G
Georges
Guest
Can it be proven wrong?
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... earch=paul
Any comments on this article?
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... earch=paul
Any comments on this article?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Georges said:
I disagree with much of what you post about Paul, and it has to do with the different themes in the two testaments. OT Israel is primary, “elect descendants of Abraham.†“In the Old Testament the eschatological salvation is always pictured in terms of the national, theocratic fate of the people Israel.†The NT is open and focus was to "believed in Jesus was the Messiah.†“Eschatology in the New Testament deals largely with the destiny of the church.†Your view is narrow and lacks focus on the progressive nature of revelation with the NT as a guide to understanding and interpreting the OT. The NT "interpreted (and often reinterpreted)" OT passages changing the meaning.
Here's an example:
Another link Georges, it's similar in nature to your posts on the flip side, it's about Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.
http://www.geocities.com/benwebb.geo/basics.html
http://www.midactsdispensationalism.com/
http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/
Here's a quote about Pauline revelation:
PS: I've learned a little visiting the End Times forum...preterist wrote something like this:
Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all those who were slain on the earth.
Where does scripture mention Rome killing the prophets?
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
It was Israel who murdered the prophets, not Gentile believers that followed Paul and it was Israel who adulterated her relationship with God, with no mention of Gentile believers doing the same...and Israel became a harlot, not the followers of Christ thru Paul.
Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all those who were slain on the earth.
Where does scripture mention Rome killing the prophets?
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
It was Israel who murdered the prophets, not Gentile believers that followed Paul and it was Israel who adulterated her relationship with God, with no mention of Gentile believers doing the same...and Israel became a harlot, not the followers of Christ thru Paul.
U
unred typo
Guest
Hi Georges, how you doing?
Paul makes a tempting target, it seems. Unfortunately, slanderous lies are easily spoken and extremely hard to clean up, like putting toothpaste back in the tube. For instance, I could make a statement that I knew you were romantically involved with a 12 year old girl when you were 17 or that you once shot a stray dog, just for the fun of it. Would you like to prove those things wrong for us? Why should we believe you? Now imagine this is 2000 years later and you aren‘t even around to defend yourself. After all, this is the internet. You can make any fantastic claim you want to, and some poor slob will believe it. You need to calibrate your truth meter to survive in here. :wink:
Paul makes a tempting target, it seems. Unfortunately, slanderous lies are easily spoken and extremely hard to clean up, like putting toothpaste back in the tube. For instance, I could make a statement that I knew you were romantically involved with a 12 year old girl when you were 17 or that you once shot a stray dog, just for the fun of it. Would you like to prove those things wrong for us? Why should we believe you? Now imagine this is 2000 years later and you aren‘t even around to defend yourself. After all, this is the internet. You can make any fantastic claim you want to, and some poor slob will believe it. You need to calibrate your truth meter to survive in here. :wink:
G
Georges
Guest
unred typo said:Hi Georges, how you doing?
Always hanging in there....
Paul makes a tempting target, it seems.
For me he does....alot of inconsistencies....
Unfortunately, slanderous lies are easily spoken and extremely hard to clean up, like putting toothpaste back in the tube.
If they are lies...I agree...
For instance, I could make a statement that I knew you were romantically involved with a 12 year old girl when you were 17 or that you once shot a stray dog, just for the fun of it. Would you like to prove those things wrong for us? Why should we believe you?
Valid questions.....but in this case....ya gotta weigh all of the evidence from all sides...both for and against with what he teaches. Does Paul jive with Jesus' teaching, the other Apostles, or the Tenach? That's very questionable.
Now imagine this is 2000 years later and you aren‘t even around to defend yourself. After all, this is the internet.
Ah...the evil internet.....trouble is, especially with Pauline Christianity, it's doctrine formers didn't have the ability that we have to amass and digest all the available information to determine their theology. If you trust what has been handed down as historically unbiased as a Paulinist...more power to you...I on the other hand need convincing.
You can make any fantastic claim you want to, and some poor slob will believe it.
I didn't make the claim....I just presented the information.....if you would like to prove it wrong...let's have it. If not....
You need to calibrate your truth meter to survive in here.
Prove it wrong...big boy.... :wink:
:wink:
Did you even bother to read the whole article...? I doubt it...there is too much information in there to digest in such a short time...
G
Georges
Guest
JM said:
JM...what the article on Paul in the http://www.Jewishencyclopedia.com states...Paul uses Mystery (and it is Gnostic terminology) language. You just provided 12 examples....
[/quote:69c57]
Hey...JM...me in red....
U
unred typo
Guest
Georges:
I went to the site…does that count? :wink: I’ve seen several other attacks but rather than chase those rabbit trails, I would rather invest my efforts into studying what Paul wrote as compared to the teachings of Jesus and the disciples. Peter said it would be hard for us fishermen to unravel his writings but he was still OK in Peter’s book.
It is my opinion that the biggest difference between Paul’s teaching and Christ is the way they are presented by false teachers today. Some have perverted Paul’s writings and made him sound like the vicar of ‘free grace’ and ‘workless faith‘. They have taken his sermons written against making the Gentiles perform ceremonies meant to distinguish the Jews as God’s people and made it sound like he was against following the commands of Christ. They have reduced Paul’s gospel to a few facts about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and omitted the true message of following Christ’s teaching that Paul constantly affirms. The disciples, Paul and Jesus all speak the same truths. I have 7-8 pages of examples of this but I can reduce it to just references to take up less space...but not tonight. :morning: :crazyeyes:
I went to the site…does that count? :wink: I’ve seen several other attacks but rather than chase those rabbit trails, I would rather invest my efforts into studying what Paul wrote as compared to the teachings of Jesus and the disciples. Peter said it would be hard for us fishermen to unravel his writings but he was still OK in Peter’s book.
It is my opinion that the biggest difference between Paul’s teaching and Christ is the way they are presented by false teachers today. Some have perverted Paul’s writings and made him sound like the vicar of ‘free grace’ and ‘workless faith‘. They have taken his sermons written against making the Gentiles perform ceremonies meant to distinguish the Jews as God’s people and made it sound like he was against following the commands of Christ. They have reduced Paul’s gospel to a few facts about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and omitted the true message of following Christ’s teaching that Paul constantly affirms. The disciples, Paul and Jesus all speak the same truths. I have 7-8 pages of examples of this but I can reduce it to just references to take up less space...but not tonight. :morning: :crazyeyes:
U
unred typo
Guest
Maybe you would rather have the verses than the references that show that
the disciples, Paul and Jesus agree:
On the subject of love and the law:
Matthew wrote, quoting Christ:
Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Paul wrote:
Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
As you can plainly see, they were in total agreement. What else did they say about loving one another?
Matthew wrote, quoting Christ:
Matthew 22:39 … Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Peter wrote:
1 Peter 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
Paul wrote:
Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
1 Thessalonians 4:9 But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.
Romans 12: 9-10 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. 10. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;
On vengeance and forgiveness:
Matthew and Luke wrote, quoting Christ:
Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 6: 14-15 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. 30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
Paul said:
Romans 12: 14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
Hebrews 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
I have more but that's enough so you can see what I mean. Good night, George!
:wink:
the disciples, Paul and Jesus agree:
On the subject of love and the law:
Matthew wrote, quoting Christ:
Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Paul wrote:
Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
As you can plainly see, they were in total agreement. What else did they say about loving one another?
Matthew wrote, quoting Christ:
Matthew 22:39 … Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Peter wrote:
1 Peter 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
Paul wrote:
Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
1 Thessalonians 4:9 But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.
Romans 12: 9-10 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. 10. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;
On vengeance and forgiveness:
Matthew and Luke wrote, quoting Christ:
Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 6: 14-15 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. 30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
Paul said:
Romans 12: 14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
Hebrews 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
I have more but that's enough so you can see what I mean. Good night, George!
:wink:
G
Georges
Guest
Unred..... I didn't really want to get side tracked off the OP....
Unred....please take the time to read the link provided in the OP and then comment...
I'm most interested on the article's comment on Gnosticism and Mystery Religion...especially how it ties in with Paul's conception of Christ.
Unred....please take the time to read the link provided in the OP and then comment...
I'm most interested on the article's comment on Gnosticism and Mystery Religion...especially how it ties in with Paul's conception of Christ.
U
unred typo
Guest
I really don’t have time nor interest to wade through this article, Georges, but I will give it a try. I am more concerned with what is actually written that is attributed to him and how it is being interpreted, however. I don’t mean to disrupt your thread, though. My bad. Sorry.
Why not? If this were the case, how did any make the claim that Jesus was a descendant of David?
If his writings betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text, I might conclude that he had embraced the teaching of Christ and not the old letter of the law he had been schooled in. I haven’t gotten too far into this and I see that examining his teaching against the teaching of Christ needs to be done in order to evaluate his claims. Georges, this does seem like an obvious attempt to discredit him on any trumped up charge. I don’t know how long I can endure this article. :roll:
Why not? If this were the case, how did any make the claim that Jesus was a descendant of David?
If his writings betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text, I might conclude that he had embraced the teaching of Christ and not the old letter of the law he had been schooled in. I haven’t gotten too far into this and I see that examining his teaching against the teaching of Christ needs to be done in order to evaluate his claims. Georges, this does seem like an obvious attempt to discredit him on any trumped up charge. I don’t know how long I can endure this article. :roll:
C
ChristineES
Guest
There is something you must ask yourselves: Who would have preached The Word to the Gentiles if Paul hadn't done it? The Apostles of Jesus preached to the Jews. Paul was chosen to preach to the Gentiles. He was the first evangelist. His letters (epistles) were written to different Greek and Roman cities to spread Jesus' Gospel when Paul could not be there. Maybe they shouldn't (or maybe the should have) have been included in the Bible, but there is nothing wrong with them. Paul was a Jew, so he would have followed the Law! A little of his Judaism would have been part of his teachings, wouldn't they?
Some of you are making Paul seem wrong when he wasn't wrong. He was chosen for a purpose by God and filled it beautifully. He died for what he did.
Some of you are making Paul seem wrong when he wasn't wrong. He was chosen for a purpose by God and filled it beautifully. He died for what he did.
G
Georges
Guest
unred typo said:
If his writings betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text, I might conclude that he had embraced the teaching of Christ and not the old letter of the law he had been schooled in.
And I submit that a Pharissee and a classically trained one (supposedly by one of the greatest of rabbinic teachers) would not give up his basic training. For example, what is argued is that Pharisic Jews have a certain mode of questioning and reasoning when presenting interpretation. It is presented that Paul does not abide by the rules of rabbinic agument although he comes close...the argument being that he cannot have been trained because he doesn't make his presentation as though he was brought up in the pharisic school. Once a Jew always a Jew...just because one accepts Jesus as Messiah doesn't mean he gives up his Jewish identity (except if yo are Paul), and Paul (as a former student) should have stuck with the style he "supposedly" learned when presenting his case for his Christ .
I haven’t gotten too far into this and I see that examining his teaching against the teaching of Christ needs to be done in order to evaluate his claims. Georges, this does seem like an obvious attempt to discredit him on any trumped up charge. I don’t know how long I can endure this article. :roll:
Hey if discredition is needed for the truth...so be it...read the whole article (especially the mystery/gnostic sections) and tell me there is no merit to the claims...
[/quote:5ff28]
Thanks for reading as much as you have...most probably would not have...
C
ChristineES
Guest
I only skimmed through the article. Paul could not have been a false prophet because my understanding is that he was not a prophet at all, but an evangelist (what we call him now, not then).
U
unred typo
Guest
Unred sed: Why not? If this were the case, how did any make the claim that Jesus was a descendant of David?
By Georges: Keep in mind the oral tradition of family heritage....I'm not saying Paul isn't a Benjaminite...It may well be that formal lists were not kept.
Hope you don’t mind me being bold here, lost my red crayon. :wink: So what are you saying? Score one for Paul? Don’t forget the ransacking of the temple in 70AD or whenever. Maybe most of the official records were destroyed.
Unred sed: If his writings betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text, I might conclude that he had embraced the teaching of Christ and not the old letter of the law he had been schooled in.
By Georges: And I submit that a Pharissee and a classically trained one (supposedly by one of the greatest of rabbinic teachers) would not give up his basic training. For example, what is argued is that Pharisaic Jews have a certain mode of questioning and reasoning when presenting interpretation. It is presented that Paul does not abide by the rules of rabbinic agument although he comes close...the argument being that he cannot have been trained because he doesn't make his presentation as though he was brought up in the pharisic school. Once a Jew always a Jew...just because one accepts Jesus as Messiah doesn't mean he gives up his Jewish identity (except if yo are Paul), and Paul (as a former student) should have stuck with the style he "supposedly" learned when presenting his case for his Christ.
This seems like a pretty weak argument to tar and feather anyone with. Remember Paul was the apostle to the Gentile. He may have had to shed some of his Jewishness to get his message heard by those who couldn’t relate to traditional Pharisaic styles.
Unred sed: I haven’t gotten too far into this and I see that examining his teaching against the teaching of Christ needs to be done in order to evaluate his claims. Georges, this does seem like an obvious attempt to discredit him on any trumped up charge. I don’t know how long I can endure this article.
By Georges: Hey if discredition is needed for the truth...so be it...read the whole article (especially the mystery/gnostic sections) and tell me there is no merit to the claims...
I agree…let God be true and every man a liar if need be, but I won’t discredit God’s man on hearsay evidence from opponents of the cross, and that almost 2000 years later when it is almost impossible to gather a true picture. Who are these people who wrote this and what acts do they have to grind?
By Georges: Thanks for reading as much as you have...most probably would not have...
Sorry I can’t seem to get my head into it though. Brain is rather fried from mowing in the sun I guess. I’ll try to read more later. Man, I hate homework assignments…. :wink:
By Georges: Keep in mind the oral tradition of family heritage....I'm not saying Paul isn't a Benjaminite...It may well be that formal lists were not kept.
Hope you don’t mind me being bold here, lost my red crayon. :wink: So what are you saying? Score one for Paul? Don’t forget the ransacking of the temple in 70AD or whenever. Maybe most of the official records were destroyed.
Unred sed: If his writings betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text, I might conclude that he had embraced the teaching of Christ and not the old letter of the law he had been schooled in.
By Georges: And I submit that a Pharissee and a classically trained one (supposedly by one of the greatest of rabbinic teachers) would not give up his basic training. For example, what is argued is that Pharisaic Jews have a certain mode of questioning and reasoning when presenting interpretation. It is presented that Paul does not abide by the rules of rabbinic agument although he comes close...the argument being that he cannot have been trained because he doesn't make his presentation as though he was brought up in the pharisic school. Once a Jew always a Jew...just because one accepts Jesus as Messiah doesn't mean he gives up his Jewish identity (except if yo are Paul), and Paul (as a former student) should have stuck with the style he "supposedly" learned when presenting his case for his Christ.
This seems like a pretty weak argument to tar and feather anyone with. Remember Paul was the apostle to the Gentile. He may have had to shed some of his Jewishness to get his message heard by those who couldn’t relate to traditional Pharisaic styles.
Unred sed: I haven’t gotten too far into this and I see that examining his teaching against the teaching of Christ needs to be done in order to evaluate his claims. Georges, this does seem like an obvious attempt to discredit him on any trumped up charge. I don’t know how long I can endure this article.
By Georges: Hey if discredition is needed for the truth...so be it...read the whole article (especially the mystery/gnostic sections) and tell me there is no merit to the claims...
I agree…let God be true and every man a liar if need be, but I won’t discredit God’s man on hearsay evidence from opponents of the cross, and that almost 2000 years later when it is almost impossible to gather a true picture. Who are these people who wrote this and what acts do they have to grind?
By Georges: Thanks for reading as much as you have...most probably would not have...
Sorry I can’t seem to get my head into it though. Brain is rather fried from mowing in the sun I guess. I’ll try to read more later. Man, I hate homework assignments…. :wink:
G
Georges
Guest
ChristineES said:
From the Strong's concordance:
prophetes {prof-ay'-tace}
TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 6:781,952 from a compound of 4253 and 5346
Part of Speech
n m
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) in Greek writings, an interpreter of oracles or of other hidden things
2) one who, moved by the Spirit of God and hence his organ or spokesman, solemnly declares to men what he has received by inspiration, especially concerning future events, and in particular such as relate to the cause and kingdom of God and to human salvation
a) the OT prophets, having foretold the kingdom, deeds and death, of Jesus the Messiah.
b) of John the Baptist, the herald of Jesus the Messiah
c) of the illustrious prophet, the Jews expected before the advent of the Messiah
d) the Messiah
e) of men filled with the Spirit of God, who by God's authority and command in words of weight pleads the cause of God and urges salvation of men
f) of prophets that appeared in the apostolic age among Christians
1) they are associated with the apostles
2) they discerned and did what is best for the Christian cause, foretelling certain future events. (Acts 11:27)
3) in the religious assemblies of the Christians, they were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak, having power to instruct, comfort, encourage, rebuke, convict, and stimulate, their hearers
Christine, I hope the above definition clears up the perception....
Also, the Ebionites (descendents from the church in Jerusalem) up until the 4th century claimed Paul and apostate....(not my words). The Ebionites and Nazarenes were the first Christian's made up of those Messianic Jews such as James, Peter, John and the rest of the 12 disciples. The were led by the kin of Jesus througout the 1st century.
G
Georges
Guest
unred typo said:Unred sed: Why not? If this were the case, how did any make the claim that Jesus was a descendant of David?
By Georges: Keep in mind the oral tradition of family heritage....I'm not saying Paul isn't a Benjaminite...It may well be that formal lists were not kept.
Hope you don’t mind me being bold here, lost my red crayon. :wink: So what are you saying? Score one for Paul? Don’t forget the ransacking of the temple in 70AD or whenever. Maybe most of the official records were destroyed.
Not necessarily score one for Paul, just a benefit of the doubt on that point.
Unred sed: If his writings betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text, I might conclude that he had embraced the teaching of Christ and not the old letter of the law he had been schooled in.
By Georges: And I submit that a Pharissee and a classically trained one (supposedly by one of the greatest of rabbinic teachers) would not give up his basic training. For example, what is argued is that Pharisaic Jews have a certain mode of questioning and reasoning when presenting interpretation. It is presented that Paul does not abide by the rules of rabbinic agument although he comes close...the argument being that he cannot have been trained because he doesn't make his presentation as though he was brought up in the pharisic school. Once a Jew always a Jew...just because one accepts Jesus as Messiah doesn't mean he gives up his Jewish identity (except if yo are Paul), and Paul (as a former student) should have stuck with the style he "supposedly" learned when presenting his case for his Christ.
This seems like a pretty weak argument to tar and feather anyone with. Remember Paul was the apostle to the Gentile. He may have had to shed some of his Jewishness to get his message heard by those who couldn’t relate to traditional Pharisaic styles.
I've read the agrument as put forth by men who have made it a life long study and know phraisism in much greater detail than you or I (assumption). Even Peter, "an unleaned man" kept his pharisee nature. Don't you think that Paul (who had been trained and excelled in Pharicism) would be more "ingrained" by habit? If it seems weak to you may be because I'm not the expert that they are and only presented the premise...If you'd like to go deeper than that, you have the same ability that I have to research and discount it.
Also, Paul went into the Synagogues to preach to all, Gentile and Jew. He was beaten many times for his apparent apostate teaching.
Unred sed: I haven’t gotten too far into this and I see that examining his teaching against the teaching of Christ needs to be done in order to evaluate his claims. Georges, this does seem like an obvious attempt to discredit him on any trumped up charge. I don’t know how long I can endure this article.
By Georges: Hey if discredition is needed for the truth...so be it...read the whole article (especially the mystery/gnostic sections) and tell me there is no merit to the claims...
I agree…let God be true and every man a liar if need be, but I won’t discredit God’s man on hearsay evidence from opponents of the cross, and that almost 2000 years later when it is almost impossible to gather a true picture.
Red. It's historically documented who the Nazarene's and Ebionites were...they were "Christians". They are the decendents of the Church in Jerusalem and even boast of blood relatives to Jesus. They considered Paul an Apostate.....
Who are these people who wrote this and what acts do they have to grind?
I don't know what axe they may have to grind...I don't use them as my only source of information...go to http://www.wikipedia.com and type in "Paul", or "Pauline Christianity". I don't know what axe they have to grind either.
By Georges: Thanks for reading as much as you have...most probably would not have...
Sorry I can’t seem to get my head into it though. Brain is rather fried from mowing in the sun I guess. I’ll try to read more later. Man, I hate homework assignments…. :wink:
:-D
Ã
ÃÂoppleganger
Guest
HeHe, still at it George!! This article is Rated: 2.88 You get a C+ !
U
unred typo
Guest
Forgive me, I’m being bold again…
Georges site reads: The Hellenistic literature, such as the Book of Wisdom and other Apocrypha, as well as Philo (see Hausrath, "Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte," ii. 18-27; Siegfried, "Philo von Alexandria," 1875, pp. 304-310; Jowett, "Commentary on the Thessalonians and Galatians," i. 363-417), was the sole source for his eschatological and theological system. Notwithstanding the emphatic statement, in Phil. iii. 5, that he was "a Hebrew of the Hebrews"â€â€a rather unusual term, which seems to refer to his nationalistic training and conduct (comp. Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2), since his Jewish birth is stated in the preceding words "of the stock of Israel"â€â€he was, if any of the Epistles that bear his name are really his, entirely a Hellenist in thought and sentiment. As such he was imbued with the notion that "the whole creation groaneth" for liberation from "the prison-house of the body," from this earthly existence, which, because of its pollution by sin and death, is intrinsically evil (Gal. i. 4; Rom. v. 12, vii. 23-24, viii. 22; I Cor. vii. 31; II Cor. v. 2, 4; comp.
I copied them here for you:
Reading the selected verses, I see that Paul has, just as he stated in 1 Cor 9, varied his style of teaching to appeal to the crowd he was preaching to. I don’t see that as a problem, but as being wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove. Paul was no slouch. He was well read and knew what the Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, etc. believed. Tailoring your message to your audience just makes sense, Georges. If you were speaking to 1st graders, would you use 50 cent words? Would it be fair of me to assume that you could only speak on a first grade level then?
As for the message itself, Paul refers to “this present evil world†because Jesus taught (1John 2:15) Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Here this is referring to the present evil world, not the people on it or nature and the natural beauty of the creation.
We know from our experience that all die in Adam. Jesus also taught that sin brought death to all men and there was no one perfect in goodness but God. (John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.)
We can also see that "the whole creation groaneth" for liberation from "the prison-house of the body," from this earthly existence, which, because of its pollution by sin and death, is intrinsically evil, so what is wrong with saying that? If you don’t know that your physical body is a prison, you must be under forty. John also said, “For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.â€Â
So far, I’m not getting why Paul is the pits.
Georges site reads: The Hellenistic literature, such as the Book of Wisdom and other Apocrypha, as well as Philo (see Hausrath, "Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte," ii. 18-27; Siegfried, "Philo von Alexandria," 1875, pp. 304-310; Jowett, "Commentary on the Thessalonians and Galatians," i. 363-417), was the sole source for his eschatological and theological system. Notwithstanding the emphatic statement, in Phil. iii. 5, that he was "a Hebrew of the Hebrews"â€â€a rather unusual term, which seems to refer to his nationalistic training and conduct (comp. Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2), since his Jewish birth is stated in the preceding words "of the stock of Israel"â€â€he was, if any of the Epistles that bear his name are really his, entirely a Hellenist in thought and sentiment. As such he was imbued with the notion that "the whole creation groaneth" for liberation from "the prison-house of the body," from this earthly existence, which, because of its pollution by sin and death, is intrinsically evil (Gal. i. 4; Rom. v. 12, vii. 23-24, viii. 22; I Cor. vii. 31; II Cor. v. 2, 4; comp.
I copied them here for you:
Reading the selected verses, I see that Paul has, just as he stated in 1 Cor 9, varied his style of teaching to appeal to the crowd he was preaching to. I don’t see that as a problem, but as being wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove. Paul was no slouch. He was well read and knew what the Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, etc. believed. Tailoring your message to your audience just makes sense, Georges. If you were speaking to 1st graders, would you use 50 cent words? Would it be fair of me to assume that you could only speak on a first grade level then?
As for the message itself, Paul refers to “this present evil world†because Jesus taught (1John 2:15) Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Here this is referring to the present evil world, not the people on it or nature and the natural beauty of the creation.
We know from our experience that all die in Adam. Jesus also taught that sin brought death to all men and there was no one perfect in goodness but God. (John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.)
We can also see that "the whole creation groaneth" for liberation from "the prison-house of the body," from this earthly existence, which, because of its pollution by sin and death, is intrinsically evil, so what is wrong with saying that? If you don’t know that your physical body is a prison, you must be under forty. John also said, “For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.â€Â
So far, I’m not getting why Paul is the pits.
U
unred typo
Guest
From Georges site:
I can’t agree with this either. From Gal 4:15 “…for I bear you record, that, if [it had been] possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me,†it seems more likely to be an affliction of the eyes, which can be painful and debilitating.
From Georges site:
From Georges site:
From Georges site:
I can’t agree with this either. From Gal 4:15 “…for I bear you record, that, if [it had been] possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me,†it seems more likely to be an affliction of the eyes, which can be painful and debilitating.
From Georges site:
Jesus is quoted in Matthew 22: 39-40 that to love God is the first and great commandment and to love fellow man is “like unto it. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.†How is that different than what Paul wrote in Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Or in 1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned…or in Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. As you can plainly see, they were in total agreement. The truth is that you have come upon those who, like their first century counterparts, have slandered Paul without cause. Romans 3:8 where Paul mentions they were spreading lies about him “(as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,)†and he then warns the believers not to say, “Let us do evil, that good may come?†adding, “ whose damnation is just.â€Â
From Georges site:
What did Jesus say? He gave the disciples the task of binding the things on earth that would delineate the church. (Matt 16:19, 18:18) Which were listed in Acts 15: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment: …For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. I think you would do well to re read Acts 15, Georges.
From Georges site:
Jesus was the first to introduce the call to "die in order to live." Take up your cross and follow me is not an invitation to fame and fortune. There is no mistaking that Jesus and Paul declared that those who denied themselves in this life would also live with him in glory. Matthew 5-6-7 and dozens of other places. From the way this site reads, Georges, these folks are the same mindset as the crowd who crept in and tried to steal the liberty that the church had in Christ and replace Jesus‘ doctrine of 'love one another’ with a set of rules and religious practices. Run, Georges, run! :o
G
Georges
Guest
ÃÂoppleganger said:
Dopp.....my old pal.....
C+ better than the "F" I usually get.... :bday:. Coming from you I take that as a compliment....