Reconstruction of Paul of Tarsus' Actual Life

It is well established to say that Paul of Tarsus (the usurper) was the inventor of the Christian religion, contributing more to the belief system than even the historical Yeshua.

However, what was the reason for his hijacking/starting this new religion? Was he deluded? A reasonable account of Paul's life is that he was a Greek from Tarsus who possibly attached himself to the High Priest's/Sanhedrin's in the function of a henchman or bodyguard, and thus came into contact with those Jews who held Yeshua to have been a great teacher. For some reason, he took the character of Yeshua back with him to Asia Minor and began inventing wild tales about him and spreading them; and with mystery religions being vogue at the time, these tales were a hit. However, the original disciples of Yeshua in Jerusalem themselves were enraged at seeing a Gentile appropriate their figure and make him centerpiece to what they considered blasphemies.

But the question remains: what prompted Paul? Why specifically attach himself to Yeshua?

>inb4 "he spoke to Jesus in Arabia through a magic vision!!"

Gullible idiots need not apply.

t. Judaizer

>Facebook "memes"

>>>/JIDF/

>muh kikes

Says the one who literally worships one.

Clearly you haven't studied that word's etymology.

Is this because the other thread didn't go someone's way?

He had a vision, like all other religious reformers, very simple explanation.

Of course, because you don't approve of Christianity, you can add whatever bias you want to it and not accept anyone else's ideas because you intend on making these threads without intending to change your opinion.

>Invented Christianity

Christ invented true Christianity, and He takes no credit because the basic teachings of the Christ are different than present day church-going Christianity.

What Christ taught is found by reading the Gospels. No where does Paul invent Christ in the four Gospels because Paul comes after Christ does.

Not to mention that apostles who knew Christ personally acknowledged Paul as an authority.

In 2 Peter 3:16 Paul's letters are referred to as "scripture."

Considering the Jews were very much oppressed for centuries thanks to the mistranslation of an idiot Greek scribe, am I supposed to be surprised that they developed a hatred of Christianity?

The Christian hate for the Jews came first, for starters... It's only natural to come to despise the people who forced you into ghettos, instigated pogroms against you, took your property, limited your choice of profession, and even killed you. And like I said, for nothing, because the Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews.

When the crowd asked for Barabbas, they asked for Jesus. bar-Abbas merely means 'son of the father': it is not a proper name. The oldest manuscript of Mark even calls Jesus 'Yeshua bar-Abbas'. Thus, bar-Abbas was an epiphet of Jesus, and when the crowd clamored for "Barabbas!", they clamored for the release of Jesus. The entire story of the Jews choosing 'Barabbas the murderer' is an invention, invented by an idiot Greek who thought Jesus and Barabbas were two different characters.

Besides, learn history. There was no "Passover tradition" of releasing prisoners, nor would the Jews have had any reason to kill the historical Jesus. The Romans however, had reason to kill an agitator and Messiah-claimant.

no he didn't

jesus lived and died as a jew and only a jew

what is found by reading the gospels is the interpretation of oral traditions (claiming to be jesus' words) from decades after his death by people who never physically knew him. and even further, each (synoptic, at least) gospel excluding mark is a differet take on the same story but altered to reflect different socio-political environments.

not trying to shit on the gospels but they are NOT christ's 'true teachings'

It is understood the controversy of Paul and his teaching, but you have to read what Paul says to see what he is talking about rather than Veeky Forums memes being the decisive winner.

Paul is legit, and his epistles do help any Christian reflect in faith.

Life is not about ethnicity. Christ was "Jewish" but that doesn't mean anything when you look at what He said.

All teachings are handed down from Master to Student, and just because they are recorded 20 to 40 years after Christ died, does not mean the teachings were not being handed down through disciplic succession.

The gospels are only a minor recollection of His mystery. What He taught in person was obviously a lot more valid to the people He taught it too, and today, some people can connect to it and some people can strive to separate themselves from it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't modern rabbis basically the Pharisees of today?
Not in a pejorative sense, but that Rabbinical Judaism is the religion of the Pharisees, against which Jesus counterpoised his teachings?

Is it not the case that Judaism was a more diverse faith in the time of Jesus, and that the various splinter sects died off over time leaving one 'legitimate' Jewish orthodoxy, as in Christianity?

>Christ was "Jewish" but that doesn't mean anything when you look at what He said.

yes it does. he was jewish in both an ethnic and religious sense. what else could he even have been? christianity obviously didn't exist yet, and he repeatedly argued with rabbis on their own terms- meaning he disagreed with their current standing practices, however he clearly saw himself as a member of their faith.

>All teachings are handed down from Master to Student, and just because they are recorded 20 to 40 years after Christ died, does not mean the teachings were not being handed down through disciplic succession.

i'll use the tired example of the telephone game here. it is almost completely impossible that anything close to the original teachings is what we see in the gospels (even if we read them in their original language). living a subjective existence, we as individuals cannot help but unconsciously insert our lifetime of personal and political biases into forms of communication, particularly in cases of religion.

imo the words and ideas of the real christ are completely inaccessible to us today. the closest we have are writings by individuals with no personal connectoin to him, writings which also have easily traceable political motivations and undertones

Right.

However, the 'original' non-Rabbinical Judaism is still extant, even if it is a tiny minority. They're called Karaite Jews.

lel

karaites developed as a response to the rabbinic movement, but are absolutely not 'original' judaism

They're called Karaites. Tacking on Jew is simply a gesture so you understand that they two have common origins.
Karaite Jew implies that the Karaites are a sect, which is false.

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

- Jn 8:44

the original rabbis were pharisees, however the teachings of biblical pharisees are pretty much nothing like any form of what would become rabbinic judaism.

judaism actually got progressively more diverse post-christ (not because of christianity, its just the typical behavior of religions to produce more sects the longer they're around)

So what? Doesn't change the fact that Jesus was a Jew and that you therefore worship a Jew.

oh for God's sake. Paul barely founded any christian communities. Rome was already well established before Paul ever even wrote to them. Paul did just make shit up from "revelations" but so did everyone else

>quoting Bible verses

Nice counter-argument, you sure taught me.

He is a living Spirit now, and was a Jew 2000 years ago. The soul is not identified by the racial ethnicity.

Even in telephone, the last person can repeat the first sentence correctly. It is not impossible. It depends how clear and accurate the people are before them.

If you are skeptical of the line of disiciplic succession, it is time for you to seek it out for yourself and find a lasting connection that you can put your trust in.

The teachings and words and ideas of Christ are accessible to everyone in all the generation even after time. If you are an individual soul and Christ is a Great Higher and Cosmic existing entity that not only reveals itself to you but also can prove itself to you in the PRESENT DAY, in the PRESENT CONTEXT, then you can see that you just need a more reliable telephone service provider.

It is one thing to study history, but another thing to be stuck in the past

'Before Abraham was, I am.'

Think on that, neonate. Then revise your thoughts a few times and tell me what you think.

Also, are you a Jew?

You could even say the priests of the churches today are the modern Pharisees.

Christ tells us the Kingdom of Heaven is more than the leaven of the bread. And Christ says to Satan "Man does not live off of bread, but of every living word of God" and to His disciples "Moses received manna, but the teaching is the true bread"

So eating a piece of bread could be a delusion when the true Communion is the word of God before it was ever an established ritual

I believe the OP clearly said "gullible idiots [i.e. Christcucks] need not apply"

And you are willing to trust someone who makes a post on Veeky Forums rather than go seek out this matter for yourself.

Not saying you are a gullible idiot, however only you know how capable you are

So it's essentially the Jewish version of Protestants?

I'm not a Christian, I'm a mystical alien worshipping Trot Kekist.
The point is that Jesus perceived himself as transcending that name, his substance predated and cooexisted alongside Abraham when he was still Abram.

>implying the Jews weren't happy when Jesus died on the cross
>implying the Jews have been treated badly
Jews are literal pagans, they spit on Christ, so how is it even in the slightest suprising that Jews were hated? It's astonishing even that they survived in Europe, to such a degree that you should ask yourself, have they not been treated better than other (pagan) groups? Why would the Jews come to despise a group of people for punishing them if they actively go against said groups values? That's a pretty hypocritical view, any evidence that the Jews had such a general hypocritical view on the world? Does it have to do with their we-are-the-chosen-ones-mentality?

Why is it that you didn't address at all the point about the Barabbas mistranslation and the fact that no such thing as a "releasing prisoners on Passover" tradition was ever in place?

Why is it that I didn't even see the word 'Barabbas' in the picture?

>When the crowd asked for Barabbas
What crowd? I do not see a crowd in the picture, nor one mentioned
I haven't mentioned the "releasing of prisoners on Passover" because it isn't relevant to the points I'm making. Also, could you clarify why the term 'Barabbas' is relevant in the context of this anons post:
I see no connection, nor do I see the connection between the "Passover tradition of releasing prisoners" and the picture.

The Jews, or atleast the Pharisees would have something to gain by Jesus' death, simply because he would be less of a bother to them, so to state that the Jews had no reason to kill Jesus is farfetched in my opinion.

()

Figures you'd have substandard reading comprehension.

The Gospel of John (incidentally probably the one written furthest from Jesus' actual life) says that he perceived himself as such.

I would argue that the historical Jesus probably didn't.

>ad hominem
Why even?
This is not about your post. You posted your "Passover" and "Barabbas" as a reaction towards the picture, so answer me and explain why those terms were necessary, and why they are relevant in the context?

>You posted your "Passover" and "Barabbas" as a reaction towards the picture, so answer me and explain why those terms were necessary, and why they are relevant in the context?

Because your idiotic /pol/ macro implies that the Jewish "hated" of Jesus is what caused them to kill him, mong. It's implying that the Jews hated Jesus so much they killed him, and they continued to hate him, thus trying to tie into drivel such as blood libel and "muh kike world conspiracy to destroy Christianity," when it was the other way around: Christians hated the Jews first, and the Jews developed the mutual dislike for Christianity.

>>inb4 "he spoke to Jesus in Arabia through a magic vision!!"
Pretty funny that you accept the Son of God walking on water and healing the dead but appearing in a vision is a step too far!

>your idiotic /pol/ macro
what? How is that my picture, faggot? Did I tell you I made that picture or that I posted it? Fuck off.
Why would the Jews be justified in their hatred but the Christians not? The christians had a reason to actually purge the Jews, namely their pagan belief of Judaism. Instead, they allowed the Jews to live in Christian Europe. You claim the christians hated the Jews because they killed Jesus, but reality has it that pagan beliefs were wiped out and Jews and Judaism remains, how can you justifiy that within your context of "Christians hated the Jews (first)"? It seems even, as if the christians had at most a dislike towards Jews, instead of a "hatred", as you put it, and that the Jews in reaction garnered a rather severe hatred towards christians (as indicated by said "idiotic /pol/ macro"

Also, I can see why you would talk about Passover, as that was the way the Romans killed Jesus. You state this was an entirely Roman expenditure, even though Jesus has never preached violence towards the Roman, why would they take the effort to kill an Messiah-figure of the Jewish people, who preaches no violence at all, AND divides the Jewish people, allowing for 'divide-and-conquer'-tactics to work more efficiently (they already had the land, but to keep the people divided is in your advantage as Rome)

I still don't see the relevancy of Barabbas

Considering OP calls Paul is he real inventor of Christianity, I'm guessing he doesn't believe in miracles attested to in the gospels.

Consider the time when the Gospels were being promulgated. This wasn't a society that afforded freedom of the press, and the Christians were a weird disturbing cult out of the east. Putting the blame on the Jews was convenient, more so than blaming the Romans, who could have stamped down considerably harder than they did on Christians, especially in the early days when the cult was weaker.

Most converts were also Romans and Hellenes, and it would have hurt conversion efforts to attribute the death of the mythical hero figure to "us" rather than the alien "them".