zoroastrian. In fact, according to Britannica, by the time Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire around 330 BC, the worship of Mithra could no longer be found in Persia. Effectively, Mithraism was forced to migrate due to pressure from Zorastrianism. Britannica says that “local aristocrats in the western part of the former Persian Empire(the region around Tarsus) retained their devotion to Mithra. The kings and nobles of the border region between the Greco-Roman and the Iranian world still worshipped him.”

This would explain why the center for Mithra worship moved from Persia to Paul’s birthplace, Tarsus, which was a thriving intellectual hub and a melting-pot of religions in the first century BC.


To conclude, while it is historically true that Mithraism did not flourish in Rome until the beginning of the second century AD, the first contact between Mithraism and Christianity was most likely to have happened during the lifetime of Paul in the Hellenistic city of Tarsus, which was an old seaport with a long history of Mithra worship. It is highly likely that Paul, in an attempt to woo the Gentile believers, deliberately incorporated elements of Mithraism into his brand of Gentile Christianity. Even today, remnant of Mithraism is most evident in the Christian Eucharist, which involves the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of a deity(Christ). Since the drinking of blood has always been an abomination in Judaism, it is much more logical to attribute this ritual to Mithraism, which had a much similar ritual. In addition, the setting of the birthday of Christ on December 25th, which was Mithra birthday, and the shifting of the day of worship from Friday(Sabbath) to Sunday(the day of the Sun) are further reminders of Christianity’s debt to its pagan predecessor."

PAUL AND THE PAGAN RELIGION OF MITHRAISM

 

[wizanda]

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.

James the Just was with the Ebionites (Poor ones), who opposed the idea of Yeshua being a sacrifice; at the start of Acts, these were more than likely the early followers of Yeshua, as they kept his teachings, believing the commandments were the stairway to heaven and by giving up wealth.
Paul and the Pharisees systematically tried to destroy these, as it would make Judaism penniless, instead of the opposite.
Christianity wasn't applied to the early followers, as they had names like 'Followers of the Way'; Christianity was a term given to the followers of Paul and Simon the stone (petros)'s church in Antioch.

History is mostly told by the victor (His-Story).

 

[jtartar]

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.

Kai,
By the things that Jesus taught, he set the foundation for Christianity, 1Cor 3:11, Eph 2:20. Here Paul was talking about the foundation of Christianity, which was started when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost of 33CE.
However there is a fine distinction here, because Jesus did nit actually teach Christianity, because Jesus was born a Jew, so he was under the Mosaic Law Covenant. The things taught were also going to be in the New Covenant that Jesus instituted on the night before his death, The Last Supper, or The Lord's Evening Meal, Luke 22:19,20, 1Cor 11:23-26. When Jesus died that was the end of the Mosaic Law Covenant, Rom 7:4-6, Gal 3:10-14, 23-25, Col 2:13,14, Heb 8:6-13, 2Cor 3:6-16. As these scriptures teach, no one is under The Mosaic Law Covenant. The Mosaic Law Covenant was only given to the Jews, and was only an interim, a De Bene Esse covenant, only until The Messiah, Christ would come, Jere 31:31-34, Deut 5:1-3, Ps 147:19,20. Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Covenant, Rom 2:14.
After Jesus gave The Great Ransom Sacrifice, died for us, no person on earth was under The Mosaic Law Covenant, it had been Superceded by The New Covenant, Rom 6:14,15.
There were some things that were in the old covenant that were reiterated, and were also in the New Covenant, but the Old Covenant ended with the death of Jesus.

 

[godnotgod]

Kai,
By the things that Jesus taught, he set the foundation for Christianity, 1Cor 3:11, Eph 2:20. Here Paul was talking about the foundation of Christianity, which was started when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost of 33CE.
However there is a fine distinction here, because Jesus did nit actually teach Christianity, because Jesus was born a Jew, so he was under the Mosaic Law Covenant. The things taught were also going to be in the New Covenant that Jesus instituted on the night before his death, The Last Supper, or The Lord's Evening Meal, Luke 22:19,20, 1Cor 11:23-26. When Jesus died that was the end of the Mosaic Law Covenant, Rom 7:4-6, Gal 3:10-14, 23-25, Col 2:13,14, Heb 8:6-13, 2Cor 3:6-16. As these scriptures teach, no one is under The Mosaic Law Covenant. The Mosaic Law Covenant was only given to the Jews, and was only an interim, a De Bene Esse covenant, only until The Messiah, Christ would come, Jere 31:31-34, Deut 5:1-3, Ps 147:19,20. Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Covenant, Rom 2:14.
After Jesus gave The Great Ransom Sacrifice, died for us, no person on earth was under The Mosaic Law Covenant, it had been Superceded by The New Covenant, Rom 6:14,15.
There were some things that were in the old covenant that were reiterated, and were also in the New Covenant, but the Old Covenant ended with the death of Jesus.

Jesus was a Jewish mystic of the cult of the Nazarenes, who were Essenes. According to modern Essenes:

At the time of Jesus, there were three distinct Essenian groups that played important roles in his life, and their religious practices and spiritual theology mirror in his teachings. They were:

• The Theraputae of Egypt; where the infant Christ and his family fled during Herods rein.
  
  
• The Essenes of Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), the strict, celibate monastery of which John the Baptist was a part.
  
  
• The Nazarenes of Mount Carmel, the cooperative family village where Jesus lived and studied

Nazarene or Nazareth?

The Theraputae were healers; the Qumran Essenes were apocalyptic Essenes; and the Nazarenes were mystics.

The Nazarene Essenes taught no doctrine of bodily resurrection, blood sacrifice, nor a virgin birth, all of which are core Christian doctrines without which Christianity would not exist as it does today. So no. Jesus (Yeshua) could not have laid such a foundation. That foundation had already been laid long before via the teachings of Mithra:

"The missionaries promoting Yeshua as the messiah for humankind simply wrote them [Mithra's teachings] into the narrations about Yeshua. A list of characteristics of Mithras follows. Remember that these were centuries old before Yeshua was even born. You'll see what was borrowed to make Yeshua more appealing to the pagan Mithraites:

1. Mithras was born of a virgin who was given the title of "Mother of God"
2. Mithras was born on December 25. Before Constantine (a follower of Mithras) changed the date, the birth date Yeshua's followers observed was January 6. However, Yeshua's birth, based on the descriptions, would actually have been in the spring.
3. Mithras was born in a cave (stable), and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
4. Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
5. Mithras had 12 companions or disciples.
6. Mithras performed miracles.
7. Mithras' followers were baptized.
8. Mithras suffered to bring salvation to a sin-cursed humankind.
9. Mithras was buried in a tomb and rose after three days. (Yeshua rose after a day and a half, but the gospel accounts used the three days to fit with Mithras' story, in spite of the obvious disparity in the timeline.)
10. Mithras' resurrection was celebrated every year.
11. Mithras ascended into heaven after finishing his deeds.
12. Mithras' followers were promised immortality.
13. Mithras was called “the good shepherd” and identified with both the lamb and the lion.
14. Mithras was called the “way, the truth and the light,” " logos,” "word," “redeemer,” “savior” and “messiah.”
15. On the Judgment Day, Mithras would use the keys of heaven to unlock the gates of Paradise to receive the faithful. All the unbaptized living and dead would perish.
16. Mithra's sacred day was Sunday, called the “Lord’s day” because Mithraism was a sun religion. Yeshua's sacred day was changed from the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday, to match Mithras' day.
17. Mithras had his principal festival on the day that was later to become Easter for Christians.
18. Mithras' religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which Mithras said, “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”
19. On a final day of judgment, the dead would resurrect and in a final conflict, the existing order would be destroyed and light would triumph over darkness.

Since all of these characteristics of Mithras predated Yeshua by fourteen hundred years, Mithraism could not have copied the Yeshua story; it had to be the reverse. These details about Yeshua were not in the earliest sources. They appeared later."

Paul and the Mystery Religions

 

[truthofscripture]

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.

It's true Jesus was born under the Law, but preached the coming earthly rule by the Kingdom of the Heavens. Just before his death, he initiated a few things at what people call the last supper. One was the memorial of Jesus' death. He also, that night, initiated the Christian Congregation, which wasn't a religion as per se, but as Jesus called it, is "the one true faith". And Jesus also started the new covenant, having fulfilled the Law Covenant (Mosaic Law). The Law Covenant required blood for sin, and had 600 pretty strict laws that no one could actually satisfy. The New covenant provided for forgiveness based on the sacrifice Jesus was about to make. It wasn't even called Christianity at that time, but was a little later on. Now Christianity, not being a religion as we know religion today, is not what sects/denominations profess today. They are what they called themselves a few centuries later, Christendom. It is actually half pagan and half Christian in beliefs and traditions. Christianity shuns all things pagan, Christendom embraces them. Jesus taught that clergy were seeking their own glory, yet Christendom is FILLED with them. Christianity hopes for the Kingdom rule of Earth as the only hope for mankind, and Christendom fornicates with governments as man's only hope. Christendom seeks money from it's participants, and in fact practically demands it. In fact Christendom has many implements for collecting cash, like plates, baskets, envelopes, automatic deductions and the like. Christianity does not solicit money donations, but gladly accepts them. Christendom permissive with regards to morality and many things forbidden in the scriptures, Christians, REAL Christians, actually live according to what every word of the scriptures tells them, Christendom avoids teaching the scriptures to their participants. There are many differences.

As far as the Jewish holidays are concerned, Jesus said they're not under law any more, and it was mandated that those holidays be celebrated/participated in. The Law covenant ended, and so did those mandates. As a result of the Law ending, Pharisees and others including the scribes developed Judaism, a new religion, out of the old Law Covenant. It is a religion created by man, where as the Law Covenant, although not a religion, was created by God.