The True Founder of Christianity

[mobkem]

Did Jesus or his Apostles follow a religion called Christianity? Who were the first 'Christians' ? Who founded Christianity and do the teachings of Christianity conform to the teachings of Jesus?





The mission of Jesus.

In 721 B.C.E the Jewish kingdom of Israel faced defeat at the hands of the Assyrians. Scattered abroad with their Temple destroyed, the Jews turned their focus onto the Law. Monotheism was once again lost, but this time in an ever increasing maze of elaborate rites and rituals.

It was this situation that was present in the world when Jesus received his calling from God. Upon beginning his ministry at the approximate age of 30, Jesus made it clear that his mission from God was to get the Jews back on track:

"For the son of man is come to save that which was lost." (Matthew 18:11)

"For I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.� (Matthew 15:24)

Jesus also made it clear just what God wanted him to do :
"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak" (John 12:49)

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17)

A careful study of Jesus' words will show that, contrary to what Christians may think, Jesus had no intention of starting a new religion; he only came to reiterate the message that God had given to all prophets before him: man was to obey God's Laws and worship Him alone.

At no time during his ministry did Jesus claim to be anything more than a human being, inspired by God. Indeed, he referred to himself as the son of man, and made it clear, in a number of verses throughout the Gospel, that he was merely a Messenger of God


Was Jesus' Mission a success?

"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One, that is God." (Mark 10:18)

"...whosoever receives me, receives not me, but Him who sent me." (Mark 9:37)

"And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou has sent." (John 17:3)

"Now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard from God." (John 8:40)

"I ascend unto my Father and your Father, my God and your God." (John 20:17)

Despite all his efforts--wonderful words backed up with some pretty nifty miracles--Jesus was soundly rejected, especially by his own people.

Three years after he began his ministry, he was arrested and charged with sedition and blasphemy. Success had eluded him, at the end of his life on earth; he left behind only a mere handful of followers, not more than 500 at most.


The True Founder of Christianity

Approximately five years after Jesus' ascension into heaven, A twenty-five-year old zealot was on his way to Damascus to pick up a group of Nazarenes (The followers of Jesus called themselves as Nazarenes) for return to Jerusalem when he had a vision in which he claimed Jesus appeared, asking why Saul was persecuting him. Saul changed his name to Paul and went off into the deserts of Arabia in order to think about just how he was going to go about carrying out what he believed to be a command from Jesus to go out and preach.

Exactly WHAT to do was quite a dilemma for him, however; since the Jews had rejected Jesus and his message, Paul didn't think he stood much of chance of getting through to them, either. He made up his mind that it would be best to simply dismiss them off and target the Gentiles (non-Jews) instead.

The Romans and the Greeks, who made up the Gentile population of Paul's world, were pagans who worshiped a plethora of gods and goddesses. Temples and statues of their deities abounded in the land, and Roman law had it that all people, with the exception of the Jews, must pay homage to the gods.

Paul knew that people with such deep-reaching pagan beliefs were not going to accept the idea that grace and salvation could come from a person who was only considered to be a most upright and righteous human being. If Paul wanted quick results in his ministry, he knew that he would have to "modulate" things a bit, taking into account the culture of the Gentiles.

Paul Maier, in his book "First Christians", tells us that thirteen years elapsed between the time Paul "received his calling" and the time that he began preaching. During that thirteen years, Paul's creative mind put in a lot of overtime; when he finally returned to Damascus, he came back armed with the knowledge that the Gentiles would demand a tangible god within their new religion, and he was prepared to give this to them.

Paul was wildly successful in his subsequent missionary efforts, what with the accommodations he ended up making for the Gentiles. Although the religion of Christianity takes its name from Jesus Christ, Paul of Tarsus must be considered as its true founder, as he is the one who conceived all of its doctrines, and set up its churches throughout the world of his time. Christians don't deny this, either: "No figure in Christian history stands so tall or has had such a tremendous influence as has Saul of Tarsus..."

In his book "The 100: A Ranking of the most Influential Persons In History", author Michael Hart concurs in saying:

"No other man played so large a role in the propagation of Christianity."

There is one big problem with this picture, however: The teachings of Paul, the true founder of Christianity, cannot be found anywhere in the teachings of Jesus or in those of prophets before him.

The following are some of the innovations that Paul introduced into "his" religion of Christianity.

1. The divinity of Jesus
2. The trinity
3. Atonement
4. Salvation by faith


Using these doctrines Paul achieved phenomenal success in his ministry. The Jews may have brushed Jesus aside, but the Gentiles flocked to Paul's side, as he gave them just what they wanted in their new religion. The term for the earlier followers of Jesus –Nazarenes was dropped in favor of a new, more 'appropriate' name: Christians, or followers of Jesus Christ.

This new religion of Christianity "...was abundantly interwoven with mythological content drawn heavily from pagan sources..." along with having a theology "...which was produced as the need arose to suit the mentality of the times..."

Later Church leaders thought to neatly end the confusion by saying that Jesus was God-incarnate--an eternal being who "chose" to become a man in the womb of Mary. Jesus had, in other words, two natures--divine and human-- which were united in one single person. While they probably meant well, making a statement such as this only led to more confusion.

The Jews did brush Jesus aside; in a way, however, the religion of Christianity as conceived by Paul has also brushed Jesus aside. Despite what a Christian might say, one will find no evidence wherein Jesus himself puts forth any of the afore--mentioned doctrines within the Gospels. Since Jesus had no plans to start a new religion, it goes without saying that he also did not formulate any doctrines for such.

All Christian doctrines are the work of Paul, based on his desire to gain favor--and new converts--among the non Jews of his time. By incorporating pagan beliefs into the teachings of Jesus, Paul achieved phenomenal success in his ministry, but at the price of tearing down everything that true monotheism stands for. In so doing, Paul abrogated all teachings of Jesus and gave mankind a set of beliefs that have plagued his sense of reason ever since. It is here --the true nature and role of Jesus, as opposed to the Christian view of such -- where we find the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity.

http://islam.thetruecall.com/modules.ph ... =0&thold=0

[CONTENDFORTRUTH]

Very interesting article though provoking and challenging ... however it is like banging ones head against brick wall to try and show people that Paul is a false apostle and prophet.

[fightwriter]

Matthew 16:16-17 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

How exactly does that tie into Christ never claiming divinity?

[Cathar1950]

Matthew 16:16-17 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

How exactly does that tie into Christ never claiming divinity?

Just like David was the Anointed or Christ, the son of the living God.

[Goat]

Matthew 16:16-17 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

How exactly does that tie into Christ never claiming divinity?

Because of the concept that 'Son of God' was a slang expression for people who are exalted by God. For example, King David, in Psalm 2, was declared "Son of God' when he became king. It doesn't mean he was divine, but he was given a special role to play by God.

[Volbrigade]

I haven't visited this site in awhile -- the subject of this thread intrigued me; so, as a Christian, I thought it would be appropriate to participate in its "resurrection."

In order for the assertion that Paul "invented" Christianity to be true, it follows that it is also true that Paul himself was a liar, a fraud, a deceiver, a conspirator, a heretic, and a usurper -- at a minimum.

My point is not to defend Paul against those accusations. Like Christianity itself, whether or not Paul fabricated its doctrines is something that is resistant to empirical proof on either side.

What is not resistant to proof are the success of Paul's efforts. If they were of the nature of a conspiracy, what a magnificent conspiracy it is. What artful and subtle genius is expressed in the construct of the doctrines, arguments, and apologies surrounding the person of Jesus Christ and the Triune God. How intricately the Hebrew scriptures, already ancient at the time of Paul's writings, are employed in building the case for Jesus' Messianic mission and nature; How crafty the accounts of his life, his miracles, and the layers of meaning that can be extracted from them. What creativity is involved in establishing the poor, misused Jewish carpenter as a "Prince of Peace", "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords", though we can be certain that He never led an army, sat at court, wrote a book (which has survived, at any rate), or proclaimed a religious system.

And what amazing timing and good fortune that Paul happened to institute his belief system at the precise moment that there was sufficient political stability, commerce, and transportation (supplied by the Roman Empire); as well as sufficient acceptance of the superstitious, the fantastic, and the "supernatural", to act as the perfect fertile soil for the new faith to take root.

And what a mighty tree it has grown, in the face of fierce opposition, persecution, and oppression. It has even survived -- its (fallacious?) doctrines intact -- its transformation into a governmental and political system for hundreds of years; the installation of thousands of Cross-adorned buildings across Europe -- and later the rest of the world -- bearing testament to the core belief: the incredibly strange story of the singular birth, life, ministry, sacrificial death and atoning resurrection of the Jewish man-God, and invitation into the Divine and Paradisiacal life to all people. An invitation that is accepted by untold numbers on a daily basis; people of every nationality, culture, ethnicity, and income, educational, and intellectual levels.

In light of the above: and in light of the further consideration that among the numerous belief systems available, that none clearly stand alone as providing a picture or even a reliable framework of "Truth"; that is, a description and informing of reality as it really is, and the meaning of it and purpose for our lives; and that one -- the materialist/scientific -- openly implies that any such meaning or purpose is illusory, and an equally illusory (not to say arbitrary) adoption of a fabricated one is needed if the individual is to possess one at all --

In other words, if "all paths lead up the mountain", rendering all paths (as well as no path at all) of equal value, or lack thereof --

Why not embrace as a path what is arguably the most brilliant one devised, simply on the basis of its depth, its multifacetedness, it's internal complexity and integrity -- not to mention is sublimity and beauty? Why not give Paul his due, and chose his program over the others -- the way one chooses a particular diet, or fitness routine -- simply and solely on the basis of its superiority?

Not to mention, of course, the one overriding and overwhelming possibility:

It may just be true.

[McCulloch]

In order for the assertion that Paul "invented" Christianity to be true, it follows that it is also true that Paul himself was a liar, a fraud, a deceiver, a conspirator, a heretic, and a usurper -- at a minimum.

Not necessarily. I have read the view [and apologize that I don't have the source just now] that Paul promoted a new religion that had little or nothing to do with the messianic movement of Jesus. Paul's Christ movement was essentially a Hellenistic religion with borrowings from Abrahamic mythology. His Christ was a kind of cosmic spiritual being not necessarily associated with any historical human.

On the other hand, the Jesus movement, was a wholly Jewish messianic reaction against the Hellenizing influences of contemporary philosophy and culture. Jesus took over the movement after the death of John, the Baptist and was succeeded by James.

The real genius, the liar, fraud and heretic would have been Luke, the author or Acts and the Gospel bearing his name. Luke, seeing that the Romans needed for any new religion to have a pedigree to be acceptable, co-opted the weakened Jesus movement's hero, after the destruction of the Temple, into a literal historical background for Paul's Christ movement.

[McCulloch]

What is not resistant to proof are the success of Paul's efforts. If they were of the nature of a conspiracy, what a magnificent conspiracy it is. What artful and subtle genius is expressed in the construct of the doctrines, arguments, and apologies surrounding the person of Jesus Christ and the Triune God. How intricately the Hebrew scriptures, already ancient at the time of Paul's writings, are employed in building the case for Jesus' Messianic mission and nature; How crafty the accounts of his life, his miracles, and the layers of meaning that can be extracted from them. What creativity is involved in establishing the poor, misused Jewish carpenter as a "Prince of Peace", "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords", though we can be certain that He never led an army, sat at court, wrote a book (which has survived, at any rate), or proclaimed a religious system.

Yes, the astounding success of Christianity cannot really be attributed to a clever conspiracy of the son of a poor carpenter, a failed Jewish scholar and a handful of fishermen and zealots. It took centuries for the Church to construct the Chistological doctrines of Trinity. The use of the Hebrew scriptures to make the case for Jesus' messianic mission is crude and indicates poor scholarship. The accounts of Jesus life, ministry and miracles have layer upon layer of meaning, indicating as Tom Harpur and others point out, that those stories have origins that are more ancient and diverse than the usual simplistic Christian analysis will allow.

And what amazing timing and good fortune that Paul happened to institute his belief system at the precise moment that there was sufficient political stability, commerce, and transportation (supplied by the Roman Empire); as well as sufficient acceptance of the superstitious, the fantastic, and the "supernatural", to act as the perfect fertile soil for the new faith to take root.

Or perhaps, with the perfect fertile soil for a new faith, one would have been found to flourish in it. If Christianity was not available or well suited for the purpose, another would have been adapted to fill the niche.

And what a mighty tree it has grown, in the face of fierce opposition, persecution, and oppression.

And contributing its own share of fierce opposition, persecution and oppression, particularly of the Jews, who would have had the best insight into just how weak a philosophical and spiritual foundation Christianity had been built on.

Why not embrace as a path what is arguably the most brilliant one devised, simply on the basis of its depth, its multifacetedness, it's internal complexity and integrity -- not to mention is sublimity and beauty?

Because the evidence, logic and reason do not support it. Humanity clearly has advantaged in many ways from Christianity. However, I believe that we have outgrown this particular set of superstitious beliefs.

Why not give Paul his due, and chose his program over the others -- the way one chooses a particular diet, or fitness routine -- simply and solely on the basis of its superiority?

But we have been abandoning it, albeit gradually, for the last five hundred or more years.

Not to mention, of course, the one overriding and overwhelming possibility:

It may just be true.

You will have to provide some evidence of that assertion. I do not think that it is very likely that it is true.

[Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

In order for the assertion that Paul "invented" Christianity to be true, it follows that it is also true that Paul himself was a liar, a fraud, a deceiver, a conspirator, a heretic, and a usurper -- at a minimum.

"Not necessarily. I have read the view [and apologize that I don't have the source just now] that Paul promoted a new religion that had little or nothing to do with the messianic movement of Jesus. Paul's Christ movement was essentially a Hellenistic religion with borrowings from Abrahamic mythology. His Christ was a kind of cosmic spiritual being not necessarily associated with any historical human.

On the other hand, the Jesus movement, was a wholly Jewish messianic reaction against the Hellenizing influences of contemporary philosophy and culture. Jesus took over the movement after the death of John, the Baptist and was succeeded by James.

The real genius, the liar, fraud and heretic would have been Luke, the author or Acts and the Gospel bearing his name. Luke, seeing that the Romans needed for any new religion to have a pedigree to be acceptable, co-opted the weakened Jesus movement's hero, after the destruction of the Temple, into a literal historical background for Paul's Christ movement".

I'll let you and mobkem hash that one out. For the purposes of my argument, it only makes the "conspiracy" that much more impressive.

It took centuries for the Church to construct the Chistological doctrines of Trinity.

There are several references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the New Testament. I don't think it's accurate to say that the Church "constructed" the doctrine of the Trinity centuries later, any more than it would be to say a contemporary writer "constructs" the 1st Amendment by publishing a paper amplifying its context and meaning.

The use of the Hebrew scriptures to make the case for Jesus' messianic mission is crude and indicates poor scholarship

That's a matter of opinion, of course. Many quite informed opinions cite Paul's profound knowledge of the Scripture -- he was a Pharisee, after all -- and the beautiful economy of language in the Gospels and Epistles.

...those stories have origins that are more ancient and diverse than the usual simplistic Christian analysis will allow.

What is "the usual simplistic Christian analysis?"

Volbrigade wrote:

And what amazing timing and good fortune that Paul happened to institute his belief system at the precise moment that there was sufficient political stability, commerce, and transportation (supplied by the Roman Empire); as well as sufficient acceptance of the superstitious, the fantastic, and the "supernatural", to act as the perfect fertile soil for the new faith to take root.


"Or perhaps, with the perfect fertile soil for a new faith, one would have been found to flourish in it. If Christianity was not available or well suited for the purpose, another would have been adapted to fill the niche."

You have evidence for that, I presume?

Volbrigade wrote:

And what a mighty tree it has grown, in the face of fierce opposition, persecution, and oppression.

And contributing its own share of fierce opposition, persecution and oppression, particularly of the Jews, who would have had the best insight into just how weak a philosophical and spiritual foundation Christianity had been built on.

That's what I was alluding to when I wrote "It has even survived -- its (fallacious?) doctrines intact -- its transformation into a governmental and political system for hundreds of years; the installation of thousands of Cross-adorned buildings across Europe -- and later the rest of the world -- bearing testament to the core belief: the incredibly strange story of the singular birth, life, ministry, sacrificial death and atoning resurrection of the Jewish man-God, and invitation into the Divine and Paradisiacal life to all people. An invitation that is accepted by untold numbers on a daily basis; people of every nationality, culture, ethnicity, and income, educational, and intellectual levels."

That's central to the power of the "conspiracy"; that the ideas of its fabricators were so thoroughly corrupted, yet remain in their pure form to this day thanks to unprecedented number of documents that represent copies of the original manuscripts, and which do not disagree with one another to any meaningful degree.

The result is that people either come to faith, or are taken in by the conspiracy (your call) every day, with no knowledge of the abuses of the state Churches of the past (i.e., The Roman Church, Church of England, et. al.). The movement in the organized Church has, for 500 years (coincidentally?) been toward reformation, and a return to the original doctrines, before they were adulterated.

Volbrigade wrote:

Why not embrace as a path what is arguably the most brilliant one devised, simply on the basis of its depth, its multifacetedness, it's internal complexity and integrity -- not to mention is sublimity and beauty?

Because the evidence, logic and reason do not support it. Humanity clearly has advantaged in many ways from Christianity. However, I believe that we have outgrown this particular set of superstitious beliefs.

Well, we may have grown other beliefs. But the question is, are they roses or briars? Wheat, or tares?

There are any number of things one can believe besides Christianity. I fail to see the superiority of any of them, unless one is true -- and only one can be (though, of course, all can be false). But which one? I submit that materialism provides the most coherent alternative to Christian belief, but it has profound problems (e.g., origins; the impossibility of establishing moral standards; the logical conclusion that life has no ultimate meaning; and the lack of justification for logic and reason themselves).

Volbrigade wrote:

Not to mention, of course, the one overriding and overwhelming possibility:

It may just be true.

You will have to provide some evidence of that assertion. I do not think that it is very likely that it is true.

The only evidence that I can provide in being consistent with the "conspiracy" that I mentioned earlier that I am an unabashed party to: my witness, and my life. The second, especially, presents some problems in regard to presenting on a message board.


It is the business of God to provide evidence of Himself. I tell you what: you make an earnest effort to believe, which includes an earnest desire to believe. You will have your evidence.

[McCulloch]

It took centuries for the Church to construct the Chistological doctrines of Trinity.

There are several references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the New Testament. I don't think it's accurate to say that the Church "constructed" the doctrine of the Trinity centuries later, any more than it would be to say a contemporary writer "constructs" the 1st Amendment by publishing a paper amplifying its context and meaning.

The doctrine now known as Trinity is not evidenced in any first century writings. A significant proportion of early Christians earnestly debated on the losing side.

The use of the Hebrew scriptures to make the case for Jesus' messianic mission is crude and indicates poor scholarship

That's a matter of opinion, of course. Many quite informed opinions cite Paul's profound knowledge of the Scripture -- he was a Pharisee, after all -- and the beautiful economy of language in the Gospels and Epistles.

He claimed to be a Pharisee and a scholar, yet he demonstrated that he did not understand Jewish law and tradition. He frequently quoted out of context and drew conclusions not supported in the text.

...those stories have origins that are more ancient and diverse than the usual simplistic Christian analysis will allow.

What is "the usual simplistic Christian analysis?"

The usual simplistic Christian analysis is that the events recorded in the Gospels really did happen, and that is why they were recorded. Critical and scholarly analysis finds more ancient mythological roots to many of the elements of the stories.

"Or perhaps, with the perfect fertile soil for a new faith, one would have been found to flourish in it. If Christianity was not available or well suited for the purpose, another would have been adapted to fill the niche."

You have evidence for that, I presume?

No. I am putting it out as one possibility.

I submit that materialism provides the most coherent alternative to Christian belief, but it has profound problems (e.g., origins; the impossibility of establishing moral standards; the logical conclusion that life has no ultimate meaning; and the lack of justification for logic and reason themselves).

I submit that those problems exist in a somewhat different form for Christianity and are not any less insurmountable for the materialist point of view.

It is the business of God to provide evidence of Himself. I tell you what: you make an earnest effort to believe, which includes an earnest desire to believe. You will have your evidence.

I have an earnest desire to know truth. I do not think that an a priori assumption on my part as to which competing claim is true would help in my efforts to discern truth. In fact, a strong desire for X or Y to be true, is a hindrance to objectively knowing what is true.