Did Paul really corrupt Jesus' teachings
Other urls found in this thread:
britannica.com
twitter.com
And from that time onward an absurd problem offered
itself: ”how could God allow it!” To which the deranged
reason of the little community formulated an answer that
was terrifying in its absurdity: God gave his son as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. At once there was an end
of the gospels! Sacrifice for sin, and in its most obnoxious and barbarous form: sacrifice of the innocent for the
sins of the guilty! What appalling paganism!–Jesus himself had done away with the very concept of ”guilt,” he
denied that there was any gulf fixed between God and
man; he lived this unity between God and man, and that
was precisely his ”glad tidings”.... And not as a mere
privilege!–From this time forward the type of the Saviour
was corrupted, bit by bit, by the doctrine of judgment and
of the second coming, the doctrine of death as a sacrifice, the doctrine of the resurrection, by means of which
the entire concept of ”blessedness,” the whole and only
reality of the gospels, is juggled away–in favour of a state
of existence after death!... St. Paul, with that rabbinical
impudence which shows itself in all his doings, gave a
logical quality to that conception, that indecent conception, in this way: ”If Christ did not rise from the dead,
then all our faith is in vain!”–And at once there sprang
from the Gospels the most contemptible of all unfulfillable promises, the shameless doctrine of personal immortality.... Paul even preached it as a reward....
One now begins to see just what it was that came to
an end with the death on the cross: a new and thoroughly original effort to found a Buddhistic peace movement, and so establish happiness on earth–real, not merely
promised. For this remains–as I have already pointed
out–the essential difference between the two religions of
décadence: Buddhism promises nothing, but actually fulfils; Christianity promises everything, but fulfils nothing.–
Hard upon the heels of the ”glad tidings” came the worst
imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated the very
opposite of the ”bearer of glad tidings”; he represents
the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred. What, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the Saviour: he
nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the
teaching, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of
the whole gospels–nothing was left of all this after that
counterfeiter in hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely
not reality; surely not historical truth!... Once more the
priestly instinct of the Jew perpetrated the same old master crime against history–he simply struck out the yesterday and the day before yesterday of Christianity, and
invented his own history of Christian beginnings. Going further, he treated the history of Israel to another falsification, so that it became a mere prologue to his achievement: all the prophets, it now appeared, had referred to
his “Saviour.”...
>greek scholar edits illiterate man who spoke a completely different language
nah bro totally nothing was lost in translation all good bro new testament is totally divine scripture
No cause Jesus talking to him in a vision
I'm a convert to Christianity and was seriously disturbed by Paul due to accusations like this from various places.
I began to like Paul when I realized it is absolutely impossible to account for his life without the following being true:
Paul believed he saw the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.
He refers to this vision over and over again. He describes himself as an immense convert, a persecutor of Christians until this vision. He undertook three voyages into the gentile world attempting to gather converts. He is genuinely humble in his letters, trying to focus the early churches on Christ. He sought out the Jerusalem disciples in Peter, James and others.
In terms of historical fact, he is the most important figure in the rise of gentile Christianity. Yet he constantly tries to direct attention to Christ, the resurrection, and the meaning of Christian life.
It is impossible to read his letters and think "here is a charlatan, defrauding his followers, riding the coat tails of a popular movement for his own sake."
There is a great continuity of message between the Epistles and the Gospel. Paul did not co-opt Christianity. He was merely its first theologian, the first to try and systematize the life of Christ into ideas, because he tried desperately had to convey Christ as an idea for those who could not see him in the flesh.
This is your brain in atheism
Yes
Almost certainly. Why would the Church withhold entire books? Why doesn't Jesus utter a single word about Homosexuality when in the Old Testament sodomy is beyond taboo? There's more example I'm sure.
It may not have been Paul specifically, but the entire idea of Sainthood and Popes goes against everything Christianity is supposed to be. It's a mockery of itself.
Perhaps it's fitting as Satan is the Great Deceiver and is predicted to act as the Christ reborn before the apocalypse.
>Gospel "pure" Jesus vis-a-vis corrupting ideas of Paul
Absolute trash. Who do you suppose composed, wrote, copied and preserved the gospels? The very churches founded by Paul!
im not even athiest u fucking mongrel brained retard. christianity is greek influenced ideology that got lost with its multitude of translations and edits. jesus, even in bibles with annotations they admit when pieces of scripture are iffy as fuck. this is not found in either islam or judaism
If you look at it from a historical prospective Jesus started out by corrupting John the Baptist's teachings which in turn was a corruption of the Essene's ideas of water baptism. The Essene's were an offshoot of the mainline Jewish cult who had developed the Mikveh practice to initiate non-Jews into Judaism. In summary everyone in Jerusalem was stealing each other ideas and working them into their own religions. So was Paul "corrupting" Jesus' teachings? No, he was doing exactly what Jesus himself did.
>John 6: 51-52
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
>Luke 22: 19-20
[19] And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [20] In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
>1 Cor. 11: 26-29
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
St. Paul didn't corrupt the teachings on "the source and summit of the Christian life," the Eucharist.
So my estimation:
>no nigga
(Not him) You are uneducated. Read more. The relationship between Greek and Hebrew ideas is complicated. It developed over several centuries.
There are pre-Christian Jewish writings influenced by Greek philosophy and language (Ecclesiastes, Maccabees, Philo).
Alexander inaugurated the Hellenic era in the fourth century BC.
During the time of Paul as much as 1/8th of Alexandria was populated by Jews, who spoke Greek and translated their own religious texts into Greek long before the birth of Jesus.
based
Funk off Muhamed.
>that got lost with its multitude of translations and edits
I still don't get where the fuck to you draw this trash ideas from.
Cope
With what?
Your idiocy or poor prose?
I am not the poster you quoted, but >Fuck off Muhammad is a cope
No it's not.
It's a purely directional statement where a person should go through his own suggestive doctrine.
I'm not telling him Muhamed to fuck off, Muhamed will fuck off on his own eventually and I'm just stating the obvious.
Where his post true about Paul, it would be another question, but it's not.
the fact that theres so many ill translations from the new testament from the old. paul didnt know hebrew and has fucked up passages.
lmao fuck off nerd, the trinity is a pagan ideology just like greek paganism. hebrew has only 1 god
Why do you sound so invested in this?
>the fact that theres so many ill translations
That's my question.
Where the fuck do you get the fact that there are so many ill translations? That's simply not true.
The Bible is one of the most accurately translated doc in history.
>the trinity is a pagan ideology just like greek paganism. hebrew has only 1 god
This.
Because of high interest rates.
The theology of the trinity was developed in the four centuries after the death of Jesus. It is the continuation of a complex interplay between Greek philosophy and Hebrew religion.
You were not talking about the Trinity when you made a foolish post attempting to refute Christianity because it contained Greek influences.
Islamic philosophy and theology also has substantial Greek influence by way of Aristotle in particular.
Certainly Judaism does as well.
Christianity (from its Trinitarian to Unitarian forms) has always understood itself to be monotheistic (hence why they contain the Torah in their sacred texts, and hence why it took 400+ years to work out how Jesus could also be God in a philosophical sense).
You are a fool contenting yourself with trite knowledge so as to speak with priviledge on topics you have not engaged with serious effort.
>The Bible is one of the most accurately translated doc in history.
This is utterly untrue. Especially if you're reading King Jame's. Who the fuck told you this? That's not even how translations work. Nothing translated through even just one other language comes out completely accurate.
the new testament claims that the old testament foretold jesus' coming however when mentioned in the new testament, there are clear indications of someone who did not know hebrew (i.e paul) because they misinterpreted the text.
the fact u mention that the theology had to be even modified for FOUR centuries after the "prophet" speaks volumes about that religion. if it was divine word, you wouldnt need all that clarification and editing from the man who fucking was god himself. do you know how stupid that sounds that you had to edit god's word? baka noob go back to plebbit with your plebbit spacing
The Trinity is one God. That's the entire concept.
>paul didn't know hebrew
He was a Jewish biblical scholar, and one of the most influential Pharisees of his generation. What are you even talking about? The man was raised and trained in the Temple at Jerusalem.
Nietzsche was such a brainlet I sort of feel bad for him.
>if it was divine word
You have a stupid and uneducated sense of Christian ideas about the Bible. I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who assumes a fundamentalist or literalist hermeneutic as the essence of Biblical understanding. That idea is roughly as old as Darwin, it has never characterized the main avenues of Christian thought, neither in terms of history nor in terms of population.
If you mean to be a critic of Christianity, at least familiarize yourself with it, and not its ridiculous positivist shadow.
>one other language comes out completely accurate
If you're concerned with grammar and pronunciation, then no.
But from a theological perspective, the Bible is pristine and unblemished.
The whole shtick with the KJV Bible is that for it's OT it used a certain rewrite that the Jews wrote in the 4-5th centuries because they were always btfod by Christians on the subject if Jesus was the Messiah or not.
And even still their attempt to blotch out their own theology didn't work since the people who wrote the KJV knew the nature of their sources ad took them anyway since even with the interest to turn the OT against Jesus didn't matter since the theology even with it was still sound.
The only real bullshit translations are the Quran which states its own source, the master bullshiter Muhammad and the Talmud, the latter which is still basically the same OT with different interpretations afterward.
>did not know hebrew (i.e paul)
lol
Nah, not gonna say anything here.
Paul was not the corrupter of Christianity, he is it's author. Without Paul, there would only be some Jewish gnosis that probably died out a thousand years ago and you'd be Muslim. Still a slave religion though, so thanks Paul I guess.
Great post user