W
Wildgraywolf
Guest
Nope. God created only one religion - Judiasm. Christ fulfilled Judiasm and it is known today as Christianity; more specifically - Catholicism.
- Status
J
Joseph_Alison
Guest
I have absolutely no authority to discuss historical events of Christianity and their timing. I can only point you to the widely accepted opinions among the Christian scholars community; these opinions state that the four canonic gospels were written after Paul’s death, which occurred circa 67AD.
“Estimates for the dates when the gospels were written vary significantly, and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Mark: c. 68–73
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.” Source here
How can you be absolutely sure Paul did not add to the original teachings of Jesus?
Did Jesus teach original sin or was it Paul?
Did Jesus teach the fall of man or was it Paul?
Did Jesus teach faith without works or was it Paul?
Did Jesus come to abolish the law or was it Paul’s suggestion?
Regards.
Joseph.
J
Joseph_Alison
Guest
Greetings Ryan;
In my original post I talked about the Christians who existed before the conversion of Paul to Christianity and I said that the letters of Paul were not around (he did not convert yet) and the four canonical Gospels were not available also. So my original question was: what did those early Christians (before the conversion of Saul and before the writings of the four Gospels) believe? If you have any evidences to support your answer, please post it.
I never argued that Paul said that he knew the real Jesus and Paul himself never tried to convince anyone that he did, however he convinced people that Jesus “appeared” to him in a vision in his way to Damascus hence preparing the way to his self-proclaimed apostleship; in one instance he even said that Jesus in flesh and blood appeared to him (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
Regards.
Joseph
R
RyanL
Guest
Joseph,
Thank you for your reasonable reply. As with Islam, Christianity has poor scholars and historians. Many who would claim the title are nothing of the sort. Brown appears to be a skeptic, and has put forward skeptical dates. These dates are the latest I have encountered. Here’s some info supporting a much earlier date:
(Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the Temple. The gold in the Temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the melted gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy most likely would have been recorded by the gospel writers if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims – such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus prophesied – would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.
…
The fact that the incredibly significant destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of "Nero’s persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written very early and not long after Jesus’ ascension into heaven.
Even if he did, that would be OK - he just wouldn’t be allowed to contradict what Jesus taught. The Church teaches that General Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (St. John). We believe, as Catholics, that St. Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit and was kept free from teaching error in any binding sense.
What you are trying to do is quite clever, actually. As a military man, I appreciate the tactic of “divide and conquer”. You are attempting to divide Jesus from his Apostles, namely St. Paul. What you are neglecting is that Jesus’ *other *Apostles were around, traveling and speaking with St. Paul, and were well aware of what he was teaching. If what St. Paul was teaching was contrary to what Jesus taught, he would have been reprimanded by the Apostles either directly, or through the subsequent Epistles. The fact remains that no such reprimand is ever recorded.
Same comment.
Here is where it helps to actually know those with whome you’re speaking (rather than cutting and pasting from whyislam.com). The answer is that neither of them taught “faith without works”. That is a Protestant error, and if you can correct some of them, it would be appreciated.
The law wasn’t abolished by either one of them. Again, you’re speaking with Catholics here. Your Protestant tricks won’t work. There are so many continuations from Judaism in Catholicism that it would make your head spin. From the Passover to the Sabbath, we are still Jewish - but we are Jews in a completed sense. The old symbols were fulfilled, becoming the sacraments. Jews had holy water, we have holy water. Jews had a priesthood (they don’t anymore), we have a priesthood. Jews offered sacrifice, we offer the One True Sacrafice. From vestiments to incense, we understand that salvation is from the Jews.
I think you need to read up a little about what Catholics believe before you come back. You appear to think you are speaking with Protestants. I recommend the following sites:
www.catholic.com
www.newadvent.com
Good luck, and Shalom,
RyanL
C
chb03c
Guest
Listen I have heard this argument before, or something similar to it at least. I don’t need to read this article because I have read dozens that are saying the same thing. It is totally not consistant with what other historians have been saying for 2000 years. If you are looking to debunk Christianity simply but suggesting some conspiracy theory then you might as well stop now because you are not going to get anywhere!
God Bless,
PS Even the web site you posted calls it a conspiracy.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Joseph,
Might I suggest Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ” would answer many of your questions? If you are truly open to learning the answers.
J
Joseph_Alison
Guest
Warm greetings RyanL;
You made a comment about a site named Whyislam.org. I will be glad if you can post here the article you think I have cut and pasted from.
Regards.
Joseph.
I think I have a good idea about Catholicism and my Catholic friends beliefs, however I just want to remind that the thread title is: Did Paul start Christianity? I understood the question to mean Christianity at large and not a specific denomination of it; but now that you made the comment, I will adjust my replies to your satisfaction.
You made a comment about a site named Whyislam.org. I will be glad if you can post here the article you think I have cut and pasted from.
A poster wrote that Paul did not add to the teachings of Jesus and I showed him that it was not the case. Thank you for your straight answer.
Regards.
Joseph.
J
Joseph_Alison
Guest
Greetings iamrefreshed and thank you for your suggestion; I will chek it out.
Regards.
Joseph.
R
RyanL
Guest
Joseph,
Warm greetings to you. Again, know your audience. Catholics believe that Catholicism was Christianity for the first 1500 years of the religion. Catholicism is not a denomination. Catholicism is the original Christianity, and only in Catholicism will you find the fullness of what it means to be Christian.
I believe (among other places), your questions were derived from here:
whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3681
To better define:
Shalom,
RyanL
J
Joseph_Alison
Guest
Greetings chb03c;
Please forgive me if the tone of my reply made you take thing personally or generated some anger; it was not my intent in anyway.
As for debunking Christianity, I think that’s a very very ambitious task and even if I had all the power of the world to do it, I will not, and you know why? Because I believe that there is no compulsion in religion and I also believe that God provided us with an inner compass to tell when something is not all right with our inner soul. If someone feels OK with his beliefs, then he should stick with them, but when he feels something is not as it should be, then it is his responsibility to find out and I have absolutely not the single slightest doubt that God the creator will be there for him. I am content with my beliefs; you are the same, case closed.
I am discussing a topic that says Muslims accuse Paul to have started Christianity, I pointed to an article that shows there are also Christians who issue the same accusation and I am not siding with the author but just giving some food for thought.
PS: the website calls it Pauline conspiracy and not simply conspiracy.
Regards.
Joseph.
J
Joseph_Alison
Guest
Greetings Ryan;
Thank you for correcting my mistake.
Thank you for the link. No, I did not know about it. Any personal opinion on that site?
Regards.
Joseph.
R
RyanL
Guest
Joseph,
That site, like this one, is mostly filled with earnest, God fearing people who desire to serve God. In some instances, like here, there are some who are overzealous and blind to the truth of God and of Love (for in truth, they are one).
Overall, it’s a nice site. As with here, there are misconceptions about other faiths. I think it’s good that we’re trying to work past them and clear things up; I simply hope we are all open to the Truth.
Shalom,
RyanL
J
jjwilkman
Guest
actually there were 12 apostles. Matthias (Acts 1:15-26). let another take his (judas’) place.
R
RyanL
Guest
jj,
Please refer to posts #19 and #20. Thank you, however, my brother.
Via con Dios, mi carnal,
RyanL
G
Ghosty
Guest
I made no such claim. Please re-read my post. I said that there is no evidence that he originated any ideas in Christianity. He invokes the other Apostles as witnesses to his teachings, rather than claiming inovation. Whether the Apostles added to the faith is irrelevant, as they were given the authority by Jesus to do so. My point is that nothing indicates that Paul, on his own, added anything new to the faith.
You’ll have to do better than showing a “Christian” scholar arguing that Paul created things in Christianity. As Catholics we rely upon the authority of the Apostles and their successors, the Bishops. Anyone can call themself a Christian, but only a person with Apostalic Succession can be a Bishop. Unless it came from a true Successor, the theory has no more merit than any other personal opinion. Such “Christians” have no authority to speak on such matters, and have no divine protection against teaching error. Their words must be taken with a grain of salt.
J
Joseph_Alison
Guest
Greetings Ghosty;
In order to know if something was added to the faith, we ought to know what the original faith was; that was the whole point of me asking what -before the four gospels were committed to writing, and before the conversion of Paul- the early Christians believed.
I understand -and I respect it- that for my Christian friends it is a given: what was written reflected faithfully what was circulating through oral traditions; there is no reason for a Christian to doubt that.
I added that there is no point of arguing about oral traditions because no one can support any claim about them, and therefore we need to look at the writings.
I brought up a case –little down- where the three synoptic Gospels give different accounts about the same event, a very crucial event in my judgment! It was the moment where Jesus (peace be upon him) -in person- asked his close disciples who they think he (peace be upon him) was; the three Gospels give three different answers, all by Peter, one of the closest disciple of Jesus (peace be upon him):
· Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. MT 16:15-16
· Thou art the Christ. MK 8:29
· The Christ of God. LK 9:20
I can pickup any of the above as part of the original faith, and as a Muslim you certainly know which one I will pickup and I would say that any deviation from it is an addition to the faith be it from Paul or the consequent cannon writings.
If one is to take into account the synoptic problem and the Markan priority, it is not hard to guess which answer was correct.
Regards.
Joseph.
H
hlgomez
Guest
Joseph,
Would you think, in a logical way, that different testimonies of witnesses will have the same exact words and construction of sentence when they witness to something?
Believe me, the courts will not believe that.
Instead, a person’s testimony corroborates most of the time with another person’s testimony. So the words are not exactly the same in grammar and construction. As the case of Paul, he was an educated man, so he writes most of the time. The other apostles were just mere fishermen, most of them with no educational background. So they wrote less.
Pio
Would you think, in a logical way, that different testimonies of witnesses will have the same exact words and construction of sentence when they witness to something?
Believe me, the courts will not believe that.
Instead, a person’s testimony corroborates most of the time with another person’s testimony. So the words are not exactly the same in grammar and construction. As the case of Paul, he was an educated man, so he writes most of the time. The other apostles were just mere fishermen, most of them with no educational background. So they wrote less.
Pio
J
jaydog77
Guest
Those date ranges for the writing of the gospels are 1 of many views, although very peculiar dates given that dated portions of them exist for the synoptics between 50-65. Furthermore, if you have a document and can date it with a high degree of certainty, what do we know WITHOUT A DOUBT? That it was written BEFORE that date unless we are to believe that the copies we have were the very first. Furthermore, the church was established by preaching not written documents. The gospels were written from recollections from the Apostles which obviously spoken before they were written down. So any scholarship from Jesus Seminar type theologins aren’t the only thoughts on the matter.
- Jesus did (being the Word), starting in Genisis
- dito
- Again, paul recapping what was very clear in the Old testament
- Question implies a protestant understanding of Jesus/Christianity. However, Jesus taught only that works without believing in and accepting the sacrifice of the “good shepherd”…who “giveth his life for his sheep” were useless. Which relates to the last question.
- Jesus’ sacrifice is what fulfilled the law and its demands. Paul pointed out that in the law’s fulfillment in Jesus, observing the law would no longer be efficacious in and of itself.
“If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him. And you have seen him” - Jesus (a lot more than peace is upon him.)
“If you love me, keep my commandments.” - His commandments? Makes sense, in light of the fact that he said he and his Father are ONE
G
Ghosty
Guest
Joseph_Alison: Actually there is no substantial difference between those three accounts. As a matter of fact, the fact that they don’t use the exact same wording is what makes the testimony so reliable.
Give a short speech to ten people, and take them into seperate rooms and ask them to repeat what was said, and you will get ten different wordings of the same speech. That is the normal human communication of truths.
If we were talking about a court case, if ten people gave identical accounts with identical wordings, their testimony would be ripped apart by the opposition, if not thrown out completely. The reason for this is that it would imply that their testimonies were collaberated, meaning worked on together. It would suggest that they were being coached and memorizing a particular account rather than giving their own.
In the instance you cited there is absolutely no substantial differences in the meaning of what’s being said. “Christ” means “Anointed One”; it’s the Greek form of Messiah. If you read Psalm 2 you will see this:
You can choose to believe the testimonies, or you can choose to not believe them, but the fact remains that the testimonies agree. If it was only a single account, such as with the Koran, this wouldn’t even come up, but it’s four accounts from different areas and people. That almost never happens with history, espescially with things that ancient.
Give a short speech to ten people, and take them into seperate rooms and ask them to repeat what was said, and you will get ten different wordings of the same speech. That is the normal human communication of truths.
If we were talking about a court case, if ten people gave identical accounts with identical wordings, their testimony would be ripped apart by the opposition, if not thrown out completely. The reason for this is that it would imply that their testimonies were collaberated, meaning worked on together. It would suggest that they were being coached and memorizing a particular account rather than giving their own.
In the instance you cited there is absolutely no substantial differences in the meaning of what’s being said. “Christ” means “Anointed One”; it’s the Greek form of Messiah. If you read Psalm 2 you will see this:
So you see the Christ IS the Son of God, as it says straight from the Psalms. There is absolutely no difference in the accounts, other than the fact that they come from three different people. That’s the beauty of the Christian Scriptures: the seperate accounts, written by different hands from different testimonies, all back one another rather than contradict. There are differences, but there are no contradictions. You must also remember that these different accounts weren’t collected all together in a single volume for hundreds of years, and in many places were not even found together at all. What this tells us is that four different writers, in four different places, at four different times, refering to four different accounts, got the same story with the same substance across all versions. That’s huge. What that tells us is that, regardless of the truth of it all, the account found in the Gospels is most likely exactly what was being taught across all of the earliest Christian communities. If it wasn’t, then there is absolutely no reason they should support eachother so substantially. Right or wrong, it’s what the Apostles taught and apparently believed, having seen it with their own eyes according to their own testimony. What’s more, the larger facts of the story, such as the crucifixion and the existance of Jesus as a prominant preacher, are testified to in non-Christian accounts.
You can choose to believe the testimonies, or you can choose to not believe them, but the fact remains that the testimonies agree. If it was only a single account, such as with the Koran, this wouldn’t even come up, but it’s four accounts from different areas and people. That almost never happens with history, espescially with things that ancient.
G
Ghosty
Guest
The fact that Muslims call Jesus “Christ” while denying Him as the Son of God shows the lack of reason and logic within Islam. The very Psalms call the “Anointed One” (Christ, Messiah) “Son of God”.
You are free to pick any version of the accounts you like, but they all name Jesus as the Messiah, and the Messiah is called the Son of God in Psalms. The fact that one of the accounts actually uses that term and the others don’t is irrelevant; “Son of God” is implicit in the word Messiah (Anointed One).
Personally I find it extremely amusing (and a bit troubling) that the Koran refers to Jesus as the Messiah, yet denies the very meaning of the word at the same time.
You are free to pick any version of the accounts you like, but they all name Jesus as the Messiah, and the Messiah is called the Son of God in Psalms. The fact that one of the accounts actually uses that term and the others don’t is irrelevant; “Son of God” is implicit in the word Messiah (Anointed One).
Personally I find it extremely amusing (and a bit troubling) that the Koran refers to Jesus as the Messiah, yet denies the very meaning of the word at the same time.
- Status