Did Paul Start Christianity?

[Joseph_Alison]

hlgomez:

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?
Pio

Salaam Pio and Ghosty;
I did not brought up that instance to show differences in words and construction of sentences, far from that. That instance was very special and is found -if I am not wrong- nowhere else in the Bible,.
Jesus (peace be upon him) in a face- to-face dialog with those who will later on spread his teachings asking them about who they think he was; can you dream of a better opportunity than this one, to listen to the answer of the disciples and to the reaction of Jesus (peace be upon him) to that answer?
Since those disciples were called to spread his teachings, I suspect Jesus (peace be upon him) would have immediately corrected them -as not to spread false information about him- if they answered incorrectly.
The fact is, one disciple –Peter- answered for all and there is no record that his companions disagreed with his answer, but there is a record that the three synoptic Gospels give three different accounts.
The majority, Luke and Mark, did not record Peter as answering you are son of God, only Mathew did, but more importantly NONE of them recorded Peter answering your are God or the Lord or anything else. If Jesus was God or the Lord, why did not he correct Peter, as the later would have omitted the most important aspect of the nature of his master, and would later on teach wrong teachings about him? The Bible remains silent; therefore I conclude that Jesus was content with the answer as presented to him by Peter and I am talking about the answer recorded by the majority, that is Luke and Mark.

I don’t know if I can be more explicit but that’s all I am capable of.
Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Ghosty]

Joseph: You are still missing the point that Messiah, or Christ, MEANS “Son of God” according to the Scriptures. There is no difference in those accounts.

Now, as to your point about the Apostles not saying that Jesus was God, you must understand that they were responding based on what they knew from Scriptures. It had not yet been revealed that Jesus was indeed God, nor had it been revealed that the Messiah would be God. There were hints of it in Scripture, such as the name Emmanuel, but nothing so explicit as the Son of God title applying to the Messiah. Furthermore, you seem insistant on removing John from the equation, but it is equally valid as a Gospel, and in it Jesus does indeed reveal Himself as God.

All that being said, you’re missing a crucial aspect of the equation. Luke wrote both Acts and The Gospel of Luke, and Acts describes Paul’s conversion and his teaching across the region. If there was a contradiction between the teachings of Paul, well recorded at the time Acts was written, and the teachings of the rest of the Apostles also described in Acts, and the teachings of Jesus recorded in Luke, why no mention of it? If Paul had been originating ideas contrary to the testimony of the other Apostles and Jesus Himself, why no mention by Luke?

You see, there’s a reason that we have compiled all these different writings together, and that’s because they all have something unique and important regarding the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles. None of the teachings and details are all recorded in one place, but rather have been compiled from various testimonies and writings. Had there been contradiction between the testimonies of Paul and the other Apostles, Luke would have recorded them. Contrary to your supposition, however, Paul’s teachings are talked about in length in Acts by the same author who compiled eye-witness testimony of Jesus for the Gospel. The fact that no contradictions are highlighted is noteworthy.

In short, if there had been contradiction between “You are the Christ of God” and Paul’s sayings about the divinity of Jesus, don’t you think Luke, who wrote the former and recorded the later, would have commented on it?

 

[Ghosty]

I want to add to my previous post. I mentioned that it was only revealed later that Jesus was indeed God, but I never said when. It was after He rose from the dead, when He sent the Apostles out into the world to preach and baptize. He said:

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28)

Notice it says “in the name” not “in the names”. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same name, Yahweh, and are facets of the same being. As I pointed out in the post above, Son of God is another name for the Messiah, and Jesus had already been revealed as the Messiah at this point. Jesus is here making it explicit that the Son shares the same being as the Father, and they are both God.

 

[PMV]

I still haven’t seen any Muslim make a valid argument against the statements I made on my first post beginning the thread. From my point of view, Islam contradicts History.

 

[Preacher]

PMV:

I still haven’t seen any Muslim make a valid argument against the statements I made on my first post beginning the thread. From my point of view, Islam contradicts History.

Hi there

Here is the formal factual statement in form of this link.

Paul: The Apostle of DOOM!
islam-is-the-only-solution.com/doom.htm

Regards
Preacher

 

[steve99]

Joseph_Alison:

Jesus (peace be upon him) in a face- to-face dialog with those who will later on spread his teachings asking them about who they think he was; can you dream of a better opportunity than this one, to listen to the answer of the disciples and to the reaction of Jesus (peace be upon him) to that answer?
Since those disciples were called to spread his teachings, I suspect Jesus (peace be upon him) would have immediately corrected them -as not to spread false information about him- if they answered incorrectly.
The fact is, one disciple –Peter- answered for all and there is no record that his companions disagreed with his answer, but there is a record that the three synoptic Gospels give three different accounts.
The majority, Luke and Mark, did not record Peter as answering you are son of God, only Mathew did, but more importantly NONE of them recorded Peter answering your are God or the Lord or anything else. If Jesus was God or the Lord, why did not he correct Peter, as the later would have omitted the most important aspect of the nature of his master, and would later on teach wrong teachings about him? The Bible remains silent; therefore I conclude that Jesus was content with the answer as presented to him by Peter and I am talking about the answer recorded by the majority, that is Luke and Mark.

Jesus probably was content with Peter’s answer *at that stage. *Peter’s answer is not wrong, just incomplete. What is unfolding, among other things, is the growing understanding among the apostles of who Jesus was. This was something that had to come to understand not just be told. Don’t forget what a change in mindset it would need to understand that God took on human flesh ans was physically among them. Also this incident took place before the account of the transfiguration. Presumably after this Jesus thought that Peter, James and John were ready for further revelation of who he was.
As Ghosty said it was only after Jesus rose from the dead that that he fully revealed who he was. And indeed we might say only after the Holy Spirit had revealed to them all truth.

 

[Donna_P]

Let’s not forget that Jesus gave the Apostles the power through Him to bind spirits, heal the afflicted and to continue to teach and evangelize. Regardless of when Paul or the other Apostles wrote the gospels or Acts or what ever - they were given the right through Christ and the words were inspired by the Holy Spirit who was given to us by Christ who is part of the Trinity.

 

[Booklover]

steve99:

of who he was.
As Ghosty said it was only after Jesus rose from the dead that that he fully revealed who he was. And indeed we might say only after the Holy Spirit had revealed to them all truth.

Yes, the Holy Spirit, the REAL Paraclete!

 

[hawk]

steve99:

Jesus probably was content with Peter’s answer *at that stage. *Peter’s answer is not wrong, just incomplete. What is unfolding, among other things, is the growing understanding among the apostles of who Jesus was. This was something that had to come to understand not just be told. Don’t forget what a change in mindset it would need to understand that God took on human flesh ans was physically among them. Also this incident took place before the account of the transfiguration. Presumably after this Jesus thought that Peter, James and John were ready for further revelation of who he was.
As Ghosty said it was only after Jesus rose from the dead that that he fully revealed who he was. And indeed we might say only after the Holy Spirit had revealed to them all truth.

Muslims cannot understand this, since they do not understand progressive revelation.

They claim that there has only ever been one faith, and that is islam, and it has never changed.

This presents huge problems for islam, since events unfold whcih cannot be explained even events that are occur in the Quran, cannot be explained by muslims.

I have asked a hundred times,
Why were Adam and Eve in the garden, if they were already destined for earth?

The answer according to muslims, is that was a pre-test of would happen on earth. ie. Satan would tempt them.

Now we look at another part of the Quran.

And we have Iblis (islamic satan, powerful jinn, basically bad guy), refusing to bow down to Adam.
But why were the angels being made to prostrate before Adam?

Muslims will argue that that was a test, to show that Satan was rebelling.

But why the garden? Wait a minute, God sends satan into the world at that point, so how did he get to Adam and Eve in the garden?

And if the prostrating of iblis was a test, to show Adam his nature?
Then what was the test in the garden of eden?

You see, once you go down the slippery road of islamic theology, you start to realise that muslims have invented half of it.

But you can be the judge of that.

 

[hlgomez]

Muslims cannot understand this, since they do not understand progressive revelation.

They claim that there has only ever been one faith, and that is islam, and it has never changed.

This presents huge problems for islam, since events unfold whcih cannot be explained even events that are occur in the Quran, cannot be explained by muslims.

I have asked a hundred times,
Why were Adam and Eve in the garden, if they were already destined for earth?

The answer according to muslims, is that was a pre-test of would happen on earth. ie. Satan would tempt them.

Now we look at another part of the Quran.

And we have Iblis (islamic satan, powerful jinn, basically bad guy), refusing to bow down to Adam.
But why were the angels being made to prostrate before Adam?

Muslims will argue that that was a test, to show that Satan was rebelling.

But why the garden? Wait a minute, God sends satan into the world at that point, so how did he get to Adam and Eve in the garden?

And if the prostrating of iblis was a test, to show Adam his nature?
Then what was the test in the garden of eden?

You see, once you go down the slippery road of islamic theology, you start to realise that muslims have invented half of it.

But you can be the judge of that.

Muslims try to interpret these passages according to their human understanding, and the passages themselves suggets strongly to be invented by Muhammad. There is half-truth and half-lies.

Because how can “Satan” enter the garden to “tempt” Adam and Eve if he is still a good angel? The fact that he is already a bad angel at that time (that’s why his name is Satan–meaning Tempter) cannot justify the novel idea that he is being made to bow down before Adam and then he refuses and so he sinned? This is a double accusation that doesn’t justify the story itself.

Pio

 

[PMV]

Preacher:

Hi there

Here is the formal factual statement in form of this link.

Paul: The Apostle of DOOM!
islam-is-the-only-solution.com/doom.htm

Regards
Preacher

Here’s what seems to be the main amount of “proof” that Paul started Christianity on this site;
website:

…the source of a prophet’s knowledge is Divine teaching, revelation and inspiration. But the source of the false prophet is human teaching, past experience, deception and perjury. That is exactly what we found in Paul’s rhetoric including telling the readers that “Jesus” was cursed by God.
Christians claim that *Jesus *had redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: *for it is written, Cursed is every one that hanged on a tree." (Galatians 3:13).

***Has Paul been honest writing this or he has a hidden agenda? If we ask any Christian *“By whom was Jesus cursed?” ***Most Christians would answer without any hesitation *“cursed by people."

But the Paul, who made this allegation has different answer, since he is not honest when quoting his reference i.e. Deuteronomy 21:23 {“ . . . that is hanged is accursed of God; . . . "} Paul has covertly tried to hide “God” making it easy for Christians to accept the connection between the Old Testament’s curse and Jesus.*

**Christians accepts this connection without thinking, thus, by doing so Christians are automatically accepting Jesus to be cursed by God Almighty, without realizing Paul’s assault on Jesus. Because making a reasoned connection between Deuteronomy 21:23 and Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27, Luke 23:33, John 19:18 one will learn that “Jesus is cursed by God” or Christians sham God Jesus cursed by God!

Why Paul is insulting Jesus? What could be his reason for this assault on Jesus? Why *Paul *has perverted the teachings of Jesus and taught the doctrine of trinity?

*Jesus *himself has provided the answer while condemning the Pharisees and warning people in Matthew 16:11-12 & Luke 12:1-2. That is why Jesus’ disciples escaped from Paul as we read in Luke 12:1-2.

Paul confirms Jesus words, perhaps prophecy in Acts 23:6 {“I AM a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee . . .”}. Notice, that Paul does not say that I was a Pharisee?

Paul became all things to all people (1. Corinthians 9:20-22). Did Jesus become all things to all people to win them like Paul? That is why Jesus cursed hypocrites and Pharisees!

This proves that Paul Passed On The FALSE Gospel!

Here are responses to this from the ‘Apologetics’ forum;

Maranatha:

I have successfully argued this:

St. Thomas Christians, in southern India, track their tradition back to the Apostle Thomas. They were not “discovered” by Europeans until the 16 Century. Their believes were so close to the RCC that they have come in to communion.

Since they had similar doctrines as the RCC and our traditions come down from Peter and Paul, then there must have been an “original source” that predated both Apostolic ministries.

In addition to their own web site, New Advent and Wikipedia have lot of good history on them.

continued…

 

[PMV]

continued…

BibleReader:

That poor Muslim soul!

Paul’s preaching and letters were an insightful mix of rhetoric and Bible typology. Much of Paul’s letters are expansions of Old Testament word pictures.

For instance, Christ is often foreshadowed in the Old Testament with sin symbols. Examples: The bronze serpent on the pole, in the Book of Numbers. Paul clearly puzzled over this: “Why does Scripture foreshadow the ‘blemishless lamb’ with sin symbols???”

At 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul deduces the answer: Christ is “Him-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin,” meaning that Christ, though He was sinless, ended-up being treated as though He were Sin, itself, when to purchase saving grace from God’s justice He subjected Himself to the same kind of penalty reserved by God’s justice for our sins.

So, Paul’s teaching is an elaboration of that which is already in Judaism.

It isn’t new. It isn’t a departure.

Ironically, unlike the inspired Bible, the Koran is not built out of types and word pictures.

Lazerlike42:

christian-thinktank.com/muslix.html

tektonics.org/lp/nelsons01.html

Reen12:

Hello, BibleReader,

Quote:

“…Paul deduces…”

Well, Paul may have “deduced”, but it was news to
the rabbinic scholars of his day. Judaism *has *no
concept of Original Sin.

One of two things is the case:

-Paul was inspired by God to deduce this
-Paul forced an interpretation on the Hebrew Scriptures
that doesn’t hold water

The Hebrew Scriptures are replete with references to:

“God saves” “God forgives”
“If your sins be as scarlet, I will make them whiter than snow.”

It’s a matter of faith…accept what he wrote, or reject
what he wrote- as erroneous interpretation, incorrectly deduced.

[For that matter, Orthodoxy does not hold with a “stain” that
is washed away…which is why Orthodoxy will not accept
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. No stain, no need
for being immaculately conceived.]

It truely is a matter of faith: RC’s hold with Original Sin as a stain,
Judaism hasn’t even got a concept of Original Sin, Orthodoxy
denies a stain, and some Reformers thought that humans
are totally depraved in nature, not just “wounded” in nature.

You wrote:

Quote:

So, Paul’s teaching is an elaboration of that which is already in Judaism.

Some would say it is an “elaboration.” Others would hold
that what he wrote was a mis-interpretation of Judaic
Scriptures.

It’s a matter of faith for all concerned.

reen12

---

 

[gilliam]

hawk:

They claim that there has only ever been one faith, and that is islam, and it has never changed.

What the Arabs believed prior to 600 AD was nothing like Islam.

 

[reen12]

Dear PVM,

I read the second link that you provided. It didn’t
answer my objection, which is:

The Judaism described by Saul is unrecognizable to me.

The critical objection, on my part, is not over faith,
works, justification…

The objection is whether Jesus was Messiah. If not,
then all that Saul has to say about the entire enterprise
is moot.

reen12

 

[hawk]

gilliam:

What the Arabs believed prior to 600 AD was nothing like Islam.

They were polytheists and idolaters, who turned to Allah.

But every prophet has only preached islam

 

[gilliam]

hawk:

They were polytheists and idolaters, who turned to Allah.

But every prophet has only preached islam

al-Lah was one of the gods. During the 7th century, it was starting to be common belief amongst many Arabs in the central part of the peninsula that al-Lah was the same as the God of the Jews, but monotheism came with Islam. That is, when Mohammad proclaimed himself a profit that fit into the Abrahamic tradition.

Since then, we have had a lot of different flavors of Islam in this world. All preached a little differently. All ‘interpreted the Koran differently.’ All with their own ‘prophets’ and additional holy books.

 

[hawk]

gilliam:

al-Lah was one of the gods. During the 7th century, it was starting to be common belief amongst many Arabs in the central part of the peninsula that al-Lah was the same as the God of the Jews, but monotheism came with Islam. That is, when Mohammad proclaimed himself a profit that fit into the Abrahamic tradition.

Allah or some derivative may have indeed been the same as the God of the Jews. Remember many of the early converts in medinah were jews, who understood the word Allah.
It doesnt matter that Mohammeds people had a different idol , they also called Allah.
Its quite pointless to argue that Allah is a different God from our God.

It is more fruitful to realise that our understanding of that one God is significantly different from the islamic understanding of that God.

Since then, we have had a lot of different flavors of Islam in this world. All preached a little differently. All ‘interpreted the Koran differently.’ All with their own ‘prophets’ and additional holy books.

Sure there are many flavors of islam, None of them have their own prophets except for qadiyanis

 

[gilliam]

hawk:

Allah or some derivative may have indeed been the same as the God of the Jews. Remember many of the early converts in medinah were jews, who understood the word Allah.
It doesnt matter that Mohammeds people had a different idol , they also called Allah.
Its quite pointless to argue that Allah is a different God from our God.

It is more fruitful to realise that our understanding of that one God is significantly different from the islamic understanding of that God.

I would think most people living in Madina or Mecca at the time, would know who the god al-Lah was. I also think most Arabs in those cities thought he was the same God as the God of the Jews. I am not sure about how many of the early converts were Jews (the Yathrib were Arabs not Jews). At the early stages of Islam, Mohammad made settlements with Jews and also was under the protection of Jews and protected Jews.

Sure there are many flavors of islam, None of them have their own prophets except for qadiyanis

OK, isn’t Mohammed the last prophet? All sects have their own peculiar practices and for many they say that theirs is the only way to perform that practice. OK, not from prophets, but from Imans. And, of course, some sects look differently upon the prophets. Some think they are completly infallable (e.g., Shi’a) and some think they are only infallable as pertains to religion (e.g., Ash’ari).