Paul Never Existed

[The Nice Centurion]

Additionally we got a good possibility that Paul never existed!

Yeah, sure.

Go with that.

Question for debate:

Is that true ?

What are the pro & contra ?

[bjs1]

No more that the evidence should be ignored that points to Paul having invented Christianity, Jesus' followers being observant Jews and not Gentile - style Christians and the Jesus of the gospels not being the actual Jesus in terms of his words, at any rate

What specific evidence are you referencing?

[TRANSPONDER]

No more that the evidence should be ignored that points to Paul having invented Christianity, Jesus' followers being observant Jews and not Gentile - style Christians and the Jesus of the gospels not being the actual Jesus in terms of his words, at any rate

What specific evidence are you referencing?

That Romans is Paul working out his thesis for himself, not passing on what he got from God or man, that Paul hints at his own side of interaction with James, who appears to have given Paul a latter permitting associate Jews (Gentiles) who observe the Noahide laws and a squabble with Peter about not eating with non - Jews, where we only hear what Paul said, not what Peter retorted; and for what it's worth, Acts shows Peter refusing to eat unclean food, and James concerned about Paul's teaching against circumcision and covering up for him.

And, as for the gospels, just one telling point, the Blasphemy charge makes no sense, unless from a Christian point of view, where claiming to be a Messiah is blasphemy. That is only the case in a Christian view of Jesus. There is also the same in Herod leaping to the conclusion that the 'King of the Jews' is something to be found in scripture, not amongst his own family, nobles or generals.

It is written by Christians, thinking in Christian terms, not by Jews, recounting eyewitness events. The gospels express views invented by Paul, not by Jesus.

[bjs1]

No more that the evidence should be ignored that points to Paul having invented Christianity, Jesus' followers being observant Jews and not Gentile - style Christians and the Jesus of the gospels not being the actual Jesus in terms of his words, at any rate

What specific evidence are you referencing?

That Romans is Paul working out his thesis for himself, not passing on what he got from God or man, that Paul hints at his own side of interaction with James, who appears to have given Paul a latter permitting associate Jews (Gentiles) who observe the Noahide laws and a squabble with Peter about not eating with non - Jews, where we only hear what Paul said, not what Peter retorted; and for what it's worth, Acts shows Peter refusing to eat unclean food, and James concerned about Paul's teaching against circumcision and covering up for him.

Ok, but none of this is evidence. It is a hypothetical. This is an imagined scenario with no evidence or reason to suggest that is true. Now there is nothing wrong with a hypothetical, but we should not treat our imagination as evidence.

And, as for the gospels, just one telling point, the Blasphemy charge makes no sense, unless from a Christian point of view, where claiming to be a Messiah is blasphemy. That is only the case in a Christian view of Jesus. There is also the same in Herod leaping to the conclusion that the 'King of the Jews' is something to be found in scripture, not amongst his own family, nobles or generals.

It is written by Christians, thinking in Christian terms, not by Jews, recounting eyewitness events. The gospels express views invented by Paul, not by Jesus.

This paragraph is better than the first one since it includes reasoning, though not evidence. However, the claims made are incorrect.

The gospels say that Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God, not for claiming to be the Messiah (See Matthew 26:63 and Luke 22:70)

This is a Jewish approach to being the Son of God. First-century Jews would have said that they as the collective nation of Israel were Gods son, but for an individual to make that was making himself equal to God. (See John 10:33)

Christians, on the other hand, would have no problem claiming to be sons of God. The claim to be the son of God could have been excused from a Christian perspective, but it was blasphemy from the Jewish perspective of the Gospels.




It is hypothetically possible that Paul "invented Christianity" but, as we see from these posts, there is no evidence to suggest that it is true.

[TRANSPONDER]

No more that the evidence should be ignored that points to Paul having invented Christianity, Jesus' followers being observant Jews and not Gentile - style Christians and the Jesus of the gospels not being the actual Jesus in terms of his words, at any rate

What specific evidence are you referencing?

That Romans is Paul working out his thesis for himself, not passing on what he got from God or man, that Paul hints at his own side of interaction with James, who appears to have given Paul a latter permitting associate Jews (Gentiles) who observe the Noahide laws and a squabble with Peter about not eating with non - Jews, where we only hear what Paul said, not what Peter retorted; and for what it's worth, Acts shows Peter refusing to eat unclean food, and James concerned about Paul's teaching against circumcision and covering up for him.

Ok, but none of this is evidence. It is a hypothetical. This is an imagined scenario with no evidence or reason to suggest that is true. Now there is nothing wrong with a hypothetical, but we should not treat our imagination as evidence.

And, as for the gospels, just one telling point, the Blasphemy charge makes no sense, unless from a Christian point of view, where claiming to be a Messiah is blasphemy. That is only the case in a Christian view of Jesus. There is also the same in Herod leaping to the conclusion that the 'King of the Jews' is something to be found in scripture, not amongst his own family, nobles or generals.

It is written by Christians, thinking in Christian terms, not by Jews, recounting eyewitness events. The gospels express views invented by Paul, not by Jesus.

This paragraph is better than the first one since it includes reasoning, though not evidence. However, the claims made are incorrect.

The gospels say that Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God, not for claiming to be the Messiah (See Matthew 26:63 and Luke 22:70)

This is a Jewish approach to being the Son of God. First-century Jews would have said that they as the collective nation of Israel were Gods son, but for an individual to make that was making himself equal to God. (See John 10:33)

Christians, on the other hand, would have no problem claiming to be sons of God. The claim to be the son of God could have been excused from a Christian perspective, but it was blasphemy from the Jewish perspective of the Gospels.




It is hypothetically possible that Paul "invented Christianity" but, as we see from these posts, there is no evidence to suggest that it is true.

It is not speculation that Paul argues out (in the form or working out) his theory. His argument is flawed. We see in Corinthians that his 'Faith will make you perfect' ideas didn't work and he has to reintroduce good Works to avoid losing salvation. Thereafter he's excusing and self - justifying himself and his beliefs. You may dismiss this as Speculation, but to me it is there for anyone who 'Really Reads' the Bible.

The thing about Son of God is that it does or did not mean for Jews what it means for Christians. A Messiah/son of God, was a man chosen by God for something special. My understanding is that we are all sons (and I suppose daughters) of God. A messiah is anointed (by man or God) to do a particular job (1). It is only Gentile Christian thought that had to make Jesus a demigod like the Greek ones. That wasn't it to start and it's clear that the 'spirit' arrived in Jesus at the Baptism and not before and the faked nativities were invented to make Jesus Divine from birth.

Probably you will deny this and insist the Bible reads as Christian interpretation insists. But it doesn't. Not from what I read about what messiah and Son of God meant (and means) to Jews. Including Paul who (all though the authentic letters) sees Jesus as a man chosen by God as a sacrifice of (original) sin, and not as a divine being apart from the spirit that occupied him. And abandoned him on the cross, too.

This is even clear in the gospels from Mark's man being driven about by the Spirit, and Jesus being able to know or do anything without using spirit power from the spirit of God that was in him. The doctrine of wholly man is right there, but Christianity has made them all identical, the man being divine as well, it seems, which is why the solid -body resurrection had to be invented.

It can hardly be (reasonably) denied (to those who see it, as a thousand years of Experts and Authorities have failed to do) that Herod in Matthew's nativities sees 'King of the Jews' as a religious title, the birthplace of which is to be found in scripture. This is clearly Matthew back - engineering the OT to concoct a Prophecy, but it illustrates how the NT is based in Christian thought, not Jewish.

No doubt you will dismiss all this as speculation and opinion. Much of it is, but based on clues that are ignored and not picked up. It is (like Abiogenesis) an Alternative, that cannot be dismissed, even if it isn't taught in the history class along with the Bible.

I'm used to people not listening and not liking anything they haven't thought of themselves but to me the thing explains all the puzzles (even those ignored by the believers) and (like the Babylonian invention of Genesis and Exodus) will one day be recognised. In the meantime, you may reject it but I don't. And I offer it to others to decide.

(1)The term "Son of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible as another way to refer to humans who have a special relationship with God. In Exodus, the nation of Israel is called God's firstborn son.[2] Solomon is also called "son of God".[3][4] Angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called "sons of God."[Wiki]

[bjs1]

No more that the evidence should be ignored that points to Paul having invented Christianity, Jesus' followers being observant Jews and not Gentile - style Christians and the Jesus of the gospels not being the actual Jesus in terms of his words, at any rate

What specific evidence are you referencing?

That Romans is Paul working out his thesis for himself, not passing on what he got from God or man, that Paul hints at his own side of interaction with James, who appears to have given Paul a latter permitting associate Jews (Gentiles) who observe the Noahide laws and a squabble with Peter about not eating with non - Jews, where we only hear what Paul said, not what Peter retorted; and for what it's worth, Acts shows Peter refusing to eat unclean food, and James concerned about Paul's teaching against circumcision and covering up for him.

Ok, but none of this is evidence. It is a hypothetical. This is an imagined scenario with no evidence or reason to suggest that is true. Now there is nothing wrong with a hypothetical, but we should not treat our imagination as evidence.

And, as for the gospels, just one telling point, the Blasphemy charge makes no sense, unless from a Christian point of view, where claiming to be a Messiah is blasphemy. That is only the case in a Christian view of Jesus. There is also the same in Herod leaping to the conclusion that the 'King of the Jews' is something to be found in scripture, not amongst his own family, nobles or generals.

It is written by Christians, thinking in Christian terms, not by Jews, recounting eyewitness events. The gospels express views invented by Paul, not by Jesus.

This paragraph is better than the first one since it includes reasoning, though not evidence. However, the claims made are incorrect.

The gospels say that Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God, not for claiming to be the Messiah (See Matthew 26:63 and Luke 22:70)

This is a Jewish approach to being the Son of God. First-century Jews would have said that they as the collective nation of Israel were Gods son, but for an individual to make that was making himself equal to God. (See John 10:33)

Christians, on the other hand, would have no problem claiming to be sons of God. The claim to be the son of God could have been excused from a Christian perspective, but it was blasphemy from the Jewish perspective of the Gospels.




It is hypothetically possible that Paul "invented Christianity" but, as we see from these posts, there is no evidence to suggest that it is true.

It is not speculation that Paul argues out (in the form or working out) his theory. His argument is flawed. We see in Corinthians that his 'Faith will make you perfect' ideas didn't work and he has to reintroduce good Works to avoid losing salvation. Thereafter he's excusing and self - justifying himself and his beliefs. You may dismiss this as Speculation, but to me it is there for anyone who 'Really Reads' the Bible.

You got me! When I see conjecture without evidence, I do dismiss it as speculation. Good call on your part!

There is a discussion to be had about Pauls theology and how it advanced through his writings. The claim that "Paul invented Christianity" is purely speculation.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is easy to dismiss as 'speculation' an argument one doesn't like. Take Paul in Romans, and indeed Corinthians. His arguments are wrong. They do not follow, like Faith in Abraham is Righteousness. That ought to be enough to save. But Paul avoids the conclusion that follows, that the Law that was imposed for hard -heartedness and only increases the chance of sinning, only has to be set aside and one has to beleive in God as Abraham did, and they will be Righteous, and worthy of being saved.

But no, apparently, none of those old prophets are going to be saved, Righteous or not, because they did not believe in Jesus. Apart from which, by Corinthians, he'd founf that Natural morality had only led to immorality, worse than the pagans.

Paul drags Jesus faith in as a necessary Faith or one doesn't get saved. This is the 'Christianity' that he invented as he says himself, he didn't get it from any man. And it really makes it a cult of specific belief that has caused problems ever since.

[1213]

...But no, apparently, none of those old prophets are going to be saved, Righteous or not, because they did not believe in Jesus. Apart from which, by Corinthians, he'd found that Natural morality had only led to immorality, worse than the pagans.

Paul drags Jesus faith in as a necessary Faith or one doesn't get saved. ...

It seems to me that you don't understand the Biblical concept of being saved. If person is righteous, he doesn't need to be saved. Only sinners needs to be saved.

[TRANSPONDER]

...But no, apparently, none of those old prophets are going to be saved, Righteous or not, because they did not believe in Jesus. Apart from which, by Corinthians, he'd found that Natural morality had only led to immorality, worse than the pagans.

Paul drags Jesus faith in as a necessary Faith or one doesn't get saved. ...

It seems to me that you don't understand the Biblical concept of being saved. If person is righteous, he doesn't need to be saved. Only sinners needs to be saved.

You don't understand the Bible. We are ALL Unrighteous because of the Eden scenario which made sinners unworthy of being saved from birth. Of course this lead to political cover - ups like Limbo invented to stop babies going to hell before they were even born, or Abraham being Righteous through Godfaith but (Paul implies though doesn't seem to realise it) he is going to be damned because he never knew Jesus.

If he (and other Righteous through either Godfaith or good deeds) are worthy to be saved, then we don't need Jesus or Christianity. Paul is pretty clear that Godfaith will not do but it is faith in Jesus, not God, that saves. If not, nobody needs Jesus.

[1213]

...We are ALL Unrighteous ...

That ain't how things should be. By what Jesus tells, there should happen change of heart and people should be born anew and become righteous.

Jesus answered him, "Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he cant see Gods Kingdom." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb, and be born?" Jesus an-swered, "Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he cant enter into Gods Kingdom. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Dont marvel that I said to you, You must be born anew.
John 3:3-7
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become Gods children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63
He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesnt commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he cant sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesnt do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesnt love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

If he (and other Righteous through either Godfaith or good deeds) are worthy to be saved, then we don't need Jesus or Christianity. Paul is pretty clear that Godfaith will not do but it is faith in Jesus, not God, that saves. If not, nobody needs Jesus.

If person has good deeds, he doesn't need to be saved. It is only those who have done wrongly who needs to be saved. And doing good works won't undo all your bad works. That is why you can't save yourself with doing right things. Jesus is needed, if you have done wrongly, because through him the forgiveness is declared.

[TRANSPONDER]

...We are ALL Unrighteous ...

That ain't how things should be. By what Jesus tells, there should happen change of heart and people should be born anew and become righteous.

Jesus answered him, "Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he cant see Gods Kingdom." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb, and be born?" Jesus an-swered, "Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he cant enter into Gods Kingdom. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Dont marvel that I said to you, You must be born anew.
John 3:3-7
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become Gods children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63
He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesnt commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he cant sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesnt do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesnt love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

If he (and other Righteous through either Godfaith or good deeds) are worthy to be saved, then we don't need Jesus or Christianity. Paul is pretty clear that Godfaith will not do but it is faith in Jesus, not God, that saves. If not, nobody needs Jesus.

If person has good deeds, he doesn't need to be saved. It is only those who have done wrongly who needs to be saved. And doing good works won't undo all your bad works. That is why you can't save yourself with doing right things. Jesus is needed, if you have done wrongly, because through him the forgiveness is declared.

Then, as I have said before, you have invented your own religion, or hereticasl sect of Christianity, anyway.

We are all sinners because of the fall. I fully agree that if Eden was a real event it ought not to apply to the descendants, but the doctrine of Christianity is that it does. To all, Christian and non Christians alike. Good and bad. I tend to agree with your reasoning that good deeds rather than beliefs should determine determine whether one os 'Righteous', but Paul was clear about this; Jesusfaith was suppose to release the believer from sin and they should never sin again. But his Corinthians did and he had to warn that good deeds were needed to avoid losing grace.

We have done this before, like all the other stuff you deny, And I agree that Jesus and Godfaith does not make a person good, only doing good, whether Jesus is the inspiration or Bertrand Russell.

Christianity ...indeed, any religion... can make people bad as well as good, and that is most evident right now when Jesus is used as a political slogan and political agenda.

p.s. I'll risk it. I suspect he wiped fake blood over his ear, but we shall see.