Court case against Christianity

[wizanda]

Shalom,



Paul doesn't just discuss the idea of sin is passed down, yet says all are sinners and misquotes the Psalm 14:1.

By saying there is non righteous not one, where the start of the Psalm does say “the fool says this”. I have a full article on my site on this subject.

If you take a step back from all Paul has written and look at the ideology of his thinking. He tells people he has the mind of Christ, sadly this is definitely not so. He still thinks like a strict Pharisee, putting extra rules and regulations, using other peoples words as is own. Which Jeremiah 23 defines as being a fake prophet! Yet the point is Christ told people to be perfect as our father in heaven. Paul tells everyone they are sinners and so they need to attended church???

Very similar to the Pharisees; who Christ him self was so against as they didn’t acknowledge the things of God, yet tithes and offerings for sin.

Do you follow, with out me needing to elaborate?

Also if you read the whole of the Ezekiel chapter I posted, it does explain it is the actions of the child.

I do admit since the fall, we are fallen, yet if you fall, you get back up. This is what Christ was saying; Paul said you will always be down and there is not much you can do other then have faith in Christ. Yet Christ said to have faith in God. Plus also the Old Testament clearly states not to have faith in man, yet God alone. The point I am trying to put across though, is if you aim for the best you have more chance of succeeding; then someone who believe they can’t do it to start with. This is the difference between what Christ taught and Paul.



Peace N love B with U



P.S I do enjoy reading your answers as you try to be logical, unlike a lot of the conversations I have with others online.



God Bless You

 

[Bandit]

are there any other books & authors that need to go into the dumpster. just checking with you because I dont want to rip any of the wrong pages out of my bible.

what about James. should that one go too? it seems he had his own thoughts on the matter so we better take & poll & see what everyone thinks.
so, we should get rid of Paul & John for sure. (which i guess include revelations) & substitue the book of Wizanda. is that what you are trying to say?

 

[Faithfulservant]

poor Paul.. He died a violent death for Christ and he is still being crucified.. I just bet he's at the top of the list of martyrs for Christs sake.

 

[wizanda]

Well if you must know.........Peter= stone and is not a name.

The only time rock and stone are mentioned in the same sentence is twice, once said by Christ to Simon, you are a stone and on this rock and in Isaiah as the rock of stumbling and the stone of offence.

Simon Peter on authority respects the law of man, more then the law of God.

The end of Revelations is a blatant forgery, as he had only just been told by the same angel a chapter before, not to bow and worship angels. Then the end contradicts Christ teachings.



Peace N love B with U

 

[Bandit]

my cousins name is Rocky & i know someone named Stone.

so what religion(s) should we look to if we get rid of Christianity?
& what material would be better if we dump the NT books?

 

[Saltmeister]

Shalom,

Paul doesn't just discuss the idea of sin is passed down, yet says all are sinners and misquotes the Psalm 14:1.

By saying there is non righteous not one, where the start of the Psalm does say “the fool says this”. I have a full article on my site on this subject.

If you take a step back from all Paul has written and look at the ideology of his thinking. He tells people he has the mind of Christ, sadly this is definitely not so. He still thinks like a strict Pharisee, putting extra rules and regulations, using other peoples words as is own.

Speaking of taking a step back!!!!

I think one should be careful in classifying Paul's statements as a new set of rules and regulations. One of the things we should do when reading and interpreting Scripture is to try and understand what they are indeed saying.

Paul may set guidelines and recommendations, but that does not mean that he is saying, "you must do this . . . you must do that." Paul was not dictating to people about the rules they had to follow in life, but mentoring and guiding them. He was directing them on how to live and what areas of their lives they should focus on and what attitudes to adopt.

Paul was a mentor not a dictator.

I can guess why you're thinking like this. When I first started exploring Paul's letters, I read them as if Paul was dictating things to people. Later on, I realised that Paul was simply acting as a mentor and guide.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do what he says, however. Paul was simply explaining what we needed to do in our spiritual journey to God's kingdom.

Which Jeremiah 23 defines as being a fake prophet! Yet the point is Christ told people to be perfect as our father in heaven. Paul tells everyone they are sinners and so they need to attended church???

Attending church -- tread carefully here.

What you mean by "church" is a public building. What Paul, Peter, James and John mean by "Church" are the inhabitants of God's kingdom, members of the Body of Christ, the branches of the Tree of Life and God's chosen people.

In light in these concepts, Paul would never have told people that they had to attend a "public building." The reason is simple -- how does a physical building connect you to God? It can't. What connects you to God is your devotion to God and your obedience to His Spirit.

Do you have to "attend church (the public building)?" No.

You must, however, be part of the True Church and be a true believer. Full stop.

 

[wizanda]

so what religion(s) should we look to if we get rid of Christianity?

& what material would be better if we dump the NT books?

This thread is not to get rid of Christ, Yet the Anti-Christ I.E. Paul and John.

I find Matthew, Mark, Luke, James and Jude correct and inline with Christ teachings and the Old Testament (Tanach).

With Paul and John though, since they conflict so much with Christ, this is one reason why we have so many denominations.

Christ’s teachings as in the gospels written by the disciples are inline with Lao Tzu, Buddha and many other great teachers.

We have religious conflicts worldwide; take a look at where these stem from and you will see that it isn’t what Christ said, yet what the Pharisee made up.

This is also all foretold in the Old Testament, the Bible makes far more sense when it is looked at from this perspective, prophecies are fulfilled and there aren’t so many contradictions. It’s like the second commandment is the largest of these; make no image of God.

Christ never said he was; Paul and John did, in most religions worldwide God has no image, even Hinduism with its many reflections of God; God still has no image.



Saltmeister with Paul and dictating to people, it depends on which way you want to look at it. I believe your 1st way of looking at it was correct and this is what most people do to begin with, as that is the way it comes across. What you have to think about is that all over the world there are tons of non Christians, who will find a bible in a hotel room for instance and read just a bit of it, not taking the time to study as we have done. These and also many Christians, who simple brows occasionally they will take Paul as instructions. Then when they read what Christ said, they will interpret it from Paul’s perspective. So missing the whole meaning of Christ, even within many churches it is like this. Also many tracts I have seen refer to Paul, more then Christ. People quote Paul and say Christ said this??



As for Paul’s rules and regulations, why can’t women be preachers? As Paul said so, (foretold in Daniel) why must Christians have short hair? Again Paul! This list is quite substantial and causes so many conflicts, especial within the Christian communities them self’s. Have a look around the net and you will find women asking why can’t we be preachers? Well Paul said so??

You are right, Paul doesn’t say “you must”; he says “Do not”. Unlike Christ who says I ask you.

Also Paul’s wording I find like a snake it twists and winds like a side winder to cover its tracks; so it is extremely hard to follow. Also eventually it hypnotizes you into believing it as truth, even though many of us do see the contradictions to begin with.



Peace N love B with U

 

[Bandit]

This thread is not to get rid of Christ, Yet the Anti-Christ I.E. Paul and John.

I find Matthew, Mark, Luke, James and Jude correct and inline with Christ teachings and the Old Testament (Tanach).

With Paul and John though, since they conflict so much with Christ, this is one reason why we have so many denominations.

Christ’s teachings as in the gospels written by the disciples are inline with Lao Tzu, Buddha and many other great teachers.

We have religious conflicts worldwide; take a look at where these stem from and you will see that it isn’t what Christ said, yet what the Pharisee made up.

This is also all foretold in the Old Testament, the Bible makes far more sense when it is looked at from this perspective, prophecies are fulfilled and there aren’t so many contradictions. It’s like the second commandment is the largest of these; make no image of God.

Christ never said he was; Paul and John did, in most religions worldwide God has no image, even Hinduism with its many reflections of God; God still has no image.




Peace N love B with U

so is this to put Jesus on the same level as other prophets & teachers such as Buddah? if so then we will surely disagree.
on the other hand, as a Christian I do not see where anything in the bible states that Jesus IS God, however i do see where the bible declares Jesus AS God AND the image of the invisible God.

What i have noticed is those who make Jesus just another ordinary man, make him out to be less than what the scripture says he is. While i believe Jesus was just an ordinary man like the rest of us & not an incarnation as in the myths of Zeus & different gods who turn into men.
He IS also the fulness of the Godhead bodily & the EXPRESS image of the invisible God.
Your attempts to rid of the other books appears to be based on your own beliefs of who Jesus is & i dont think you are tying things together correctly. that is why you discard most of the NT. I also think it is because you are searching for something more than what you have found in other religions & that you are seeing that some things taught in Christianity do not line up.
just my observation & i could be wrong.
i fail to see your argument against the NT books as valid or being that of the pharisee.
However, I am not discarding the bible, neither can i put the Jesus on the same level as the rest of us or Buddah or just another prophet.

Jesus is the Son of the living God, the messiah, the Lamb of God & Jesus said himself he would be standing on the right hand of God. & everything the NT declares him as. i think if you really look at all the prepositions & verbs, you will see what i am saying is not that far off.
so i guess we will just have to agree to disagree, because you have already discarded all the books & it appears you have no room for any reconciliation.

if you believe the 3 gospels then you must believe Jesus did in fact die, was buried & he did rise from the dead & this is the main message that went out from the other books...OR do you continue & discredit the accounts of Calvary in the gospels???

"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." "Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard His blasphemy." (Matthew 26:63-65 KJV)
"Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God" (Luke 22:69 KJV)

the other NT books confirm this is the same light.

 

[wizanda]

so is this to put Jesus on the same level as other prophets

Mat 13:57 And they were offended in Him. But Yeshua said to them, a prophet is not without honor, except in his own country and in his own house.



Luk 24:19 And He said to them, what things? And they said to Him, The things concerning Yeshua of Nazareth, who was a man, a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,



Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, See, do not do it! I am your fellow servant, and of your brothers who have the testimony of Yeshua. Worship God, for the testimony of Yeshua is the spirit of prophecy.

He IS also the fulness of the Godhead bodily & the EXPRESS image of the invisible God.

Deu 5:8 you shall not make a graven image for you, any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters beneath the earth.

The reason I do this is not through lack of knowledge, yet I know Yeshua personally. Yes he did die and was raised, he also does sit at the top right hand corner of God; which I have seen my self.

The reason I am against the books in question, is they are Anti-Christ’s teachings and cause much conflict between religions worldwide.

This that I am now discussing on here is all foretold by other prophets in the Bible. The Bible as whole makes far more sense, when these points are realised as many prophecies are then fulfilled. Especially concerning the snare spoken of in Isaiah.

Peace N love B with U

 

[iBrian]

wizanda, I'm afraid I'm not seeing you justify your arguments - it would be great to see something that offers more structure for the discussion in general.

 

[wizanda]

So do you mean for me to go over every point in question and post the relevant scriptures, to back up each one?

If so I can, yet it will be a lot to read.

I find it far easier to answer people’s questions, as you can imagine almost half the Bible is involved.

By the way are you a Christian Brian?



Peace N love B with U

 

[Bandit]

The reason I do this is not through lack of knowledge, yet I know Yeshua personally. Yes he did die and was raised, he also does sit at the top right hand corner of God; which I have seen my self.

The reason I am against the books in question, is they are Anti-Christ’s teachings and cause much conflict between religions worldwide.

This that I am now discussing on here is all foretold by other prophets in the Bible. The Bible as whole makes far more sense, when these points are realised as many prophecies are then fulfilled. Especially concerning the snare spoken of in Isaiah.

Peace N love B with U

so we agree on that part of Jesus & Calvary. But you do realize that Jesus was rejected when he made his claims- which would make the ones who crucified him & rejected his authority, the anti Christ.

the other books of the NT do not reject Jesus, i see where they expound on Jesus as the Christ, our hope in glory.
any way, i want to take a break form this & all i ask, is before you throw them all in the garbage, just leave an open mind to the possibility in the future that something might click, that these other writings are for Christ & not against him. Paul & John were not against Christ & there is nothing in those books which indicate that to me... & I am glad to hear that you are not against him.

Peace & Love to you also

 

[At_the_Wellspring]

hi Wizanda and bandit and saltmeister


Don't have the time, expertise or resources to make too much claim on the specifity/ interpretation of the differences between Paul and Christ's teachings. Its interesting though, i've never come across this particular argument.

Just a couple of comments though... while there may be differences in the teachings/ words used/ interpretations (I won't claim they do or don't exist either way), I would say it is pretty strong to claim that Paul's teachings are the work of the anti-Christ, as i have found much, love, meaning and spiritual guidance within his letters.

To me the details of the exact wording of each phrase taken in isolation is not important, but I guess that has to do with my understanding in the bible and its writings, while revealing spiritual truths, were also written for their time. But anyway that is another discussion altogether.

But I wonder also, whether the differences between the teachings is truly the root cause of divisions in denomination within the church? Without Pauls teachings included in the bible would the church really have greater unity? i don't think so. I think the human part of ourselves and our tribal history shows that we need to define ourselves as different, and while uniqueness is essential, it can lead to defensiveness of land, religion and beliefs. I would say that even without Paul, there would still have been a multitude of reasons and justifications to split one group from another. I believe it is not necessarily a negative thing, as different people have different understandings, needs and forms of expression and so different, churches and congregations suit different people to some extent. So I think different denominations would have sprung up anyway. Because of our need for individuality and difference this is inevitable.

The danger I see is when we don't recognise and nourish our commonality or recognise the validity of difference.

But anyway, that is also a different topic, and I know that the point is to have discussion and debate which requires difference not just commonality.

And just one last little thing, I'm sorry to be picky Wizanda, and i know you have the best of intentions, and I understand that the topic is huge, but saying that you would prefer to just answer questions, to me implies that you have all the answers to teach others, when really the point of CR is to recognise the validity and intelligence of all sides of the argument, and thus debate from an equal stand-point, 'enlightening eachother'.

Well, thats my little bit...

Peace, love and unity

 

[iBrian]

So do you mean for me to go over every point in question and post the relevant scriptures, to back up each one?

It's more that we have three pages on this thread, yet I have difficulty seeing a structured argument anyone can really respond to. It's simply a statement of opinion with little actual development for discussion, and that's a shame.

If so I can, yet it will be a lot to read.

That's the problem - you came in banging a drum that you don't like Paul, made multiple posts about that - but you didn't stop to really rationalise your argument in a clear and succinct matter.

From an observer point of view, it makes this thread seem rather limp at doing anything, let alone setting up a court case.

By the way are you a Christian Brian?

I'm outside of everybody's box.

 

[Bandit]

hi Wizanda and bandit and saltmeister


The danger I see is when we don't recognise and nourish our commonality or recognise the validity of difference.
Peace, love and unity

hi At_the_Wellspring.

i enjoyed you post on this a lot. Like we agree 100% so i guess we have a lot in common to build a nice bridge of peace.

Paul and Christ's teachings. Its interesting though, i've never come across this particular argument.

you will see this pop up at least once a month around here. there are two different arguments out now. one of them is ancient & goes back to the first century. they both go after Paul first then snake through the other books.

i have just come across a new one with a different approach recently. i think i have located the source & it is only about 2 years old.
THIS particular 'case' is a bit different but i think it may be coming from the same recent doctrine against the bible I have seen elsewhere.

oh well. no biggie.

Welcome to the club & hope you will like it around here.
Love & Unity to you also.

 

[Curios Mike]

Maybe you should change the name to court case against Paul and John if you are A Christian. But I can understand some of Bandits Sarcasm, and shots at you.... Becuase your Title itself is Anti-Christ. Though I agree Alot if not most of Christianity is a bit Phariseeic, but its becuase they do not understand much of what Paul wrote also. Anyways As Bandit has mentioned before their is several different arguments about Paul as well as other... I guess if you can disprove one book out of the Bible then the theory is you can disprove Christianity..... Or at least convert a few away from it. This sort of thing is on the increase and will increase.

Anyways as Brian has stated I have to agree..... dont really know your argument. Except that your opinion is that Pual, John, and Jesus disagree... But I fail to see where. And it is impossible to proev they actually do agree if you cannot use their own words.

Example: If Jesus says White is Black and Paul also teaches this, and adds explanation to it, but I'm not allowed to show this, then what is the point of the arguement?

Even when Jesus was on Trail before Pilot and Herod they gave him a chance to voice... Why not Paul or John.... What do you think the Pharisees wanted to do.... Shut up Christ, and or his disciples......



p.s.
sorry its been so long.....gotta pay the bills

 

[Saltmeister]

Don't have the time, expertise or resources to make too much claim on the specifity/ interpretation of the differences between Paul and Christ's teachings. Its interesting though, i've never come across this particular argument.

Welcome to the thread, Wellspring. It's been nice reading your comments on this discussion.

I'm no expert myself, but I don't think I need to be. The Bible wasn't written for any elitist group of human beings. It's a common view that you need to be "specially trained," "specially educated" or "specially ordained" (as in a priest) to be a person qualified to understand the Bible but I think that's "absolute rubbish."

I'm not saying that anyone can pick up a Bible and understand it, but I think it's important to take a step back first and make sure you know what the Bible's real purpose is. The people most qualified to tell you what the Bible says are the people who correctly answer this question before going on to study the Bible -- not the elitist Bible scholars who think they're know-alls.

But I wonder also, whether the differences between the teachings is truly the root cause of divisions in denomination within the church? Without Pauls teachings included in the bible would the church really have greater unity?

Following on from what I said on the Bible's purpose, I believe the view we should all have when we read the Bible is to understand that it is to explain the secret of God, His Word and His Kingdom.

I've spent the past year exploring web sites on religion and dialogue with Catholics, Mormons and Muslims. As a result, I've had quite a bit of experience on the hottest topics of Christianity.

There have been so many arguments on the Origin of Sin, the Trinity and rules like whether abortion, sex before marriage, homosexuality or masturbation are right or wrong. It seems that many "church leaders" have been deluded enough to think that the Bible's purpose was to give us rules to follow -- or that the Bible was a book of dogma, doctrine and ideology.

Despite all the debates, we never really discover or understand the most important thing of all -- God, His Word and His Kingdom. I think the purpose of the Bible is to do exactly that -- to explain the secret of God and His Kingdom.

God is definitely a secret to all or at least most of us. Some of us know Him, some do not. Some of us know the secret about Him and His Kingdom. The others do not. The most tragic thing that has happened is that with all these arguments on Original Sin, Trinity, abortion, sex, masturbation is that we have not discovered this Secret -- the Secret that existed from the beginning, before anything was even created at all.

Because life as a Christian is a spiritual journey to this God and His secret Kingdom, if we go off on a tangent with these arguments on Original Sin, Trinity, etc., we ultimately lead ourselves on a path to darkness and destruction of which the apostles warned us against!!!

The point is, if we have to answer the questions on abortion, sex, masturbation, etc., we are saying that society is more important than God rather than the other way round. It ultimately means we don't have faith that God, the most powerful Being in the universe, could give us what we need to live lives of peace and happiness.

And so . . . we create our own rules, dogma and ideology as if that was God's job!!!!

A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. 1 Peter 2:8

Isn't it true that a lot of people have stumbled over the Gospel?

Of course, an anti-Christian argument may be that the Christian Gospel is "responsible" for the conflicts, violence and factions in this world, but I don't think the Christian Gospel should be put on trial like that.

The Christian Gospel may seem to be "a threat" to "our world" because of all these divisions, but is this world really that important at all? If God wants to rescue us from this world, He wouldn't be the least bit concerned about the damage He causes to this world because this world won't last forever. Our existence here is temporal. We seem to think that it's God's responsibility to preserve the world we have created.

 

[At_the_Wellspring]

Welcome to the thread, Wellspring. It's been nice reading your comments on this discussion.

Thanks Saltmeister

I'm no expert myself, but I don't think I need to be. The Bible wasn't written for any elitist group of human beings. It's a common view that you need to be "specially trained," "specially educated" or "specially ordained" (as in a priest) to be a person qualified to understand the Bible but I think that's "absolute rubbish."

I do agree, there shouldn't be a heirachy or feeling of ineptitude when it comes to understanding the message. But at the same time, the most stimulating sermons that I have heard and learnt from were from a Pastor who was very well researched in the history and context of each bible passage that he looked into and taught on. From the context and situations of the writings (such as Pauls letters) he could from that stand-point explain how it is relevant to us today. I found that depth of knowledge stimulating rather than some other speakers who I feel took the words at face-value understanding, picking and choosing different single verses to emphasise a point or claim they had made.

So I guess the 'expertise' is just in understanding that behind the words there is also a history and context in which it was written and from which we can learn. Knowing there is a depth behind the words on the page. And then also I guess, the fact that the Pastor I refer to seemed to understand the foundation of the message - which in the end is all about love - loving God and loving others.

There have been so many arguments on the Origin of Sin, the Trinity and rules like whether abortion, sex before marriage, homosexuality or masturbation are right or wrong. It seems that many "church leaders" have been deluded enough to think that the Bible's purpose was to give us rules to follow -- or that the Bible was a book of dogma, doctrine and ideology.

Despite all the debates, we never really discover or understand the most important thing of all -- God, His Word and His Kingdom. I think the purpose of the Bible is to do exactly that -- to explain the secret of God and His Kingdom.

I would agree - personally i don't get too tripped up on the apparent rules and regulations. I think ultimately the message of the gospels is love. And, for me, its pretty much as simple as that. And I would definitely say that many people have 'stumbled across' the bible and have been incredibly enlightened by it and have found God's love and peace through it for themselves. So it can't be labelled as the root cause of all problems in the world. The problem is the human aspect that is involved, not the God aspect (the Secret, as you say). So in some ways I would still say that the bible has, in some ways, 'tripped people up'. The bible is a collection of words which contain a secret, though they are still simple, rudimentary words that are trying to explain something beyond the scope of words. The writers were trying to document or express the incredible acts of love, mercy and forgiveness of Christ (its difficult enough to write a good novel or biography about an 'ordinary citizen' - imagine trying to express such powerful emotions in words..!) And, while an incredible mystery lies within it, it is easier for us to simply take the words, pick them apart, and construe them into the rules we want to make, or in order for us to have some form of control or superiority over others.

So because of centuries of a history of this, it does appear in some ways that it has 'tripped us up'. When prositution was legalised here a couple of years ago, the Government wasn't necessarily advocating it as a proffession, but they were trying to do something that would be best for those in the industry - for their safety and protection. Whether legalising it is the answer or not doesn't necessarily matter. Same thing with the bill allowing 'civil union' of gay and lesbian couples - it was a matter of human rights rather than moral agreement. Whereas the (predominant) Christian response to that was so caught up in the fact that both those acts is morally wrong that the 'rule' comes to be more important than the welfare or protection of the individual.

Anyway, I guess all I'm saying after all of that is that I find it sad that the general impression of the bible and its followers seems to be one of judgement and restriction rather than love and acceptance.

Can you imagine if just one person loved as powerfully as Jesus, and the next person was compelled to love equally as powerfully and so on and so forth - the love would spread the globe like wild-fire! Just goes to show there is a human element in all of us which never quite allows us to reach such perfection...

 

[wizanda]

Can you imagine if just one person loved as powerfully as Jesus, and the next person was compelled to love equally as powerfully and so on and so forth - the love would spread the globe like wild-fire! Just goes to show there is a human element in all of us which never quite allows us to reach such perfection...

This is my point in all of this, that basically our history as a human race was changed.



Let me put it my way of understanding this now (not that everyone will agree).



Christ came along and took the worship of God back into nature; he was against church rule and policies. Christ was not against the Bible or the basic commandments given by God, yet the extra rules that had been made by man to put people into fear and under control. After his death there was 3000 people joining the disciples, they followed giving up of their wealth and living as a community (Oneness, One us). This is what Christ taught and this would have continued to spread, as an open community.



The Pharisees didn’t want this, as before they had control over the people via religion. This is one of the reasons they had him sentenced to death.

Paul was a member of the Pharisees under the Pharisee/Jewish high council which John was a member of. To end this following Paul had people dragged out of their homes and stoned to death in public places, as to scare people into not following the teachings of Christ (as told in Acts). He then said told people he had changed and came back a new man, yet in actual fact he reinstated Church policies of tithes and offerings. The amount of contradictions in his teachings compared to Christ, is the reason I say he was Anti-Christ’s teachings. As today most people say Christ said this, when in actual fact if they checked it up; they are in fact quoting Paul as if he was Christ. Someone mentioned that he reiterated the teachings of Christ and explained them; he did yet changed the whole meaning back into church control.



The next part to this whole picture is the fact that within the so called gospel of John, there are a number of points that only a member of the Jewish high council/Pharisees would have known. Now to any follower of Judaism, after hearing that Christ said the things contained in John no Jewish person would follow him. As there is a number of points that would imply that Christ was Anti-Judaic. Which in fact he was not when compared with the other gospels. In other words the Gospel of John is made up, as in my original posts; the destroying of the temple in quoted in John, is a lie. As in both Matthew and Mark we are told that the Pharisees made this up to discredit him. People say well it says then the disciples knew he meant his body, yet Matthew and Mark were disciples and they say it is a lie. This then puts the whole gospel of John into question about is authenticity. Also that it contains points that contradict Christ own words in the other gospels, just adds to this of really putting the authenticity of the gospel of John into question. Then the most disturbing thing is that a number of issues are against God’s principles discussed in the Tanach (Old Testament). So even till this day most Jewish will still not accept Christ, from what is contained in the book of John; as if Christ said it.



So indeed the Pharisees regained control of the people by using Christ’s authority to make it appear as if he said he was God.

On the whole issue of comparative religions I have read many of them, the only points that don’t tally and make it that they can be unified is what is contained by both of these authors. If both of these authors are Pharisees Christ in Matthew 23 strictly warns against following them. Most of the principle discussed in the books of John and Paul fulfil this.

This is why this thread is named a court case against Christianity, as most of the teaching stem from these books in question.

Mat 23:13 But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men. For you neither go in, nor do you allow those entering to go in.

Their teachings are Anti-Oneness, and in fact do a good job of causing division amongst all religions, even Christianity it self with its many denominations.

Mat 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Paul and John both Pharisees went preaching their own version of Christ, not preaching what he said or the gospel. Instead preaching Christ as a sacrifice and people have an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, which Christ said they would do in the parable of the vine dresser, they would kill the son to steal the inheritance. The only begotten son of God came from John. Which is why Muslims have it written that God doesn’t beget; everything is God’s to begin with.

Mat 23:25-28 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of extortion and excess. (26) Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of them may be clean also. (27) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. (28) Even so you also appear righteous to men outwardly, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

John and Paul established that when you are washed in the blood of Christ you are free of sin. This is exactly what he meant, a sacrifice and washing the outside is merely for show. It is cleaning the soul and changing the ways that is important. Again he asked for mercy and not sacrifice, which is him quoting from the Old Testament, that the knowledge of God is more important then sacrifices.

Mat 23:29-32 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous, (30) and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. (31) Therefore you are witnesses to yourselves, that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets; (32) and you fill up the measure of your fathers.

Instead of them establishing love and unity as Christ did, they have caused everyone to build churches with a dead man hang on a cross to be worshiped. To me knowing Yeshua personally, it sends shivers through me and makes me feel sick; that they still have him hanging there, as if it is a good thing.

Mat 23:14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and pray at length as a pretence. Therefore you shall receive the greater condemnation.

The fact that most Christian churches have long prayers shows that the belief system stems from the Pharisees. Not Yeshua as he told people to pray privately, in their rooms.



This entire subject is far easier to see from a comparative religion perspective as many principles said by Christ tally with Lao-Tzu, Buddha and many other religions. What does not tally, is the books of the Pharisees i.e. John and Paul and this is a large reason why we have religious debates going on and not coming to any resolution.



Peace N love B with U

 

[At_the_Wellspring]

Hi Wizanda

Thanks for your reply... just a couple of things briefly...

Firstly what i had written (that you quoted) about what if everyone was able to love as powerfully as Jesus, I was saying that in the context of understanding that this is not possible, as to fully love as powerfully as him, we would have to have as full an understanding of life, God and love as he did.

In other words, there is always going to be a break-down somewhere down the line, or gradually over time. Kind of like Chinese whispers.

Thats where I would argue that even without Paul in the picture at all, other humans in history would have influenced the course of Christianity. Its part of human nature that people turn to greed and power, so I have no doubt that this would have happened anyway. That where i don't think you can single out Paul as the root cause of the fact that we have long prayers or that we act in ways much like the Pharisees. If we act like the Pharisees, in my view, its because the Pharisees were human just as we are human and so we can also be hypocritical as they were and show characteristics like they did. They were by no means a foreign species and therefore so different from ourselves.

Any historical writing is going to be interpreted and picked apart by different people for both good and bad intentions, no matter how pure (in truth or or just intention) the words/ teachings originally were.

I see our job is to find the essence of truth within the scriptures, but I don't see that as meaning it is our job to edit the bible, such as to take out Pauls/ Johns writings. What if we edited out genesis because actually the world is much older than that and actually its not scientifically reasonable to believe the creation story as fact... or what if we edited out leviticus because its full of rules that are no longer relevant to this day and age and they are illegal and not politically correct and offensive... or what if we edited out revelations because its a book that we can't take literally word for word..

We could probably find a reason to edit out much of the bible, but it isn't our job to do that, it is our job to find the truth within it. If the court case against Christianity is highlighting the fact that Christians do sometimes/ often show tendencies of being not so different than the Pharisees, then fine, maybe we can recognise where we have become hipocritical, which parts of our faith we do for 'show', which part of the scripture we are using to advance our own end etc.

Its fine for us to objectively look at ourselves and how we practise our faith, but I don't see the point in pinning down the reason why we have become like this down to two single people in history - Paul and John. Paul and John, I would say are the reason many have turned to Christianity in the first place, and many have found meaning, love, peace, understanding within the texts. People have found truth within it, despite the fact that perhaps the teachings are not 100% in line with Jesus' teachings (according to one interpretation).

Also, I would've thought that the belief that Paul, one of the worst of the worst, was able to change his life, to turn around and to become a follower in a faith he attacked so strongly, was a powerful message about how anyone can change, anyone can come to believe. I would say it is a huge loss to Christianity to lose faith that Paul truly did change.

Anyway, just some thoughts..