Paul Corrupted/Created Christianity

[Ben_Masada]

Where in the bible saying the last supper was the night before Passover?

BTW, at 33 AD, there were 2 well known Jewish Rabbi, called Hillel and Shammai. Their calendar of Passover even miss by 1 day.

Here’s what it says in John 19:31. Since it was the preparation day, the Jews did not want to have the bodies left on the cross during the Sabbath, for that Sabbath was a solemn feast day.

That Sabbath was a Shabbaton. I mean, a festival that falls on the Sabbath. That’s why it was a solemn feast day. The festival was the Passover. And the Supper, which is called Seder Meal is to be celebrated at the sunset of the 14th of Nissan which fell on that Friday of the year 30 CE. To have celebrated it on the day before, it must have been fabricated by Paul. And put into writing by his disciples who wrote the gospels.

Oh, by the way, I would like to bring to your attention, when you read John 19:31 to focus
on the “The Jews did not want to have the bodies…” That’s a proof right there that the guy who wrote this gospel was not John, but a Gentile. A Jew would not say, “The Jews didn’t
not want…” as if he was not Jewish.

Ben

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

simplynoone? I hear you knocking; But what is your question here? Do you want proof that Jesus is God incarnate as Catholics and most Christians believe? This is a fundamental difference in what you appear to be indicating, can one reach this depth of thought between that Jesus is God incarnate, and God is Spirit? You appear to be exploring the mystical Trinity where there is the God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, three persons in One God. I respectfully say, you appear to be running explanations in circles.

Or are you exploring the Op of how Paul corrupted/created Christianity?

I have read the posts, here, I hope you can ask your question so as to be addressed? Your posts are debatable, but what is the answer your looking for? be it the explanation of the Trinity, or Paul being accused of inventing Christianity?

Please help;

 

[simplynoone]

simplynoone? I hear you knocking; But what is your question here? Do you want proof that Jesus is God incarnate as Catholics and most Christians believe? This is a fundamental difference in what you appear to be indicating, can one reach this depth of thought between that Jesus is God incarnate, and God is Spirit? You appear to be exploring the mystical Trinity where there is the God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, three persons in One God. I respectfully say, you appear to be running explanations in circles.

Or are you exploring the Op of how Paul corrupted/created Christianity?

I have read the posts, here, I hope you can ask your question so as to be addressed? Your posts are debatable, but what is the answer your looking for? be it the explanation of the Trinity, or Paul being accused of inventing Christianity?

Please help;

Nope… I was simply trying to help you all out with your claim in the Tanakh. But saying that God is a man would not be helping you out… so, that I am not doing. Jesus was a man… simply that. Not God, not the ONLY son of God, not more important the whole of the son of God. He was a man and he died and now you are all worshiping a dead man’s image.

I was picking out verses here and there… twisting the words a bit to help you all out in getting to the truth of the matter. There is no problem to you all with the words in the Tanakh being twisted to support for your faiths. I figured you all wouldn’t mind a bit of twisting with Paul’s so that at least you could say you have something consistent with the foundation. After all, unlike Christianity’s twisting of the Word of God that shows gross lack of understanding in it, at least I have enough knowledge of the foundation to rewrite your faith in a more productive, healthy, and consistent teaching that will improve your Life greatly. Just let me know! I never mind helping others out to their benefit.

 

[Reuben_J]

First, I have to wonder, being a follower of Paul, how one could NOT tell this was Paul’s writings. <---- How I feel that he is that into so many people’s heads they can not see the obvious … Do you read Paul’s writings? They are one and the same. But here, let me do more of the work for you.

3 John 1: 3
4I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.

2 Corinthians 6:13
Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

Galatians 4:19
My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

Hebrews 2:13
And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

3 John 1:
2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
5 Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers;
11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

I Corinthians 4: 4
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

Also, concerning the above:
Paul is the only one I know of that continues to talk this way:
3 John 1:
13 I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee

I Corinthians 4:17
For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

I Cor 10:14
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Phillippians 4:1
Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.

Concerning the “write” verse in 3 John that I posted a bit up:

I Corinthians 14:37:
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

I Timothy 3: 14
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
The above is the kicker concerning the verse after the “write” comment in the 3 John verse…

3 John
14 But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.

Greet, Salute, Peace… all of these are such common themes in Paul’s writings that I am left shaking my head at… well… sheesh!

The assertion that 3rd letter of John could be written by Paul is very subjective and purely speculative. You can come out with a personal opinion like that but it is not to be taken seriously as objective truth because other than your saying so there is no evidence to support the statement. It is thus does not hold much water in serious discussion. As a matter of opinion I can always say that if their writings were similar then it shows that they were of the same mind and being disciples of Jesus that was amazing considering that they were not together during Jesus’ lifetime.

 

[LutheranDK]

The claims about Paul can only be made with a blind eye toward the Gospels. For example, some believe Paul invented the Last Supper. However, Jesus Himself celebrated the first Holy Mass, as recorded in all four Gospels.

By the way, this is what experts believe Saint Paul looked like:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/PaulusTarsus_LKANRW.jpg

Interesting!

How do they reach that conclusion, though? I don’t recall Scripture giving us any hints as to Paul’s appearence?

 

[LutheranDK]

First, I have to wonder, being a follower of Paul, how one could NOT tell this was Paul’s writings. <---- How I feel that he is that into so many people’s heads they can not see the obvious … Do you read Paul’s writings? They are one and the same. But here, let me do more of the work for you.

3 John 1: 3
4I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.

2 Corinthians 6:13
Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

Galatians 4:19
My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

Hebrews 2:13
And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

3 John 1:
2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
5 Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers;
11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

I Corinthians 4: 4
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

Also, concerning the above:
Paul is the only one I know of that continues to talk this way:
3 John 1:
13 I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee

I Corinthians 4:17
For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

I Cor 10:14
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Phillippians 4:1
Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.

Concerning the “write” verse in 3 John that I posted a bit up:

I Corinthians 14:37:
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

I Timothy 3: 14
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
The above is the kicker concerning the verse after the “write” comment in the 3 John verse…

3 John
14 But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.

Greet, Salute, Peace… all of these are such common themes in Paul’s writings that I am left shaking my head at… well… sheesh!

I know of NO theologians (critical or conservative) who would claim that the letters of John were actually pauline!
It is interesting that all of your so-called similarities are generalities - by which I mean that the phrases you claim indicate Pauline origin are just…common phrases!
I can also write a post using some of the language that Pope Benedict XVI does, but that would not mean that I would be the auther of the encyclicas bearing his name.

Your claim is a non-sequitur, and shouldn’t be taken seriously. The Pauline and Johannine letters are distinctly different from oneanother, especially when you look at the Greek text, and that’s all there is to it.

PS: I especially laughed at your comparison between 1 Tim and 3 John… The idea that Paul and John could not both have decided to come to meet their respective addressee. Oh no - it HAS to be the same author

 

[planten]

Here’s what it says in John 19:31. Since it was the preparation day, the Jews did not want to have the bodies left on the cross during the Sabbath, for that Sabbath was a solemn feast day.

That Sabbath was a Shabbaton. I mean, a festival that falls on the Sabbath. That’s why it was a solemn feast day. The festival was the Passover. And the Supper, which is called Seder Meal is to be celebrated at the sunset of the 14th of Nissan which fell on that Friday of the year 30 CE. To have celebrated it on the day before, it must have been fabricated by Paul. And put into writing by his disciples who wrote the gospels.

Oh, by the way, I would like to bring to your attention, when you read John 19:31 to focus
on the “The Jews did not want to have the bodies…” That’s a proof right there that the guy who wrote this gospel was not John, but a Gentile. A Jew would not say, “The Jews didn’t
not want…” as if he was not Jewish.

Ben

Good point Ben masada. It means the writer of the fourth gospel is not a Jew. The name given is John. He is not a Jew but he is a gentile. That is interesting news.

 

[simplynoone]

I know of NO theologians (critical or conservative) who would claim that the letters of John were actually pauline!
It is interesting that all of your so-called similarities are generalities - by which I mean that the phrases you claim indicate Pauline origin are just…common phrases!
I can also write a post using some of the language that Pope Benedict XVI does, but that would not mean that I would be the auther of the encyclicas bearing his name.

Your claim is a non-sequitur, and shouldn’t be taken seriously. The Pauline and Johannine letters are distinctly different from oneanother, especially when you look at the Greek text, and that’s all there is to it.

PS: I especially laughed at your comparison between 1 Tim and 3 John… The idea that Paul and John could not both have decided to come to meet their respective addressee. Oh no - it HAS to be the same author

I know how to read and absorb what it is I am reading. I also have a very keen eye for making connections where others have failed to do so. The style of writing is too similar; so similar in fact that the writer gives himself away as being one in the same with the writer of the letters attributed to Paul.

 

[simplynoone]

The assertion that 3rd letter of John could be written by Paul is very subjective and purely speculative. You can come out with a personal opinion like that but it is not to be taken seriously as objective truth because other than your saying so there is no evidence to support the statement. It is thus does not hold much water in serious discussion. As a matter of opinion I can always say that if their writings were similar then it shows that they were of the same mind and being disciples of Jesus that was amazing considering that they were not together during Jesus’ lifetime.

Any of the writers of all the NT writings are purely speculative. So, yes, my assertion that it was a man named Paul is purely speculative. My assertion that the writer was one in the same as the writer of the letters attributed to a man named Paul is based on the obvious.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Good point Ben masada. It means the writer of the fourth gospel is not a Jew. The name given is John. He is not a Jew but he is a gentile. That is interesting news.

Hi Planten, thanks for the contribution about the name. You are 100 percent right. John was never then and even today a Jewish name. The correspondent Jewish name is Yonathan. John is a Gentile name.

Ben:

 

[ralphinal]

Hi Planten, thanks for the contribution about the name. You are 100 percent right. John was never then and even today a Jewish name. The correspondent Jewish name is Yonathan. John is a Gentile name.

Ben:

I am officially done responding to you. This one single post shows a monumentail lack of historical knowledge that it will be impossible for me to take you seriously again.

The names in the NT were all translated from the Original Hebrew to Greek later on. Even Jesus’s name was not really Jesus. This even works in the OT. What was Moses’s name? Abraham?

I expect such posts from Planten, who is a member of a sect of Islam that other Muslims consider heretical. He does not speak English as his primary language and he gets his information cut and paste from a handful of anti-Christian and pro-Islam websites.

I expected more from you.

 

[planten]

Hi Planten, thanks for the contribution about the name. You are 100 percent right. John was never then and even today a Jewish name. The correspondent Jewish name is Yonathan. John is a Gentile name.

Ben:

Ben Masada, thanks for your confirmation that the fourth gospel writer was not any Jew. This had been heard before too that John was not the writer of the 4th gospel. People had raised doubts about it. Now it has transpired that some john may have written the gospel under influence of Saul and that johnny was not any Jew at all. He was some gentile.

 

[rinnie]

I am officially done responding to you. This one single post shows a monumentail lack of historical knowledge that it will be impossible for me to take you seriously again.

The names in the NT were all translated from the Original Hebrew to Greek later on. Even Jesus’s name was not really Jesus. This even works in the OT. What was Moses’s name? Abraham?

I expect such posts from Planten, who is a member of a sect of Islam that other Muslims consider heretical. He does not speak English as his primary language and he gets his information cut and paste from a handful of anti-Christian and pro-Islam websites.

I expected more from you.

Thats okay Ralph, live and learn I guess. But all they have done is show their ignorance not only for the OT but the NT. It just makes us more gratefull for the Church. You know the saying every horse has a tail. WELL, wonder who that could be in these posts! I guess the storytailer!

 

[Ben_Masada]

I am officially done responding to you. This one single post shows a monumentail lack of historical knowledge that it will be impossible for me to take you seriously again.

The names in the NT were all translated from the Original Hebrew to Greek later on. Even Jesus’s name was not really Jesus. This even works in the OT. What was Moses’s name? Abraham?

I expect such posts from Planten, who is a member of a sect of Islam that other Muslims consider heretical. He does not speak English as his primary language and he gets his information cut and paste from a handful of anti-Christian and pro-Islam websites.

I expected more from you.

I was always aware that the gospels were not written by Jews. Nothing to do with names. But everything to do with too much non-Jewish stuff in them. That’s all.

Ben:

 

[simplynoone]

Thats okay Ralph, live and learn I guess. But all they have done is show their ignorance not only for the OT but the NT. It just makes us more gratefull for the Church. You know the saying every horse has a tail. WELL, wonder who that could be in these posts! I guess the storytailer!

Hold up there sista! I wouldn’t be so quick to shout your gratefulness to the Church.

The reason why Paul said “But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain” (Titus 3:9) has a lot to do with the inconsistencies founded in the book of Matthew. If you are so confident in the good intentions of your church and if it IS the Truth you care about, perhaps you would like to explain the following to me. Everything can be cleared up using the foundation aka Tanakh.

The genealogy account given in Matthew 1: 6-11 should be compared to II Chr. 3:10-16.
can you find the four names missing? Can you explain why they are missing?

That genealogy line offers up a HUGE clues as to the origins of this book

Verse 16 is rather curious… notice that last part of the genealogy line anywhere in the Tanakh? if so, it should strike you as a cause to consider.

What about this… do you why the name Jesus is CAPITALIZED in verse 21? These are not even HALF of the oddities that are in Matthew… and if you can not explain them, then you do not have the Truth and have a blind faith that is keeping you blind.

Again, it is no wonder Paul would say,

“But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain.” Titus 3:9

and

I Timothy 1:
3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Because God forbid we ask questions that would lead us to the Truth and steer us from the bonds of blind faith. The Truth really does set you free!!

Before you cry that I am accusing you of blind faith, do one better this time and prove that you do not… because Matthew is inconsistent and is riddled with holes. If you cannot explain them, then you do not have the Truth. That IS the truth!

 

[rinnie]

Hold up there sista! I wouldn’t be so quick to shout your gratefulness to the Church.

The reason why Paul said “But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain” (Titus 3:9) has a lot to do with the inconsistencies founded in the book of Matthew. If you are so confident in the good intentions of your church and if it IS the Truth you care about, perhaps you would like to explain the following to me. Everything can be cleared up using the foundation aka Tanakh.

The genealogy account given in Matthew 1: 6-11 should be compared to II Chr. 3:10-16.
can you find the four names missing? Can you explain why they are missing?

That genealogy line offers up a HUGE clues as to the origins of this book

Verse 16 is rather curious… notice that last part of the genealogy line anywhere in the Tanakh? if so, it should strike you as a cause to consider.

What about this… do you why the name Jesus is CAPITALIZED in verse 21? These are not even HALF of the oddities that are in Matthew… and if you can not explain them, then you do not have the Truth and have a blind faith that is keeping you blind.

Again, it is no wonder Paul would say,

“But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain.” Titus 3:9

and

I Timothy 1:
3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Because God forbid we ask questions that would lead us to the Truth and steer us from the bonds of blind faith. The Truth really does set you free!!

Before you cry that I am accusing you of blind faith, do one better this time and prove that you do not… because Matthew is inconsistent and is riddled with holes. If you cannot explain them, then you do not have the Truth. That IS the truth!

ccc To reunite all his children scattered and led astray by sin the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together in his sons church. The Church is THE WORLD RECONCILED.

We do not live by blind faith, we live by LIVING FAITH. THE LIVING CHURCH. The Church is the only place where we will learn the fullness of the truth.

Sorry you do not have that. But it is what we live by. It is the living Christ.

 

[simplynoone]

ccc To reunite all his children scattered and led astray by sin the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together in his sons church. The Church is THE WORLD RECONCILED.

We do not live by blind faith, we live by LIVING FAITH. THE LIVING CHURCH. The Church is the only place where we will learn the fullness of the truth.

Sorry you do not have that. But it is what we live by. It is the living Christ.

O…k… thank you for clearing the confusion right up concerning where it is the foundation is for you guys… the Church’s mouth. Actually, this is the clearest answer I have seen from you.

I am curious as to why you would be sorry for me. My life has only been enriched by the Word that is spoken in the Tanakh. Wouldn’t you be better placing that pity toward people who really need it? Maybe say… the starving children in the world… the Church surely has more than enough wealth to help take care of those in need in the world while it is waiting on Christ to reconcile the world together. I am betting the resources and power available to the Church is enough that if it really cared to do good, it would not even NEED Christ to help reconcile the world, don’t you think? I wonder how the little kiddies that my parents are helping to feed in Zambia would feel about the Church and that wealth they sit on top of as they reveal to its followers the reconciliation of the world. I’ll have to make it a point to ask when I get the opportunity.

 

[ralphinal]

O…k… thank you for clearing the confusion right up concerning where it is the foundation is for you guys… the Church’s mouth. Actually, this is the clearest answer I have seen from you.

I am curious as to why you would be sorry for me. My life has only been enriched by the Word that is spoken in the Tanakh. Wouldn’t you be better placing that pity toward people who really need it? Maybe say… the starving children in the world… the Church surely has more than enough wealth to help take care of those in need in the world while it is waiting on Christ to reconcile the world together. I am betting the resources and power available to the Church is enough that if it really cared to do good, it would not even NEED Christ to help reconcile the world, don’t you think? I wonder how the little kiddies that my parents are helping to feed in Zambia would feel about the Church and that wealth they sit on top of as they reveal to its followers the reconciliation of the world. I’ll have to make it a point to ask when I get the opportunity.

The Catholic Church has done more for the poor than all other groups combined. All other faiths as well.

Pump your brakes, you are out of control over there.

 

[simplynoone]

The Catholic Church has done more for the poor than all other groups combined. All other faiths as well.

Pump your brakes, you are out of control over there.

I was curious if you have ever read Mark 12: 39-44? In light of the above and that there are still many starving and in need in the world, what do you think? I am not asking anything out of line… the question is validated (since Rinnie says that the Church IS the responsible one in the world now) as I do not have the means to take care of them all. I would if I could… believe me!

 

[rinnie]

The Catholic Church has done more for the poor than all other groups combined. All other faiths as well.

Pump your brakes, you are out of control over there.

AMEN!