There is no proof of God ...

[otherbrother]

Then you are following Paulism, that's who designed the Christian/Yeshua/Messiah faith everyone follows.

I’m okay with the ingredients that got baked by multiple chefs, even if Paul ended up being the main one. The evolution of The Way is what appeals to me. Seems a synonym of spiritual living. Spirituality trumps Christianity and all religions. Although I see no need to go the strictly spiritual but not religious route. Multiple faith traditions can be worthwhile vehicles of spiritual growth and maintenance.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

And so?

So, it should be called Paulianity?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, it should be called Paulianity?

Obviously not .. Jesus Christ, peace be with him, is the central figure.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Obviously not .. Jesus Christ, peace be with him, is the central figure.

Of what? The faith that Paul/Saul devised? LOL . . .

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of what? The faith that Paul/Saul devised?

I think you know .. the "people of the book" are Christians and Jews.
Christians believe in Jesus, but the vast majority of Jews do not.
The "King of the Jews".

 

[otherbrother]

So, it should be called Paulianity?

I think there is enough evidence in the red letters that Jesus was providing the basis for Paul’s Grace theology. Jesus probably the main “chef” or innovator. This inside out, soft power, Way of transforming self and society was just too foreign a concept to be understood at the time. And perhaps still the time has not come yet, as only a very few people think in terms of the dynamics (I call it thinking like energy) of the (spiritual) Way.
Hence, the anticipation of a second round, a second coming.

 

[Thomas]

... as only a very few people think in terms of the dynamics (I call it thinking like energy) of the (spiritual) Way.

Could you explain that in a bit more detail?

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

I think there is enough evidence in the red letters that Jesus was providing the basis for Paul’s Grace theology. Jesus probably the main “chef” or innovator. This inside out, soft power, Way of transforming self and society was just too foreign a concept to be understood at the time. And perhaps still the time has not come yet, as only a very few people think in terms of the dynamics (I call it thinking like energy) of the (spiritual) Way.
Hence, the anticipation of a second round, a second coming.

The 'Red Letters' are simply nonsense, created by Christians alive this day without ONE iota of proof. Sorry.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Then you are following Paulism, that's who designed the Christian/Yeshua/Messiah faith everyone follows.

You have no proof that Paul ever existed...

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

You have no proof that Paul ever existed...

Bert Erhman is a good source for this . . . Paul existed

https://ehrmanblog.org/was-paul-the-founder-of-christianity/

 

[Thomas]

Bert Erhman is a good source for this . . . Paul existed

https://ehrmanblog.org/was-paul-the-founder-of-christianity/

Bart Erhman's also a good source for the existence of Jesus – which you seemed to doubt at one stage.

But Erhman also believes that Christianity is founded on Jesus, not Paul.

The focus of the Gospels is on the teachings of Jesus, with the barest incidentals regarding his life. Essentially His ministry up to His arrest and execution, and then a brief postscript, if at all.

The focus of Paul is the singular event of the Cross – the death and resurrection of Jesus and what that means for humanity – his whole theology is founded on that, it's not something he invented.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Bart Erhman's also a good source for the existence of Jesus – which you seemed to doubt at one stage.

But Erhman also believes that Christianity is founded on Jesus, not Paul.

The focus of the Gospels is on the teachings of Jesus, with the barest incidentals regarding his life. Essentially His ministry up to His arrest and execution, and then a brief postscript, if at all.

The focus of Paul is the singular event of the Cross – the death and resurrection of Jesus and what that means for humanity – his whole theology is founded on that, it's not something he invented.

It is interesting since there is no account of Yeshua's crucifixion. Erhman is very balanced he provides studies in both directions as a good scholar would. The point of Paul is that no one was interested in this false messiah until Paul single-handedly 'resurrected' the idea of Christianity and steered it in new directions so more people could get behind.

In essence, Christianity is a lie that was perpetuated brilliantly.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

The majority of Christian denominations rely on a mainstream version of the Bible, with the letters of Paul as a foundational text. Paul's writings constitute a significant portion of the Bible and are frequently quoted and used to define Christian doctrine.

Paul introduced concepts that would profoundly influence Christianity and serve the interests of Roman and subsequent colonial powers. While Jesus openly criticized religious leaders, Paul advocated for subservience and obedience among his followers. One of Paul's most impactful teachings was the concept of the Ransom Sacrifice, which portrays humanity as inherently flawed and in need of redemption through the Church's grace.

The decision of the early church to disregard numerous early gospels in favor of Paul's teachings suggests a desire for a more obedient and controllable religious community. Apart from vague references, such as Peter's mention of Paul as a beloved brother, there is little evidence to support the notion of Paul's writings as divinely inspired. Ultimately, following Paul's teachings often means deviating from the core message of Jesus.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Bert Erhman is a good source for this . . . Paul existed

https://ehrmanblog.org/was-paul-the-founder-of-christianity/

My remark was of course a bit ironic. I don't doubt that Sha`ul alias Paul existed. Ehrmann is not really a good reference for what really happened because he doesn't really know more than we know from the 1st century literature.
By the way, I suggest that it was Kaifas and corp. who founded Christianity who excluded Jesus and his followers from Judaism.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

My remark was of course a bit ironic. I don't doubt that Sha`ul alias Paul existed. Ehrmann is not really a good reference for what really happened because he doesn't really know more than we know from the 1st century literature.
By the way, I suggest that it was Kaifas and corp. who founded Christianity who excluded Jesus and his followers from Judaism.

Ehrmann is indeed a good reference as he earned a BA from Wheaton College in Illinois in 1978. He later earned an MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1981 and a PhD in 1985, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible.

Caiaphas, another made-up character in the play: The primary sources for Caiaphas' life are the New Testament and the writings of Josephus (both written long after Yeshua's demise). The latter records he was made high priest by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus after Simon ben Camithus had been deposed.
______________________
Josephus Antiquities

 

[Thomas]

It is interesting since there is no account of Yeshua's crucifixion.

There are no accounts of any crucifixions, as far as I know. All we do know, is there were a lot of them.

Erhman is very balanced he provides studies in both directions as a good scholar would.

No, that's not quite right. Ehrman is an example of a diehard evangelican Christian who went from one extreme to the other – so he lacks balance either way. I've read accounts of his fellow scholars, they're quite insightful.

The point of Paul is that no one was interested in this false messiah until Paul single-handedly 'resurrected' the idea of Christianity and steered it in new directions so more people could get behind.

Well this is utter tosh. Paul was persecuting Christians, andf there were Christian communities outside of Jerusalem, as Paul sought sanction to harry the Christians is Damascus ... so your premise is fanciful, but rubbish.

 

[Thomas]

Paul introduced concepts that would profoundly influence Christianity and serve the interests of Roman and subsequent colonial powers.

But is that down to Paul, or subsequent interpretations of his letters?

While Jesus openly criticized religious leaders, Paul advocated for subservience and obedience among his followers.

Jesus criticised hypocrisy, not religious leaders per se, so you're quite wrong there.

One of Paul's most impactful teachings was the concept of the Ransom Sacrifice, which portrays humanity as inherently flawed and in need of redemption through the Church's grace.

Actually not particularly a Pauline teaching, and largely out of favour today. And redemption is not through "the Church's grace".

Mark 10:45 & Matthew 20:28: "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom (Gk: lytron, ransom, redemption, atonement) for many."

1 Timothy 2:6: "Who gave himself a ransom (Gk: ἀντίλυτρον, antilytron, 'redemption price', 'ransom') for all, to be testified in due time."

The earliest theological theory was recapitulation, by St Irenaeus of Lyon (born 130AD), which he founded on Paul. There have been many theories of redemption (the Catholic bible prefers 'redemption' over 'ransom').

The dominant theory in the Church historically is Christus Victor, again using Paul – Jesus' death and resurrection defeats the powers of evil (sin, death and the devil) and free humanity from its bondage. It's related to the Ransom view, but within the Christus Victor the cross did not pay off anyone but overthrew evil.

The decision of the early church to disregard numerous early gospels in favor of Paul's teachings suggests a desire for a more obedient and controllable religious community.

Nope. You have no evidence the early gospels (and only Thomas could count as 'early') would not support a hierarchy. The critique has no foundation.

Apart from vague references, such as Peter's mention of Paul as a beloved brother, there is little evidence to support the notion of Paul's writings as divinely inspired.

LOL

Ultimately, following Paul's teachings often means deviating from the core message of Jesus.

A popular meme, but one with a vast amount of scholarly rebuttal ...

 

[Thomas]

Ehrmann is indeed a good reference as he earned a BA from Wheaton College in Illinois in 1978. He later earned an MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1981 and a PhD in 1985, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible.

He is indeed a useful reference, but to base one's conclusions entirely on him is to follow him up his own bleak alley.

Wiser to to view Ehrman's opinions and insights alongside a broader scholarship. The Anglican theologian N.T.Wright, for example, has appeared alongside Ehrman, and is complimentary of some aspects of his scholarship, critical of others, and especially so of the conclusions that Ehrman derives from his researches ...

Caiaphas, another made-up character in the play ...

The primary sources for Caiaphas' life are the New Testament and the writings of Josephus (both written long after Yeshua's demise). The latter records he was made high priest by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus after Simon ben Camithus had been deposed.
______________________
Josephus Antiquities

Er, not sure which 'Kaiphas and corp' @talib-al-kalim is referring to, but I'm assuming Simon / Cephas (Aramaic Kipa) Peter, one of the Twelve?

Your Caiaphas is is Joseph ben Caiaphas, High Priest during the years of Jesus' ministry, different bloke.

 

[RJM]

Joseph ben Caiaphas, High Priest during the years of Jesus' ministry,

I think this is the Caiaphas that both @'Amir Alzzalam and @talib-al-kalim are referencing

I suggest that it was Kaifas and corp. who founded Christianity who excluded Jesus and his followers from Judaism

Nice observation, lol

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Er, not sure which 'Kaiphas and corp' @talib-al-kalim is referring to, but I'm assuming Simon / Cephas (Aramaic Kipa) Peter, one of the Twelve?

Your Caiaphas is is Joseph ben Caiaphas, High Priest during the years of Jesus' ministry, different bloke.

Oops! Thank you . . .