Who is the founder of Christianity?

Who was the founder of Christianity?

  • Total voters
    0
It is not eashy to tell what Catholicism is, same thing for Christianity...
People are always able to make up their mind and define them as they wish.
At the end, it cames back to the individual. I know what I do and believe. Some people claiming to be the real Christian does not make it necessarly so.
Same thing, they are many Protestant who call themselves Catholic, and others who are not Catholic but who claim to know what Catholicism is...

As you said, God knows best!
 
YusufNoor said:
not if you're Catholic. Jesus was a monotheistic Jew, Catholicism is clearly NOT monotheistic as you pray to over 300 human beings and Catholic Popes and Kings killed THOUSANDS of former Jews for retaining any of their Jewishness.

and YOUR church isn't 2000 years old, shy by hundred years or. when Constantine moved the capitol to Constantinople would about be the time for the REAL start of the Catholic Church when the Bishop of Rome was trying to leverage his position over the Bishop of Constantinople.

the power vacuum left by those who followed the Emperor to his new digs was eventually filled by the families of the old Roman Senate. it is THEY who are probably the true founders of Catholicism.

and Allah knows best!
Click to expand...

Again, we believe that prayer does not equal worship. When we pray to saints we only venerate them not worship them. TRUE WORSHIP is only given to God and god alone. The statues can only remind us of the holy people who have gone before us. Honestly, I'm sure you moslems are just as tired with dealing with common misconceptions regarding your faith. We are too and this is one of them. Honestly, I'll tell you this, while I am here because I wish to converse with other non-catholics and on some occasions engage in debates. I am no apologist, if you ask me to state certain verses from the bible that suggest this or that, I will not be able to answer them. I'm merely a 16 year old boy with knowledge from only my school's religion class and some other online threads I've seen on the net. However, I can answer this question, why? Because this is grade one cathecism, I have always known that we catholics never worship to saints or mary and that we only venerate them. I've known this since I was a kid for pete's sake :D. And again, we catholics strictly believe in monotheism.

Since you made an accusation along those lines, you guys probably have problems with the trinity. As for an explanation, I certainly can give one but I doubt it would fulfill your satisfaction. The trinity is a catholic dogma, a belief with no proofbehind it. It is a belief that requires faith. I'm aware that you guys believe in Mary's immaculate conception, am I not right? If so, then I throw the question back at you. Why do you believe in Mary's Immaculate conception? What possible proof do you have that can back up these impossible claims? (None, you simply have to have faith).

Catholic Popes, kill people? I've never heard of that. Give me proof and I will respond to it.
Catholic Kings, I haven't heard of those either. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few. I've heard of a Catholic Queen who killed protestants but never heard of a Catholic King killing Jews. And if there were kings along the lines of which you claim. I would reply by saying how amusing and hypocritical that post of yours was. Don't even get me started on Moslem warlords and terrorists who have killed THOUSANDS of Christians for the sake of their faith. If you guys weren't so war-hungry, the crusades would never have begun in the first place. Please. King, queen, beggar, noble, we are all human. We make mistakes.

And your post about Constantinople was utter bogus.. Jesus Christ started the catholic church with Peter as it's head.

"You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church." - Bible

Rome has always been known as the official seat of Christianity. ALWAYS, until someone in the early 1000's named Micheal Cerularius questioned this and attacked the Pope, declaring that the church in Constantinople should recieve equal honor with the Church of Rome and should not subordinate to it. Pope Leo then sent two cardinals to Constantinople to mediate. Unfortunately, the cardinals were unsuccessful and excommunicated Cerularius. While in return, Cerularius excommunicated Leo. The result of this conflict was the greek schism or the the break of the eastern orthodox church from the RCC. The eastern orthodox church basically teach the same dontrines and have valid sacraments. However, they do not accept the authority of the Pope. So no, the bishop of Rome was not trying to leverage his position over the bishop of Constantinople. You got it all wrong my friend. In reality, it was the bishop of constantinople who tried to leverage his position against the Pope. Honestly, even Constantine himself (the founder of constantinople) recognized the authority of the Pope (church in Rome).

And as for this:

the power vacuum left by those who followed the Emperor to his new digs was eventually filled by the families of the old Roman Senate. it is THEY who are probably the true founders of Catholicism.

I'll be glad to give you an answer but I don't understand your post. Can you rephrase it a little?

By the way, I dont understand the ferocity behind that post of yours. I would understand if I wrote a slightly offending message but I did the complete opposite :D. I was under the impression that you guys reply nicely to nice posts on this forum :phew.
 
P.S. I know that majority of Moslems today are kind and peaceful people. But given YusufNoor's post about Catholic popes and kings killing Jews, I was urged to respond in the same manner. I apologize for anyone who took offense in my post.
 
YC

Yeah, it can make sense to me. Actually Catholicism embrace more things that submission, because worship of God is more than submitting to him.
When I wrote that, I was thinking about Anglicans who call themselves Catholics. Of course some are not in the Catholic Church, but there are others who are actually entering the Catholic Church while retaining some Anglican patrimony: the Anglican Ordinariates.
 
YC

Don't let the Sun set on your anger little brother!:) or in any spirit of vengeance.
God is self-sufficient and does not need any of our help. We can only share our joy of knowing him as well as our peace where they are received.
 
Amigo said:
YC

Yeah, it can make sense to me. Actually Catholicism embrace more things that submission, because worship of God is more than submitting to him.
When I wrote that, I was thinking about Anglicans who call themselves Catholics. Of course some are not in the Catholic Church, but there are others who are actually entering the Catholic Church while retaining some Anglican patrimony: the Anglican Ordinariates.
Click to expand...

Ohhh, I never knew that. Sorry Amigo, I misunderstood your post. :)
 
This is the start of a series of articles that espouse the fact that Saul of Tarsus (mostly known by his roman name of paul) is actually the founder of christianity.


"The Problem with Paul" by C.M.




source: http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/problem.htm


The Problem with Paul

by C.M.

Paul was a Pharisee. One day he had a ‘revelation’. He changed his name from Saul to Paul, and straightway preached his revelations about the ‘Christ’ in the synagogues. Paul continued to have new ‘revelations’ that spoke ‘of’ and ‘for’ a Christ, but he was glaringly silent about the actual life of Yahushua (Jesus) and his teachings. In Paul’s epistles we find him using the words ‘Christ, Son of God, grace, redemption, resurrection, etc.’, but we learn little or nothing about Yahushua and his actual teachings. They’re virtually absent from Paul’s epistles. What we learn about are Paul’s revelations. Roughly 50% of the New Testament (13 epistles) is from Saul, a man who neither knew Yahushua in the flesh, nor was instructed by the apostles. Rather, he taught by unsubstantiated revelation, Ezekiel 13:2-9.

Paul considered himself the ‘apostle’ to the Gentiles, primarily because his doctrine (called ‘that way’, Acts 19:9, 23) was rejected by Jewish Christians and the Asian churches alike; and he was forced to seek converts who knew nothing of Yahudim (Jewish) customs and the Law. Paul’s doctrine was adverse to the teachings of Yahushua; and he was often in conflict with James, Peter, and John; the real apostles. And by the way, Paul was not an apostle.

Paul spent an inordinate amount of time defending himself and his teachings from accusations of guile, lies, and covetousness. None of the real apostles were so accused. Paul’s core philosophy of justification by faith and abolition of Torah Law stands in opposition to Yahushua’s statements in the gospels. Paul thought nothing of lying or practicing pagan customs if it meant gaining a new convert to his own brand of salvation, Romans 3:7, I Corinthians 10:14-21, 9:19-22.

Paul’s words speak for themselves. His use of personal pronouns in his epistles (I, me, my, mine) is three times that of any other writer. Paul urged his followers to follow him. He preached by revelation. Paul preached his doctrine in the ‘name’ of Christ, but his teachings were not in alignment with Yahushua’s teachings, John 5:43.


More from http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/problem.htm
 
Who was Paul?

Since Paul is so widely credited with starting Christianity, let's
take a moment to examine Paul. Paul, also known as Saul from
Tarsus, the very center of Baal-worship.

Paul proclaimed himself to be an Apostle of the Gentiles, but was
he? Yahshua chose 12 disciples for 12 tribes. He never spoke of a
13th. He did, however, speak of another who would come in his own
name and be accepted over him.

Who has 13 books in the New Testament even though he never set eyes
on the son of the Most High God? Who is so widely accepted and
glorified all throughout Christianity? Most would rather quote Paul
than one of the real Apostles. While the REAL Apostles wrote about
the life of Yahshuah, Paul wrote of his own view point and personal
ideology.

Yahshua also warned us to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, of
which Paul was one. He warned against and condemned the Pharisees
repeatedly. Pharisee Paul NEVER preached against them.


Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the
leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Matthew 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake [it]
not
to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Mark 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the
leaven
of the Pharisees, and [of] the leaven of Herod.

AND

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if
another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

What person came in his own name (without witnesses) who received
more coverage in the Bible than Yahshua or his 12 personally and
publicly appointed apostles?

Paul's gospel was altogether different than that of Yahshua's.
Yahshua came to free people from political bondage. He came to
fulfill the laws of the Torah and of the Most High, which protected
the people. He tried to have the laws reinstated and applied
correctly.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the
prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. 5:18 For verily I
say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be
accomplished. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these
least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in
the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Paul, on the other hand, was in favor of oppression. He preached
not for but against the social laws and against the social system of
the Torah. He preached against material independence, against
social security, against freedom from oppression and exploitation.
Paul was against observance of laws ensuring freedom, independence
and equality.

Paul wanted us to believe that the New Covenant replaced the Old
Covenant. And it was Paul's teachings that were accepted and placed
in dominance after 300 years of persecutions wiped out the early
church. The Torah, Feasts, and Commandments were replaced by the
laws of laziness and lawlessness.

More from http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/zeoli.htm
 
YoungCatholic said:
Again, we believe that prayer does not equal worship. When we pray to saints we only venerate them not worship them. TRUE WORSHIP is only given to God and god alone. The statues can only remind us of the holy people who have gone before us. Honestly, I'm sure you moslems are just as tired with dealing with common misconceptions regarding your faith. We are too and this is one of them. Honestly, I'll tell you this, while I am here because I wish to converse with other non-catholics and on some occasions engage in debates. I am no apologist, if you ask me to state certain verses from the bible that suggest this or that, I will not be able to answer them. I'm merely a 16 year old boy with knowledge from only my school's religion class and some other online threads I've seen on the net. However, I can answer this question, why? Because this is grade one cathecism, I have always known that we catholics never worship to saints or mary and that we only venerate them. I've known this since I was a kid for pete's sake :D. And again, we catholics strictly believe in monotheism.

Since you made an accusation along those lines, you guys probably have problems with the trinity. As for an explanation, I certainly can give one but I doubt it would fulfill your satisfaction. The trinity is a catholic dogma, a belief with no proofbehind it. It is a belief that requires faith. I'm aware that you guys believe in Mary's immaculate conception, am I not right? If so, then I throw the question back at you. Why do you believe in Mary's Immaculate conception? What possible proof do you have that can back up these impossible claims? (None, you simply have to have faith).

Catholic Popes, kill people? I've never heard of that. Give me proof and I will respond to it.
Catholic Kings, I haven't heard of those either. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few. I've heard of a Catholic Queen who killed protestants but never heard of a Catholic King killing Jews. And if there were kings along the lines of which you claim. I would reply by saying how amusing and hypocritical that post of yours was. Don't even get me started on Moslem warlords and terrorists who have killed THOUSANDS of Christians for the sake of their faith. If you guys weren't so war-hungry, the crusades would never have begun in the first place. Please. King, queen, beggar, noble, we are all human. We make mistakes.

And your post about Constantinople was utter bogus.. Jesus Christ started the catholic church with Peter as it's head.

"You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church." - Bible

Rome has always been known as the official seat of Christianity. ALWAYS, until someone in the early 1000's named Micheal Cerularius questioned this and attacked the Pope, declaring that the church in Constantinople should recieve equal honor with the Church of Rome and should not subordinate to it. Pope Leo then sent two cardinals to Constantinople to mediate. Unfortunately, the cardinals were unsuccessful and excommunicated Cerularius. While in return, Cerularius excommunicated Leo. The result of this conflict was the greek schism or the the break of the eastern orthodox church from the RCC. The eastern orthodox church basically teach the same dontrines and have valid sacraments. However, they do not accept the authority of the Pope. So no, the bishop of Rome was not trying to leverage his position over the bishop of Constantinople. You got it all wrong my friend. In reality, it was the bishop of constantinople who tried to leverage his position against the Pope. Honestly, even Constantine himself (the founder of constantinople) recognized the authority of the Pope (church in Rome).

And as for this:

the power vacuum left by those who followed the Emperor to his new digs was eventually filled by the families of the old Roman Senate. it is THEY who are probably the true founders of Catholicism.

I'll be glad to give you an answer but I don't understand your post. Can you rephrase it a little?

By the way, I dont understand the ferocity behind that post of yours. I would understand if I wrote a slightly offending message but I did the complete opposite :D. I was under the impression that you guys reply nicely to nice posts on this forum :phew.
Click to expand...
Okay....a little suggestion for everyone here...when people of two faiths sit together and 'want' to talk about their 'faith' then in my opinion its better to come forward with the commonalities instead of going the other way round like YC here urges that Catholism is monotheistic while br. Yousuf says its not.So lets Yc define monotheism in his understanding of his religion.Because we Muslims are also monotheistic.:)
 
Paul Of Tarsus – The Founder Of Modern Christianity


Contrary to what every Christian believes, it was not Jesus Christ nor his disciple Peter was the founder of modern Christianity, but it was Paul of Tarsus also known as Saul, the Roman centurion who was once responsible in persecuting the early classic Christians prior to his alleged conversion and later known as “St. Paul”, when he proclaim himself to be an apostle of Jesus Christ based on his story of his way to Damascus road incident.



Within a span of time, he started all the staggering innovations on the classic religion, in the guise that what he has done comes from what Jesus Christ has instructed and revealed to him. He was then responsible in carving a niche for a new version to the very basic foundation of Christendom from its classic form into what Christianity is known today.


Paul’s influence and power is unprecedented in any event of human history that Christian scholars who were compiling the “New Testament” seemed to favor Paul’s teachings rather than that of Jesus Christ by their inclusion of Paul’s letters and his works in the compiled scripture of what is known today as the “Holy Bible”.


No less than thirteen epistles in the new testament with special mention of the Acts of the Apostle are attributed to Paul’s authorship and it comprises a quarter of the new testament though only seven of them as Christian scholars suggest, are authentic works of Paul. These are Romans; I and II Corinthians; Galatians; Philippians; Philemon; and I Thessalonians.


It can be noted that the longer part of the Acts of the Apostle is devoted to glorifying Paul to portray him as a just man and the credible apostle of Jesus Christ, however, the impression of Paul’s importance, both as leader and teacher in the Nazarene movement established by Jesus, and led in Jesus’ absence by his brother James, the Just, is by Paul’s own testimony is fictitious.


The innovations made by Paul on the religion through his letters and teachings has opened the door to a series of man made doctrines and beliefs pass on by the church, a complete deviation and transformation of the true message originally preach and taught by Jesus Christ.


Among the innovations made by Paul, except for item c) the rest were later affirmed and sanctioned by the church in the Council of Nicea in the year 325 CE were as follows:
a) The doctrine of trinity which is a pagan inspired tradition that attributed God in more than one person.
b) The divinity of Jesus Christ, to support and justify the trinity doctrine making Christ part of godhead, being the “begotten son” of God, thus making it appear that God has a family.
c) Meat of swine (pork) all along forbidden since time immemorial by the prophets sent by God and by God Himself to eat, in no time allowed and approved by Paul for human consumption.
d) Paul’s doctrine of salvation is anchored on pagan tradition of salvation through crucifixion which is now the basic doctrine and belief of the modern day Christianity. A departure to the salvation preached by Jesus Christ, which is based on true monotheism and individual accountability for its deeds and sins.


Paul, with all of his intention and purpose has successfully edify Jesus Christ to be part of the godhead being the “begotten son of God” who was crucified for mankind’s sins thus reinforcing and sealing the belief of the doctrine of trinity and the religion of convenience with no more individual accountability for its deeds and sins.
Paul must have driven and motivated the changes when one day during his ministerial debut, he has found out that monotheism or the belief of one God on one hand, and one who would be accountable to his deeds on the other hand, are not that appealing among the pagans and gentiles whom he wanted them converted into his fold because they consist of the biggest number of the populace during that time.


In his desire to win them, he accorded the changes based on their traditions. With the changes, Paul has established a completely different version of Christianity, apart that of Jesus Christ, which was solely accorded to the pagans and gentiles and thus championing their cause. Not long enough Paul’s established religion becomes so influential and powerful in Europe and the nearby environs.


It was during the reign of Emperor Constantine that Paul’s established church has gained the needed break which has to help quell the emperor’s woes. Constantine’s empire is marred with insurgency and the church of Paul fills and serves as the blocking force to reckon with and eventually it has been instrumental in stopping them with big success.
To return that favor, Constantine himself has converted to Paul’s brand of Christianity and has made a decree to formally declare the religion of Paul to be the empire’s state religion and all other religions were prohibited to practice and declared them illegal.


Since then, it was the Pauline Christianity( trinitarian) who has been dominating the scene at the expense of other religions and the the classic Christians (unitarian) though their number are dwindling had never abandoned their cause but remained steadfast more than ever to their faith based on the original message and teachings of Jesus Christ.


http://affleap.com/paul-of-tarsus-the-founder-of-modern-christianity/
 
So it is clear that Saul (aka Paul) of Tarsus is the actual founder of christianity.

If our christian friends want more proof, I will gladly provide more :)
 
1) naidamar

Please, I beg you, post that on Catholic Answers Forums. :D

2) Bintulislam

Hi there! To answer your question, monotheism is a belief in one God. And this was taught to me by my 1st grade religion teacher together with the trinity, the commandments and basic Catholicism. As stated in the first commadment and the nicene creed, we catholics believe in monotheism.

Apostles Creed
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended in heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Hope that cleared things up :p
 
Naidamar,
Interesting that you would use John 5:43 :) It appear that perhaps at least half of it is corruct since you are using the other half as a truth...

Well, there is a better candidate for that 'other who comes in his own name', but it is good that you receive evidence directly from God than suggestions from me a fellow man.
 
YoungCatholic said:
1) naidamar Please, I beg you, post that on Catholic Answers Forums.
Click to expand...

Why? I am not a member of any non-muslim forums. I think it is just a waste of time.

Since you are a catholic here, why don't you refute the articles I posted, and why they are not evidence as to why Paul is the founder of christianity.
 
Amigo said:
Naidamar, Interesting that you would use John 5:43 It appear that perhaps at least half of it is corruct since you are using the other half as a truth...
Click to expand...

what does this even mean?
Do you want to elaborate.

I'm sorry if I dont understand the language of catholicsm.

Amigo said:
Well, there is a better candidate for that 'other who comes in his own name',
Click to expand...

Please tell us who is this better candidate who comes in his own name? I cannot think of anyone else but Paul.

Amigo said:
but it is good that you receive evidence directly from God than suggestions from me a fellow man.
Click to expand...

what does this even mean?

another catholics language?
 
More articles for you to read, my christian friends. This article contains other undeniable evidence how Paul is the founder of christianity:


The Apostle Paul Founder of Christianity

by Lewis Loflin

​
Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he founded at Ephesus a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus (who preached an enlightened form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever, other than perhaps the disputed Gnostic Gospels.

While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of the faith, Paul's role in defining Christianity can't be ignored. "Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time." The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism. His worship was that of a "Christ" totally unrelated to the Jewish Messiah, a nationalist (and human) figure that was supposed to free the nation from foreign (Roman) rule. Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named Marcion. See Marcion. The Church in its struggles with both Marcion and other fellow Gnostics was forced to define itself and launch an internal war to silence opponents.
What is shown below is taken word for word from The Sierra Reference Encyclopedia.
Copyright 1996 P. F. Collier, L. P. All rights reserved.
PAUL, ST.
PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of Pauline Christianity. His name was originally Saul. He later claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in Tarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.
While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen. Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church, entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as due to Saul's zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees, under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).
Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his followers were under the same cloud.
The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church. This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was not under Roman rule at the time but was in fact a place of refuge for the persecuted Nazarenes. On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced a vision of Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the officers of King Aretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to "the Jews."
After his vision, according to Paul's own account (Galatians 1:17), he went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction. According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. These contradictory accounts reflect a change in Paul's status: in his own view, he had received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the beginning of his development as a Christian.
Paul's self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul's creative role. The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in the Paulinist book of Acts, which contrasts with Paul's earlier and more authentic account in Galatians 2.
Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human saviour from political bondage he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus. The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion of eucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Church did not practise the Eucharist.


More from:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
 
naidamar said:


Why? I am not a member of any non-muslim forums. I think it is just a waste of time.

Since you are a catholic here, why don't you refute the articles I posted, and why they are not evidence as to why Paul is the founder of christianity.
Click to expand...
Why not? It's just a few clicks? Anyway, since you have so much proof, I think you should wake us all up and tell us that we've been following a false religion. I mean, it is your job to bring the truth to others is it not? I cannot answer your question myself. I have very limited knowledge when it comes to apologetics and this is my first time hearing such a theory thus I cannot refute it. But, I guarantee you, go to CAF, they will be able to answer your question throughly.

And really? Signing up in other religious forums is a waste of time? Oh gee, am I wasting time right now ^o).
 
YoungCatholic said:
Why not? It's just a few clicks?
Click to expand...

A few clicks which I better spend on making beneficial posts for other muslism or for enlighting non-muslims who are interested in Islam, and hence signing up here, like yourself.

YoungCatholic said:
And really? Signing up in other religious forums is a waste of time? Oh gee, am I wasting time right now
Click to expand...

signing up in other religious forums is a waste of time for ME.Did I say I speak for anyone else?
If you think you are wasting time here, no one is forcing you to spend time here, no?

Try to think logically next time, and with evidence.
YoungCatholic said:
I have very limited knowledge when it comes to apologetics and this is my first time hearing such a theory thus I cannot refute it.
Click to expand...

That's alright if you can't refute the evidence presented in articles. Many members and guests can benefit from reading them.
And by the way, they are not just theories, but they are mostly facts, eg. Have you really opened your bible? Have you counted how many percents it contains the sayings/actions of Jesus (p) (and of the little there's how mnay are multiples?) and compare that to how many by saul/paul?
 
Last edited:
naidamar said:

And by the way, they are not just theories, but they are mostly facts
Click to expand...
Ohhhhhh facts, well since you're so sure of yourself, I invite you to post on CAF during your free time. Seriously, you can't call it a fact if you refuse to ask a knowledgeable catholic apologetic on his theory. You know what's a fact? Jesus' crucification and I find it amusing how you guys are able to brush off history like it never happened. You can't call something a fact unless you question it's authencity. If you want to know the truth, I suggest you learn both sides of the battlefield THEN decide for yourself. Otherwise, if keep on insisting to yourself that what you believe is the truth without bothering to ask the opposition for an explanation, then you are only fooling yourself into thinking that what you believe is a fact.

Otherwise, I might as well go on some anti-Islamic board and claim everything on it to be true without asking for your side of the story. See were I'm going?
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top