-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?
- Thread starter kai
- Start date
Jesus. Paul was a screwup with dumb dogma. Christianity grew when it reached out to Gentiles not overly concerning itself with Judaism.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
For me I would say that Emperor of Rome Constantine, had a lot to do with it.
truthofscripture
Active Member
What deity would that be? I never said anything about a blood sacrifrice of a deity. In fact, that would be impossible. God is a mighty spirit being, not flesh and blood, and therefore cannot sacrifice blood.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I will repeat your own words: [bracketed words are mine]:
"The Law Covenant required blood [sacrifice] for sin... The New covenant provided for forgiveness based on the [blood] sacrifice Jesus was about to make.... Christianity shuns all things pagan, Christendom embraces them."
The deity is Jesus in the flesh, the "Lamb of God who takest away the sins of the world"
"For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Matt 26:28
So I repeat: "are you saying that the blood sacrifice of the deity is not pagan?"
truthofscripture
Active Member
Jesus was not a deity. His sacrifice was not pagan.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Jesus was not divine?
Blood sacrifice is not pagan?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Jesus's ''sacrifice'' is not comparable to the Temple sacrifices, completely different concepts. The fact that Jesus is around after the sacrifice, by all accounts, also means that this is not a ''sacrifice'', like a Temple one.
Same word, different meanings.
truthofscripture
Active Member
Jesus was not divine in the sense you mean. He was not God, he was God's only begotten son. Jesus' sacrifice was his life, and no, his sacrifice was not pagan. That's an absurd thing to believe it was. Completely absurd.
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
The christianity form of today is founded by Paul. Paul came with the stories that jesus pbuh is divine. After Rome accepted his version of christianity, all other christians who believed in the prophethood of jesus pbuh and rejected the socalled divinity were slaughterd by the swords of Pauline followers.
The cruel persecuation of Arianism, ebionite christians and many others is well documented in the history books.
The cruel persecuation of Arianism, ebionite christians and many others is well documented in the history books.
truthofscripture
Active Member
Christendom of today is a close version of what Constantine initiated in 325 a.d. It's not what Paul started, because Paul started nothing. It was the Christ who began the Christian Congregation, although not a religion, he called it "the one true faith". What religions claiming to be Christian are is Christendom. They're half pagan and half Christian. Even one part per billion pagan, makes them false religion. Christendom (all sects/denominations) is false religion. Christianity is the only true faith. Jesus taught no religion, and began no church or religion. Neither did Paul. Paul witnessed for Jesus for the balance of his life. Witnessing for Jesus is not "creating a religion".
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
Paul himself was rejected by the true disciples of prophet Jesus pbuh. They deemed him as corrupter and one who deviated from the straight path. The true message of jesus pbuh was within the ebionite community. They believed in him as prophet and as messiah while observing sabbath, and the law of Moses. They are the succesful ones.
truthofscripture
Active Member
There is not one shred of scriptural evidence to support your claim.
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
The conflict between Paul and the apostles is not something i just invented now.
Paul vs Apostles
paul and james in open conflict in the book of acts
truthofscripture
Active Member
No. That is your misunderstanding of the scriptures. Paul was quite revered by the other apostles, and Jesus' disciples. In fact, Paul was the fiercest proponent of Jesus and his teachings, of all the apostles. Strange, because previously, he was the fiercest opponent of such. After Jesus appeared to Paul, he spent the balance of his life fighting for Jesus and the Christian Congregation. Paul spent the balance of his life saving others.
outhouse
Atheistically
False.
It was founded by Jesus, and his martyrdom after death. Paul founded nothing. he joined a movement already in progress in the Diaspora.
He was one of many Hellenist following the mythology.
No he joined a movement of people who had already found Jesus divine.
Before making comments on topics you know nothing about, you should study so you converse without so many errors.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Same word, same meaning: both were/are the means by which redemption of sin occurred. Both involve a scapegoat. Jesus is 'the Lamb of God', after the Paschal, or Spring Lamb, whose blood is innocent and pure, slaughtered as the host by which sin is washed away.
Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
John 1:29
For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matt 26:28
The 'fact' that Jesus was around after the sacrifice simply means that he did not die. Why is another story.
godnotgod
Thou art That
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
Mithraism: the bull is slaughtered and its flesh and blood consumed as Eucharist; initiates wash themselves in the blood of the bull as a purification ritual.
Christianity: Jesus, the Lamb of God, is slaughtered whose flesh and blood are symbolically consumed as Eucharist; Christians symbolically wash themselves in the blood of Jesus as a purification ritual.
Both are pagan, blood based rituals whose intent is the washing away of sin. The key is the blood, superstitiously believed to have divine power to expunge sin, as opposed to Eastern wisdom, where it is the breath that is the life-force, and not the blood. It is the breath, the living spirit, that has transformative power. Here, no blood sacrifice is necessary, as in the pagan rituals.
truthofscripture
Active Member
Jesus sacrifice was made to REPLACE, once and for all tiime, the temple sacrifices, which were merely a substitute, and a poor one at that, as animal blood cannot atone for sins. The Law Covenant was instituted as a temporary method, and as a preface to the formation of the Christian Congregation. The New Covenant was instituted to replace the completed and fulfilled Law Covenant.
godnotgod
Thou art That
The idea was that what was considered to be divine blood had the power of redemption, but we are still talking blood sacrifice here, no matter which way you cut it. But again, Jesus was a Nazarene, whose teachings did NOT include those of blood sacrifice. These doctrines came from the pagan religions. Jesus was crucified for sedition on the one hand, and blasphemy on the other. The notion of sin redemption was added later.
One might say that no sacrificial host, whether grain or animal, had been sufficient enough in the eyes of God. The only acceptable host was God himself in the flesh, and that person was Jesus.
Last edited: