Paul Corrupted/Created Christianity

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

Wow, this thread seems to have been hijacked half-way through from being about Paul to being about Jesus. This “debate” is nothing novel though, as I’ve seen the same claims - perverting Christianity - levied against St. Augustine of Hippo. Even Nietzsche in his Anti-Christ(ian) says that Paul was a deciever and that the “only Christain died on the cross”.

I just wanted to add my two cents on the original topic - if Paul corrupted/created Christianity. I have several questions for those that take the view that Paul altered/fabricated Christianity:

1. St. John the Evangelist was known for his defense of purity of doctrine (or orthodoxy, however you wish to call it). He imparted this to his disciple, St. Polycarp, who in turn imparted it to his disciple, St. Irenaeus. If St. Paul did these things you say he did, then why did none of these 3 speak against him? Perhaps they were liars as well, as you seem to be implying that St. Paul was.
2. If St. Paul was spreading heresy, why didn’t the Apostles stop him at the Council of Jerusalem? Perhaps they were in league with him as well?
3. If St. Paul fabricated so much, then how is it that we find common liturgical traditions (which are backed by a common theology) in places were St. Paul never set foot (e.g., in the Churches of Africa, Syria, India, etc)?

Either your claims are false or we are before one of the greatest masterminds of all time…

 

[simplynoone]

Wow, this thread seems to have been hijacked half-way through from being about Paul to being about Jesus. This “debate” is nothing novel though, as I’ve seen the same claims - perverting Christianity - levied against St. Augustine of Hippo. Even Nietzsche in his Anti-Christ(ian) says that Paul was a deciever and that the “only Christain died on the cross”.

I just wanted to add my two cents on the original topic - if Paul corrupted/created Christianity. I have several questions for those that take the view that Paul altered/fabricated Christianity:

1. St. John the Evangelist was known for his defense of purity of doctrine (or orthodoxy, however you wish to call it). He imparted this to his disciple, St. Polycarp, who in turn imparted it to his disciple, St. Irenaeus. If St. Paul did these things you say he did, then why did none of these 3 speak against him? Perhaps they were liars as well, as you seem to be implying that St. Paul was.
2. If St. Paul was spreading heresy, why didn’t the Apostles stop him at the Council of Jerusalem? Perhaps they were in league with him as well?
3. If St. Paul fabricated so much, then how is it that we find common liturgical traditions (which are backed by a common theology) in places were St. Paul never set foot (e.g., in the Churches of Africa, Syria, India, etc)?

As for the thread getting hijacked, I was pretty much the only one giving anything in the way of Scripture comparisons… when the discussion moved away, I was more than willing to go with it… and as I have told Rinnie privately (and I have no problem saying it publicly), I HONESTLY appreciated that SOMEONE was discussing ANYTHING with me here considering that a lot of Catholics on this board just want to disregard most anything from those whose beliefs are not the same. I may not have come across as such, but I respected the fact that someone on here was willing to take that time and put forth that effort. Thank you Rinnie.

Now, I have no answers to your “ifs” and would like to know the same… what was the motivation. The only way that I can reconcile it with the Tanakh is by viewing it through the blessing and the curse given in Deuteronomy. Jesus’ teachings being the blessing and Paul’s distortion of them being the curse. What I do know is that the teachings of Paul are NOT consistent with the Tanakh. I do not say this to be rude, arrogant, or all knowing (as I never have claimed to be such… that would not be wise)… but I have sensed this throughout my growing up years and have searched to see and what I saw was astounding contradictions. It was not easy to come to grips with, but ultimately, I was not looking for rewards or security, rather the truth.

Either your claims are false or we are before one of the greatest masterminds of all time…

You are more than welcome to take the Scripture comparisons I have given and show me how I am wrong. I did not post them only to show you, but to see if they could be challenged… just please use the Scriptures (the Tanakh) to prove his case.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

Actually, the onus of proof is on you, since you have made the accusation. Quite frankly I have not found your case very convincing. This for two reasons:

1. You quote and quote Scripture, but when some one replys to your quotes, you seem to ignore them or else twist what they say to your convenience. Also, though I am not very read in the OT and am still making my way through it, you seem to be very selective about what you chose to quote as evidence against Paul.
2. Your replies have a hubristic air about them, which one should try to avoid when trying to “win converts”.

 

[simplynoone]

Actually, the onus of proof is on you, since you have made the accusation.

The premise… made by ralphinal, not me.

What we need to see is proof. Not generalities, but specific examples of Paul teaching something that is in opposition to Jesus.

I simply complied… and sheesh… for all the Paul bashing on this board, at least give me some credit that I did more than they all did and brought forth what I saw as contradictory to the foundation, rather than just dogmatic “Paul is wrong” claims.

Quite frankly I have not found your case very convincing. This for two reasons:

1. You quote and quote Scripture, but when some one replys to your quotes, you seem to ignore them or else twist what they say to your convenience. Also, though I am not very read in the OT and am still making my way through it, you seem to be very selective about what you chose to quote as evidence against Paul.

1. Your replies have a hubristic air about them, which one should try to avoid when trying to “win converts”.

Reply to your #1 point:

Fine… then pull them up … show me. I have yet to see it. I put all that forth, which as I said was more than all the other Paul deniers did. I am not seeing how I have twisted anything… so if you honestly think I did, then certainly bring it forth and I will discuss it honestly.

Reply to your 2nd point:

How could I be here for that?? I belong to NOTHING for the time being. Ultimately, my goal is to convert MYSELF to Judaism, but that is not a religion that I would ever encourage anyone to convert to. It is quite burdening to most. Since I belong to nothing, what exactly do you think I am trying to convert you to? I am just wanting to be challenged. Thus far, the best one of you to have done such is Rinnie… I was given Scripture references and even a book suggestion that I WILL read.

Quit judging me on assumptions and accusations… show me where you think I am wrong. I posted it up for just this reason and I can not do more to convince you all that I have no secret agendas but to learn myself… I can’t see converting to Catholicism, but I can learn from those who challenge me… and IF you show me the smoking gun… then I will never hold on to what I see as right (at this moment) simply for pride’s sake. Forget that I am challenging you… challenge me. Otherwise, stop deflecting your ignorance with false accusations.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

**rinnie is suggesting some special (Catholic) version of scripture. Is there a catholic bible? I hope so. I had been reading the King James Version only. Now I can consult the Gateway bible, not with any bad intention.

We also hade raised our objections to the doings of Saul. But nobody listened. Is Jesus not enough? Are there no good teachings of Jesus in the gospels?

Specially mixing the clean monotheistic teachings of Jesus with the malevolent pagan greek mythology of sons of gods and daughters of gods and goddesses etc. That ruined the original teachings of Jesus which were completely Jewish.

So, the topic : “Paul Corrupted/Created Christianity” is 100 % true. Jesus never knew about the present day christianity.**

did Paul corrupt Christianity or did he Create it? if He created it, then why did he persecute Christians when his name was Saul? If he corrupted this “mysterious religion” how, when, and where did he do that?

I know for a fact nobody is going to be able to provide any facts for anything I am asking.

and remember: People Lie; History dosen`t

Ben:

 

[Benjamin8o8]

The premise… made by ralphinal, not me.

I simply complied… and sheesh… for all the Paul bashing on this board, at least give me some credit that I did more than they all did and brought forth what I saw as contradictory to the foundation, rather than just dogmatic “Paul is wrong” claims.

Reply to your #1 point:

Fine… then pull them up … show me. I have yet to see it. I put all that forth, which as I said was more than all the other Paul deniers did. I am not seeing how I have twisted anything… so if you honestly think I did, then certainly bring it forth and I will discuss it honestly.

Reply to your 2nd point:

How could I be here for that?? I belong to NOTHING for the time being. Ultimately, my goal is to convert MYSELF to Judaism, but that is not a religion that I would ever encourage anyone to convert to. It is quite burdening to most. Since I belong to nothing, what exactly do you think I am trying to convert you to? I am just wanting to be challenged. Thus far, the best one of you to have done such is Rinnie… I was given Scripture references and even a book suggestion that I WILL read.

Quit judging me on assumptions and accusations… show me where you think I am wrong. I posted it up for just this reason and I can not do more to convince you all that I have no secret agendas but to learn myself… I can’t see converting to Catholicism, but I can learn from those who challenge me… and IF you show me the smoking gun… then I will never hold on to what I see as right (at this moment) simply for pride’s sake. Forget that I am challenging you… challenge me. Otherwise, stop deflecting your ignorance with false accusations.

you want a challenge? Christianinty was practiced by others before Paul persecuted Christians, so there is no way Paul could have corrupted it nor created it. Second of all, most jews agree that Jesus is responisble for the Catholic Church. Any encyclopedia in the libary would also support this HISTORICAL fact. Another Challenge: Give me evidence if Paul corrupted or created Christianiaty. I want to know how and when.

Ben:

 

[simplynoone]

did Paul corrupt Christianity or did he Create it? if He created it, then why did he persecute Christians when his name was Saul? If he corrupted this “mysterious religion” how, when, and where did he do that?

I know for a fact nobody is going to be able to provide any facts for anything I am asking.

and remember: People Lie; History dosen`t

He was not persecuting Christians since, after all, Christianity started in his own mind. He was persecuting the Jewish.

People lie; you are correct. This is what the prophecies in the Tanakh were speaking of. A perversion of the Word of God…

By the way, what you say “people lie, history doesn’t” falls flat in the area of logic. Think about it.

you want a challenge? Christianinty was practiced by others before Paul persecuted Christians, so there is no way Paul could have corrupted it nor created it. Second of all, most jews agree that Jesus is responisble for the Catholic Church. Any encyclopedia in the libary would also support this HISTORICAL fact. Another Challenge: Give me evidence if Paul corrupted or created Christianiaty. I want to know how and when.

I said I wanted to be challenged in what it is I posted. I complied with the premise laid out by the OP and have not had anyone, using Scripture, prove the contradictions I posted on page 1 to NOT be contradictions. I agree that the Catholic would never have their Church if it were not for the Jewish… in the same token, the Church contradicts the foundation on which it piggy backs. You are failing to understand what the Jewish mean when they said if it were not for them, the Church would not exist. It is not complimentary.

 

[ralphinal]

I have been reading this thread with some interest, and not just because I started it. I have intentionally not responded, as I did not want to “gang up” on anyone.

I would like to try to address some of the issues that have been raised.

1. God is not man, that he should change his mind or lie. Now, the easy way out of this one is that the Incarnation had to occure. That is not the way I would see it. I would easily say that it means exactly what the WHOLE passage says: God does not lie or change his mind like men do. God’s mind is unlike ours. We cannot place Human understanding on God, nor can we expect him to act like a HUman. Actually, this passage does more damage to Islam than to Christianity. Allah in Islam is shown to trick people and to change his mind. Further, if you read the NT, you see that Jesus did not act or respond like a typical human, either.
2. Christianity is different than the Way followed by the Apostles. Scripturally, it does seem to have some merit. However, all of the letters of Paul were completed before the Last Apostle died. Do you not think that John would have held more sway than epistles from Paul? There is more proof. If you take the more liberal Gospel dating system, say everything written after 50 A.D., you would have to assume that Paul’s form of Christianity was already in play. If that is the case, why would the Gospel writers not make the Gospels more “Paul Friendly?” Why not force the two to match up perfectly?
3. We must always read the NT from a Gospel first point of view. We see what Jesus taught and then see how Paul or others expand upon it. This is where so many non-Catholic Christians mess up. Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law, but that the law might be fulfilled. In this case, that would mean that the law is incomplete without Christ. Once Jesus filfilled the law, it was made complete. There was no more need for the Animal sacrifices, and no more need for ritual circumcision as a sign of the Covenant between God and Man. This does not end the moral code of the Law. Now, Paul says that the law was a burdon and not perfect. He is correct. Had the Law been perfect, Jesus would not have been needed to fulfill it. It was a burdon because it imposed limitations on the way Man could approach God and atone for sins. If we look at history with a Christian view, this is totally proven out with the destruction of the temple.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

He was not persecuting Christians since, after all, Christianity started in his own mind. He was persecuting the Jewish.****

lol, and Abraham practiced Islam…come on now…“your conspiracy theories are nothing without evidence”. Paul was Jew HIMSELF, why would he persecute his own people. As matter of fact he was propably ordered to persecute them. This is a historical fact, no matter what Ben tells you. Jesus is responsible for Christianinty, 98 % Jews in the first century and in this century agree with this. But its conspiracy artists like you and Ben who try to give us a difficult time. Face the facts please. , Paul was a Christian persecuter. Check your daily encyclopeida.

People lie; you are correct. This is what the prophecies in the Tanakh were speaking of. A perversion of the Word of God… ****

Saying that Paul created Christianinty is a lie. I guess Tanakh did its thing.

By the way, what you say “people lie, history doesn’t” falls flat in the area of logic. Think about it.

I do

I said I wanted to be challenged in what it is I posted. I complied with the premise laid out by the OP and have not had anyone, using Scripture, prove the contradictions I posted on page 1 to NOT be contradictions. I agree that the Catholic would never have their Church if it were not for the Jewish… in the same token, the Church contradicts the foundation on which it piggy backs. You are failing to understand what the Jewish mean when they said if it were not for them, the Church would not exist. It is not complimentary.

not important. What is important is to provide historical and logical facts about your ridicioulous claims.

People Lie; well…you know the rest.

ps- Catholics are the fullfilled Jews for your information.

Ben:

 

[ralphinal]

Simplynoone,
If I may ask the dumbest questions I can think of, would you mind? Why would you want to convert yourself? Shouldn’t the work of conversion be done by God? Why would you want to convert yourself to a faith that is not reaching out to you? I know that sounds dumb, but if there is a failure of Judaism as a faith, it has been a lack of the faithful reaching out to others and telling them the truth of Judaism. Think about it. How sure of the faith are they when they make it a point NOT to tell others?

What is it about Judaism, from where you sit, that seems better than where you were before? By the way, where were you before?

 

[Auriel]

I took a few months off from these forums, came back a few days ago…And man, WHAT is up with all the Jesus is not God and the Paul haters??? I am scanning though but I swear I do not remember these subjects as topics before. And the weird thing is I am seeing these discussions on all the religious forums.

I realize it is a belief and that is what these forums are for but wow. Five or ten years ago others I know would not have seen them as Christians. I wonder if that movement is growing? Just curious.

And ralphinal, your patience is impressive. Better you than me…LOL

 

[ralphinal]

I took a few months off from these forums, came back a few days ago…And man, WHAT is up with all the Jesus is not God and the Paul haters??? I am scanning though but I swear I do not remember these subjects as topics before. And the weird thing is I am seeing these discussions on all the religious forums.

I realize it is a belief and that is what these forums are for but wow. Five or ten years ago others I know would not have seen them as Christians. I wonder if that movement is growing? Just curious.

And ralphinal, your patience is impressive. Better you than me…LOL

This is actually new to me, and I have been on here for nearly five years, although I took some time off.

Part of what I think we are seeing is a movement to answer questions without admitting that one is wrong in the beginning. For example, let’s say you think that Jesus was just a good man who had a good moral code. Now, you must figure out why people would think he is God. Sooner or later, you see that people think that because Jesus’s closet followers did as well. Now, Jesus can no longer be a good man with a good moral code if he thought he was God. So, his followers must not have really taught that. Which follower is wrong the most? Well, it must be the most visible. That is Paul, who wrote the most. So Paul is a no good S.O.B. who hijacked Christianity.

My patience is strange. With some, I have plenty. Others go through it quickly.

 

[simplynoone]

I have been reading this thread with some interest, and not just because I started it. I have intentionally not responded, as I did not want to “gang up” on anyone.

Honestly, I am glad you started it. It is good to not just say I do not agree with Paul, but rather show why I do not… and this was just that opportunity given.

1. God is not man, that he should change his mind or lie. Now, the easy way out of this one is that the Incarnation had to occure. That is not the way I would see it. I would easily say that it means exactly what the WHOLE passage says: God does not lie or change his mind like men do. God’s mind is unlike ours. We cannot place Human understanding on God, nor can we expect him to act like a HUman. Actually, this passage does more damage to Islam than to Christianity. Allah in Islam is shown to trick people and to change his mind. Further, if you read the NT, you see that Jesus did not act or respond like a typical human, either.

I do not know much about Islam other than what most anyone knows… they do some type of worship several times a day and worship their god Allah (only lower cased it because I am not yet convinced it is the same God… I do not have any evidences either way nor does it matter to me). Paul is the one to start Christianity and because I did grow up in Christianity and therefore know the ins and outs of it (though, understand, I know Catholicism goes about things differently than what I grew up in), I can discuss Christianity.

And as far as Jesus not acting like a typical human, my guess would be that is because the non human characters were made up by the imaginations of those who helped to deceive… since, after all, God gave His nature clearly in the Tanakh and how Jesus is being viewed is against His Nature. If Jesus is how he is being presented on here and in the NT (aside from the teachings), then that WOULD mean that God changed His mind since He was clear that He would not require the sacrifice of one for another; that He is not a man; and that He would not give His glory to another.

1. Christianity is different than the Way followed by the Apostles. Scripturally, it does seem to have some merit. However, all of the letters of Paul were completed before the Last Apostle died. Do you not think that John would have held more sway than epistles from Paul? There is more proof. If you take the more liberal Gospel dating system, say everything written after 50 A.D., you would have to assume that Paul’s form of Christianity was already in play. If that is the case, why would the Gospel writers not make the Gospels more “Paul Friendly?” Why not force the two to match up perfectly?

All of this though does not address the obvious contradictions that I have given in compliance with your premise. Here is what I know about the origins of the NT… It was kept in the hands of the elite and MUCH later taught to those less educated in society. And THEN handed out to the public. Sounds much like brainwashing to me. Since all of this is up in the air… it is why I listed the contradictions of Paul’s teachings in regards to the Tanakh.

1. We must always read the NT from a Gospel first point of view. We see what Jesus taught and then see how Paul or others expand upon it. This is where so many non-Catholic Christians mess up. Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law, but that the law might be fulfilled. In this case, that would mean that the law is incomplete without Christ. Once Jesus filfilled the law, it was made complete. There was no more need for the Animal sacrifices, and no more need for ritual circumcision as a sign of the Covenant between God and Man. This does not end the moral code of the Law. ** Now, Paul says that the law was a burdon and not perfect. He is correct. Had the Law been perfect, Jesus would not have been needed to fulfill it. It was a burdon because it imposed limitations on the way Man could approach God and atone for sins. ** If we look at history with a Christian view, this is totally proven out with the destruction of the temple.

That, what I highlighted, is EXACTLY WHY I SAID Paul’s teachings contradict the Tanakh… either you believe Paul is right or God is right.

Psa 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Notice… it is perfect… and it was for CONVERTING (emphasis on ‘ing’) the soul.

Psa 119:152,160
Concerning thy testimonies(the prophets), I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments(laws) endureth for ever(are eternal).

And since I have chose to believe God over Paul, I found that God’s ways really did make more sense and was MUCH less burdening and/or confusing than Paul’s.

FYI, Jesus never said He fulfilled the Laws for mankind… certainly not for Gentiles since he seemed to have an aversion to the gentiles. In fact, he specifically warns in Matthew 5:17-19 (the passage speaking of said incident) of teachers such as Paul.

 

[simplynoone]

lol, and Abraham practiced Islam…come on now…“your conspiracy theories are nothing without evidence”. Paul was Jew HIMSELF, why would he persecute his own people. As matter of fact he was propably ordered to persecute them. This is a historical fact, no matter what Ben tells you. Jesus is responsible for Christianinty, 98 % Jews in the first century and in this century agree with this. But its conspiracy artists like you and Ben who try to give us a difficult time. Face the facts please. , Paul was a Christian persecuter. Check your daily encyclopeida.

Seriously, I think a few of us have agreed to discuss this in a civil manner. I did not say that Abraham practiced Islam… it is clear he did not. Paul was a Jew, yes… but Paul was a hellenistic Jew and this is evident in his teachings.

It is also clear that he DID persecute other Jews, so why you are arguing that, I am unsure. I am not giving conspiracy theories… go back to page 1… I have done more than you are doing… i have used Scripture to support what I am saying.

By the way… this is me discussing on this thread… not Ben. So I am unsure as to why you say YOU and BEN. Again, I have clearly laid out the contradictions with Scriptures… so either address them or just admit that you are in ignorance.

Saying that Paul created Christianinty is a lie. I guess Tanakh did its thing.

Explain what you are implying with that last part please.

not important. What is important is to provide historical and logical facts about your ridicioulous claims.

People Lie; well…you know the rest.

ps- Catholics are the fullfilled Jews for your information.

Ben:

I disagree with you on the last part. God disagrees with as well. I have shown proof in the Scriptures for this… let’s see your proof since even the church claims its foundation in the Tanakh. (by the way… use the foundation to support your claims… since that is what Catholicism piggy backs on).

 

[simplynoone]

Simplynoone,
If I may ask the dumbest questions I can think of, would you mind? Why would you want to convert yourself? Shouldn’t the work of conversion be done by God?

I do not think this is a dumb question. Everything I have learned (mostly anyway) has been in my own searchings coupled with the understandings that come from God… via His Laws and the Testimony. I am the one doing the conversion because of a thing called Free Will… God gave His Laws and the Testimonies… thus, I am well equipped with being able to align my perspective and life up to what He has laid out. Certainly, He has opened my eyes to much, but I had to quit leaning to man’s understandings first.

Why would you want to convert yourself to a faith that is not reaching out to you? I know that sounds dumb, but if there is a failure of Judaism as a faith, it has been a lack of the faithful reaching out to others and telling them the truth of Judaism. Think about it. How sure of the faith are they when they make it a point NOT to tell others?

And this part of your question CERTAINLY is not dumb… I wondered the same thing and in fact, felt offended that they would “dare to put ME” to the test of seeing how serious I am. I spent much time in prayer concerning this because my heart KNEW this is where I belonged, but I could not understand what you yourself are not understanding.

Finally, the understanding came. To convert to Judaism is to take part in the covenant between the Chosen People and God. It is not a requirement for a Gentile to do so in order to be righteous. They discourage conversion because when you are accepted, you are NO LONGER just an individual, but part of a People… you are taking part in something that is not required of all mankind… however once you take hold of it in an active way, you are held to a higher standard… 610+ Laws is not a light weight, ya know. It is to keep God in remembrance in the way HE deems fit even in the most tedious of tasks.

Why I have chosen to seek this is because it is in my heart… this part is something I really can not explain well as it is very personal. His Voice has been calling me for as long as I can remember and His Voice was so distinctively different from all the other voices that are thrown out at us these days… I am of Him and so, really… this is the direction that I must go. The fact that they discourage people is not a bad thing. The Laws that YOU all find burdening were never meant for you. The commands to mankind in general are so common sense that it does escape me that so many would rather a human sacrifice than just obeying them.

The misconception that Paul put out to the world was to make the Gentiles think that the Laws given to the Jewish were meant for all of mankind and this is not true. Ever heard of the Noahide Laws? 7 simple commands… observing them is to be a righteous Gentile… that is it… thus, no need to convert anyone to Judaism.

What is it about Judaism, from where you sit, that seems better than where you were before? By the way, where were you before?

I was brought up by Christian parents and teachers. It did not make sense to me and the fact that my questions were always met with pretty much the same dealing outs that I have had on here, it made me all that more suspicious.

Right now, I am what is called a righteous Gentile and to not convert to Judaism does not make me less righteous before God. I choose to convert because He has laid it on my heart to do so… it is what I belong in. Then, personally, to me, keeping God in remembrance is such a light thing considering what all He has opened up for me… I love Him because NOW, I finally know Him… That Voice that called to me was His and it is so familiar to me and already, in everything I do, I am constantly in His presence… I have an overwhelming desire to be a part of keeping Him before me alway… and not for reward… just knowing Him is my reward; and that I already have… now it is a matter of being grateful and loving toward Him.

It is hard for me to put into words what it is that is on my heart… I do hope you understand.

Mostly know that Judaism does not actively seek converts because it is not a requirement for Gentiles to observe all that the Jewish do… they can still be righteous simply by obeying God’s 7 Laws to mankind. Not at all burdening.

 

[ralphinal]

Honestly, I am glad you started it. It is good to not just say I do not agree with Paul, but rather show why I do not… and this was just that opportunity given.

And that is one of the reasons I did that.

I do not know much about Islam other than what most anyone knows… they do some type of worship several times a day and worship their god Allah (only lower cased it because I am not yet convinced it is the same God… I do not have any evidences either way nor does it matter to me). Paul is the one to start Christianity and because I did grow up in Christianity and therefore know the ins and outs of it (though, understand, I know Catholicism goes about things differently than what I grew up in), I can discuss Christianity.

Just out of curiosity, what flavor of Christianity was that? By the way, many people are not sure it is the same as our God. They claim him to be, but still…

And as far as Jesus not acting like a typical human, my guess would be that is because the non human characters were made up by the imaginations of those who helped to deceive… since, after all, God gave His nature clearly in the Tanakh and how Jesus is being viewed is against His Nature. If Jesus is how he is being presented on here and in the NT (aside from the teachings), then that WOULD mean that God changed His mind since He was clear that He would not require the sacrifice of one for another; that He is not a man; and that He would not give His glory to another.

Well, God did take David’s son from him because of his sin…The Father is NOT a man…and God did not give up any Glory to Jesus, Jesus retained his Glory as GOd

All of this though does not address the obvious contradictions that I have given in compliance with your premise. Here is what I know about the origins of the NT… It was kept in the hands of the elite and MUCH later taught to those less educated in society. And THEN handed out to the public. Sounds much like brainwashing to me. Since all of this is up in the air… it is why I listed the contradictions of Paul’s teachings in regards to the Tanakh.

That is NOT an accurate time-line. The NT writings were read out to the assembled faithful almost as soon as they were written. Now, if you want to claim that the Church did not allow people to own them, you are ignoring historical reality. Most people were illiterate and there was no easy way to replicate books. The NT in the early days would have been on scrolls, and not exactly coffee table size. To copy one Bible took years of work. It was not until movable type that the common man could own a book

That, what I highlighted, is EXACTLY WHY I SAID Paul’s teachings contradict the Tanakh… either you believe Paul is right or God is right.

Psa 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

No disagreement. If you can jkeep the law perfectly, you will be fine. Further, the Law in this case could be just the moral code.

Notice… it is perfect… and it was for CONVERTING (emphasis on ‘ing’) the soul.

Psa 119:152,160
Concerning thy testimonies(the prophets), I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments(laws) endureth for ever(are eternal).

And since I have chose to believe God over Paul, I found that God’s ways really did make more sense and was MUCH less burdening and/or confusing than Paul’s.

FYI, Jesus never said He fulfilled the Laws for mankind… certainly not for Gentiles since he seemed to have an aversion to the gentiles. In fact, he specifically warns in Matthew 5:17-19 (the passage speaking of said incident) of teachers such as Paul.

Then, Jesus said to make believers of all men, not just Jews.

The problem is that you are reading Paul first, not Paul last. See the writings of Paul THROUGH Jesus. Paul changes greatly.

 

[ralphinal]

I do not think this is a dumb question. Everything I have learned (mostly anyway) has been in my own searchings coupled with the understandings that come from God… via His Laws and the Testimony. I am the one doing the conversion because of a thing called Free Will… God gave His Laws and the Testimonies… thus, I am well equipped with being able to align my perspective and life up to what He has laid out. Certainly, He has opened my eyes to much, but I had to quit leaning to man’s understandings first.

Have you read any Aquinas? Or Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginers?

And this part of your question CERTAINLY is not dumb… I wondered the same thing and in fact, felt offended that they would “dare to put ME” to the test of seeing how serious I am. I spent much time in prayer concerning this because my heart KNEW this is where I belonged, but I could not understand what you yourself are not understanding.

Finally, the understanding came. To convert to Judaism is to take part in the covenant between the Chosen People and God. It is not a requirement for a Gentile to do so in order to be righteous. They discourage conversion because when you are accepted, you are NO LONGER just an individual, but part of a People… you are taking part in something that is not required of all mankind… however once you take hold of it in an active way, you are held to a higher standard… 610+ Laws is not a light weight, ya know. It is to keep God in remembrance in the way HE deems fit even in the most tedious of tasks.

I am glad that you understand my point. I am more glad that I am not the only one who thinks about it.

You know, I have a theory on the Laws and why there are over 600 and why the Christian position makes sense…

Why I have chosen to seek this is because it is in my heart… this part is something I really can not explain well as it is very personal. His Voice has been calling me for as long as I can remember and His Voice was so distinctively different from all the other voices that are thrown out at us these days… I am of Him and so, really… this is the direction that I must go. The fact that they discourage people is not a bad thing. The Laws that YOU all find burdening were never meant for you. The commands to mankind in general are so common sense that it does escape me that so many would rather a human sacrifice than just obeying them.

And yet the Bible is the story of a people who refused to follow them…

The misconception that Paul put out to the world was to make the Gentiles think that the Laws given to the Jewish were meant for all of mankind and this is not true. Ever heard of the Noahide Laws? 7 simple commands… observing them is to be a righteous Gentile… that is it… thus, no need to convert anyone to Judaism.

You do know that your position is in opposition of Ben Masada’s on here? And I think that you are leaving out the context of most of these writings of Paul. He was combating a group of people who said that you must be Jewish to be Christian.

I was brought up by Christian parents and teachers. It did not make sense to me and the fact that my questions were always met with pretty much the same dealing outs that I have had on here, it made me all that more suspicious.

It should. No issue there.

Right now, I am what is called a righteous Gentile and to not convert to Judaism does not make me less righteous before God. I choose to convert because He has laid it on my heart to do so… it is what I belong in. Then, personally, to me, keeping God in remembrance is such a light thing considering what all He has opened up for me… I love Him because NOW, I finally know Him… That Voice that called to me was His and it is so familiar to me and already, in everything I do, I am constantly in His presence… I have an overwhelming desire to be a part of keeping Him before me alway… and not for reward… just knowing Him is my reward; and that I already have… now it is a matter of being grateful and loving toward Him.

Fair enough and well said.

It is hard for me to put into words what it is that is on my heart… I do hope you understand.

More than I can explain.

Mostly know that Judaism does not actively seek converts because it is not a requirement for Gentiles to observe all that the Jewish do… they can still be righteous simply by obeying God’s 7 Laws to mankind. Not at all burdening.

But, you said earlier that being a Rightous Gentile is not as rightous in the eyes of God as being a Jew…In other words, we are spiritually second class citizens…

 

[simplynoone]

Just out of curiosity, what flavor of Christianity was that? By the way, many people are not sure it is the same as our God. They claim him to be, but still…

I was raised baptist, but my parents allowed me to explore other christian denominations… among which was charismatic, pentecostal, Lutheran, and then when on my own in my late teens, I got involved in a church where the Law of God was preached, only in a VERY negative light. For a couple of years (25-27 yrs of age) I studied with a lovely Jehovah’s Witness privately in my home. I enjoyed that much more than all the others because my questions were encouraged and I was listened to. the last 4 years, I have pretty much been on my own in my searching. Last year, after being THOROUGHLY confused because still none of my questions had been properly answered by anyone… I threw it out altogether and that was when in the strangest of ways, I learned the Truth of where the Nature of God is defined… really, it is strange even now to look back and see the path I was VERY much guided along once I let go of ALL the MANY interpretations of man.

Well, God did take David’s son from him because of his sin…The Father is NOT a man…and God did not give up any Glory to Jesus, Jesus retained his Glory as GOd

Jesus is not THE Son of God, but rather A Son of God.

That is NOT an accurate time-line. The NT writings were read out to the assembled faithful almost as soon as they were written. Now, if you want to claim that the Church did not allow people to own them, you are ignoring historical reality. Most people were illiterate and there was no easy way to replicate books. The NT in the early days would have been on scrolls, and not exactly coffee table size. To copy one Bible took years of work. It was not until movable type that the common man could own a book

There is your truth, my truth, their truth, our truth… and then THE Truth. This is why this particular argument is neither here nor there with me. We can get to the Truth without even going here.

No disagreement. If you can jkeep the law perfectly, you will be fine. Further, the Law in this case could be just the moral code.

And just like that… we get to your misunderstanding. The Law of God is perfect for the convert-ING the soul. Note: The Law of God is perfect… for what? Convert ING the soul. It does not say YOU ARE PERFECT and must keep the Law of God, else it is the Law that is riddled with flaws. It is given for us to start the process of convert ING the soul. Get it?

Then, Jesus said to make believers of all men, not just Jews.

I’ll not beat around the bush here… I do not believe that Jesus said this. The ONLY time that he said this contradictory statement (contradictory because everywhere else he taught AGAINST going in the way of the Gentiles) was after his “resurrection.” Given that it was contradicting what else he said and that the resurrection is against the character of God, this was obviously inserted by one who wanted his views supported by Jesus.

The problem is that you are reading Paul first, not Paul last. See the writings of Paul THROUGH Jesus. Paul changes greatly.

I was brought up in a christian home, so it is really hard for ME to say which was read to me first… how you could know… well, I do not see how you could. the Christian teachings though are contradictory to what Jesus taught. Post #6… page 1 of this thread.

 

[simplynoone]

Have you read any Aquinas? Or Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginers?

No and no … I have read and taken hold of Proverbs 2: 1-7. Have you read that? What do you think?

I am glad that you understand my point. I am more glad that I am not the only one who thinks about it.

Well, certainly I had questioned, as I said, how they could DARE to test ME… then I realized that I still had issues in my own heart to work out. Once I did, it further confirmed that I loved this People and their God; and that they do not actively seek converts and in fact, actively discourage shows me that they are wise in that it forced me to examine my own heart’s motives.

You know, I have a theory on the Laws and why there are over 600 and why the Christian position makes sense…

Gonna share?

And yet the Bible is the story of a people who refused to follow them…

At least THAT is something I can relate to… more so than a man who was PERFECT and yet was to be my example.

You do know that your position is in opposition of Ben Masada’s on here?

Considering that I am not him and that I have a mind of my own, I am not seeing why this would be an issue; even if our views are in opposition.

And I think that you are leaving out the context of most of these writings of Paul. He was combating a group of people who said that you must be Jewish to be Christian.

The Jewish were not even Christian themselves, so this seems like a strange thing to say.

But, you said earlier that being a Rightous Gentile is not as rightous in the eyes of God as being a Jew…In other words, we are spiritually second class citizens…

Can you point out where I said this?

 

[ralphinal]

I was raised baptist, but my parents allowed me to explore other christian denominations… among which was charismatic, pentecostal, Lutheran, and then when on my own in my late teens, I got involved in a church where the Law of God was preached, only in a VERY negative light. For a couple of years (25-27 yrs of age) I studied with a lovely Jehovah’s Witness privately in my home. I enjoyed that much more than all the others because my questions were encouraged and I was listened to. the last 4 years, I have pretty much been on my own in my searching. Last year, after being THOROUGHLY confused because still none of my questions had been properly answered by anyone… I threw it out altogether and that was when in the strangest of ways, I learned the Truth of where the Nature of God is defined… really, it is strange even now to look back and see the path I was VERY much guided along once I let go of ALL the MANY interpretations of man.

WOW. No wonder. This is a mess to sort out.

Jesus is not THE Son of God, but rather A Son of God.

Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God, per Christian thought. Not that that matters.

There is your truth, my truth, their truth, our truth… and then THE Truth. This is why this particular argument is neither here nor there with me. We can get to the Truth without even going here.

Funny, you were the one who said that only some people had access to the NT,and that it was used as a form of brainwashing.

And just like that… we get to your misunderstanding. The Law of God is perfect for the convert-ING the soul. Note: The Law of God is perfect… for what? Convert ING the soul. It does not say YOU ARE PERFECT and must keep the Law of God, else it is the Law that is riddled with flaws. It is given for us to start the process of convert ING the soul. Get it?

Then all who keep the laws of God are made perfect and sin no more?

I’ll not beat around the bush here… I do not believe that Jesus said this. The ONLY time that he said this contradictory statement (contradictory because everywhere else he taught AGAINST going in the way of the Gentiles) was after his “resurrection.” Given that it was contradicting what else he said and that the resurrection is against the character of God, this was obviously inserted by one who wanted his views supported by Jesus.

When the Samaritan woman asked to be healed, she was. It was her faith unlike most of Israel that saved her. Jesus had said that his followers were to be lights unto the World, not lights unto the Jews. The WORLD. Jesus said that when the Son of MAn is lifted up, he would call all men to him. Not all Israel. No, it is not contradictory.

I was brought up in a christian home, so it is really hard for ME to say which was read to me first… how you could know… well, I do not see how you could. the Christian teachings though are contradictory to what Jesus taught. Post #6… page 1 of this thread.

Nope. I have read all that was posted on here. You were raised in a Protestant background. The proto-typical Protestant method of reading the NT is to read Paul, insert their notions of his meanings, then apply to Christ. The Catholic way is to read Christ, add in Apostolic Teachings, then apply to Paul.

No and no … I have read and taken hold of Proverbs 2: 1-7. Have you read that? What do you think?

I have read it. I think that you are on to something. We all need to call upon wisdom and intellegence. You should look into the ones that I mentioned.

Well, certainly I had questioned, as I said, how they could DARE to test ME… then I realized that I still had issues in my own heart to work out. Once I did, it further confirmed that I loved this People and their God; and that they do not actively seek converts and in fact, actively discourage shows me that they are wise in that it forced me to examine my own heart’s motives.

I see your point. However, I would say that if I felt that I had the best way to have a relationship with God, I would not keep it secret. I would tell all that I meet about how wonderful life is in my Church. The fact that they do not do so makes me wonder how many truly think that they have the best way to reach God.

Gonna share?

It will take a while to flesh out, but basically the Laws were a way to bring Israel out of Egypt physically, mentally, and emotionally. They were an enslaved people with an enslaved mindset.

At least THAT is something I can relate to… more so than a man who was PERFECT and yet was to be my example.

Ah, but Jesus would say that it is not about being perfect but about STRIVING for perfection. You start by keeping the Law, then move on to dedicating yourself to God. When you sin, you repent.

Considering that I am not him and that I have a mind of my own, I am not seeing why this would be an issue; even if our views are in opposition.

Because your basic position is similar, and he is a Jew. Just an observation.

The Jewish were not even Christian themselves, so this seems like a strange thing to say.

Jewish Christians. I was not clear. These letters might have been before the Council of Jerusalem.

Can you point out where I said this?

I am sorry I misread your post. You did not say that.