Paul and Christianity

[1gr8bldr]

Ky55 posted this video, "Did Paul invent Christianity" post 626, in the "Is my dad in heaven" thread. I would like to discuss it. I found it to be spot on for the first 54 minutes. To an athiest, I ask, does this battle that Paul faced with the Jews validate the books as legit. You can't create this stuff. Point is, do you believe that Pauls writings are legit, that he wholeheartedly faught this battle? Christians say the NT is about Jesus teaching us how to live. They are only right to the degree of about 10%. Most of the NT is the conflict of Paul trying to keep Judaism and his view of Christianity from merging. Law and grace. To validate my claim of 10%, Jesus's teachings, the gospels merge Jesus's teachings to "convict" that the laws were not being kept, with those to live by faith. Confusing them as teachings of Jesus "for us to live by". If so then, there should be lots of eyes plucked out, hands cut off, etc. Most of Jesus's recorded so called teachings were not to believers but at unbelievers. Most, Most of the NT consist of the battle that Paul faced in trying to convert the Gentiles, to give them confidence, to convince them not to subcumb to the pressure from those mixing the Gospel with Judiasm. Devout Jews whom converted would by nature have a hard time walking away from their traditions, this we understand. But they were trying to force these on the Gentile believers. At the 54 mark, the idea that Paul believed Jesus to be devine.... that's from his own mistranslation. It's not so.... and we can look into that. He later implies that Christianity fell off due to several different things. He left out that the division among the two sides, having no clear truth would also hurt the spread.... as it does today. I enjoyed the video, agreed with it for the bulk of it. The implication that Luke did not know what he writes of, the dating of the writings, the conflict of the two sides, etc. One thing he failed to clarify..... that Paul's use "of believe" is that Paul means to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Nothing more, nothing implied. The Messiah that the Jews were waiting on. And no, I don't think Paul invented Christianity. He only pointed to Jesus as the fulfillment of the coming expectation of the Messiah. Anyone else watch it? Want to comment on it.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Ky55 posted this video, "Did Paul invent Christianity" post 626, in the "Is my dad in heaven" thread. I would like to discuss it. I found it to be spot on for the first 54 minutes. To an athiest, I ask, does this battle that Paul faced with the Jews validate the books as legit. You can't create this stuff. Point is, do you believe that Pauls writings are legit, that he wholeheartedly faught this battle? Christians say the NT is about Jesus teaching us how to live. They are only right to the degree of about 10%. Most of the NT is the conflict of Paul trying to keep Judaism and his view of Christianity from merging. Law and grace. To validate my claim of 10%, Jesus's teachings, the gospels merge Jesus's teachings to "convict" that the laws were not being kept, with those to live by faith. Confusing them as teachings of Jesus "for us to live by". If so then, there should be lots of eyes plucked out, hands cut off, etc. Most of Jesus's recorded so called teachings were not to believers but at unbelievers. Most, Most of the NT consist of the battle that Paul faced in trying to convert the Gentiles, to give them confidence, to convince them not to subcumb to the pressure from those mixing the Gospel with Judiasm. Devout Jews whom converted would by nature have a hard time walking away from their traditions, this we understand. But they were trying to force these on the Gentile believers. At the 54 mark, the idea that Paul believed Jesus to be devine.... that's from his own mistranslation. It's not so.... and we can look into that. He later implies that Christianity fell off due to several different things. He left out that the division among the two sides, having no clear truth would also hurt the spread.... as it does today. I enjoyed the video, agreed with it for the bulk of it. The implication that Luke did not know what he writes of, the dating of the writings, the conflict of the two sides, etc. One thing he failed to clarify..... that Paul's use "of believe" is that Paul means to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Nothing more, nothing implied. The Messiah that the Jews were waiting on. And no, I don't think Paul invented Christianity. He only pointed to Jesus as the fulfillment of the coming expectation of the Messiah. Anyone else watch it? Want to comment on it.

You are going to make a great atheist some day. 10%

 

[bullethead]

You are going to make a great atheist some day. 10%

Said with 0% of facts to back up the assertion.

Show him where he may be wrong.

 

[atlashunter]

Haven’t watched the video but Paul was in direct conflict with what Jesus says in Matthew. Jesus was preaching to the choir. They were all Jews. Paul on the other hand was selling to a different market and the pitch is a lot easier to make when it doesn’t mandate genital mutilation.

 

[Day trip]

The term Christianity originated in Antioch with disciples of Paul and Barnabas. It was originally a derogatory term that became embraced very much like “gangsta” and other similar terms that I won’t mention here. It started as more of an insult and was embraced as a symbol of unity. “Why yes, we are Christians”. So yes, Paul was partially responsible for the beginning of Christianity, for good or for bad.

Jesus never put himself or his teachings in a box other than the way, the truth and the life which by our own choice is accessible to everybody.

 

[ky55]

Haven’t watched the video but Paul was in direct conflict with what Jesus says in Matthew. Jesus was preaching to the choir. They were all Jews. Paul on the other hand was selling to a different market and the pitch is a lot easier to make when it doesn’t mandate genital mutilation.

The “no genital mutilation” thing was a really good reason by itself,
but I’d bet a lot of folks converted and signed on just for the shellfish and bacon.

 

[1gr8bldr]

You are going to make a great atheist some day. 10%

We only have the 4 gospels of what Jesus said, and much of that overlaps...... and of that, much of it is directed at those he is trying to convict on how they are not living up to the point of the law. Leaving only a small percent on how to live as a Christian..... and thus I have always said there is a reason for that. Because more instruction leads to less relying on the Spirit of the New Covenant. Ok... I may be off on the 10%...... maybe 12%

 

[1gr8bldr]

Jesus was a Jew. Lived as a Jew. Christianity is founded on the platform of Judaism. They were waiting expectantly for "the Kingdom of God" . The coming reign of the Messiah. The term "Son of God" and Messiah is interchangeable. If the term Messiah were used in scripture more often in place of Son of God, it would carry a more messianic/ Jewish feel to it.

 

[ky55]

Here’s some more discussion on Paul from Ehrman:

https://youtu.be/gTtaNWEC_a0

Sorry I can’t embed it from my phone. I’ll try tomorrow from the laptop.

 

[WaltL1]

Here’s some more discussion on Paul from Ehrman:

https://youtu.be/gTtaNWEC_a0

Sorry I can’t embed it from my phone. I’ll try tomorrow from the laptop.

 

[WaltL1]

Based on Bart's explanation above it would appear not much has changed.
There were the Jewish beliefs.
A dude comes along interprets the situation differently and sets out to promote/create a new "denomination".
Fast forward to `40,000 different denominations.....

 

[1gr8bldr]

Here’s some more discussion on Paul from Ehrman:

https://youtu.be/gTtaNWEC_a0

Sorry I can’t embed it from my phone. I’ll try tomorrow from the laptop.

For the most part, I agree with this video. Some minor differences, but not so much that Paul invented Christianity. He was bad wrong about 1 corinthians. LOL, I have actually tried to make my case to Erhman on this before, but he was not buying it. Not face to face but online. However, I am right. Paul's use of "A man has his fathers wife", and sexual things going on in the church was merely a picture he was painting that they would have known the meaning of. LOL, Paul got to creative.... and it was over the heads of later generations. Interesting stuff. I will explain only if someone is interested.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Said with 0% of facts to back up the assertion.

Show him where he may be wrong.

I didn’t notice any “facts” in the original assertion so can I just counter with absurd assertions also? No, THIS kind of silliness speaks for itself.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Yep. Knew OP reeked of Bart. Have fun following his circular reasoning right into the abyss.

 

[1gr8bldr]

Yep. Knew OP reeked of Bart. Have fun following his circular reasoning right into the abyss.

I didn’t notice an “facts” in the original assertion so can I just counter with absurd assertions also? No, THIS kind of silliness speaks for itself.

This is a discussion forum..... Lots of people don't agree, however, those that want to respond usually do offer up some sort of rebuttal.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

This is a discussion forum..... Lots of people don't agree, however, those that want to respond usually do offer up some sort of rebuttal.

Like I said. Your post doesn’t rise to the level necessitating a rebuttal. Just because a few squirrels nibble on it doesn’t mean it’s even a nut, that’s just what squirrels do.

 

[WaltL1]

This is a discussion forum..... Lots of people don't agree, however, those that want to respond usually do offer up some sort of rebuttal.

He's not interested in discussion.
He just likes to feebly jab and then run and go hide and pat himself on the back over what he perceives to be a knock out

 

[ambush80]

Like I said. Your post doesn’t rise to the level necessitating a rebuttal. Just because a few squirrels nibble on it doesn’t mean it’s even a nut, that’s just what squirrels do.

Wow. You need a good dose of secular, humanist rationality so you can learn to better examine your beliefs.

 

[1gr8bldr]

Like I said. Your post doesn’t rise to the level necessitating a rebuttal. Just because a few squirrels nibble on it doesn’t mean it’s even a nut, that’s just what squirrels do.

Sure it does. What kind of discussion this forum would be if we all went around responding like this.

 

[ambush80]

Sure it does. What kind of discussion this forum would be if we all went around responding like this.

As Walt pointed out, he doesn't want to discuss. He used to try and wasn't very good at it.