/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16314305]

Christian bros, I'm almost done reading the bible and I'm getting kind of nervous. Did Paul and John invent Christianity? Basically everything that most Christian churches emphasize come from the Gospel of John and Paul's books. The divinity of Jesus isn't even clear from the other gospels...

[Anonymous No.16314316]

>>16314305
I only follow Jesus teachings, not that institutionalized bullshit

[Anonymous No.16314321]

God is a nigger

[Anonymous No.16314332]

>>16314321
Based

[Anonymous No.16314344]

>>16314316
So you don't believe Jesus is God?

[Anonymous No.16314348]

>>16314305
Paul is a hack fraud. My trust lies with Jesus.

[Anonymous No.16314376]

>>16314344
I don't care about Jesus the God, I care about Jesus the man, and he is definetly one of the most amazing people to have ever walked this earth

[Anonymous No.16314382]

>>16314305
>Christian bros, I'm almost done reading the bible and I'm getting kind of nervous.
Cover to cover? Nice. Which version? Does it have the apocrypha?

>Did Paul and John invent Christianity?
Nah, but they certainly helped explain it, what Jesus taught and what his death meant.

>Basically everything that most Christian churches emphasize come from the Gospel of John and Paul's books.
How so? Orthodoxy comes from the sum of the whole bible really.

>The divinity of Jesus isn't even clear from the other gospels...
It's ultimately up to you whether you accept or reject the theology. You can take the core message of Christianity, the teachings of Jesus, and ignore the rest technically. I find the richness of the bible as a whole worth keeping as lore for reality. Sorta like epic poems, you can either enjoy the idea that this fills a hole in history, or just read it plainly ignoring that it was meant to be believed.

Autorial intent is a question with many answers, but if you read a holy book without at least pretending to believe it, you aren't going to enjoy their richness as much as if you did believe.

[Anonymous No.16314517]

>>16314382
Yes, I started in the Old Testament. I am in 1 Timothy now, NIV so no apocrypha. I come from a Protestant background.

I do believe. I was just not expecting to see how reliant modern theology is on John and Paul, and it's shaken me. It's like churches care more about what Paul had to say about Jesus than what Jesus had to say himself.

> but if you read a holy book without at least pretending to believe it, you aren't going to enjoy their richness as much as if you did believe.
I understand. I really enjoyed reading the Old Testament, and I don't think I would have if I wasn't a believer.

[Anonymous No.16314576]

>>16314305
>Did Paul and John invent Christianity?
Mostly Paul. John is just there for background information. That's actually the main reason Christianity lost itself so early on. Too much of a focus on Paul. Catholicism isn't Christianity. It's Pagan-Paulism.

[Anonymous No.16314620]

>>16314517
Glad you replied. Just so you know, the NIV is maligned by many as an inferior version, but if you have read it and enjoyed it it can't possibly be as bad as they say. I've a copy but never touched it yet, might just have to.

To accept the New Testament, you have to accept a certain degree of irony, and a completely novel mode of thought (at least to the writers and readers of the OT). It is plenty ironic that Jesus the savior came as a poor man who stood against the Israelites and was crucified by the Romans. It is even moreso that we don't have perfect record of his sayings, rather four fairly divergent accounts from decades after. It is ironic that the savior came not just to save the men from their rulers on Earth, rather from the dogma surrounding the word of God itself. "The sabbath was created for man, not man for the sabbath." The idea that the law should submit to the good of people, rather than people be subject to it; revolutionary.

It is another irony that the most prolific Christian, Paul, never met Christ in his life. Accounts of Paul's conversion experience, the first vision of ressurrected Jesus, take it as metaphor, whatever. He was the first authentic Christian convert, being converted rather than joining the following of the man Jesus, and the effects of converter's zeal would (obviously) be far-reaching. Paul understood the core of Christ's message of freedom, which is why his letters, which guided the early churchgoers in spreading the faith, are deemed sacred.

[Anonymous No.16314626]

>>16314517
>>16314620
Pt.2
John, who wrote his Gospel not as a summation of various accounts like the synoptics, but rather a personal testament of his relationship with Christ the man (in addition to what was revealed to him in Revelation, the greatest work of prophecy known to man), is deserving of his spot where all he wrote is deemed sacred as well (even some snippets that seem pointless).

Imagine you lived in the world of the New Testament. The theological context, of Jews attempting to rope Greeks and the world into their strict covenant with god (which is only comparable to Islam) demanded some sort of response. While many intellectuals might have attempted to debunk or disprove the faith, and enpooren the race of men from thereafter, the framers of the New Testament managed to resolve the conflict, save the Jews (that were willing and not primed against being saved), and build the greatest religion known to man, out of an ironic anti-religion.

[Anonymous No.16314633]

>>16314517
>>16314626
Pt. 3/3
This is the meaning I take from it, and why I accept the Christian faith as technically true. It 1. Keeps the great Jewish national epic, 2. Ropes in all of the world into knowing the monad God, and 3. Cures it of all it's ills at the time. Any problems with the Christian faith were truly a result of corruption of the doctrine, and can be cured through reading the New Testament.

As for the trinity, which many find tough to accept, which is really a genius on part of the Christians, here it is:
God the father, being that being written about in the OT, surely demands recognition as an aspect of "God."
God the son, being extant in the words of Christ as they were recorded, which surely deserve elevation to that of core doctrinehood, is only known in the New.
The Holy Spirit, nebulous to some, is very clear to me: it is that force behind the writings of the bible, which has left its mark certainly on all of human affairs because of this.

Heretics said then, "Jesus was son of a Roman soldier," they say now, "Jesus never existed," I say, both may be true, but that he was "concieved of the Holy Spirit" as stated in the creed of Nicaea is compatible with both, as well as the narrative recorded in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.16314867]

"Jesus told Satan that no one should be worshipped and served except God: “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve’" (Matt. 4:10; cf.Luke 4:8). But after Jesus walked on water the disciples worshipped him; "And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God'” (Matt. 14:33). According to Jesus, only God is to be worshipped, then why did God the Father send wise men to worship baby Jesus if he’s not God (Matt. 2:2)? Did God the Father get it wrong too? Didn’t Jesus receive worship from others as well? (Matt. 8:2;28:9,17;Luke 24:52). The first Gospel records that the Son of Man will send his angels inMatthew 13:41(cf.Matt. 26:53). However, Luke writes that these are God’s angels (cf.Luke 12:8-9;15:10). So, how could Jesus send angels if he wasn’t God? And Jesus said he will judge the world (Matt. 25:31-46;John 5:21-22,27). But doesn’t the Bible teach that God will judge the world? (cf.Deut. 32:35;Psa. 50:1-6;Joel 3:12)"


https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/50247

[Anonymous No.16314876]

>>16314305
Read "Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World". Good insights about their job on creating christianity.

[Anonymous No.16314884]

>>16314382
>Does it have the apocrypha?
found the complete idiot.

[Anonymous No.16314963]

>>16314884
>not reading the female followers of Jesus who accepted them just as the others
ngmi

[Anonymous No.16314987]

>>16314321
Reminds me of that schizo post that said that the sun was the biggest nigger in the universe

[Anonymous No.16315066]

>>16314305
>Bros, why is Christianity based on The New Testament and not The Old Testament?
It's almost like Christianity has something to do with Jesus and The New Testament is entirely about Jesus and the schism he created in Judaism.

[Anonymous No.16315072]

>>16314305
People still argue, whether folks screamed to Pontius Pilate who had asked whom to spare "Bar Abbas" (Son of God) or "Barrabas", the criminal who was later pardoned.

[Anonymous No.16315097]

>>16314305
You should be. Your entire dogma is little more than noise. On page 6 Jesus says X bad. On page 7 Jesus says X good. Pick your page. Better yet, quit blaming your dumb decisions on an ancient book written by a committee of pseuds.

[Anonymous No.16315112]

Jesus was a pious Jewish man, his teachings were a polemic against the corrupt institutions present in Judea at the time. After his death his disciples were unable to cope, synthesized his ideas with the Jewish idea of messiah, and created the "Second Coming" to brush aside inconsistencies.

[Anonymous No.16315162]

>>16315066
You know that's not what I'm saying. It's strange how little Jesus talks about his divinity, especially in the three Gospels that actually corroborate each other.
>>16314620
>>16314626
>>16314633
Thanks. Can you elaborate on
>Heretics said then, "Jesus was son of a Roman soldier," they say now, "Jesus never existed," I say, both may be true, but that he was "concieved of the Holy Spirit" as stated in the creed of Nicaea is compatible with both, as well as the narrative recorded in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.16315364]

>>16315162
Just some additional thoughts I had about the arguments for and against Jesus. Anti-christian writers of the Roman era claimed Jesus' true father was a soldier named Pantera in order to deligitimize his Davidic lineage. Anti-christian writers today write things like this:
https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Doubt/dp/1909697494.. My point about the conception of the Holy Spirit is explained as follows:

If he were literally concieved of Pantera, then the interpretation that the Holy Spirit had chosen for him to be concieved and live as child of Joseph and Mary is true (Joseph chose to adopt Jesus, remember). This would also have the effect of making Jesus at the very least certainly half-white, so it is not an argument heard today.

If he were completely fabricated by the authors of the NT, then that Holy Spirit which guided the hands of the writers is responsible for his conception and the proliferation of his message. This is a piece of irony that is well suited to the whole religion, as we have no definitive proof of either his existence or non-existence (similar to God).

So, even if Jesus was born of a Roman, he was seen as Davidic, and therefore was. Even if Jesus wasn't real, he was seen as real, and therefore was. That the remainder of jews came to reject him is irrelevant; that a savior came to them in such a way as to resolve their ethnic faith and bring about co-prosperity (should they accept it) is all that matters.

Really though, much of this is just my personal interpretation. I like it because it reconciles religion with reality so as to benefit both the faithful and the faithless, without undermining the core good of either perspective.

[Anonymous No.16315384]

>>16315162
Also, in response to yours to the other anon, it is another element of irony, that the savior and son of god be humble and not say outwardly that he is either, because it would be obvious that anyone claiming to be the son of god is doing so in vain. Jesus gets to be The son of god because he earned it, not because he taught it.

[Urantia reader No.16315393]

>>16314305
>Jesuism, also called Jesusism or Jesuanism, is the teachings of Jesus in distinction to the teachings of mainstream Christianity.[1] In particular, the term is often contrasted with Pauline Christianity and mainstream church dogma.[2][3]
>In 1878, freethinker and former Shaker D. M. Bennett wrote that "Jesuism", as distinct from "Paulism", was the gospel taught by Peter, John and James, and the Messianic doctrine of a new Jewish sect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism

[Anonymous No.16315406]

Not even christian, nor have I read much of the bible, but I'd like to say this thread has an unusually high quality. Good job anons.

[Anonymous No.16315429]

>>16314376
either Christ was a raving lunatic who thought he was god or he was god. There's no wiggle room here with this bullshit of "I think Jesus was a good man but not god" a good man doesn't lie.

[Anonymous No.16315436]

>>16314376
>I care about Jesus the man, and he is definetly one of the most amazing people to have ever walked this earth
He was a high IQ (at least 175) guy born into a sub 100 IQ world.

[Anonymous No.16315448]

>>16315429
hello CS Lewis thought you were dead bro

[BASED No.16315482]

> Some day a reformation in the Christian church may strike deep enough to get back to the unadulterated religious teachings of Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. You may preach a religion about Jesus, but, perforce, you must live the religion of Jesus. In the enthusiasm of Pentecost, Peter unintentionally inaugurated a new religion, the religion of the risen and glorified Christ. The Apostle Paul later on transformed this new gospel into Christianity, a religion embodying his own theologic views and portraying his own personal experience with the Jesus of the Damascus road. The gospel of the kingdom is founded on the personal religious experience of the Jesus of Galilee; Christianity is founded almost exclusively on the personal religious experience of the Apostle Paul. Almost the whole of the New Testament is devoted, not to the portrayal of the significant and inspiring religious life of Jesus, but to a discussion of Paul's religious experience and to a portrayal of his personal religious convictions. The only notable exceptions to this statement, aside from certain parts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are the Book of Hebrews and the Epistle of James. Even Peter, in his writing, only once reverted to the personal religious life of his Master. The New Testament is a superb Christian document, but it is only meagerly Jesusonian.

Do professed Christians fear the exposure of a self-sufficient and unconsecrated fellowship of social respectability and selfish economic maladjustment? Does institutional Christianity fear the possible jeopardy, or even the overthrow, of traditional ecclesiastical authority if the Jesus of Galilee is reinstated in the minds and souls of mortal men as the ideal of personal religious living? Indeed, the social readjustments, the economic transformations, the moral rejuvenations, and the religious revisions of Christian civilization would be drastic and revolutionary if the living religion of Jesus should suddenly supplant the theologic religion about Jesus.

[Anonymous No.16315532]

>>16315482
i'm starting to have strong doubts about paul bros

[Anonymous No.16315556]

>>16314305
Bro, no one actually believes any of that. We just pretend to to annoy the redditors. You really think we're gonna believe some cult leader with delusions of grandeur was the son of God? LMAO

[Anonymous No.16315560]

>>16314344
He was a Buddha

[Anonymous No.16315563]

>>16315482
Imagine being such a brainlet that you think because someone else was written of Jesus afterwards it means it wasn't in line with what he taught. Imagine being such a brainlet you think Christianity would function on Christ word alone when even he himself told the apostles to spread the word and make his church.

Seriously, this shit about "nah bro the real Jesus would have been like this based on my head canon!" is just psued's trying to justify their own short comings with parts of Christianity they like that hold no responsibility.

[Anonymous No.16315572]

>>16315563
>Imagine being such a brainlet you think Christianity would function on Christ word alone

[Anonymous No.16315587]

>>16315572
Actually read the bible. Please do make a case for concluding the gospels at Christs ascension into heaven and nothing else.

[Anonymous No.16315613]

>>16315393
>>16315482
Tell us more about these true teachings of Jesus found in your book.

>>16315532
What doubts? I don't think you're entirely wrong either, there is some of Paul that I don't love just as there is some of Matthew. I've come to accept for sure many of the writings of Paul though, Ephesians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians being my favorites (I don't love Romans as we have it).

[Anonymous No.16315850]

>>16315563
>Paul little dreamed that his well-intentioned letters to his converts would someday be regarded by still later Christians as the "word of God." Such well-meaning teachers must not be held accountable for the use made of their writings by later-day successors.
--------------------------
149:2.1.Jesus understood the minds of men. He knew what was in the heart of man, and had his teachings been left as he presented them, the only commentary being the inspired interpretation afforded by his earth life, all nations and all religions of the world would speedily have embraced the gospel of the kingdom. The well-meant efforts of Jesus' early followers to restate his teachings so as to make them the more acceptable to certain nations, races, and religions, only resulted in making such teachings the less acceptable to all other nations, races, and religions.

149:2.2.The Apostle Paul, in his efforts to bring the teachings of Jesus to the favorable notice of certain groups in his day, wrote many letters of instruction and admonition. Other teachers of Jesus' gospel did likewise, but none of them realized that some of these writings would subsequently be brought together by those who would set them forth as the embodiment of the teachings of Jesus. And so, while so-called Christianity does contain more of the Master's gospel than any other religion, it does also contain much that Jesus did not teach. Aside from the incorporation of many teachings from the Persian mysteries and much of the Greek philosophy into early Christianity, two great mistakes were made:

[Anonymous No.16315870]

>>16315850
149:2.3.1. The effort to connect the gospel teaching directly onto the Jewish theology, as illustrated by the Christian doctrines of the atonement—the teaching that Jesus was the sacrificed Son who would satisfy the Father's stern justice and appease the divine wrath. These teachings originated in a praiseworthy effort to make the gospel of the kingdom more acceptable to disbelieving Jews. Though these efforts failed as far as winning the Jews was concerned, they did not fail to confuse and alienate many honest souls in all subsequent generations.

149:2.4.2. The second great blunder of the Master's early followers, and one which all subsequent generations have persisted in perpetuating, was to organize the Christian teaching so completely about the person of Jesus. This overemphasis of the personality of Jesus in the theology of Christianity has worked to obscure his teachings, and all of this has made it increasingly difficult for Jews, Mohammedans, Hindus, and other Eastern religionists to accept the teachings of Jesus. We would not belittle the place of the person of Jesus in a religion which might bear his name, but we would not permit such consideration to eclipse his inspired life or to supplant his saving message: the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.16315936]

>>16314305
>Did Paul and John invent Christianity?
No; Saul, The Jew of Tarsos, perverted Jesus Christ's spiritual doctrine along the Petristic Judeochristian current, which constitutes a Judaized perversion of Christianity, particularly as formalized in its Protestantistic iteration; Saint John promoted Jesus Christ's spiritual doctrine along the Magdalenistic Christian current, which constitutes, and persists as, genuine Christianity to this day, subsisting within few persons around the world.

[Anonymous No.16316000]

>>16315613
>"The kingdom of God is within you" was probably the greatest pronouncement Jesus ever made, next to the declaration that his Father is a living and loving spirit.
--------------------------------
170:3.11.By teaching that the kingdom is within, by exalting the individual, Jesus struck the deathblow of the old society in that he ushered in the new dispensation of true social righteousness. This new order of society the world has little known because it has refused to practice the principles of the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. And when this kingdom of spiritual pre-eminence does come upon the earth, it will not be manifested in mere improved social and material conditions, but rather in the glories of those enhanced and enriched spiritual values which are characteristic of the approaching age of improved human relations and advancing spiritual attainments.
------------------------------

[Anonymous No.16316022]

Gospels in Brief my dude. Churches are bullshit, Prods for fetishizing scripture written by man, Catholics for making stuff up later themselves. Just focus on Jesus, it'll be fine

[Anonymous No.16316070]

>>16315850
>Paul little dreamed that his well-intentioned letters to his converts would someday be regarded by still later Christians as the "word of God." Such well-meaning teachers must not be held accountable for the use made of their writings by later-day successors.
Agreed. This does not mean we should ignore Paul's writings; they were agreeable as canon for a reason (in spite of some disputes by Judaizers, who you seem to agree are a negative influence).

>149:2.1
Sounds like a good argument for a red-letter edition, not a 2000-page volume with plenty of irrelevancy and bad science (and good science).

>149:2.2
What are some examples of greek philosophy and persian mystery certain to be alien to Christ?

>>16315870
>149:2.3.1
So according to you the theological context which brought about the crucifiction of Jesus, as well as the theological explanations for why we should value the teachings of Jesus, are not valuable? I would certainly agree that the Old Testament has been a point of contention to a greater degree than the New when it comes to converting non-Jews, but ultimately it is what Jesus cited and argued about when he lived. Without the Old you have Marcionism, which is fine by me, but not more what Jesus taught than what the Christians do today.

>149:2.4.2
So you dislike the religion for overemphasizing Jesus, and wish for a more moderate form of it which exalts him less, but focused more on him? Why reject the majority of the Bible when you can keep it and redeem it. It is not the fault, or 'blunder,' of Christians to not anticipate that Mohammedans would craft their Qur'an so as to make the teachings of Christians incompatible; arguably the religion of Mohammad would have been incompatible by design regardless of how Christianity formed.

[Anonymous No.16316148]

Christian bros, I think I just had an epiphany, and I would like to hear your takes on this.

I have struggled with the problem of evil as back as my pre-k days. I always wondered why god, if he is all knowing and knew humanity would fall, send people to hell for sinning.

Then, while I was 3D modeling, I began to think about the software I was using. With the program, if I were to make a simulation, have access to every bit of information within the virtual universe. From the simulation’s point of view, the objects, if they were conscious, would be unaware of me scrolling up and down the timeline. Meanwhile I could fast forward the simulation to the end, go back to the beginning, and so forth, thus giving me the relative quality of being “timeless” and existing in every reference.

In my simulation, I didn’t necessarily know where all the smoke voxels would travel, nor did I necessarily plan it. I made it, in the sense of a person setting off a firework, which would be to light it, walk away, and let the firework go up.

I hope I’m making sense

[Anonymous No.16316160]

>>16316148
Forgive me
> if I were to make a simulation, I would have access to every bit of information within the virtual universe.

[Anonymous No.16316195]

>>16316000
>"The kingdom of God is within you" was probably the greatest pronouncement Jesus ever made, next to the declaration that his Father is a living and loving spirit."
Agreed wholeheartedly.
>170:3.11
This book which you quote seems to be good in terms of commentary, and makes good arguments for Christianity (and against the bad aspects which crept in). A good gift for a grandma, if it weren't for the cringey title, and peculiar nature as a recreation-attempt of the bible. Cut the 1200 pages not about Jesus, and publish it as simply "The Life and Teachings of Jesus," and you're set for greater appeal to some of the masses, maybe even good for targeting the Chinese.

[Anonymous No.16317172]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16317177]

>>16314987
Hecking based

[Urantia reader No.16317207]

>>16316070
>So you dislike the religion for overemphasizing Jesus, and wish for a more moderate form of it which exalts him less, but focused more on him?

The point is the religion of Paul is a religion ABOUT Jesus consisting of Paul's personal religious views rather than the religion OF Jesus which consists of the teachings of Jesus himself.

[Anonymous No.16317316]

>>16317207
I don't know where you get the idea that Paul invented the religion. Much of Paul's writings are more about spreading understanding of the Gospel than about what theology you criticise. His ideas when peculiar to him are either logical conclusions rooted in the words of Jesus, or explanations for why things took place drawing on Old Testament prophecies (as Christ did). Are there any particular excerpts of Paul which you find objectionable?

[Anonymous No.16317325]

>>16314305
Ding ding ding. Saul the Pharisee invented Catholicism which is why their “church” is filled with pederasts and backwards homos.

[Anonymous No.16317351]

>>16317325
Saul did more to subvert judaism than any other aside from Jesus himself. He was a convert who went from being the most conservative elite jew who persecuted christians to a man martyred for the faith he spread more successfully and zealously than any other. If you hate Paul you hate christianity, plain and simple (which there is nothing wrong with doing by the way)

[Anonymous No.16317360]

>>16317351
I love Christianity, I hate Saul’s pagan religion of Catholicism

[Anonymous No.16317365]

>>16315429
Jesus never claimed to be God, asshat.

[Anonymous No.16317372]

>>16317325
>Ding ding ding

[Urantia reader No.16317399]

>>16317316
>Paul's theory of original sin, the doctrines of hereditary guilt and innate evil and redemption therefrom, was partially Mithraic in origin, having little in common with Hebrew theology, Philo's philosophy, or Jesus' teachings. Some phases of Paul's teachings regarding original sin and the atonement were original with himself.

>The continence cult originated as a ritual among soldiers prior to engaging in battle; in later days it became the practice of "saints." This cult tolerated marriage only as an evil lesser than fornication. Many of the world's great religions have been adversely influenced by this ancient cult, but none more markedly than Christianity. The Apostle Paul was a devotee of this cult, and his personal views are reflected in the teachings which he fastened onto Christian theology: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." "I would that all men were even as I myself." "I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them to abide even as I." Paul well knew that such teachings were not a part of Jesus' gospel, and his acknowledgment of this is illustrated by his statement, "I speak this by permission and not by commandment." But this cult led Paul to look down upon women. And the pity of it all is that his personal opinions have long influenced the teachings of a great world religion. If the advice of the tentmaker-teacher were to be literally and universally obeyed, then would the human race come to a sudden and inglorious end. Furthermore, the involvement of a religion with the ancient continence cult leads directly to a war against marriage and the home, society's veritable foundation and the basic institution of human progress.
----------------------------------

The Urantia book also says, besides Jesus, Paul and Philo were the greatest religious teachers of that era; still, to elevate Paul's words to the status of 'the Word of God' is a grave error.

[Anonymous No.16317404]

>>16315436

Probably true. Poor guy desu.

[Anonymous No.16317405]

>>16317360
What are you even talking about? How is any "paganism" in catholicism a fault of Paul's? He was never even bishop of Rome, and the supremacy of the roman church was hardly possible at his time. Have you even read the New Testament? Its like really short.

[Anonymous No.16317417]

>>16317207
This.

>>16317316
>Much of Paul's writings are more about spreading understanding of the Gospel
Total horseshit. Paul never speaks once of the ministry or teachings of Jesus. He never says a single time "Jesus taught us that XYZ" or "Jesus did XYZ to set an example for us to follow" etc. The only thing Jesus did that Paul cares about is die and be resurrected.

[Anonymous No.16317432]

>>16317405
Nigger retard Saul founded the “church”

[Anonymous No.16317497]

>>16316148
A-Anybody?

[Anonymous No.16317583]

>>16316148
No, you're not making sense. Unlike you, God is supposed to be omniscient. So he would know all about the smoke voxels.

[Anonymous No.16317594]

>>16317399
>Paul's theory of original sin
Hardly Paul's alone. This understanding was a result of centuries of development, helped especially by Augustine, whose understanding saw a revival amongst the protestants. Ultimately it exists as an extension of the teachings of Jesus that he came to fulfil the law and prophets, with his sacrifice and resurrection (metaphorical or otherwise) being the redemption for that original sin of Adam, which saw him cast from paradise to toil on the earth for all time.

>The continence cult
Christ spoke against lust as sin before even acted upon, all Paul did was codify his teachings.

>The Urantia book also says, besides Jesus, Paul and Philo were the greatest religious teachers of that era; still, to elevate Paul's words to the status of 'the Word of God' is a grave error.
I would agree that misunderstanding writings of "divine inspiration" as being something more than just that is folly. The idea that God (the father) literally spoke commandments through Paul is not exactly how Christians interpret their holy books, rather they see those writings as special only in their capacity for spreading the message of Jesus.

>>16317417
>Paul never directly cited those gospels which were compiled after his letters were already written, after he had contacted those original apostles and relayed the core message of christ
>therefore Paul is phony
Or maybe you elevate the gospels as being the only true source of Jesus' teachings, when they were more biographies of his acts?

>>16317432
1. Peter founded the church of Rome, which came to be recognized as head of the church due to apostolic succession in the time after Paul.
2. To conflate the underground community which met in private homes to that entity which sprung out of Nicaea is to not know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.16317599]

Encyclopedia dramatica already said this shit like 10> years ago
People listened to Paul because they're retards

[Anonymous No.16317627]

>>16317594
>Paul never directly cited those gospels which were compiled after his letters were already written
Wait, are you actually claiming that Jesus never said the things attributed to him in the Gospels? That the Gospel writers completely made up all the supposed "sayings of Jesus"? Because that's the only way your post makes any sense.

[Anonymous No.16317637]

>>16316148
Yes, that sounds accurate. Evil is not an entity opposed to good in a dualistic sense. It's just a lack of the spirit of God. God gives us all a little spirit and tells us to grow it. When we don't, evil happens. I don't know why exactly God made us have to live fleshly lives that can distract from and destroy the spirit of God, but to be fair I wouldn't see everyone just living in heaven together kumbayaing and never facing adversity or choices as "good".

[Anonymous No.16317638]

>>16317594
>Peter founded the church
LOOOOOOOL typical ignorant cucklick doesn’t know the bible OR history. Had it not been for Saul, Peter would have stuck with James rulings. You are coping so hard right now simply because you don’t know history or the Word of God.

[Anonymous No.16317643]

>>16314321
And he tongues my anus

[Anonymous No.16317653]

>>16314884
ngmi

[Anonymous No.16317720]

>>16317627
>Wait, are you actually claiming that Jesus never said the things attributed to him in the Gospels?
No.
>That the Gospel writers completely made up all the supposed "sayings of Jesus"?
No.
>Because that's the only way your post makes any sense.
No.
All I am saying is that the New Testament as it exists does its job of covering the whole of what can be thought to be the teachings of Jesus to his followers.

>>16317638
I think Paul understood what Jesus meant for the world to a much greater degree than Peter did, or any of the other apostles aside from John. Peter was just a boomer who was sad his friend got crucified really, and wasn't as up to speed about the whole idea of combatting the negative aspects which Judaism was and still is wrought with.

No cope here btw, I really don't care if people think any of it is real or not, I really just enjoy entertaining the ideas. Read some of the earlier posts in the thread, you'll find my understanding of the faith to be far from hardline catholic orthodoxy.

We can agree to disagree on the validity of Paul as an apostle, but most Christians won't even hear your arguments due to their dogma. Learning to accept that your personal brand of the real Christianity will hardly make a dent on a two-millenias-old religion is a part of accepting the world you were born into for what it is, and enjoying the lore it presents you with.

You guys will always have the Jefferson Bible (and your Urantia thing, which is cute). We will always have the regular one.

[Anonymous No.16317742]

>>16317720
>All I am saying is that the New Testament as it exists does its job of covering the whole of what can be thought to be the teachings of Jesus to his followers.
Sounds like you've never read the New Testament. Paul shows zero familiarity with the teachings of Jesus as we know them. He never cites them even once. All he talks about is circumcision and his own personal theological agenda.

[Anonymous No.16317756]

>>16317720
>I think Paul understood what Jesus meant for the world to a much greater degree than Peter did, or any of the other apostles aside from John.
how? he didnt even know Jesus.

[Anonymous No.16317791]

>>16317742
I already responed to this argument. The Gospels were not compiled until after Paul's letters were circulated.

>>16317756
Last I checked, post-ressurrection Jesus told Paul to go on his mission. If you don't believe in this you're fedora.

In all seriousness, Jesus taught very specifically a core message against the established religious order of the time, which was anti-human. What one might call Paul's personal theological agenda, I see as Paul taking up pen to carry out what Jesus set into motion. If you don't think Paul is canon, this is fine to me. Go ahead and practice Judaism 1.5 (or Islam 0.5), live in accordance with the law, circumcise your infant children; I can't stop you.

[Anonymous No.16317794]

>>16314321
This

[Anonymous No.16317812]

>>16317791
>Go ahead and practice Judaism 1.5 (or Islam 0.5), live in accordance with the law, circumcise your infant children; I can't stop you
That's a garbage argument and you know it. Saying Paul shouldn't be the source of Christianity doesn't mean Judaism suddenly becomes that source. Christ taught just as clearly that the law as Jews knew it was not necessary, that circumcision or anything of flesh was not necessary. But Paul expounded on other areas far beyond what Jesus covered to the point where a lot of it conflicts or at the very least detracts.

[Anonymous No.16317822]

>>16317791
>If you don't believe in this you're fedora.

[Anonymous No.16317852]

>>16317791
>Go ahead and practice Judaism 1.5
To this retard he thinks obeying the First Commandment is Judaism 1.5 as he kisses rocks for good luck and prays to his “queen of heaven” pagan idol. Brutal cope.

[Anonymous No.16317860]

>>16314348
Jesus should've written his own gospel then.

[Anonymous No.16317876]

>>16317791
>I already responed to this argument.
No, you did not. What you said does not make sense unless you are claiming that Jesus never said the things attributed to him in the Gospels.

>The Gospels were not compiled until after Paul's letters were circulated.
Again, that's irrelevant unless you are claiming that the Gospel writers invented all of the "sayings of Jesus" out of whole cloth. If they were truly the sayings of Jesus, the Gospel writers merely recorded the oral tradition of Jesus' teachings, which formed the core doctrine of the early Christian movement.

>Judaism 1.5
That's what Pauline Christianity is. Jesus was far more radical in his teachings than Paul.

[Anonymous No.16317935]

>>16317812
>Christ taught just as clearly that the law as Jews knew it was not necessary, that circumcision or anything of flesh was not necessary.
Where? In the gospels compiled in part by the work of followers of Paul? How can you be sure that they don't appear as they do only due to Pauline redaction?
>But Paul expounded on other areas far beyond what Jesus covered to the point where a lot of it conflicts or at the very least detracts.
What are some conflicts? All I see is a solid doctrine built in writing by Paul taken from what Jesus said.

>>16317876
>>I already responed to this argument.
>No, you did not. What you said does not make sense unless you are claiming that Jesus never said the things attributed to him in the Gospels.
Ok. Allow me to clarify. Paul cannot quote verbatim what he 1. didn't see and 2. doesn't have a copy of because a copy doesn't exist. The Holy Spirit guided his hand in crystalizing what he had heard from the apostles, and what was revealed to him, in the form of his letters. You don't have to agree, this is just what Christians have understood for two millenia.

>If they were truly the sayings of Jesus, the Gospel writers merely recorded the oral tradition of Jesus' teachings, which formed the core doctrine of the early Christian movement.
I agree. If we accept the oral tradition surrounding the Gospels, why can't we accept Paul's place amongst this movement which he found himself leading, at least in terms of bringing to the non-jews?

>>Judaism 1.5
>That's what Pauline Christianity is.
I'll accept that Christian orthodoxy is rather judaized compared to what the New Testament lays out, but blaming Paul for this is wrong.

>Jesus was far more radical in his teachings than Paul.
To the extent that he was crucified for it, yes. Paul simply brought his message outside of Judea.

[Anonymous No.16317998]

>>16317935
>All I see is a solid doctrine built in writing by Paul taken from what Jesus said.
Thank you for conceding that Sauls teachings (catholicism) are only tangentially related to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.16318003]

>>16317365
Who is the Lord of the Sabbath?

[Anonymous No.16318056]

OP here, I have no idea what happened to this thread (after 16315364 ) while I was gone... I think I might just try talking to some pastors in my area.

[Anonymous No.16318329]

>>16317935
>Paul cannot quote verbatim
I never said anything about "quoting verbatim". Paul never even attributes an element of doctrine or ethical teaching to Jesus. Not even once. Even a vague principle like "Jesus said we ought not judge one another". Why claim to be a follower of Jesus if you have no idea what his teachings were? And if Paul did know what his teachings were, why wouldn't he mention them when dispensing his instructions? "Jesus taught that <blah blah blah>; that's why you should always do XYZ when you're at the dinner table" (or whatever). He treats Jesus as some sort of silent deity or archangel who died and resurrected, rather than a teacher who walked the earth and issued very specific commandments.

>If we accept the oral tradition surrounding the Gospels, why can't we accept Paul's place amongst this movement
Because he never engages with this oral tradition at all. He simply announces his own theological views, citing old testament verses as support.

>Paul simply brought his message outside of Judea.
Judging from his letters, Paul had no idea what the message even was.

[Anonymous No.16318334]

>>16318003
The son of man. Not God.

[Anonymous No.16318335]

The divinity of Jesus is clear form the OT even.

[Anonymous No.16318383]

>>16317365
Wrong

[Anonymous No.16318392]

>>16314321
Second this.

[Anonymous No.16318515]

Imagine believing the equivalent of muslim polemics. There's no way Jesus could be a mere prophet

[Anonymous No.16319855]

>>16314305
can someone suggest me the best book about the resurrection of jesus and why should i belive it?

[Anonymous No.16319879]

>>16314517
>niv
>no apocrypha
I say this as a Platonist who isn't even Christian. First, fuck prots. Now, the critique against the "apocrypha" is fucking retarded, the Septuagint has them—the NT quotes the Septuagint.
The Bible Luther and & Co had when they framed Sola Scriptura had these books, they then Post hoc removed those books, Luther even wanted to remove James.

But you're on the right path of abandoning this syncretic and racist work that has plagued man for 1700 years.

[Anonymous No.16319940]

>>16314305>>16314316
>>16316148
>>16316022

gospels are not canon

also you cant follow without cutting your dick

The Council of Jerusalem is generally dated to 48 AD, roughly 15 to 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, between 26 and 36 AD. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 both suggest that the meeting was called to debate whether or not male Gentiles who were converting to become followers of Jesus were required to become circumcised; the rite of circumcision was considered execrable and repulsive during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean,[2][3][4][5] and was especially adversed in Classical civilization both from ancient Greeks and Romans, which instead valued the foreskin positively.[2][3][4][6]

At the time, most followers of Jesus (which historians refer to as Jewish Christians) were Jewish by birth and even converts would have considered the early Christians as a part of Judaism. According to Alister McGrath, who openly admits to being a Christian apologist, the Jewish Christians affirmed every aspect of the then contemporary Second Temple Judaism with the addition of the belief that Jesus was the Messiah.[7] Unless males were circumcised, they could not be God's People. The meeting was called to decide whether circumcision for gentile converts was requisite for community membership since certain individuals were teaching that "[u]nless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved".[8]

Circumcision as a mandate was associated with Abraham (see also Abrahamic covenant), but it is cited as "the custom of Moses" because Moses is considered the traditional giver of the Law as a whole. The circumcision mandate was made more official and binding in the Mosaic Law Covenant. In John 7:22 the words of Jesus are reported to be that Moses gave the people circumcision.

[Anonymous No.16319956]

imagine reading this shit
>In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony.[27] In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly described as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.[27] In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor.[27] Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus's life and in the Christian community.[28] Jesus appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion.[29] Like Matthew, Luke insists that salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not only for the Jews.[28] The Gospel of John is the only gospel to call Jesus God, and in contrast to Mark, where Jesus hides his identity as messiah, in John he openly proclaims it

[Anonymous No.16319969]

>>16314316
this.
even luther believed this, though he was a strong catholic boy (in demeanor) he knew what an institution does. the caps are not mine.
>THE CHURCH OF GOD INDEED IN NOT SO COMMON A THING AS THIS TERM, CHURCH OF GOD: NOR ARE THE SAINTS OF GOD INDEED, EVERY WHERE TO BE FOUND LIKE THE TERM SAINTS OF GOD. THEY ARE PEARLS AND PRECIOUS JEWELS, WHICH THE SPIRIT DOES NOT CAST BEFORE SWINE; BUT WHICH HE KEEPS HIDDEN THAT THE WICKED SEE NOT THE GLORY OF GOD!
yeah the whole "love and forgiveness" is AFTER penitence and repentence. before God would rather you burn in hell. he IS a jealous God.
also op is a faggot
>divinity not implied
theres a lot of nuance here. he says he is the son of God, but then he also says that we are also the sons of God. and that we ourselves are gods as well. and also, he as the one supreme God, came down to the filthiness of humanity.
essentially the case he is making is that being a god isnt a very rare or notable thing.
i mean hes begotten, its not like he has any merit to be God, he simply is.
and how is dying and then resurrecting, working miracles, walking on water, and controlling the elements not proof of divinity? or perhaps when a loud voice from heaven came down and said THIS IS MY SON OF WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED
or perhaps a virgin birth?
you didnt actually read the book did you
aaaaa fuck i fell for the b8, well 10/10 op im still posting

[Anonymous No.16319975]

>>16319956
that pass is full of bullshit, totally dishonest but that is what you cant expect for atehsarts polemics

[Anonymous No.16319992]

>>16319940
you fucking moron paul literally says in one of the epistles (your a moron i cant be bothered to find it) you dont need to be circumsized
>>16319956
>different authors have different prose and different voices and different means of telling the same story
you ever heard 10 different fly me to the moons?

[Anonymous No.16320109]

>>16319879
>racist
filtered
anyway luther translated the apocrypha and its in his bible, and james as well so obviously he thought they werent as useful (because he was concerned with the general public, which then, as now, is really fucking retarded) so he didnt want anything that could confuse them (that is why theres two catechisms)
also if you werent a brainlet you would accept that the septuagint is a bad translation, often conflicting with my geneva, vulgate, and luther bible which are often in perfect concordance with each other (albeit with minor differences that can be regarded as cultural)
the preface to my septuagint literally says the book of daniel guy barely knew greek or mustve been stupid or something because its got grammatical errors and basic shit that doesnt make sense or contradicts itself

[Anonymous No.16320151]

>>16314305
Anon, I don't know how to concisely, consistent with a discussion board such as this, lay out the argument you need to read and understand to address the issues you raise.

But believe, there are a number of books and articles that address these very familiar issues, which have been bandied since the 19th century if not before then.

I would refer you to, and personally endorse:

Craig Evans, Fabricating Jesus

Unfortunately, Evans does not address Nietzsche. On that front, I would refer you to this article:

>Did Paul Invent Christianity?
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2019/did-paul-invent-christianity

It concisely refutes the notion.

Paul, along with John, was the first great Christian theologian. His work is in many respects visionary; but in part he was (like Aristotle) a great systematizer, taking the disparate facts of the Gospels and showing how they fit into a consistent system, which, in turn, was consistent with, and a fulfillment, of the Jewish religion. Paul didn't create the system; his genius allowed him to see the internal logic of events, perhaps not unlike how, in the realm of science, a Newton or an Einstein could discern certain patterns and logic in the material world that no one else had seen before them. They didn't create the underlying system; they merely perceived it, and then explained that perception in their writings.

[Anonymous No.16320994]

>>16319956
huh? what is this from?

[Anonymous No.16321083]

>>16314376
Jesus is fully God and full Man. True chadness is that hypostatic union.

[Anonymous No.16321180]

>>16314867
What a load of bullshit. Do you think 2000 years of theology doesn't have touched on these points. Refer Aquinas commentary on gospel of John to get a quick answer to these questions.

[Anonymous No.16321254]

>>16315936
Paul was the one that de-Jewed early Christianity though

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.16321356]

>>16321254
According to you, how does promoting the morbid concepts of: fear of divinity, human sacrifice & idolatry, attainment of salvation solely through sterile hope, fatalistic resignation of self through rejection of personal execution of justice, and through the perverse notion of "original sin" persisting within flesh/the body, etcetera, constitute dejudaizing Christianity, rather than the converse?

[Anonymous No.16321400]

>>16321254
Christianity is 1005 jewish

[Anonymous No.16321413]

>>16319992
blind cunt, paul does not follow Christ and knows nothing of jesus.

[Anonymous No.16321460]

>>16320109
Jesus and the Apostles taught out of the Septuagint. Even quoted the parts where it differs from the Masoretic. It is the Vulgate that's corrupt. Everything Latin is doctrinely anti-christian.

[Anonymous No.16321741]

>>16321460
bro sometimes their translations dont even match with the septuagint
i dont know exactly which ones, but many of the apostles were familiar with the hebrew text itself, and memory was a lot better than, so they produced their own translations on the spot occasionally
also that latin statement is really fucking stupid theres lots of great texts written in latin your just cringe because you dont know latin
>>16321413
everyone else disagrees
and if your going to make *edgy* and *bold* claims, you better have an argument besides
>citation: dude trust me
>>16321254
this is it exactly. paul and john hellenised it. which you may take as a perversion if your a moron, but in a sense its merely a philosophical translation. theres 0 chance you can spread this faith to europe in hebrew. they dont speak hebrew there and if you quoted out of it theyd spit on you, so they put it in greek and since the doctrine in inherently philosophical, and since greek already had a philosophical body of work and tradition, the language overlapped.
people just dont like admitting that christianity is part of the european tradition

[Anonymous No.16321896]

>>16321741
Ok maybe I exaggerated with the Latin a little bit. But only because Roman Catholicism/the Holy See/Vatican City State, is absolute pure evil and is very much doctrinely anti-christian, leading millions of believers away from the truth of scripture. But really can't say that all Latin manuscripts out there come from papacy and are indeed corrupt. Nor am I saying the Septuagint should be held in higher regard than the Masoretic. The differences are not exactly abysmal, both texts support the gospel.

[Anonymous No.16321920]

>>16321896
i would agree on the modern catholicism bit as well, although i dont think its some calculated evil, most catholics ive met irl (not fucking here ofc) are nice and good christians

[Anonymous No.16321932]

>>16321356
This
Paul was a Jew who, despite focusing on Christianity for the Gentiles, presented them with his Judaicized perspective

[Anonymous No.16321949]

>>16321920
I spent my entire life around Catholics and know for a fact that there are genuine believers and good decent honest people out there, and can testify to meeting other "good" people of other faiths as well. I'm just pointing out that certain doctrines out there are fundamentally incorrect. The sad truth remains that the majority of everyone everywhere will fall out, if not yet already, with the Creator.

[Anonymous No.16322435]

>>16321949
yea i was born protte (lutheran so its very conservative so much better) honestly as long as you use the bible as a base and go from there, its hard to go that wrong (inb4 prottie sola scriptura)
so i get a bad rep from the start because i say im prot and everyone assumes that im some evangelist
>>16321932
this is ridiculous.
someone said they hated paul because he was too hellenized, you hate him because hes too semetized (new word?) and whats wrong with a jewish perspective (inb4 pol) take the words at face value and if they subvert western civilization drop em, if they build and construct the largest and greatest civilization of all time, probably have to lower your kike guard just 3 degrees

[Jesus No.16322764]

>>16314305
damn you are all stupid faggots lmao

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.16322922]

>>16322435
>and whats wrong with a jewish perspective
Everything.

>take the words at face value and if they subvert western civilization drop em
"Western civilization" is a Jewish invention, and an euphemism for "Zionist worldcolony".

>if they build and construct the largest and greatest civilization of all time, probably have to lower your kike guard just 3 degrees
Yes, if you are a Zionist useful idiot.

If you do not comprehend how is it that jews constitute the most ignoble ethnicity in existence, and how this is reflected in the religion of Judaism, and in the ideology of Zionism --in the world today, then your spiritual discernment is off.

[Anonymous No.16323459]

>>16314305
Paul's writing came before the Gospels.

[Anonymous No.16323479]

>>16318334
retard
He even calls himself "I am"

[Anonymous No.16323492]

If 4chan is any indication of the direction of society as a whole, think we’re going to see a religious renaissance in the west. Having posted here over a decade, it usually is.

The tradcath zoomer thing is an actual emerging social force of alienated young men, with strong overlap with the incel movement.

[Anonymous No.16323500]

>>16323479
>too stupid to read the gospels in the original Koine Greek

[Anonymous No.16323534]

>>16314987
This sounds based beyond belief. Link it

[Anonymous No.16323544]

Reminder that the second coming of Christ is metaphorical and comes about when all men embody the teachings of Jesus.

The Kingdom of God is within us.

[Anonymous No.16323554]

>>16323500
I mean, can you?
I'm studying Koine right now.

[Anonymous No.16323572]

>>16323479
No, he does not.

[Anonymous No.16323573]

Why was the Bible written in Greek if it’s agreed Jesus spoke Aramaic?

[Anonymous No.16323575]

>>16314305
I have heard that as regards to ceremony and policy Christianity is mainly founded on the Epistles of Paul. But the inner core of Christianity lays, in my humble opinion, in the Gospel of John. That book alone is sufficient enough to at least understand the teachings of Christ.

[Anonymous No.16323578]

>>16314305
>The divinity of Jesus isn't even clear from the other gospels...

It is actually, the texts just need to be read with some care, and with an understanding of the cultural framework.

Along those lines, you might try either:

Frank Sheed, To Know Christ Jesus

or

Fulton J. Sheen, Life of Christ

Both are very good.

Also, you need to pray, anon, and ask God to help you -- to increase your faith, and open your mind to the truth.

[Anonymous No.16323587]

>>16323578
>read this other propaganda that promulgates my point of view
Yeah, nah.

[Anonymous No.16323606]

>>16323572
>Ἐγώ εἰμί
>I am
>not declaration of divinity
ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.16323624]

>>16323587
Didn't see an argument in your post, there, anon

[Anonymous No.16323654]

>>16323606
There is a whole sequence of "ego eimi" ("I Am") statements in John. The Jewish crowd had no problem with any of it until the claim of pre-existence, which only applies to angels etc.

[Anonymous No.16323659]

Without Paul and John, Jesus would essentially just be a Jewish reformer who rebelled against central church authority, like Luther. The only things that set him apart are the claims to divinity, like healing the sick, the resurrection etc.

So if you reject them, you should basically just convert to reform Judaism which is morally indistinguishable from Christianity. Liberal Jews reject the supreme authority of the Rabbinate, like how Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. Which is why Protestants are culturally very similar to Jews, in their emphasis on materialism and “this world”. They reject the Catholic non-biblical cultural traditions, rooted in European philosophy.

So essentially Paul is the one who removed the Jewish material spiritual character from Judaism. Nietzsche writes about this.

[Anonymous No.16323677]

>>16323654

[Anonymous No.16323693]

>>16323654
>which only applies to angels etc.
Indeed, Christ is plainly - as we see, based on the reaction of the crowd - alluding to the tetragrammaton, the divine name uttered in Exodus 3:14.

>Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
– John 8:58-59

[Anonymous No.16323707]

>>16323693
Did you even read the post you're replying to?

[Anonymous No.16323715]

>>16323707
Yeah, I read.

Should have used "In fact" rather than "Indeed"

[Anonymous No.16323719]

>>16323659
I unironically believe that Protestantism is one big attempt at creating Noahidism. Spiritual cattle-feed for the goyim. An "Abrahamic paganism", if you will.

[Anonymous No.16323734]

>>16323659
>Nietzsche writes about this.

Yeah, and he gets it wrong, the poor sap.

Read:

>Did Paul Invent Christianity?
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2019/did-paul-invent-christianity

[Anonymous No.16323769]

>>16323719
Would explain why Protestants are so utterly devoted to Israel, since the Talmud states that goyim were made to worship the Jews.

>>16323734
The claim isn’t that Paul “invented” Christianity, but rather that he instilled the essential spirit of a tradition that would set it apart as spiritually distinct from Judaism.

[Anonymous No.16323818]

>>16323769
Yeah, the linked article is not expressly addressed to Nietzsche's argument, but it addresses it, and refutes it, nonetheless. I.e., every distinctive of Christianity, including its purported slave morality, comes from Christ, not Paul, as the article establishes. Thus, Paul did not instill or create "the essential spirit" of Christianity, Christ did.

[Anonymous No.16323823]

>>16314305
Yes, take the Thomas pill.

[Anonymous No.16323847]

>>16323769
It also explains Protestant ideas such as being able to just interpret the Bible ex nihilo, as if that's even physically possible, ignoring the question of "are you getting things right", and the idea that you can just up and leave and start your own church: none of it really matters. After all, the only thing that REALLY matters is being a "good person", right? You're just a gentile, God doesn't really expect much of you.

The divorcing of Christianity from history is, in my opinion, the most interesting part of it. You can see this is in the Christianity vs Neopaganism debates, where Protestants (even if you're a "TradCath" you're still a Protestant, you LARPer) will argue that Thor is just a Jewish invention to sell you Marvel movies or whatever. But, if that's all Thor is, and the pre-Christian period was just a Marvel movie... Why be a Christian at all?

[Anonymous No.16323862]

>>16323818
It’s addressing a straw man. The argument isn’t that Paul created the moral basis of Christianity, but rather the philosophical foundation. The whole metaphysical tradition of the Catholic Church, including concepts like the trinity, are the result of interpreted the Bible under the influence of European thought.

[Anonymous No.16323983]

>>16323862
It's hardly addressing a strong man. Neets wasn't the first nor the last person to argue, essentially, that Paul created (or constructed or invented, as you will) Christianity.

Again, the linked article does not expressly address the particulars of Neets' argument, but it effectively destroys the foundational assumption upon which that argument rests: the claim that the Christian distinctives were devised by Paul rather than Christ.

[Anonymous No.16323985]

>>16314305
>Did Paul and John invent Christianity?
I think so.
You should read Guenon anon, after you finish the Quran that is.

[Anonymous No.16324234]

>>16323847
Protestant doctrine taken to its logical conclusion is atheistic.