Paul

[Anonymous No.13941134]

I haven't read the NT in full so I don't have an opinion of him but is there any opposition to this guy? Guy never met Jesus yet half or more of the NT is attributed to the guy.

Why is his stuff part of the canon as opposed to other writers writing from that era?

[Anonymous No.13941143]

>>13941134
He's the one who really established and canonised the church. Without Paul there probably wouldn't be a Christian religion today.

[Anonymous No.13941186]

>>13941134
I am under the suspicion that paul was a false prophet.

[Anonymous No.13941190]

Christianity was founded by Christ. Catholicism was founded by Paul.

[Anonymous No.13941215]

The fact is, 7 of the purported 14 Pauline epistles (-14, that is, if we include the Epistle to the Hebrews among those attributed to Paul, as most Christians allege) are reasonably authenticated, which is to say, there are 7 letters authored by Paul that virtually all historians agree on as being actually penned (or, dictated, at least) by the man himself. They are as follows:

1)Romans
2)1 Corinthians
3)2 Corinthians
4)Galatians
5)Philippians
6)1st Thessalonians
7)Philemon

With the above under consideration, we see that the remaining 7 (or 8, if we count Philemon) epistles are quite obviously forgeries.
Devout Christians deny this of course, but devout Christians are rarely able to read Koine Greek (for example), nor do they have access to the ancient Biblical manuscripts, and what’s more, they tend to be rather unaware of the historical realities of both Jesus’s and Paul’s time
-all of which the most eminent historians have used to decipher which Pauline epistles are pseudographical, and which ones are reasonably authentic.

To this end, consider:
The telltale signs of a forged epistle are as follows:
1) They are written in a style (in the original Greek) that is completely different than the 6 (or 7) known and attested Pauline letters; also:
2) they are dated to a time too late to have been written by Paul (i.e., there isn’t even an iota of evidence that they existed in written form before a certain moment in history, and that moment or date would’ve been long after Paul’s execution):
3) they include references to historical events that Paul himself couldn’t have known about, as the events in question occurred after his time, and
4) they sometimes include theological points of view at odds with the established Pauline letters.

In many cases, the pseudo-Pauline epistles are guilty of all 4 of these offenses simultaneously .

[Anonymous No.13941225]

>>13941215
With the aforementioned “credulous eyes” of Christian believers, they read the lengthy treatise of purported history known in Christendom as ‘The Acts of the Apostles,’ or, ‘the Book of Acts’ (or, just ‘Acts’ for short), and then, following the Biblical chronology, move on to the Pauline epistles (both the actual ones and the forgeries) and assume that everything is coherent.
To them, Acts is history, the natural conclusion to the 4 gospels, and a worthy precursor to the letters of the various apostles that come next (in terms of Biblical ordering).

The simple fact is, however, that the Book of Acts is basically useless as a historical document.

The author is unknown (it is anonymous in the original manuscripts, i.e., neither named nor signed), but, whoever the author was, he clearly belonged to the Pauline strain of Christian thought (as opposed to the Jewish strain that existed simultaneously: more on that later).

-Somewhere around Acts chapter 10 the original disciples more or less disappear from the narrative entirely, and everything thereafter focuses on Paul.

It was written sometime in the early 2nd century, well after Paul’s death, and includes details that contradict what Paul himself dictated / wrote in the 6 verified epistles.

[Anonymous No.13941230]

>>13941225
Regarding this phenomenon, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman writes:

>“There are places where the book of Acts reports on the same events of Paul’s life that Paul himself refers to in his own letters, and we can compare what Acts says about Paul with what Paul says about himself.
>What is striking is that in almost every instance where this kind of comparison is possible, disparities -sometimes very large disparities- appear between the two accounts…
>(Acts) would’ve been written at least a generation after Paul himself, no doubt by someone in one of Paul’s own communities who would have heard stories about the apostle as they had been in circulation in the decades after his death.
>But as we all know, stories get changed in the retelling, and thirty years (OR MORE) is a long time.
>Most scholars contend that Paul is a better source for knowing about Paul than (the author of Acts) is, -that where there are discrepancies, it is Paul who is to be trusted.”

Also, too, there is the fact that Acts isn’t even consistent with itself.

Ehrman continues:

>“There are three passages in the book of Acts that describe Paul’s conversion to Christ…
>but what was this vision, and what happened when Paul experienced it? It depends on which account you read, the one in Acts 9, 22, or 26.
>…if (the author of Acts) was willing to modify his story depending on the context within which he told it, why shouldn’t we assume that he modified all of his stories whenever he saw fit?”

Hence, Ehrman reasonably concludes:
>“If we want to know about the historical Paul, we will treat Acts for what it is, and not pretend that it records events that you would have been able to capture on your camcorder if you had been there.”

[Anonymous No.13941300]

>>13941215
>Devout Christians deny this of course, but devout Christians are rarely able to read Koine Greek (for example), nor do they have access to the ancient Biblical manuscripts, and what’s more, they tend to be rather unaware of the historical realities of both Jesus’s and Paul’s time
Straw man.

[Anonymous No.13941310]

>>13941134
>I haven't read the NT in full so I don't have an opinion of him but is there any opposition to this guy? Guy never met Jesus yet half or more of the NT is attributed to the guy.
Maybe you shouldn't have skipped the part of the NT where Paul meets Jesus?

[Anonymous No.13941347]

>>13941134
>"[A]mong the sayings & discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth; charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. these palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart." - Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820

[Anonymous No.13941378]

His “version” of Christianity was but one of hundreds of versions that existed at his time, which immediately makes his claim of being the harbinger of the “true gospel” suspect. For instance, there were Jewish Christians like the Nazarenes and Ebionites, the latter of whom read the Didache and a slightly altered version of the Gospel of Matthew ; and, besides them, there were also the Gnostics, with their multifarious sects, all of which were, to varying degrees, influenced by an olla podrida of Judaism, Christian Messianism, Neoplatonism, and / or Zoroastrianism, -and so it was that, in the midst of these oceans of different “Christianities” (or, “Christologies”) -there was the Pauline movement.

All of this ultimately means that, in his historical context, Paul of Tarsus was hardly unusual. He fits right into the early Christian milieu like a well-crafted puzzle piece. He claimed to be a “prophet,” (or, at least, inspired by Christ), he had his own “gospel,” and, thanks to the Book of Acts, which many historians attest was written with the intention of downplaying the rift between the Paul and the actual disciples of Christ, -there you have his linkage to Jesus’ disciples. In short, he was nothing special in his day. One of the only reasons, perhaps the only reason, that we even know who he is in modern times is due to the fact that his Christology just happens to be the one that came to dominate, a datum chiefly owing to a number of socio-political realities from his (meaning, Paul’s) time onward.

The likelihood of his Christology being representative of the actual, historical Jesus was, to be blunt, virtually nil. He was, like a multitude of other Christian leaders of the time, little more than a salesman for his “brand.”

[Anonymous No.13941446]

>>13941310
what

[Anonymous No.13941460]

>>13941446
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

[Anonymous No.13941463]

>>13941134
>never met Jesus
he met him on the road to Tarsus, brainlet

[Anonymous No.13941470]

>>13941215
based lad.

tell us about how Timothy 1 & 2 are such bullshit

[Anonymous No.13941471]

>>13941186

[Anonymous No.13941472]

>>13941463
It's a common misconception. This meme is being spread by anti-Christians who deny Paul's authority.

[Anonymous No.13941476]

>>13941463
Yes-
“And the men which journeyed with me stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”
[Acts 9:7]

No – “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.”
[Acts 22:9]

[Anonymous No.13941485]

>>13941215
oh so you can read Koine Greek then, i assume?

[Anonymous No.13941487]

>>13941300
>Implying most christians even know the nicene creed
>>13941472
Just accept you have faith in Paul

[Anonymous No.13941492]

>Before his conversion, Paul, also known as Saul, was "a Pharisee of Pharisees", who "intensely persecuted" the followers of Jesus. Says Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians: "For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
wtf

[Anonymous No.13941495]

>>13941134
Muslims hate him and for some reason Paul is the lynchpin in their anti christian arguments. He met at least two of the apostles and was friendly with Peter

[Anonymous No.13941502]

>>13941492
It is a common misconception amongst the Christians that Paul and Jesus’ Disciples were unanimous in their preaching of a crucified Jesus.

Christians believe that Paul and the Disciples were preaching the same doctrine and everyone believed in the divine Jesus who came to be crucified for the sins of the world. However, if one carefully examines the bible, that person would see that Paul and the disciples were not preaching the same doctrine and did not believe in the same Jesus.

The Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Paul has been preaching a different doctrine in Corinthia and Galatia.
Paul was telling them not to follow the law anymore and that they don’t have to eat kosher meat anymore or to be circumcised (according to Genesis 17:14, the covenant is broken if there is no circumcision) etc.
So the Apostles went to Galatia and Corinthia and convinced everyone that Paul is wrong, when Paul heard about this he went straight back to the cities.
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel”
[Galatians 1:6]
It says different Gospel, so obviously the disciples were teaching them a different doctrine and it was not just minor issues.

The Disciples of Jesus remembered Paul’s persecutions towards the followers (early Christians) of Jesus. They were very suspicious of Paul. So when he finally came to them (41 B.C.E.) they didn’t believe his lie. They looked at him as a spy.

“And when Saul had come to Jerusalem he tried to Join himself with the Disciples but they were all afraid of him. And did not believe that he was a Disciple.” [Acts 9:26].
As you can see the Disciples didn’t trust him.

[Anonymous No.13941510]

>>13941487
You're in prelest.

[Anonymous No.13941518]

>>13941186
You are correct.

www.problemswithpaul.com
www.questioningpaul.com

[Anonymous No.13941526]

>>13941502
I didn't know this

[Anonymous No.13941529]

>>13941518
>>13941502
begone demon!

[Anonymous No.13941543]

>>13941134
OP is 100% the mohammeden who spams Paul threads on /his/

[Anonymous No.13941548]

>>13941526
you didn't know it because its bullshit.

[Anonymous No.13941566]

>>13941543
Anyone with internet can research for himself, stop strawmaning away criticism faggot

[Anonymous No.13941589]

>>13941463
>Jesus: For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

>Paul: I met Jesus on the road to damascus and only I could see him wait I mean only I could hear him and he told me important things that no other apostle heard hey trust me I’m the 13th apostle haha I know I killed Christians before this and subverting your religion with lies would undo you worse than death but haha you can trust me Jesus told me in my secret chamber.

[Anonymous No.13941594]

>>13941589
Paul never claimed to be a prophet. That description fits Muhammad to a tee

[Anonymous No.13941595]

>>13941529
Oh no mother Mary, whatever will I do. We all know mother Mary has magic powers and will curse us with damnation. Better get right with mother Mary and now Yahowah or Yahosha. Thanks catholic friend.

[Anonymous No.13941597]

>>13941566
>But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
this triggers the mudslime

[Anonymous No.13941605]

>>13941594
>be ye followers of ME, as I also am of Christ - 1 Corinthians 11:1
Could’ve just said “follow Christ”

[Anonymous No.13941620]

>>13941594
>For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel 1 Corinthians 4:15

>And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. - Matthew 23:9

No Paul, you are no one’s father. You are a charlatan. Even Christ himself did not call himself anyone’s “father.” He would never blaspheme like that.

[Anonymous No.13941622]

>>13941595
what's it like knowing that a woman will btfo you? does it anger you?

[Anonymous No.13941625]

Reminder that Tolstoy saw through Paul's lies as well.

[Anonymous No.13941627]

>>13941622
I do not follow the religion of Mary. Mary did not author the universe. Mary is an important vessel but we must not deify humans. There is but one Father.

[Anonymous No.13941637]

>>13941627
>angrymontfort.jpg

[Anonymous No.13941642]

>>13941502
How do you know it was the apostles who went?

[Anonymous No.13941652]

>>13941597
>Galatians authorship: Paul
Kek, not a muslim but do go on

[Anonymous No.13941654]

>>13941627
and that Father ordained that your head shall be crushed under Mary's foot.

[Anonymous No.13941679]

>>13941190
>brainlet the post

[Anonymous No.13941682]

>>13941134
It's apostolic. Jesus --> Peter --> Paul. Easy. Simple.

[Anonymous No.13941688]

Some of the stuff in the Pauline epistles seems so out of place with the rest of the New Testament and replies so fucking heavily on the Old Testament it reads like the Talmud, definitely weird.

[Anonymous No.13941690]

>>13941215
The simple fact is, the “Jesus” that Paul of Tarsus has created in his epistles is a complete fabrication. One needn’t do too much work to prove this theory; -all that is required is to simply peruse the 7 epistles for yourself, and see how many times Paul actually quotes the words of Jesus to support his theory or his theology in any of these documents. The whopping number is: Once.

Here I’m referring to 1 Cor. 11:23-25, which has some seriously ambiguous wording in and of itself:

“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ -In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’“

[Anonymous No.13941702]

>>13941690
-So, but the thing is, notice how Paul introduces this purported “quote” of Jesus: (Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου) “For I received of the Lord…” (1 Cor. 11:23). The word translated from the Koine Greek and rendered as “received,” –παρέλαβον– or, parelabon, means just what it says, namely: “received or taken,” -that is, Paul is claiming to have “taken” this quote directly from “the Lord,” i.e., either God or Jesus. -So, Paul isn’t saying that he heard this quote from people who knew Jesus, such as the disciples, nor is he claiming that what he’s about to relay is some well-known quotation that was floating around Judea, -and of which he is simply now reminding his fellow Christians and / or followers, -rather this quote is, he claims, a personal revelation from Jesus to him. Recall that Paul wasn’t a Christian while Jesus was actually on earth; he converted much later, after the fact. He spent no time with the living Jesus and, as we shall see later, very little time with the actual disciples. Paul could in no wise claim to have ever heard Jesus say any such thing while the latter was alive, and certainly not a statement made in so intimate a setting as the purported “last supper” -which is what he is referencing here in 1st Corinthians. He isn’t quoting the disciples -who were actually there- but rather saying, “Forget what you’ve heard from the eyewitnesses, because Jesus gave me a personal, secret revelation about what he actually said at this event…”

The question begs to be asked of course, if Jesus had actually said this thing (which so perfectly confirms Paul’s understanding of Jesus’s “true” purpose, i.e., to abolish Jewish Law via the vicarious atonement) -why did Paul need a special revelation for the world to hear about this statement? Why not simply defer to the people that were actually there at the event under discussion, such as the 11 remaining disciples (Judas, the 12th, having already committed suicide by this time)? Why doesn’t the citation begin as we might expect if it was authored by a man who was, according to the Book of Acts (and modern Christians), -so a man who was supposedly “best buds” with all the disciples;

The answer is, of course, obvious: Jesus never said any such thing. Paul is giving new information here, for the first time, and doesn’t defer to the actual disciples because he knows if he did, and if the Corinthians actually decided to somehow fact check him-but if they’d decided to actually travel the 1,000 some-odd miles to verify this one teeny statement in but one of the (probably total of 4) letters / epistles that Paul had written to the Corinthians (2 of which have been lost to history), they (=meaning, the actual disciples of Jesus) would naturally point out what a patent and absurd lie this is.

[Anonymous No.13941730]

this is all giving me a lot to think about

[Anonymous No.13941755]

>>13941495
>“…one of the key figures of the Book of Acts is the apostle Paul, and it is possible to compare what Paul says (in his verified epistles) about his relationship with Peter with what Acts says about Paul’s relationship with Peter. Look carefully at the two accounts and you’ll find important differences. When did Peter and the other disciples meet Paul? Right after Paul’s conversion in Damascus, as in Acts, or years later, as Paul insists? (Compare: Acts 9:26-29, with Galatians 1:16-18). Did Peter start the mission to Gentiles, as in Acts, or did he restrict his mission to the Jews while Paul was the missionary to the Gentiles, as in Paul’s own letters (Acts 10-11, Gal. 1-2)? Did Peter agree with Paul’s understanding that Gentiles should not be urged to keep the Jewish Law, as in Acts, or did he disagree, as according to Paul (Acts 15:6-11, Gal. 2:11-15)?”
“Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend,”, Dr. Bart Ehrman

From the above citation we can cull a few points of relative significance, these chiefly being that, 1) again, we don’t know much about Peter, historically speaking, 2) what is presented about him in Acts is unreliable, and contradicts Paul’s own accounts, and 3) in stark contrast to the counterfeit history presented in Acts, in all likelihood Peter believed in Jewish Law, preached exclusively to Jews, preferred the company of Jews (see Gal. chapter 2), and was himself a Jewish Christian (at least, insomuch as we can gather from Paul’s actual writings).

Of course, Peter’s “Jewishness” is no surprise to any historian even vaguely familiar with the situation in 1st century Palestine. As Dr. Barrie Wilson writes:

>“In light of well-founded fears over Hellenistic assimilation and annihilation, no responsible Jewish leader of the time would have dared suggest abandoning the Torah. That would have been a suicidal message for any Jewish community and that was not Jesus’ position.”

In other words, it’s little surprise that Peter, being an actual disciple of Jesus while he was alive (unlike Paul), believed 100% in the Jewish Law, kept it himself, and hence preferred the company of Jews -and this in imitation of his beloved teacher, Prophet, and Messiah, -Jesus himself. The Hellenized “Jesus” that Paul creates, by contrast, is incongruous with history, incongruous with 1st century Jews, up to and including the Jewish Christians of Paul’s day, and ultimately incongruous with the disciples themselves.

[Anonymous No.13941778]

If Paul’s “gospel” was truly authentic, why does he never quote Jesus? So, why does Paul rely solely on his own “visions” exclusively? Why are these visions necessary at all? What was the point of Jesus coming “in the flesh” and spending so much time with his disciples if the entirety of his message could merely be transmitted via a few passing visions to one man who had never even met him? And why does the latter have more authority than the former? Also, why is Paul averse to the disciples? Why does he avoid and, occasionally, attack them if his message is truly from Jesus? Wouldn’t any real Christic message bind the recipient to them (meaning, to the disciples), since they knew Jesus and followed him during his lifetime?

As Dr. Barrie Wilson notes:

>“An argument abolishing Torah observance for all time requires much …justification. Paul presented no biblical or other justification for contending that the Torah observance was over; he simply asserted that it was. Why the appearance of Christ rules out the Torah was never made clear. There was no appeal at all to what the Jesus of history said or did. There was no mention of any prophet. There was no reference to any saying of Jesus. It just rested on Paul’s saying that it was so. There was nothing in prior Jewish tradition to lead anyone to suppose that the Torah was temporary. To say that [Paul’s] argument is ‘flimsy’ is to be kind; it is simply expedient and self-serving. It’s an attempt to change the terms of the contract (between the Jews and God) unilaterally, by an outside party. Paul’s saying that the Jewish charter agreement with God has been terminated is analogous to some outside party, say the United Nations or the French Parliament, declaring the U.S. Constitution null and void. Just not credible.”

Paul did try to justify his position that the Halacha was no longer valid, -but he had to resort to misquotations, deceptions, sophistry, half-truths, etc. in order to make his case. (as is the case in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 wherein Paul claims Christ “died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures…” -There is, of course, no such reference to any man dying and rising again on the third day in the Jewish scriptures… this is a non-existent reference that Roman converts unfamiliar with the Jewish Bible had no way to fact-check or verify)

[Anonymous No.13941783]

Stop spamming. You're copypasting an interminable text and you've done it before. It's against board rules.

[Anonymous No.13941784]

>>13941755
Dude judaism had been heavily hellenized long before even Jesus' time. Of course Paul and the other apostles offered up a "hellenized" jesus. They were hellenic jews. Thats what christianity has always been. A hodgepodge of judaism and greek philosophy

[Anonymous No.13941790]

If paul was corrupting the faith why didnt the apostles kick him out of the council of jerusalem?

[Anonymous No.13941791]

>>13941783
He thinks the historical reliability of the NT somehow affects Christianity. Atheists are so ignorant these days

[Anonymous No.13941887]

>>13941730
the church fathers already thought about it for you. don't be a retard and fall for this muslim's demonic bullshit.

[Anonymous No.13941896]

>>13941791
>Why the historical contradictions and logical leaps dont affect christianity

[Anonymous No.13941947]

>>13941730
this. Lots of walls of text, if I read the NT do I just disregard everything Paul said? Someone explain to me in retard language

[Anonymous No.13941962]

interesting
https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/184-tolstoy-on-paulinism.html

[Anonymous No.13941978]

>>13941947
yes, disregard what Paul said and what 2000 years of scholasticism has agreed on and instead listen to this rambling double digit IQ schizo who is probably inbred.

[Anonymous No.13941983]

>>13941947
No, you simply realize that christianity probably never was meant to be for gentiles, and that Christ figure was coopted by others sects (pauline churchs, gnostics), creating an authorship forgery

[Anonymous No.13941984]

There’s a whole retard group under the delusion that there was a Pauline conspiracy to fundamentally misrepresent Christ’s message

[Anonymous No.13941986]

>>13941978
you keep calling him names but im not seeing any evidence being posted from the other side of the argument

[Anonymous No.13941987]

>>13941947
I'll break it down for you. One day, Satan appeared to a man named Muhammad in a cave and claimed to be an angel. He told Muhammad he was a prophet. Muhammad fabricated a religion that has nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity and claimed to be completing them. He led a few raids and murdered a bunch of Jews and Christians. A few hundred years later, Muslims finally got around to actually reading the Bible, and realized nothing in Islam is consistent with the tradition of the Prophets or Christians. So they threw tried to character assassinate the Christian who absolutely BTFO all their lies, Paul. The result is the pathetic man spamming this board and /his/ with these endless error-ridden copypastas from Muslim anti-Chirstian apologetics. All of his points have already been refuted in detail.

[Anonymous No.13941990]

>>13941215
Some of them weren’t even attributes to him by the authors, so how could theybe forgeries? One was likely written byan early church father. Fucking fedoras ruining this board

[Anonymous No.13941993]

>>13941986
Not him, but the reason why I'm not responding to the spammer is because I already have shown where he's wrong, yet he keeps coming back.

[Anonymous No.13942001]

>>13941986
WHAT DO YOU MEAN??? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???

[Anonymous No.13942004]

>>13941987
>>13941993
Can i get your sources or arguments against all this? Also does your argumentation require leaps of faith?

[Anonymous No.13942023]

>>13941518
>1 Saudi Riyal has been deposited into your account

[Anonymous No.13942057]

>>13942004
dude, its not rocket science.
>muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet (they "like" Jesus)
>Paul says that Jesus is the Son of God and God incarnate (they hate Paul)
>so they need to claim that Jesus never *really* claimed to be God in order for their religion to be valid (because they like Jesus and say He was a prophet), so they say that Paul distorted the Gospels of the New Testament, that he distorted Jesus' teachings

[Anonymous No.13942085]

Interestingly though, even before Paul was writing this Epistle to the Corinthians (in roughly A.D. 53-57, according to historians), or, at the very least, at around the same time, the Jewish Christians (the arch-enemies of Pauline Christianity, as we’ll see) were themselves reading from a text that, although it would continue to be edited for the next 50 or so years, nevertheless it provides a fairly accurate glimpse into how these arch-rivals to Paul’s “gospel” understood the same event. As far as the text being referred to, I’m alluding to the Didache, the only Jewish-Christian document that has survived through history (at least, in full). So, in other words: while Paul was preaching his “gospel” of Christ’s crucifixion somehow serving to abolish the Halakha, the Jewish Law, to a bunch of Romans who didn’t know any better, Jesus’ Jewish followers were preaching the opposite: That Jesus himself was a Jew, and never would have advocated such a thing. Like Paul, they too believed in the last supper, the difference being that, in their texts, there was no reference to Jesus’ blood, flesh, or implied atonement. They quote no mystery revelations from Jesus, quite simply because they weren’t interested in such a thing (and also because it seems that they believed that Jesus said all he had to say while he was alive). Their sole purpose and solitary aim was merely to do what Jesus himself did while he was still on earth, no more, no less:

>“Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way: First, concerning the cup: ‘We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy servant; to Thee be the glory for ever!’ And (then), concerning the broken bread: ‘We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy servant; to Thee be the glory forever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy congregation be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever!’” (Didache, Ch. 9).

There are no grand claims of personal revelations, no artificial quotations desperately aimed at giving their movement validity, etc. Instead, it’s relatively straightforward: According to these Jewish Christians, the Eucharist was simply a re-enactment of Jesus’ last supper with his disciples. They added a prayer that made it very clear that Jesus was indeed the Christ (i.e., the expected Jewish Messiah), and that he was a righteous servant of God (i.e., a Prophet in the truest sense), -but there is nothing about his sacrificial atonement, no intimations at Divinity, and no elaborate sophistry nor terrific declarations of a revelatory kind. It’s just a feast-ritual performed by a bunch of Jews who believed that Jesus was their (very human, non-redemptive) Messiah.

[Anonymous No.13942109]

>>13942057
Well i am no muslim but it seem you got to have absolute faith in Paul or else everything falls like a house of cards

[Anonymous No.13942118]

>>13941987
The whole "the angel was Satan" argument is cringy as all fuck but the Muslim arguments that Paul somehow twisted the view of the Gospels so much that the ordinary Gospels would show a Jesus completely in line with Islam, a religion which came centuries after him and completely at odds with his message, is also cringy as fuck.

[Anonymous No.13942120]

>>13942057
what on earth do muslims have to do with any of this? you cant tell me nobody aside from them have asked these things before.

[Anonymous No.13942124]

>>13941300
It's not a straw man argument if it's not an argument.

[Anonymous No.13942198]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature

Now, the Clementine literature is a set of writings that are described as:

>“There are two sets of writings that that survive under Clement’s name: one is a set of twenty homilies (sermons) that he is said to have delivered (The Clementine Homilies), and the other is a ten-volume account of journeys that he undertook to locate long-lost members of his family (The Clementine Recognitions). There are extensive similarities between these two sets of writings, -so much so that scholars have long been convinced that they both go back to a single, older writing that no longer survives, edited by two different authors in two different ways to give us the two sets of books that we now have…”
Dr. Bart Ehrman

We can infer from this that the original source goes way back to Christianities Judeo-Christian origins, and although these can in no way be taken as accurate verbatim, they give an interesting glimpse of a non-Pauline view of the events back then.

The most striking example of a counter-Pauline narrative is in a letter sort of quasi- “pasted-in” as a preface to the Homilies, purported to be written by Peter and addressed to James, the content of which decries an unnamed individual that is most certainly Paul.

>“For some among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed, some have have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught dissolution of the Law. …But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, ‘The heaven and the earth will pass away but not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the Law.'” (This last citation is referencing the words of Jesus as quoted Matt. 5:18, -the most ‘Jewish’ of all the Paul-influenced gospels, it should be noted. The Ebionites read a version of Matthew’s gospel and considered it authoritative, though it was probably in a redacted or slightly different form than what we would recognize today).

Now, are these the verbatim words of Peter? The answer is most probably, no. But there is little reason to doubt that the general content represents the early Ebionite / Nazarene / Jewish-Christian understanding of the Peter-Paul relationship,

[Anonymous No.13942206]

Later in the Homilies (where the Peter-Paul relationship is most commonly addressed), Peter is made to dispute with a thinly-veiled stand-in for Paul, criticizing the latter’s claim to authority based on one passing vision, which is, according to said author of the Homilies, worth little as when compared to Peter’s year’s-long companionship with Jesus while the latter was still alive. He writes:

>“And if our Jesus appeared to you and became known in a vision and met you as angry and as an enemy, yet he has spoken only through visions or dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that it is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you? …But if you were visited by him in the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he taught, be a friend to his apostles, and do not contend with me, who am his confidante; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church.” (Homilies 17:19)

Whether Peter ever uttered such a thing is, again, a moot point. The fact is, this is an extremely cogent argument that the early Jewish Christians would’ve most certainly made, -and it’s a hard one to refute. If Paul’s “gospel” was truly authentic, why does he never quote Jesus? ( He only quotes him once, and even then it was likely a false attribution, and certainly not a bonafide historical statement of Jesus’). So, why does Paul rely solely on his own “visions” exclusively? Why are these visions necessary at all? What was the point of Jesus coming “in the flesh” and spending so much time with his disciples if the entirety of his message could merely be transmitted via a few passing visions to one man who had never even met him? And why does the latter have more authority than the former? Also, why is Paul averse to the disciples? Why does he avoid and, occasionally, attack them if his message is truly from Jesus? Wouldn’t any real Christic message bind the recipient to them (meaning, to the disciples), since they knew Jesus and followed him during his lifetime?

[Anonymous No.13942232]

>>13942109
no, i have faith in the Sacred Tradition

[Anonymous No.13942264]

>>13942124
I didn't say it was a straw man argument. I said it was a straw man.

[Anonymous No.13942266]

>>13942206
I'll ask you one last time to stop spamming.

If you have a long text to share, link it.

[Anonymous No.13942299]

>>13942057
He didn't mention Islam in any of his arguments though. He was just trying to prove that the original Christianity is more Jewish than it is now.

[Anonymous No.13942330]

>>13942299
only muslims do this shit. muslims REALLY hate Paul. even when the pagans strt going after Christianity, they'll claim that the whole thing is a jewish slave morality conspiracy or whatever, but muslims will specifically only go after Paul because, like i said, Jesus is featured as a prphet in the koran, so they can't just say the whole religion is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.13942344]

>>13942330
>only muslims do this shit
tolstoy wasnt a muslim

[Anonymous No.13942353]

>>13942344
no but he raped his serfs so he's at least an honorary muslim

[Anonymous No.13942355]

>>13942330
What I meant was, he didn't use Islam in any of his arguments to debunk Paul, so saying he is wrong because he's a Muslim doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.13942374]

>>13942355
He wouldn't have had to come up with his arguments in the first place if he wasn't a Muslim. Law of parsimony says Paul and orthodoxy among the primitive church carried on the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. But Islamic theology necessitates driving a wedge between Jesus and Christianity's earliest major writer. So he throws up walls of texts copypasting centuries of Muslim denials and spams various boards with them. His arguments aren't worth engaging with if you aren't a Muslim.

[Anonymous No.13942377]

>>13941679
t. Triggered catholic

[Anonymous No.13942432]

>Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

[Anonymous No.13942456]

>>13942109
You’re projecting your own religion’s reliance on a book

[Anonymous No.13942462]

Wow, looks like 8cuck /christian/ cucklick refugees have flooded here, just like your pope floods Europe with refugees

[Anonymous No.13942466]

How come Jesus preached the universal dharma but Paul said he didn’t?

[Anonymous No.13942489]

>>13941134
He was one of the earliest and most influential missionaries to the gentiles, Christianity as we know it was enormously influenced by him, especially his opposition to obeying Jewish law. The main opposition to him was from Jewish Christians who believed that converts should obey all or part of the Jewish law. They are attacked by Paul in his letters, and there are later Jewish Christian documents that attack Paul's doctrine (such as the Homilies of Clement).

Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents still extant (50s-60s AD) and he met Jesus's disciplines multiple times. But how much their doctrines aligned isn't clear, he even rebuked Peter for moving from a table of gentiles converts to a table with only Jews, which Peter did to avoid upsetting a law-obeying faction of Christians.

[Anonymous No.13942511]

>>13942466
shut up. Jesus was an atheist. Paul distorted His message

[Anonymous No.13942540]

>>13942511
Jesus was an avatar of Krishna

[Anonymous No.13942684]

>>13942374
>Muh muslims
The contradictions are in the very bible and early church accounts as shown in
>>13941755

[Anonymous No.13942805]

>>13942684
You already lost this argument in a previous thread. Stop spamming this shit.

[Anonymous No.13942945]

>>13942805
Can you refer me to it

[Anonymous No.13943205]

>>13942945
https://ccm.net/faq/53032-how-to-view-browsing-history-in-internet-explorer

[Anonymous No.13943266]

>>13942198
>((( Ehrman )))
>((( Judeo-Christian )))
Pass

[Anonymous No.13943320]

>>13941190

Third post best post.

[Anonymous No.13943352]

>>13941215
>You can't trust the church fathers
>Trust some fedora historians instead
Nah

[Anonymous No.13943353]

>>13941495

Because he is literally anti-Christian, an all but perfect match for the literal Antichrist that Jesus warns about.

[Anonymous No.13943368]

/cope/ general

[Anonymous No.13943376]

>>13941978

Quantity is not Epistemology.

[Anonymous No.13943441]

Another tremendously underrated Pauline perversion is the re-Jewifying of Jesus under the pretense of de-Jewifying. Paul's claim that Judaism was somehow "fulfilled" or "abolished" through the Atonement of Original Sin actually only expands the boundaries of Judaism until it swallows and destroys anything and everything else, making Jesus not only A Jew, but THE Jew. The topology of the inversion makes your head spin, utterly putrid. It makes Matthew 23 sound merciful.

[Anonymous No.13943773]

>>13941186
Lena Einhorn, a scientist believes Jesus and Paul is the same person.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/580620.The_Jesus_Mystery