BluntTheApostle:


Yes, there were groups that followed the Apostles and the ones that followed Paul (the Pauline Christians).

The ones that followed the Apostles, especially, the Ebonites, were the earliest Christians. "Ebonites" means "the poor" and one could think of them as the Jerusalem Church.

For your second question, the Apostles merely tolerated Paul. They never endorsed his writings. At least, no evidence in the Bible. Or in church history.

In other words the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians,Galatians,Ephesians,Philippians,Colossians,Thessalonians, Timothy,Titus, Philemon are satanic writtings. and also the gospels according to Marc and Luke and the book of acts should be destroyed from the bible.
Only the letters of James, John, Matthew,1 Peter, Jude and Revelation should be kept.

The Ebionites (Not Ebonites as you called them), second century heretics and ancestors of modern day jehovah's witnesses who rejected the divinty of Christ should be recognized as authentic disciples of Christ.

Are you an Ebionite?

eddy1977:
[b][/b]

In other words the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians,Galatians,Ephesians,Philippians,Colossians,Thessalonians, Timothy,Titus, Philemon are satanic writtings. and also the gospels according to Marc and Luke and the book of acts should be destroyed from the bible.
Only the letters of James, John, Matthew,1 Peter, Jude and Revelation should be kept.

The Ebionites (Not Ebonites as you called them), second century heretics and ancestors of modern day jehovah's witnesses who rejected the divinty of Christ should be recognized as authentic disciples of Christ.

Are you an Ebionite?

You ought to know that my auto-correct changed Ebionite to Ebonite (Ebonite being of a much more popular/common usage). And I did not mention the Ebionites as the only ones. I used the word, "especially the Ebionites" to make a point that seemed lost on you.

No one has talked about authentic or fake here. There were the Twelve (the inner circle, The Way) and the other disciples. Not being a part of the Twelve does not make one a fake witness or disciple. You are the one who brought authenticity into the matter. The question is: "Did Paul found Christianity" not "Is Paul authentic". If you want to hear my views on the authenticity of Paul's calling or claims, open a thread.

My point on this thread is that there were various sects in the early days. Those who followed the Apostles (the Apostles preached the Law) and the ones that followed Paul (who preached freedom from the Law). They can be best classified as the Jews (who kept the Law) and the Gentiles (whom were taught to seek freedom from the Law). Paul's teachings is the bedrock of today's Christianity (even though Pauline Christians were way better than today's Christians).

Paul himself talked of Peter as sent to the Jews while he (Paul) was sent to the Gentiles.

Did the Apostles endorse Paul's letters. There are no evidence that they did. There were earlier mention of them being suspicious of him. And there was the issue of Peter refusing to eat with the Gentiles whenever James's followers were around. That should tell anyone that Peter and the others merely tolerated Paul. They never fully accepted his apostleship or his gospel. And can you blame them? Christ never told them to expect someone else. As a matter of fact, he warned them about the Lawless one (the Antichrist) who would come and lead many astray. They were clearly suspicious of Paul not just because he had persecuted the Church at a time but because his gospel seemed to be largely not in line with the teachings they (the Twelve) received directly from Christ.

On a serious note Jesus Christ, The Righteous founded "The Faithfuls", nicknamed Christianity.
Paul received The Blessing to write about The Faithfuls(Christianity).

JESUS CHRIST.

BluntTheApostle:


Like I wrote earlier, there are no evidence of any such endorsement. There is no evidence that Paul was accepted as an Apostle by the Twelve. Paul failed the criteria needed to be an Apostle. However, he claimed to have been personally called to be an Apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul talked about the pillars of the Church giving him full reins to preach to the Gentiles but there are no evidences outside his own letters.

Christ came for the Jews (and not the world) and He sent His disciples (the Twelve) specifically to the Jews. The Apostles were on about keeping the Laws and regarded anyone preaching against keeping the laws as lawless. They tolerated Paul and there are evidence for that in the Bible but there are no evidences that they endorsed his gospel.

Paul led his Christian life Independent of the Twelve. He refused to be mentored by them and never conferred with the Twelve at once. Even in the suspicious 1 Peter 3:15, the supposed writer seemed to endorse Paul but not with all totality. It is like saying, "You are also good, but you are not one of us". There is tolerance in that statement but nothing else. No endorsement.

CC Outofsync

Again I'm asking you for evidence of your claims, a link from a verified source, a quote from a theological authority. Anyone can claim anything

Outofsync:


Again I'm asking you for evidence of your claims, a link from a verified source, a quote from a theological authority. Anyone can claim anything

Look no further than your Bible.

Why did Peter only eat with the Gentiles when there are no representatives of the Jerusalem Church around?

What was the implicit outcome of the faceoff between Peter and Paul?

If Peter only ate with the Gentiles whenever he was alone with them, is that not enough proof that the Apostles were wary of Paul's teachings to the Gentiles so much so that they couldn't even eat with them?

Like I wrote, there are no evidence that they endorsed Paul's writing.

BluntTheApostle:


Look no further than your Bible.

Why did Peter only eat with the Gentiles when there are no representatives of the Jerusalem Church around?

What was the implicit outcome of the faceoff between Peter and Paul?

If Peter only ate with the Gentiles whenever he was alone with them, is that not enough proof that the Apostles were wary of Paul's teachings to the Gentiles so much so that they couldn't even eat with them?

Like I wrote, there are no evidence that they endorsed Paul's writing.

OK, just so we are clear, this is just your opinion. You have no evidence to back your claims.

OK, bye. have a nice day.

Outofsync:

OK, just so we are clear, this is just your opinion. You have no evidence to back your claims.

OK, bye. have a nice day.

My opinion? You are free to research. I am very busy and should not even be replying. If I had the time, I could get materials from the Early Christians. You can do that.

And for your information, I am a theologian and a former pastor who pastored for five solid years. I already had a certificate in Church History long before I went to Bible institute and there are some truths I could tell you that would shake your faith.

BluntTheApostle:


My opinion? You are free to research. I am very busy and should not even be replying. If I had the time, I could get materials from the Early Christians. You can do that.

And for your information, I am a theologian and a former pastor who pastored for five solid years. I already had a certificate in Church History long before I went to Bible institute and there are some truths I could tell you that would shake your faith.

Are you less busy now?

I'm sorry but all you are saying is just balderdash and uninformed theories to me unless I can see maybe even a thesis supporting it.


now if you agree this is all speculation from your part however... We can then. discuss it in that light.

Outofsync:

Are you less busy now?

I'm sorry but all you are saying is just balderdash and uninformed theories to me unless I can see maybe even a thesis supporting it.


now if you agree this is all speculation from your part however... We can then. discuss it in that light.

Thanks for the insult. I will be stupid to have any discussion with someone like you, either now or in the future.

And just so you know, these are not theories. Neither are they senseless talks (balderdash). I thought you had what to demolish my "speculation". But, you only had insult

Goodnight. Stay out of my mention or I might report you for spamming. Thanks!!!

BluntTheApostle:


Thanks for the insult. I will be stupid to have any discussion with someone like you, either now or in the future.

And just so you know, these are not theories. Neither are they senseless talks (balderdash). I thought you had what to demolish my "speculation". But, you only had insult

Goodnight. Stay out of my mention or I might report you for spamming. Thanks!!!

I see you conveniently skipped the parts where I asked for proof.
OK mister, have a nice night

BluntTheApostle:


My opinion? You are free to research. I am very busy and should not even be replying. If I had the time, I could get materials from the Early Christians. You can do that.

And for your information, I am a theologian and a former pastor who pastored for five solid years. I already had a certificate in Church History long before I went to Bible institute and there are some truths I could tell you that would shake your faith.

Wonderful.
I think because you are a bible scholar and a former pastor, you should actually include your sources. That's what most scholars of your caliber do.

Your inputs are highly welcome here (speaking of myself) because hungry souls like myself love to learn and grow in this faith walk from the enlightenment we receive from extremely educated expositors like you.

Also, if what Paul presented in his teachings (however controversial it may have been from the view point of the original apostles) was not heretical or fake, then I have no problem accepting it.

is it possible that the case of Paul is a testimony of God's grace to former renegades like myself and an encouragement that men (the original apostles) can despise you but you should hold your head up because God shows no favoritism?

eddy1977:


Wonderful.
I think because you are a bible scholar and a former pastor, you should actually include your sources. That's what most scholars of your caliber do.

Your inputs are highly welcome here (speaking of myself) because hungry souls like myself love to learn and grow in this faith walk from the enlightenment we receive from extremely educated expositors like you.

Also, if what Paul presented in his teachings (however controversial it may have been from the view point of the original apostles) was not heretical or fake, then I have no problem accepting it.

is it possible that the case of Paul is a testimony of God's grace to former renegades like myself and an encouragement that men (the original apostles) can despise you but you should hold your head up because God shows no favoritism?

I am really forcing myself not to get angry.


Please, I never said Paul's writing was heretical. I only said they were not endorsed by the Apostles.

eddy1977:


Wonderful.
I think because you are a bible scholar and a former pastor, you should actually include your sources. That's what most scholars of your caliber do.

Your inputs are highly welcome here (speaking of myself) because hungry souls like myself love to learn and grow in this faith walk from the enlightenment we receive from extremely educated expositors like you.

Also, if what Paul presented in his teachings (however controversial it may have been from the view point of the original apostles) was not heretical or fake, then I have no problem accepting it.

is it possible that the case of Paul is a testimony of God's grace to former renegades like myself and an encouragement that men (the original apostles) can despise you but you should hold your head up because God shows no favoritism?

Sorry for my earlier outburst. But I have constantly had to correct the impression that my views are about Paul's authenticity or not.

The question was about the origin of Christianity. The OP obviously meant Christianity as we know it. The Church under the Apostles was largely Jewish and methodical in adhering to all of Christ's teachings.

Like I wrote earlier, if you study the Bible very well, you would notice that the Apostles merely tolerated Paul. Look at Paul's teachings and you would see that they are the bedrock of today's teachings. A time will come when I will revisit some things. But the time has not come yet as I have been very busy.

BluntTheApostle:


I am really forcing myself not to get angry.


Please, I never said Paul's writing was heretical. I only said they were not endorsed by the Apostles.

Mr. Man read the passage 2 Peter 3:15,16 and tell me what that is, if it's not an endorsement of Paul's teachings/writings by Peter.

Yusuf54:
I think it was founded by Apostle Paul

1st Corinthians 3:11. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.

These Scriptures settles the controversy.

AlanTuringAI:

Mr. Man read the passage 2 Peter 3:15,16 and tell me what that is, if it's not an endorsement of Paul's teachings/writings by Peter.

2 Peter is the most disputed of all the books included in the Bible. There is doubt till this day about its author being Peter the Apostle. It was regarded as canonical only after much debates and rejections and even after its inclusion, its authorship still continues to be debated.

BluntTheApostle:


I am really forcing myself not to get angry.


Please, I never said Paul's writing was heretical. I only said they were not endorsed by the Apostles.

There is no need to get upset. sorry if i put you in that position.
we are just sharing knowledge and hopefully learning from your safe of theological education.
Nothing personal; just questioning and reasoning together.

Peace.

eddy1977:


There is no need to get upset. sorry if i put you in that position.
we are just sharing knowledge and hopefully learning from your safe of theological education.
Nothing personal; just questioning and reasoning together.

Peace.

I already apologized, bro. I immediately posted an apology. I am sorry about the outburst. Can we have this discussion on Sunday? If yes, I will mention you.

BluntTheApostle:


I already apologized, bro. I immediately posted an apology. I am sorry about the outburst. Can we have this discussion on Sunday? If yes, I will mention you.

Yes Sir
meet you here sunday.

Yusuf54:
I think it was founded by Apostle Paul

Why?

M0ron:


Why?

because Jesus Christ never founded any religion of his own before he went to heaven,According to Bible,He practiced Judaism religion n he corrected them of their wrong doing..Christianity religion came into being Some Years after Jesus had resurrected to heaven,If U read Holy Bible very well,U will find out that Judaism was the religion practiced by Jesus Christ

Yusuf54:
because Jesus Christ never founded any religion of his own before he went to heaven,According to Bible,He practiced Judaism religion n he corrected them of their wrong doing..Christianity religion came into being Some Years after Jesus had resurrected to heaven,If U read Holy Bible very well,U will find out that Judaism was the religion practiced by Jesus Christ

How many years after he resurrected?

M0ron:


How many years after he resurrected?

40 yrs after his ascension to Heaven

Yusuf54:
40 yrs after his ascension to Heaven

Proof of this?

M0ron:


Proof of this?

Try to look for the proof on ur own..New Testament was also written after his ascension to heaven

Edu3Again:


Jesus said He will build HIS church, it was founded by Jesus

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus did not marry a 6 yr old baby unlike the prophet of piss

Don't you know Jesus was impotent.

sulasa07:

Don't you know Jesus was impotent.

Jesus is not a pedophile like Mohammed.

Edu3Again:


Jesus is not a pedophile like Mohammed.

He is not a paedophile coz he didn't force his way,why don't you go back to history and read on marriage age back then,even US then allowed 7-8 yr old girls to be married. The kings of England too married 6-9yr old girls as their queen,are they also paedophile,NO!coz back then,the way they grow big is great depending on this time of ours.As far as I can see,he didn't marry ur sister or ur mama,or any of ur ancestors, so go n sleep.

Edu3Again:


Jesus is not a pedophile like Mohammed.

Go back to history, and read on the age girls get married back then,even USA allowed girls of 7yr to be married off and the kings of England too married 6yr old girls as their queen. So shut up and stop saying what you don't know

sulasa07:

He is not a paedophile coz he didn't force his way,why don't you go back to history and read on marriage age back then,even US then allowed 7-8 yr old girls to be married. The kings of England too married 6-9yr old girls as their queen,are they also paedophile,NO!coz back then,the way they grow big is great depending on this time of ours.As far as I can see,he didn't marry ur sister or ur mama,or any of ur ancestors, so go n sleep.

Stop talking rubbish, no other sane country or religion marries 6yr old babies.

Only Islam does it

Edu3Again:

Stop talking rubbish, no other sane country or religion marries 6yr old babies.

Only Islam does it

There is no point talking to you,you believe what you want to irregardless of peoples explanation