Who is the founder of Christianity?

[YoungCatholic]

typo corrections

to ask a knowledgeable catholic apologetic on his side of the story*
see where i'm going*

I need that message editor haha. Goodnight everyone

 

[Ramadhan]

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.

Instead of writing meaningless long sentences as above, why dont you bring "facts" and "evidence" like what I do.
Your opnions means zilch. Facts and evidence matter.

You seem in big denial. I know you don't know much about catholicism even if you are a cradle catholic. If you want to, I will give you more facts and evidence regarding bible, christianity and catholicism.

 

[Ramadhan]

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?

No one is preventing you to go anti Islamic sites. After all there are millions of them, an addition of one amateur Islamophobe cannot possibly make much difference.

And if I am spreading lies about christianity, then please refute me.

I have asked you several times to do just that, and instead of refuting the points I made, you keep crying on and on about how it is unfair that I am talking bad about christianity.

 

[YoungCatholic]

You claim to speak the truth but you refuse to seek and test it. Catholic Answers Forums naidamar, post your theories there and I assure you, you will be refuted easily. Again, I am no Apologetic. I only know the basics together with a little bit of church history from school and a little more information in my time in CAF. I have never had such a theory thrown before me as what you are doing at the moment. I have never engaged in any serious apologetic debate but I have watched and read quite a number and never did your theory come up. I have never heard of the theory of which you speak, this is my first time hearing it with details thus, I am not able to refute it. However, I assure you that you are wrong and invite you to debate with real experienced Catholic Apologists. The apologists over there at CAF are very through, convincing, and are able to back up there claims with numerous sources. Most importantly, they do not deflect, dodge or avoid any question you throw at them and I say this with all honesty because I've read their posts several times. Apologetics isn't my ground. If you really want to debate with me about Catholicism, Catholic Miracles is my strongest point. It is a topic which I have most interest in and you are more than welcome to challenge me there.

However I do know that your theory was popularized from the protestants. I've heard of a claim from non-catholics that Paul started our church before I came here. But I never got into any of the details. Together goes for other theories such as Constantine started the church, the Romans started the church, I've heard of them but I never got to know any of the details. Now I'm assuming that the theory you have stated before me is from a protestant source? Or is this a completely new theory made by you or some other person? Goodnight, I'll check again in the morning.

 

[Ramadhan]

You claim to speak the truth but you refuse to seek and test it. Catholic Answers Forums naidamar, post your theories there and I assure you, you will be refuted easily. Again, I am no Apologetic. I only know the basics together with a little bit of church history from school and a little more information in my time in CAF. I have never had such a theory thrown before me as what you are doing at the moment. I have never engaged in any serious apologetic debate but I have watched and read quite a number and never did your theory come up. blah...blah..blah....

Youngcatholic, are you really very dense?

Instead of crying the same thing again and again and again (you actually used the same sentences in THREE posts), why don't you start refuting my points. If the subject is out of your depth, can you just please sit quiet in the corner instead of whining on and on and on. I have responded and addressed your whiny points the first time around.
No offense, but I did not personally ask you to respond to my articles. There are other christians here.
If you want to discuss anything other than "who is the founder of christianity" go to appropriate threads, or start your own. Your repeating posts already qualified under definition of spamming in this board and you repeatedly also have promoted a non-muslim forum. I am patient enough for not removing them. But I have limits too.

 

[May Ayob]

Brother youngcatholic, Are you serious?

It is very obvious that fact that it is Paul who made up most of the theories in christianity, i think you christian or some of you have sometype of internal ego inside of you which make you so fanatic that makes you very blind to see even the basics of truth , i advise to seek for your self go and study the history of you christian faith and there you will know very well that without Paul christianity wouldn't have been christianity, i don't understand why you can't accept this , while you're Vatican is already legislating many things to be legal that the Bible completely condemns.

I think you should put down your sense of ego and fanaticism why can't you accept the fact that people don't want to become christian , this is not something that is by your choice or by the choice of anyone , God created them and God knows their faith , this is none of your business ,Guidance is from God and not from you, or any other person who's only interested in materialistic means ,

i personally think you should start working on yourself then look around you trying to evanaglise people, How are you so sure that you are going to Heaven huh? What makes so sure that you can garuntee yourself Salvation ?

The Holy Quran says:
.( It will not be in accordance with your desires (Muslims), nor those of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), whosoever works evil, will have the recompense thereof, and he will not find any protector or helper besides Allâh. )


IT is only the right of God to judge people ,and you have no right at all it only shows that you disrespect your creator to go around to people saying i'm going to heaven and you're not , this is a great transgression .

2ndly, I'd like to point out that please if you want to be a true beliver in your own faith then go and study the life of Christ peace and blessing be upon him it will humble you to realise that he was a humble servant of his Lord and he will never reject submitting to his Creator ,
Christ was a softhearted tender man who rejects evil and would never transgress beyond the boudaries of his Lord , and if you were his true follower you would act like him Faith is a word of action please keep that in mind

also i just wanted to say i now understand very much why Ghandi said :" I like your Christ but not your christians, your Christ is so unlike your christian"

If prophet Isaa was here today he would have condemn all your false theories that confused mankind and made them distressed to me you Catholics are doing everything the Bible is telling you Not to do, how are you a christian or even have faith in God when the Vatican himself and his own Family keeps molesting children what a shame, and oo yeah i thought that he has recently said that the bible is not the truth and it is not fully the Word of God ???

I'd like an explanation , i have soooo many so called "misconceptions" about Catholics it would be just delightfull for you to satisfy my answers.

Thank you very much

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

You claim to speak the truth but you refuse to seek and test it. Catholic Answers Forums naidamar, post your theories there and I assure you, you will be refuted easily. Again, I am no Apologetic. I only know the basics together with a little bit of church history from school and a little more information in my time in CAF. I have never had such a theory thrown before me as what you are doing at the moment. I have never engaged in any serious apologetic debate but I have watched and read quite a number and never did your theory come up. I have never heard of the theory of which you speak, this is my first time hearing it with details thus, I am not able to refute it. However, I assure you that you are wrong and invite you to debate with real experienced Catholic Apologists. The apologists over there at CAF are very through, convincing, and are able to back up there claims with numerous sources. Most importantly, they do not deflect, dodge or avoid any question you throw at them and I say this with all honesty because I've read their posts several times. Apologetics isn't my ground. If you really want to debate with me about Catholicism, Catholic Miracles is my strongest point. It is a topic which I have most interest in and you are more than welcome to challenge me there.

However I do know that your theory was popularized from the protestants. I've heard of a claim from non-catholics that Paul started our church before I came here. But I never got into any of the details. Together goes for other theories such as Constantine started the church, the Romans started the church, I've heard of them but I never got to know any of the details. Now I'm assuming that the theory you have stated before me is from a protestant source? Or is this a completely new theory made by you or some other person? Goodnight, I'll check again in the morning.

Greetings Young Catholic,

I am happy that you are here to clarify your views on Islam as you have mentioned in one of your previous posts and that is something all should do rather than accept the false and grossly misleading stereotyping by the deceptive media. If you ever have any questions at all regarding Islamic related questions then please do not hesitate to ask.

However you should also do your own unbiased research into the concepts such as original sin, blood atonement, cruci-fiction to eradicate original sin from mankind,incarnation,the trinity and the theotakas all of which were attributed to Christianity by Paul and theologians after Jesus but do not have ANY basis in the words and teachings of God or Jesus nor were they ever taught nor were they ever mentioned by ANY Prophet, Jesus or God.

All of the revelations of God from Adam(As) until the last revelation given to Prophet Muhammad(Pbuh) have been consistent to true monotheisms and this includes the revelation which was given to Moses which Jesus himself admitted he came to re-establish. He said "I DID NOT COME TO DESTROY BUT TO FULFILL"and if you look at his teachings they ALL conform to that of the revelation Moses but it was only after Jesus that Paul wanted to destroy much of the original law and therefore he transformed the law to that of his own and went against the strict monotheism that Jesus proclaimed into a religion that is closer to Greek mythology, than it is towards either Judaism or Islam. Things like the "only begotten son", atonement for the sins of humanity etc. were all alien to the strict monotheism of Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad and ALL the prophets of Israel (Peace be upon them all).

The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard says regarding Paul: "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

So clearly look into the words and teachings of Jesus and God and you will see in their words that NONE of these pagan concepts were EVER taught or ever mentioned. If they are so fundamental then HOW could God or Jesus not even ever mention them? Did God forget to mention such fundamental beliefs that they were only discovered well after Jesus? Is it that these laws were hidden from the words of God and Jesus but somehow they were thought up by a man who never even met Jesus nor did he have anything to do with the revelation from God.

Many of these concepts were created and solidified in the nicean council meeting but they are still up for being edited and changed today with many theorists coming up with their own interpretations of these concepts which are different from others.

This is very interesting and relevant to the discussion:

In Christianity the doctrine of atonement is very diverse unlike the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation that were precisely defined and agreed upon by the early ecumenical councils. Historically, it was not formulated with that same level of precision, thus having many differing theories, depending on which aspect of the work of Christ is emphasized. There exist four major theories: 1) ransom theory, 2) satisfaction theory, 3) moral influence theory, and 4) penal substitution theory.

Today, an increasing number of Christian theologians argue that none of the existing theories by itself makes sense fully, and that a new approach comprehensive enough to incorporate all the existing theories is needed to understand the whole picture of Christ's atoning work. Interestingly, this new approach tends to argue that Christ's sacrificial death was not absolutely necessary, making Christianity more compatible with other religions at least on two issues: whether or not the priest himself should die; and, more generally, whether or not the way of expiation should involve anyone's death.

Here we have a fundamental concept of Christianity which is NOT even properly defined as yet and as such Christian scholars agree that this theory is confusing and does not quite make sense. Simply because it was NEVER taught by ANY Prophet, Jesus or God and therefore was a creation of man who brought it in and falsely attributed it to the teachings of God and Jesus.

So research for yourself and ask of God sincerely to open your heart to the truth and God will show you the right direction.

“Whom Allah does guide, he is on the right path. Whom He rejects from His guidance, such are the persons who lose.” (7:178)

 

[Amigo]

There seem to be too much faith in 'refuting'

Let me ask,
Do you really think that someone refuting you makes you wrong?
Do you really think that YOU refuting someone makes you right?

Eternal truth does not depend and card-game skills!

A 5 years old can have the right fight while a 50 years old got it all wrong.

So chat and discuss calmly like brothers and with love.
Faith is about gratitude in the heart. Right articulations will reveal themselves from such a heart like a tree growing from a good seed.
"Happy are the pure in heart, they shall see God"

 

[YusufNoor]

Again, we believe that prayer does not equal worship.

and so if a suicide bomber kills a member of your family thinking thinking that is an appropriate way to worship God, would you accept it? prayer equals worship whether you accept it or not!

When we pray to saints we only venerate them not worship them. ^o)

here are some synonyms for venerate:

Synonyms: adore, deify, glorify, revere, reverence, worship

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.

hey sparky, the word is Muslim. and we are educating you to the truth about your religion. you are the one with misconceptions. i come from your world, no version of Christianity correctly treats Jesus, peace be upon him, as a true Prophet of Allah. some are nearer to the truth, but there are NO, ZERO documents dating from the time of Jesus claiming that he is a god OR that he should be worshiped.

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 . And again, we catholics strictly believe in monotheism.

you can't be a MONOTHEIST and have 3 gods in 1, or 1 god in three. you may wish it to be true, but that doesn't make it true. i wish i was a millionaire, but no matter how much i do, the money just doesn' t seem at appear! go figure

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).

what does virgin birth have to do with dividing your god into 3 parts? it's a non sequitor.
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.

you mean you aren't old enough to have learned about the Spanish Inquisition? you apeak of Muslims killing Christians for the sake of their religion; Muslims ARE NOT ALLOWED to do such a thing! did you know that?
you speak of Christians and Protestants killing each other, did you know or were you aware the in the Christian Wars of Reformation, SIX MILLION people died in the Germanic States? SIX MILLION people how many native Americans were murded by the Catholic Monarchs of Castile? 10 Million? MORE? did you know that when Islam initially spread, Jews and Christian minorities found PROTECTION under the Muslims? protection from who? BLOODY CHRISTIANS! don't worry, you are young, you still have time to learn the Truth, you just won't find it on any of your Catholic websites.


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).

what about the Popes in Avignon?

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 . I was under the impression that you guys reply nicely to nice posts on this forum hew.

i was being nice. offering the Truth to some is VERY NICE. you shouldn't be offended by the truth!

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.

so you say Rome has always been know as the "official" seat of Christianity AND the Jesus, peace be upon started Christianity; so let me ask you: according to your "books," when was Jesus in Rome?

adios

 

[siam]

scholars feel 6 of the 13 epistles are forged---written by someone pretending to be Paul --- for an agenda.

However, since Church Doctrines are based on them---the argument for Pauline Christianity still stands.......

"Much of the material in the “genuine” Pauline epistles, reflects belief in a mystical godman (whom Paul calls “the Christ"). Also significant is the fact that Paul, formerly Saul, was a native of Tarsus, in his day still the chief seat of Mithras, and a Stoic refuge. The influences in his writing are obvious, if one simply knows to look for them. "--Early Christian History ---- www.earlychristianhistory.info

 

[Ramadhan]

There seem to be too much faith in 'refuting' Let me ask, Do you really think that someone refuting you makes you wrong? Do you really think that YOU refuting someone makes you right? Eternal truth does not depend and card-game skills!

uh..did you not read my articles?
There is nothing in there that try to refute or support "eternal truth".

What the articles speak about is facts. Facts about Paul and the claim of founder of christianity. Nothing to do with eternal truth whatsoever. Calm down, brother.
Now, it would be easy to check the facts and refute them, no?

Unless catholics are allergic to facts?

 

[YoungCatholic]

Now for some questions from me. Out of curiosity. As a supporter of the "Paul started the church theory" do you agree the following.
1) Peter was never pope
2) Paul was Christianity's first pope

 

[Grace Seeker]

It is very obvious that fact that it is Paul who made up most of the theories in christianity, i think you christian or some of you have sometype of internal ego inside of you which make you so fanatic that makes you very blind to see even the basics of truth , i advise to seek for your self go and study the history of you christian faith and there you will know very well that without Paul christianity wouldn't have been christianity, i don't understand why you can't accept this , while you're Vatican is already legislating many things to be legal that the Bible completely condemns.

There is an internal conflict within your post. Do you see it? On the one hand you claim that it is Paul who made up most of the theories in Christianity. Then on the other you claim tha the Vatican is legislating many things to be legalt that the Bible condemns. Since we don't have anything from Paul that is not in the Bible, if Paul made up most of the theories in Christianity, then those would all be Biblical. If on the other hand what we have dominating Christianity are things that the Vatican is legalizing and aren't in the Bible, then one can hardly lay that at Paul's feet.

Since the question is about Christianity, I hardly care what the Qur'an has to say some 700 years after Christianity was most definitely founded. Also, it is interesting that later in your post you suggestion that to follow Christianity one should study what Jesus had to say. Doesn't that show that you consider Jesus to be the true source of genuine Christianity? Thus, for your first statement to be true you are claiming that there are two (maybe more) different Christianities out there, one by Paul and one by Jesus (and evidently the Vatican and who knows how many others you might list as well). So, to examine these statements you have made, I propose a rudimentary challenge. Let us test your intial hypothesis-- "it is Paul who made up most of the theories in christianity."

The process would require the following steps:
1) You would provide a list of those theories which you believe define the basic teachings of the Christian faith.
2) You would then substantiate Paul as having made these theories up by giving evidence of Paul teaching on the subject prior to anyone else doing so.
3a) If the above proved true, then your hypothesis would be shown to be correct.
3b) If it did not prove true, then your hypothesis would be show to be in err.

Obviously it would be unfair to ask you to prove it true, so it would therefore be incumbent on others to show that your hypothesis was false by either showing that the theories which you suggest as representing the basic techings of the Christian faith are either (a) not in fact the teachings held by the Christian faith or (b) have origins other than Paul.


Note: This is not a discussion about whether or not Christianity is true or false, good or bad, consistent or inconsistent with itself; it is only to test whether your hypothesis with regard to Christianity can be upheld or not. Do you accept these terms?

 

[Ramadhan]

Now for some questions from me. Out of curiosity. As a supporter of the "Paul started the church theory" do you agree the following. 1) Peter was never pope 2) Paul was Christianity's first pope

"popes" never had anything to do with the founder of christianity. If you don't agree, then ask Grace Seeker here, who is a Pastor, and certainly know a lot more about history of christianity than you do.

We are discussing "the founder of christianity", NOT the leader of catholicism.

 

[Ramadhan]

Grace Seeker, would you mind telling us what is the pope in christianity, to enlighten us?

 

[YoungCatholic]

May Ayob

What? I have questioned my faith many time sonly to be taken aback. And really, I have an ego? Please, you claim we catholics are blind because we fail to see the obvious truth but I might as well throw the question back at you. I find it very amusing how Moslems brush of Jesus' crucification as if it never happened. Seriously, it's history with undeniable evidence behind it. I'm also very interesting that you moslems claim that you were never the aggressors during the crusade. Don't forget the several, several, verses in the Koran which speak of "killing infidels". Oh, don't forget Aisha. Correct me if I'm wrong but the minimum wives a man can have in Islam is 4 (or 3, i forgot) right? Well Muhhamad had more than 10. Seriously, just because he's a prophet doesn't mean he gets special privileged. Oh, and I am seriously confused when it comes to this. I see quite a number of Moslems who go around spreading the wonderful scientific facts in the Koran. catholic users refutes them, stating how the Koran has secientific errors as well such as joints, embryology, etc. Then they claim that the Koran is not a scientific textbook and that it is the literal word of God. Then catholic users point out a certain verse, the moslem then reverts his stance and claims that that verse was not to be taken literally but symbolically (I believe the verse was something about the sun setting in a muddy spring or something else, I don't quit remember). These are just a few questions of mine.

Regarding Jinns, is this quote true?

"n Western societies, the jinn would be known as fairies, elves, leprechauns, spirits, ghosts, demons, goblins and the like.

Indeed, there is a more than fair chance that the so-called extra-terrestrials who seemingly travel in UFOs are in fact members of the jinn family.

As to whether they are good or bad, they are similar to humans in that some are good and others are evil."

Please tell me I'm wrong.

Also, if you have any misconceptions you about catholics, I'm open to them. I'll help you the best I can. Look, people who strongly believe in their faith, doesn't mean they're stubborn. I could be saying the same thing about you. But no, you are not stubborn, you are just so into your faith and I commend that. Just don't going around telling someone that he has an ego and that he should open his eyes and see the truth before him, even if it were true. Look, we both have a lot of misconceptions about our faith. And no one can be at fault for that? You know, for the longest time I thought every moslem supported terrorism. Especially as a child, 9/11, the media, influenced my views. But know, I know that the moslem on TV's were radicals and that true believers of Islam are peaceful. Look, I know my faith and I certainly know that I'm not blind.

 

[YieldedOne]

Paul the Apostle and Judaism

To me, the whole thing turns on Paul's conversion. Either Jesus--who was in heaven with God--really confronted/talked to him...or he didn't. It's either true or not true, right? If he didn't, then Paul was just crazy and deluded...enough to suffer so much for the Gospel of Jesus that he never talked to or encountered. If he did, then Paul really did hear from Jesus about things...and that's significant.

I think I've said this before...but...that's why even IF someone wanted to say that Paul "started" Christianity, it would merely be by proxy...because it would ultimately the Ascendant Jesus SENDING Paul to the Gentiles would have been the more direct initiative behind the movement.

 

[Ramadhan]

More enlighting quotes on Saul (aka Paul) of Tarsus:


“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writer of half the NT, almost neverquotes Jesus in his letters and writings." (Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
--Bishop John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark. (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

"Paul insists that there is only one 'gospel of Christ' (Galatians 1:7), so why did later Christians accept as 'Scripture' four written gospels?"
--Graham N. Stanton, “The Gospels and Jesus”, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), p.125

"Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
(Thomas Jefferson,The Great Thoughts by George Sildes, Ballantine Books, New York, 1985, p.208)

"Where possible he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."
(Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, p. 171)

"What kind of authority can there be for an 'apostle' who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus' own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus....He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears." (Ferdinand Christian Baur, Church History of the First Three Centuries)

"Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism."
(Hyam Maccoby, Paul: The Mythmaker and the Invention of Chrisianity, p. 16)

"Paul did not desire to know Christ. Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded.... What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?
The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority.... The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."
(The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer,)

“There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus.... There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul’s soul upon the soul of Jesus.... It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus... was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith.” (George Bernard Shaw, Androcles and the Lion)

“Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”.
(Dr. Roshan Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul, p. 69)
“From the time Jesus left earth to the second half of the Second century, there was a struggle between two factions. One was what one might call Pauline Christianity and the other Judeo Christianity. It was only very slowly that the first supplanted the second, and Pauline Christianity triumphed over Judeo Christianity”.
(Dr. Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Quran, and Science, p. 67)

[FONT=&quot]"Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught.... For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message.... That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world.... The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness."[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore: Christ or Paul?)[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[Ramadhan]

I have removed several spamming posts.
Please stay back on topic for this thread discussion.
For new members, please read the forum rules in http://www.islamicboard.com/faq.php

 

[Grace Seeker]

Now for some questions from me. Out of curiosity. As a supporter of the "Paul started the church theory" do you agree the following.
1) Peter was never pope
2) Paul was Christianity's first pope

I see that this post by YoungCatholic was editted by naidamar.

YoungCatholic, I want to know if you wrote what I am reading here, or if not does it at least represent your views?
If so, are you asking these questions of naidamar because you believe them or because you believe that he might believe them, or what exactly?