The Apostle Paul:

[Overcomer]

I have seen this topic come up in a variety of conversations and decided that it deserved a thread of its own. Some people think that what Paul wrote and taught had nothing to do with Jesus and that, therefore, Christianity is his making. I think that, in investigating this claim, the following should be considered:

Doctrine: Atonement by death on the cross:

First taught by Isaiah (Is. 53:5-12).
Taught by Jesus (Matt. 10:38;16:24, 26:28, Mark 8:34, 14:24, Luke 9:23, 14:27, 22:20, John 12:32-332)
Taught by Paul (1 Corinthians 1:18, 11:25, Ephesians 2:8, 16, Colossians 1:20, 2:14)
Taught by others (John 1:29, 36, Acts 8:32, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 2:24, Revelation 5:12-14, 7:14)

Believe in Jesus for eternal life:

First taught by Job (Job 19:25-26)
Taught by Jesus (Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29-30, Luke 9:24, John 3:16)
Taught by Paul (Romans 5:21, 6:23, 1 Timothy 1:16, Jude 1:21)
Taught by others (Acts 11:17-18, 1 John 5:11)

Righteousness by faith:

First taught by Moses (Genesis 15:6) and Habakkuk (Habakkuk 2:4).
Taught by Jesus (Mark 11:22, Luke 7:50)
Taught by Paul (Romans 1:17, 3:22, 3:25-26, 4:3, 9, 11, 13, 5:17, 9:30, 10:4, 10, Galatians 3:6, 11, Philippians 3:9)
Taught by others (Hebrews 11:4, 7, 2 Peter 1:11).

Justification by faith:

First taught by Moses (Genesis 15:6, Isaiah 53:11)
Taught by Jesus (Luke 7:50, 8:12 Mark 16:16, John 3:18, 5:24)
Taught by Paul (Romans 3:28, 30, 5:1, 18, Galatians 2:16, 3:8, 24)
Taught by James (James 2:23)

Forgiveness of sin through faith

First taught by David (2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalm 86:5, Jeremiah 31:33-34)
Taught by Jesus (Matthew 9:2, 6, 26:27-28, Mark 2:5, 10-11, Luke 5:20, 24, Acts 26:18)
Taught by Paul (Acts 26:18, Ephesians 1:7, 4:32, Colossians 1:13-14, 2:13, 3:13)
Taught by others (Luke 1:76-77, Acts 2:38, 5:31, 10:43, 13:38, Hebrews 10:18-20, James 5:15, 1 John 1:7-9, 2:12)

Repentance

First taught by Isaiah (Isaiah 1:27, 30:15, Ezekiel 18:32)
Taught by Jesus (Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15, Luke 5:32, 13:3, 24:46-47)
Taught by Paul (Romans 2:4, 2 Corinthians 7:9-10)
Taught by others (Matthew 3:2, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38, 17:30, 20:21, 2 Peter 3:9)

Those are a lot of verses to look up. For your convenience, you can read them all at the end of the article at this link:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... anity.html

I have listed just the core doctrines of Christianity as they first appeared in the Old Testament, then as Jesus taught them, then as Paul taught them and, finally, as others such as Matthew, Peter, John and Luke, for example, taught them to show how all of them are connected throughout the entire Bible.

There are also other teachings of Jesus such as the parable of the sower and topics such as divorce, the Lord's Supper and paying taxes to authorities, just to name a few. They can be found at the above link.

Paul also notes that he teaches "what he received", that is, "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures and he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:3-6). He received the teaching from the Holy Spirit and Christ's apostles.

Here is a synopsis of Paul's teachings showing how they came directly from Jesus:

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-b ... ristianity

So Paul is not the creator of Christianity. All he did was take what Jesus said and explain it to others. As such, it is better to call him the midwife of Christianity in that he helped birth it, but did not make it himself.

Given all of this, why do some people say that Paul created Christianity and that what he taught has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, that he made it all up himself?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 6 by Elijah John]

Why didn't Jesus even mention "the blood" in his essential model prayer, the Lord's Prayer? Yet he mentions forgiveness there and in all of the following:

Why didn't Jesus go around preaching "the blood"? Where is there any mention, for example of "the blood" in the Sermon on the Mount?

Where is there any mention of "the blood" in the Beattitudes?

Where is there any mention of "the blood" in the Parables?

Those things represent the bulk of Jesus teachings, and in those places there is talk of repentance and forgiveness, and the Father's mercy, but no mention of "the blood".

Why is that?

To which I could say,

Do we really have to debate this all over again? I wonder how many times you have asked those questions.

Anyway, now I will just ask you one question:


Why is there no mention of repentance and mercy in the Lord's Prayer or in the Beatitudes?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 10 by Checkpoint]

I asked first. And never got a good answer from you or other Pauline Christians. But I'll answer, repentance is implied in the asking for forgiveness, the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the Parables etc., blood atonement is not.

Also the references in the OP to Pauline theology are a stretch, at best. Appealing to the Tanakh, that is. The "redeemer" for example, that Job speaks of is not Jesus, but YHVH. Shall we continue?

{Edited out the rest of my original post here, after reviewing the link in the OP. The points I made were valid, but veered too much from the OP.}

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 10 by Checkpoint]

I asked first. And never got a good answer from you or other Pauline Christians. But I'll answer, repentance is implied in the asking for forgiveness, the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the Parables etc., blood atonement is not.

Also the references in the OP to Pauline theology are a stretch, at best. Appealing to the Tanakh, that is. The "redeemer" for example, that Job speaks of is not Jesus, but YHVH. Shall we continue?

{Edited out the rest of my original post here, after reviewing the link in the OP. The points I made were valid, but veered too much from the OP.}

You will probably never get from us a "good answer", because you have created your own rules about what you accept and reject, effectively, in both the Tanakh and the N.T.

What, therefore, is the point of continuing?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 10 by Checkpoint]

I asked first. And never got a good answer from you or other Pauline Christians. But I'll answer, repentance is implied in the asking for forgiveness, the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the Parables etc., blood atonement is not.

Also the references in the OP to Pauline theology are a stretch, at best. Appealing to the Tanakh, that is. The "redeemer" for example, that Job speaks of is not Jesus, but YHVH. Shall we continue?

{Edited out the rest of my original post here, after reviewing the link in the OP. The points I made were valid, but veered too much from the OP.}

You will probably never get from us a "good answer", because you have created your own rules about what you accept and reject, effectively, in both the Tanakh and the N.T.

What, therefore, is the point of continuing?

Our "rules" (perspective in debate) are either dictated by the straightjacket of orthodoxy, or by what we see for ourselves. If you object to my tactics or methods, can you at least address the example I provided? Who was Job's Redeemer? Jesus or YHVH?. Please support your answer and do not forget about original intent and the religious and cultural context of the time.

If you say "Jesus was Job's Redeemer" in order to support your case, how is that not revisionism?

Can you make the case that Jesus was Job's Redeemer? And that was who Job, (or the author of the book of Job) had in mind when he mentioned his Redeemer?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 10 by Checkpoint]

I asked first. And never got a good answer from you or other Pauline Christians. But I'll answer, repentance is implied in the asking for forgiveness, the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the Parables etc., blood atonement is not.

Also the references in the OP to Pauline theology are a stretch, at best. Appealing to the Tanakh, that is. The "redeemer" for example, that Job speaks of is not Jesus, but YHVH. Shall we continue?

{Edited out the rest of my original post here, after reviewing the link in the OP. The points I made were valid, but veered too much from the OP.}

You will probably never get from us a "good answer", because you have created your own rules about what you accept and reject, effectively, in both the Tanakh and the N.T.

What, therefore, is the point of continuing?

Our "rules" (perspective in debate) are either dictated by the straightjacket of orthodoxy, or by what we see for ourselves. If you object to my tactics or methods, can you at least address the example I provided? Who was Job's Redeemer? Jesus or YHVH?. Please support your answer and do not forget about original intent and the religious and cultural context of the time.

If you say "Jesus was Job's Redeemer" in order to support your case, how is that not revisionism?

Can you make the case that Jesus was Job's Redeemer? And that was who Job, (or the author of the book of Job) had in mind when he mentioned his Redeemer?

Well now, I said nothing about your Job question because I was unaware of it, let alone you were posing it to me.

Job's Redeemer was YHVH. I make no case that Jesus was.