It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Paul Conspired to Hijack Christianity and Succeeded
page: 3share:
el fuego
Summed up nicely. There's no reason for Paul to be canonized in the New Testament. And two big reasons why he is canonized. 1) His popularity and ability to write in the Roman language of the day (I forget what it was, but it certainly wasn't what Jesus or the other Jews spoke). 2) His martyrdom. People will think twice when they witness you die for your beliefs. But it doesn't make them (the beliefs) right.
Summed up nicely. There's no reason for Paul to be canonized in the New Testament. And two big reasons why he is canonized. 1) His popularity and ability to write in the Roman language of the day (I forget what it was, but it certainly wasn't what Jesus or the other Jews spoke). 2) His martyrdom. People will think twice when they witness you die for your beliefs. But it doesn't make them (the beliefs) right.
Jesus himself said that he came not to change the law but to fulfill it (Mat.5:17-19). Yet Paul himself tells us in Galatians 5:1, Don't get all tied
up in Jewish law and ceremonies. Does that make sense if he was truly following what Jesus taught?
In 2 Corinthians he complains of other Jewish apostles contradicting his teachings. Who were these apostles? How do we know that they didn't have more authority than Paul himself (who never met Jesus)?
You could write a book on this, and so it's been done. But the main issue is that (as others have pointed out above): Jesus never stated he was making a new religion. Paul emphatically states that HE IS.
Paul condemns himself in his own writings.
In 2 Corinthians he complains of other Jewish apostles contradicting his teachings. Who were these apostles? How do we know that they didn't have more authority than Paul himself (who never met Jesus)?
You could write a book on this, and so it's been done. But the main issue is that (as others have pointed out above): Jesus never stated he was making a new religion. Paul emphatically states that HE IS.
Paul condemns himself in his own writings.
Arcane Demesne
but I think they sent Paul out to places to get him out of their hair.
I don't know if I buy that. If they wanted nothing to do with him, they could've ignored him, or told him to go away. BUt they didn't, they sent him on an evangelizing mission, that means that they approved of him, as their representative.
Plus, Paul wasn't raised as a Jew, and he had NEVER met Jesus.
I don't think that there is any solid evidence that he wasn't raised a jew. He preached to the gentiles, but that doesn't make him a non jew. Also, and of course this isn't conclusive by any means, but wouldnt the other disciples have noted that 'this guy ain't even a jew' if he wasn't?
I'm pretty sure that makes him a non-desciple, and therefore he has no place telling what the Church of Jerusalem (or anyone else) to believe about Jesus.
And yet the people that knew jesus listened to him and agreed with him, even certified him.
Maybe what he was preaching was in accord with what jesus taught them?
Is that the written consensus found in writings in the early church?
Well, of course we don't have the minutes of their meetings. But what we also don't have is anything actually saying that they disagreed with paul, thought he was a hijacker or a fraud, and rather that he went on evangelizing missions with the approval of the apostles in jerusalem. There's nothing saying that he was in competition with them. There isn't a 'Council of Jerusalem Seal Gospel" or anything like it. If we can actually know anything, its that the Apostles accepted him. Its allways possible that the evidence is insufficient to tell us either way, but if it tells us anything, it seems to be saying 'they accepted paul'.
Any one who favored Paul's messages could easily have changed a word here or there, not to mention mistranslations. Add that up a few generations, and bingo. Some parts favor Paul more than they should have!
Thats quite different from a hijacking though no? And who is to say that some parts of Luke didn't get more favoured than the rest of the Apostles would've expected, or any of the other apostles? What we still don't have is something that shows that Paul hijacked christianity, or that he was rejected by the other apostles.
I'm not saying it DID happen, just saying it is VERY POSSIBLE.
Absolutely.
And even probable.
Doesn't seem probable. You're Saul, you're struck by a blinding light, its jesus. He says spread the word (whether this is a miracle or a delusion doesn't matter). You go to jerusalem, meet the apostles, and what, start fighting with them, doing things that they don't approve of? And they don't approve of you, but you go off and pretend to be their envoy? And your followers ignore their gospels and letters,or worse, change them in significant ways?
Doesn't seem more probable than that what Paul was saying was 'in line' with the teachings of the cult that he was so fanatical about.
There's no reason for Paul to be canonized in the New Testament
THe problem with that statement is that the Apostles, and the original christian community, apparently felt there was great reason to include him in the cannon. Constantine didn't foist Paul on them, he was a beloved and respected and authoratative Apostle before Constantine was even born.
His popularity and ability to write in the Roman language of the day (I forget what it was, but it certainly wasn't what Jesus or the other Jews spoke
The romans generally spoke latin or greek, and sometimes both. Greek was the 'lingua franca' of the eastern empire. Some have infact suggested that Jesus, beign the son of a businessman within the empire, would've been able to speak latin and/or greek in addition to aramaic hebrew.
el fuego
The basis of faith is not the gospels.
No Gospels, no christianity, or at least nothing like what it is today. Oral Tradition Cults are subject to far more 'error' than ones with written texts, and at the very least, the christians in turkey would be very different from teh christians in the balkans, and italy, and france, etc etc.
Indeed, just look at the earliest christian communities, before there was an agreed upon cannon, and thats where you see the most diversity, copts, orthodox, gnostics, etc etc.
Why does the church feel a person that never met Christ should have such
disporportional influence over the new faith?
Thats really a question for Peter, Matthew, Luke, James, etc etc, no?
but the emperor, clerics and church leaders saw fit to include his writings and influence.
Paul was already a widely respected apostle long before the roman emperor had anythign to do with this. And the church leaders and clerics that agreed with paul were the Apostles themselves. If he was good enough for the direct disciples of christ, then he has to be good enough for us, no? If there is something unchristian in our understanding of paul, isn't then our UNDERSTANDING of paul that is wrong, not Paul himself? If Jesus said "love", and the Apostles said Paul was on point, then Paul said "LOVE", where we don't see love, we are in error. What jesus said is what jesus said, no matter what we think paul said.
passenger
Yet Paul himself tells us in Galatians 5:1, Don't get all tied up in Jewish law and ceremonies. Does that make sense if he was truly following what Jesus taught?
Absolutely. What does eating Kosher, which is 'the law', have to do with being saved through Christ? What does the removal of a boy's foreskin have to do with being saved by christ?
Clearly nothing. Its absurd to suggest that a person can accept christ as personal saviour, and yet won't be saved because they eat ham sandwiches. That was what Paul was saying, and the Apostles, hesitantly at first because it was strange to them, ended up agreeing, yes, you don't need to be a Jew to be a christian.
Jesus never stated he was making a new religion. Paul emphatically states that HE IS.
Jesus wouldn't say 'this is a new religion', no one would, that'd be a silly statement. He made sure that after he was gone, there was a church structure in place to propagate his message. What is that if not a religion? He instructed the apostles how to pray, and told them to pray to the saints and martyrs too. He never said 'and this shall be called christianity and there shall be funny hats', but its pretty clear that he set up a new religion, with him as son of god, and his apostles as the basis of a new church.
ANd thats exactly what the apostles, all of them, set about doing. Paul, at least, isn't the only one amoung the Apostles responsible for starting a church.
[edit on 25-2-2007 by Nygdan]
without a huge copy/quote post ill try and answer some general points without being specific as to whom i am adressing:
as to if Paul should even be an apostle:
Acts :
1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
so as to whether he meets the criteria for being an apostle, the answer is no. he didnt know Jesus, and as to whether he saw him after the resurrection, we have conflicting reports, as seen here:
Acts 9:7
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
or
Acts.22:9
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
a clear contradiction, so that we can discount the reposrt of him actually seeing a spirit of Jesus. so he doesnt meet ANY of the criteria for being an apostle.
Next, was he accepted by the jerusalem church always, or was there strife between him and the Church?
first we have this as evidence:
Galatians 1
1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (1:8-9)
1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
these "others" preaching a different gospel are the people from the Jerusalem church.
more:
Galatians 1:
1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: "Neither went I up to Jerusalem"
1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
clearly showing he felt no need to confer with the apostles from Jerusalem.
does he ever insult or speak ill of them? lets see:
Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.
Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
next, should a follower of God forsake the Law and go it on faith alone?
first we have this:
there should be no need to quote all the times Paul says something akin to how the law is done away with. he says all meat is good to eat, says the sabbath is like any other day, etc et all. ill supply quotes if asked (there would be a whole page full of them). but should the law be done away with?
see here:
Paul and the Law
and some pulls from there:
1 john 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: (out of space, more to follow later)
as to if Paul should even be an apostle:
Acts :
1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
so as to whether he meets the criteria for being an apostle, the answer is no. he didnt know Jesus, and as to whether he saw him after the resurrection, we have conflicting reports, as seen here:
Acts 9:7
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
or
Acts.22:9
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
a clear contradiction, so that we can discount the reposrt of him actually seeing a spirit of Jesus. so he doesnt meet ANY of the criteria for being an apostle.
Next, was he accepted by the jerusalem church always, or was there strife between him and the Church?
first we have this as evidence:
Galatians 1
1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (1:8-9)
1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
these "others" preaching a different gospel are the people from the Jerusalem church.
more:
Galatians 1:
1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: "Neither went I up to Jerusalem"
1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
clearly showing he felt no need to confer with the apostles from Jerusalem.
does he ever insult or speak ill of them? lets see:
Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.
Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
next, should a follower of God forsake the Law and go it on faith alone?
first we have this:
there should be no need to quote all the times Paul says something akin to how the law is done away with. he says all meat is good to eat, says the sabbath is like any other day, etc et all. ill supply quotes if asked (there would be a whole page full of them). but should the law be done away with?
see here:
Paul and the Law
and some pulls from there:
1 john 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: (out of space, more to follow later)
so anyway, plenty of refutation on that link as to the law and Pauls erring view of its use. not to mention the entire faith vs works argument and how
James and Paul differ drastically, esp. when see from boths interpretation of the story of Abrahams sacrificing his son:
Pauls version:
Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (4:2, 13)
Was Abraham justified by faith or by works?
Is Salvation by faith alone?
4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. then to here:
4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
now lets look at what James says:
James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
not to mention the clear dispute here:
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
or
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
more here:
James vs Paul
and was Paul a liar?
at the Jerusalem council we have this:
james says:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
and yet Pauls says this about the jerusalem council:
Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
so should Paul deliver the message of James to abstain from four things, or remember the poor? (which is to pay tithes to the Jerusalem church). a clear lie.
and what of this?
Romans 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost
1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
Romans 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
so does he lie or not? we cant ask him, he will just lie and say he doesnt.
have a nice day.
Pauls version:
Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (4:2, 13)
Was Abraham justified by faith or by works?
Is Salvation by faith alone?
4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. then to here:
4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
now lets look at what James says:
James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
not to mention the clear dispute here:
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
or
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
more here:
James vs Paul
and was Paul a liar?
at the Jerusalem council we have this:
james says:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
and yet Pauls says this about the jerusalem council:
Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
so should Paul deliver the message of James to abstain from four things, or remember the poor? (which is to pay tithes to the Jerusalem church). a clear lie.
and what of this?
Romans 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost
1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
Romans 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
so does he lie or not? we cant ask him, he will just lie and say he doesnt.
have a nice day.
Legend,
Great post. Just one point on the faith/works issue. Imo, faith must be the underpinnings of the works, ie., the works must be an outgrowth of faith.
I believe true faith inspires action - works of faith. Faith is not static, it is dynamic, and manifest in works, not the other way around. I'm not sure Paul got this, but James certainly did.
Salvation by grace through faith must mainifest itself in works, or what good is it to the kingdom of God?
I find it interesting, in light of this discussion, that when Paul was finally up against the wall and facing certain death in Jerusalem, he appealed to Caesar as a Roman citizen and went to Rome to plead his case. Shortly thereafter, the Romans sacked Jerusalem. Was Paul really executed in Rome?
[edit on 25-2-2007 by Icarus Rising]
Great post. Just one point on the faith/works issue. Imo, faith must be the underpinnings of the works, ie., the works must be an outgrowth of faith.
I believe true faith inspires action - works of faith. Faith is not static, it is dynamic, and manifest in works, not the other way around. I'm not sure Paul got this, but James certainly did.
Salvation by grace through faith must mainifest itself in works, or what good is it to the kingdom of God?
I find it interesting, in light of this discussion, that when Paul was finally up against the wall and facing certain death in Jerusalem, he appealed to Caesar as a Roman citizen and went to Rome to plead his case. Shortly thereafter, the Romans sacked Jerusalem. Was Paul really executed in Rome?
[edit on 25-2-2007 by Icarus Rising]
"Thats really a question for Peter, Matthew, Luke, James, etc etc, no? "
No, it is not. Peter, Mathew luke and James were long dead when the church and emperor and clerics assembled the Bible.
"Paul was already a widely respected apostle long before the roman emperor had anythign to do with this. And the church leaders and clerics that agreed with paul were the Apostles themselves. If he was good enough for the direct disciples of christ, then he has to be good enough for us, no? If there is something unchristian in our understanding of paul, isn't then our UNDERSTANDING of paul that is wrong, not Paul himself? If Jesus said "love", and the Apostles said Paul was on point, then Paul said "LOVE", where we don't see love, we are in error. What jesus said is what jesus said, no matter what we think paul said. "
And in this is the crux of the issue we are discussing. Where is the evidence Paul was a respected Apostle? There were 12 apostles, all of which were dead hundreds of years when the Bible was assembled. We do not know if the writings of Paul were accepted, since this occurs after the fact. That the epistles are included in the bible do not lend them credance, there were political pressures to create a state religion in Rome at the time the Bible was created.
If there is conflict with Pauls teachings, or the teachings lead to something other than what Christ taught, then it must be discarded. We dont need to understand Paul, he is irrelevant. It is his writings that must be validated against what Christ taught.
They do not fit, any more than the book of revelations fits in with the Bible. These writings were included for whatever reason the people that assembled the bible decided upon.
[edit on 25-2-2007 by el fuego]
No, it is not. Peter, Mathew luke and James were long dead when the church and emperor and clerics assembled the Bible.
"Paul was already a widely respected apostle long before the roman emperor had anythign to do with this. And the church leaders and clerics that agreed with paul were the Apostles themselves. If he was good enough for the direct disciples of christ, then he has to be good enough for us, no? If there is something unchristian in our understanding of paul, isn't then our UNDERSTANDING of paul that is wrong, not Paul himself? If Jesus said "love", and the Apostles said Paul was on point, then Paul said "LOVE", where we don't see love, we are in error. What jesus said is what jesus said, no matter what we think paul said. "
And in this is the crux of the issue we are discussing. Where is the evidence Paul was a respected Apostle? There were 12 apostles, all of which were dead hundreds of years when the Bible was assembled. We do not know if the writings of Paul were accepted, since this occurs after the fact. That the epistles are included in the bible do not lend them credance, there were political pressures to create a state religion in Rome at the time the Bible was created.
If there is conflict with Pauls teachings, or the teachings lead to something other than what Christ taught, then it must be discarded. We dont need to understand Paul, he is irrelevant. It is his writings that must be validated against what Christ taught.
They do not fit, any more than the book of revelations fits in with the Bible. These writings were included for whatever reason the people that assembled the bible decided upon.
[edit on 25-2-2007 by el fuego]
Originally posted by el fuego
Peter, Mathew luke and James were long dead when the church and emperor and clerics assembled the Bible.
The problem with that statement of course is that its simply not true. Constantine didn't 'assemble' the bible. The texts that eventually became the authoratative christian cannon were already, long before constantine, considered authentic and authoritative by the christian community.
So the other Apostles accepting Paul as one of their own seems to weigh strongly in his favour.
Where is the evidence Paul was a respected Apostle?
Does it really matter if we call Paul a preacher, apostle, bishop, disciple, primate, metropolitan, etc?
We do not know if the writings of Paul were accepted, since this occurs after the fact.
To say the least then, we have nothing suggesting that they did in fact reject paul.
That the epistles are included in the bible do not lend them credance, there were political pressures to create a state religion in Rome at the time the Bible was created.
And why would Paul be needed for this? The romans already had their state religion anyway, there was no need to pick up christianity, which most romans saw as a perverted atheistic cult. Heck what is in the other gospels that would preclude them from being 'used' by the romans anyway? Nothing.
The only evidence we have is the gospels, we don't have any gospels that talk about a crazed guy named Saul who was pretending to be an Apostle but that the Jerusalem Council rejected. We don't have any traditions from the jerusalem christians indicating that their cult center was in opposition to paul's evangelizing. Rather, we have evidnece that the apostles who knew christ accepted Paul, and sent him on vitally important evangelizing missions. His letters of faith to the communities he converted were so powerful, inspiring, and moving, that they were made into copies and read aloud in christian masses throughout the world, and thats why they ended up being put into the bible. Because the christian beleivers, apostles and converts, felt that they were important.
"The problem with that statement of course is that its simply not true. Constantine didn't 'assemble' the bible. The texts that eventually became
the authoratative christian cannon were already, long before constantine, considered authentic and authoritative by the christian community.
So the other Apostles accepting Paul as one of their own seems to weigh strongly in his favour"
Constantine brought together Church leaders, clerics, and others to settle once and for all which Books would become recognized. This happened because there was not agreement on IF Christ was Divine, if he actually rose from the dead, if Mary was vigin, etc, etc, etc. So there was not the consenses implied by your statement. If they were, there would have been no need for the council to convene and vote on which books should be officially recognized.
"The only evidence we have is the gospels, we don't have any gospels that talk about a crazed guy named Saul who was pretending to be an Apostle but that the Jerusalem Council rejected. We don't have any traditions from the jerusalem christians indicating that their cult center was in opposition to paul's evangelizing. Rather, we have evidnece that the apostles who knew christ accepted Paul, and sent him on vitally important evangelizing missions. His letters of faith to the communities he converted were so powerful, inspiring, and moving, that they were made into copies and read aloud in christian masses throughout the world, and thats why they ended up being put into the bible. Because the christian beleivers, apostles and converts, felt that they were important"
There are many many books outside the Bible that speak of the corruption occuring to the teachings of Christ.
Writing powerfull inspiring and moving letters are not qualifying standards for inclusion in the bible. If that were so then the diary of anne frank should be included, as well as the federalist papers. The fact they were read to people does not make them accurate, or being true to the faith.
The Epistles are full of judgemental attitude, the subjegation of women, and worse. They attempt to instill guilt when the Message is you are truly free now.
No wonder the early church liked his writings, it made people feel terrible and created a deep seated fear of God. It caused people to believe they are sin, instead of Divine.
They were included to perpetuate the myth humanity needs the organized church to intercede on their behalf. The truth is you need nobody to carry your thoughts and prayers to God. You need only know that heaven resides within you.
So the other Apostles accepting Paul as one of their own seems to weigh strongly in his favour"
Constantine brought together Church leaders, clerics, and others to settle once and for all which Books would become recognized. This happened because there was not agreement on IF Christ was Divine, if he actually rose from the dead, if Mary was vigin, etc, etc, etc. So there was not the consenses implied by your statement. If they were, there would have been no need for the council to convene and vote on which books should be officially recognized.
"The only evidence we have is the gospels, we don't have any gospels that talk about a crazed guy named Saul who was pretending to be an Apostle but that the Jerusalem Council rejected. We don't have any traditions from the jerusalem christians indicating that their cult center was in opposition to paul's evangelizing. Rather, we have evidnece that the apostles who knew christ accepted Paul, and sent him on vitally important evangelizing missions. His letters of faith to the communities he converted were so powerful, inspiring, and moving, that they were made into copies and read aloud in christian masses throughout the world, and thats why they ended up being put into the bible. Because the christian beleivers, apostles and converts, felt that they were important"
There are many many books outside the Bible that speak of the corruption occuring to the teachings of Christ.
Writing powerfull inspiring and moving letters are not qualifying standards for inclusion in the bible. If that were so then the diary of anne frank should be included, as well as the federalist papers. The fact they were read to people does not make them accurate, or being true to the faith.
The Epistles are full of judgemental attitude, the subjegation of women, and worse. They attempt to instill guilt when the Message is you are truly free now.
No wonder the early church liked his writings, it made people feel terrible and created a deep seated fear of God. It caused people to believe they are sin, instead of Divine.
They were included to perpetuate the myth humanity needs the organized church to intercede on their behalf. The truth is you need nobody to carry your thoughts and prayers to God. You need only know that heaven resides within you.
Originally posted by el fuego
Constantine brought together Church leaders, clerics, and others to settle once and for all which Books would become recognized. This happened because there was not agreement on IF Christ was Divine, if he actually rose from the dead, if Mary was vigin, etc, etc, etc. So there was not the consenses implied by your statement. If they were, there would have been no need for the council to convene and vote on which books should be officially recognized.
Care to share what the vote was regarding Christ's divinity, or would you like me to?
As Nygdan pointed out, and as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the books that are recognized as canon were canon to most churches well before 325 AD. We have lists of what was read by churches from well before 325 AD that include the Pauline Epistles. In addition to that, many Christian scholars such as Tertullian, quoted the Pauline Epistles well before 325 AD as authoritative.
As to the other questions of doctrine you presented, I was not aware those were significant issues. The Gospel accounts are clear on Mary's virginity, though I know the Gnostics tried to say Christ didn't rise bodily from the grave (though this is refuted in the Gospel of John when Christ had Thomas place his hand in Christ's side and his fingers in His wounds in His wrists, and when Christ ate with the disciples. I can find more information on that, too, if you're going to run with that argument as evidence the Nicean council modified scripture.)
Originally posted by el fuego
No wonder the early church liked his writings, it made people feel terrible and created a deep seated fear of God.
Wow, missed this quote in my last post. Feel terrible? Read Colossians 3:17 (emphasis mine) :
In whatever you do, in word or deed, do it all in the name of Christ Jesus giving thanks to God the Father through Him
So all things are permissible in Christ, as Paul goes into more detail about in Colossians 2:16-23.
Beyond that, Paul also wrote the epistle to the Ephesians, where, in Ephesians 5:1-2 he writes,
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Terrible? No, Paul wrote that we are free in Christ, no longer chained nor slaves to sin because of Christ, just as Christ said in His ministry, which was difficult for the Jews to accept, as well, because they did not believe they were in bondage to sin.
It caused people to believe they are sin, instead of Divine.
In line with scripture. We are not divine, it is Christ who is divine. Paul did talk in Colossians that we are in Christ, we are no longer sinners but saints capable of sin, clothed in Christ, the hope of glory, though. So we are clothed in the divine, that is, Christ, but are not divine ourselves. No where are we told we are in scripture.
Jesus himself said that he came not to change the law but to fulfill it (Mat.5:17-19). Yet Paul himself tells us in Galatians 5:1, Don't get all tied up in Jewish law and ceremonies. Does that make sense if he was truly following what Jesus taught?
Some strange posts here on this subject of the Apostle Paul.
What is often not spoken about concerning the Apostle Paul is that Paul is no ordinary Hebrew. He was a Pharisee. Nor just any Pharisee. He was in the inner workings of the Pharisees sect. Also highly educated in his day. You can argue alot of things pro or con about Paul but one thing is clear..Paul knew the Olde Testament better than most. Of the Apostles the most educated of their day would be Paul and Luke..the gentile doctor.
I see this stuff or this fingerprint over and over not just questioning the Gospel message but also seeding doubt about their credibility...especially Paul about which so much of the New Testament lessons are based..his epistles.
There is no contradiction in Pauls teachings or the Teachings of Jesus.
I hear people claiming for example that Jesus was a revolutionary. The same is alluded to about Paul..that Paul is trying to revolutionize the New Testament...or the term used here is Hijack.
THe essential point of history missed by every one of these posters is that the Hebrew Leadership themselves were in fact "Hijacking " the Olde Testament. We have this record over and over in the Olde Testament from Exodus foreward....a record of the Hebrew disobedience to the Law.
What is totally missed or deliberately overlooked in the New Testament is that Jesus was well aware of this fingerprint of operation by the Hebrew leadership...as was obviously the Apostle Paul.
THe Hebrew Leadership themselves were the revolutionarys...trying to Hijack ...switch ..overlay the Olde Testament with man made traditions...and pass them along to a new and ignorant generation of Hebrews as if they were the law.
One poster makes a point about Jesus using a stick to make circles in the dirt...this is not what happened there with the Woman caught in adultery..where he was digging in the dirt with a stick. What happened there is that the Hebrew Leadership..the Pharisees brought before Jesus a woman caught in adultery ..in the very act!! THey were trying to catch Jesus in a mistake in his application of the Law of Moses. To discredit Jesus. THey didnt care about the woman caught in adultery.
But Jesus turned the tables on them. THe lesson to thinking people of Faith is that the Law of Moses says...."They both shall be stoned..meaning the man and the woman. The Pharisees only brought the woman..not the man. The Law that the Pharisees kept said that women get stoned men do not. This is not the Law of Moses. WHat a bunch of Phoneys. The Pharisees were the Revolutionarys. Not Jesus and Not Paul. The Pharisees had not only switched doctrine and practice..deviating from the Law of Moses but by this action were disobedient to the God they claimed so zealously to be keeping His Commandments. They had privily switched gods by disobedience. They had hijacked the Olde Testament. THey were revolutionarys.
Remember ...Paul like Jesus was not liked by the Hebrew leadership after his conversion..this is very telling to those who know.
Jesus fulfilled the Olde Testament requirements in all parts. It was the Hebrews and specifically the Hebrew leadership which were disobedient and revolutionary. Once you understand this angle it changes significantly ones understanding of the premise here in threads like this. Both of the Olde Testament and the New Testament.
Remember what a Testament is...Last Will and Testament...recognized world wide by different peoples of different nations, languages and customs. But a will and testament to be of effect ..the testator must die. This is the significant action which puts the testament into effect.
The Testator did not die under the Olde Testament. ..but the New Testament.
Paul does not create a new religion..he confirms what the Olde Testament was and how the purpose was never to confirm the Old Testament but the New. For the Testator died under the New Testament.
What this means to those who understand this significance is that all these other points and debates are a deliberate placebo..to misdirect from the main points as was obviously done by the Pharisees themselves.
Phariseeism is still with us today. Not changed. Nothing new under the Sun here.
Be very careful what one thinks is a Hijacking or a revolution.
Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom
The fact that Paul and Luke were so learned, so high and mighty, is what confounds me about their being chosen by Christ to further His kingdom.
Although me being confounded, confound it, is nothing new or rare.
The stone the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.
[1 Cor 1:27-29] God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
The stone the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.
Originally posted by el fuego
Constantine brought together Church leaders, clerics, and others to settle once and for all which Books would become recognized.
No. He did not. That is not what happened at the Council of Nicea.
This happened because there was not agreement on IF Christ was Divine, if he actually rose from the dead, if Mary was vigin, etc, etc, etc.
The disagreement that caused Constantine to call for a council of bishops was the Arian contrversy. The arian controversy was:
en.wikipedia.org...
that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. Further, Arius taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and possibly inferior to) the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist
Which does not mean that 'jesus wasn't divine'. It was a higly academic theological arguement over the the difference between 'nature' and 'substance', etc.
There are many many books outside the Bible that speak of the corruption occuring to the teachings of Christ.
Like what? Which ones are contemporaneous or precede the earliest gospel texts?
Writing powerfull inspiring and moving letters are not qualifying standards for inclusion in the bible.
Says who? Jesus never laid out any rules for what goes into the bible. The early christian community held some texts in high regards, others in not so high regards. The ones that were nearly universally accepted by the community were the ones that become codified as 'the christian bible' later. These communities didn't HAVE a bible, they only had whatever copies of the gospels or letters from the apostles that they could get.
If that were so then the diary of anne frank should be included, as well as the federalist papers.
If you want to include them in your collection of holy texts, feel free. The early christian community felt that the books that are in the modern bible were the ones that should be in their collections of holy texts.
The fact they were read to people does not make them accurate, or being true to the faith.
Yes, and? The early christian community accepted them as authentic, and the other apostles themselves seem to have accepted Paul as unusual, but acceptable.
The Epistles are full of judgemental attitude, the subjegation of women, and worse. They attempt to instill guilt when the Message is you are truly free now.
Regardless of how you feel about paul's writtings, the apostles and early christians seem to have felt that they were true.
Originally posted by Nygdan
The only evidence we have is the gospels, we don't have any gospels that talk about a crazed guy named Saul who was pretending to be an Apostle but that the Jerusalem Council rejected. We don't have any traditions from the jerusalem christians indicating that their cult center was in opposition to paul's evangelizing. Rather, we have evidnece that the apostles who knew christ accepted Paul, and sent him on vitally important evangelizing missions. His letters of faith to the communities he converted were so powerful, inspiring, and moving, that they were made into copies and read aloud in christian masses throughout the world, and thats why they ended up being put into the bible. Because the christian beleivers, apostles and converts, felt that they were important.
if fact you are only half right. Paul was accepted and sent to evangelize at first, see acts 15, but letters were sent with him in regards to things a gentile must do to convert. these 4 things mentioned allude to the Noahide law, which binds all people, Jew or Gentile, and was placed by God after the flood. Of course i already showed earlier, through scripture, how Paul ignored this. was he accepted? lets take a look at what he and others say about that:
Acts 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
skip to:
21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.
so after a bit of verbal sparring with James, he is booted from the temple. who was the leader of the temple at the time?hello!
also, the entire book of James is a basic retort to many of Pauls most base teachings (faith vs works). i already showed this in scripture.
Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision.
wasnt Jesus "of the circumcision"? also the apostles? and yet there is no strife at all? riiiiiiight
2 Timothy :15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
Paul admits all in Asia turned away from him.
There is a clear line of slow enmity brewing in Pauls books. by his last you will notice that he outright despises those from Jerusalem. There is also non-biblical writings that suggest that Paul and James actually fought (well, that Paul attacked James actually and broke his leg).
Paul has managed to turn people away from Jesus by making Jesus into something he never was. Jesus never turned away from nor did away with the law, and in fact said to keep it. its really not that hard to see if one was to actually READ the books of the New Testament instead of just spouting off and regurgitating what one has learned from some preacher spouting off and regurgitating what he learned from yet some other person regurgitating fables and etc et al ad dinfinitum. the lie has become its own entity at this point, self aware and snowballing, but the end of that lie is drawing very close.
One can almost smell its death now.
Wow...Talk about taking scripture out of context to try to make a point...
I'd like to quote the section of Acts I Am Legend quoted in part, but I'd like to quote all of it, with the parts excluded in bold:
Acts 21:17-32
There was a misunderstanding going on. Paul is the suspected writer of the book of Hebrews, though he wrote it anonymously (supposedly) because of this misunderstanding. Peter struggled with this in Acts 9, too, when he saw his vision before eating with Cornelius. But what of verse 30? What of James kicking Paul out of the temple? Let's look at the context and find out if it was, in fact, James who commanded this...
Well, I don't know about you, but after reading that in context, it certainly seems different from what I read quoted before.
James is one of the most misunderstood books of scripture. Martin Luther actually went through a period believing it shouldn't have been canonized (he later changed his mind) because of such misunderstanding. There was a fascinating discussion of James and faith without works here that might shed some light on what James is talking about and why it is in sync with what Jesus and Paul taught.
It was interesting that you quoted Titus 1:10 as evidence that Paul's teachings were against Christ’s...After all, Jesus didn't have any problem with those who were circumcised and proud of it (read: Pharisees), did he...
I'd like to quote the section of Acts I Am Legend quoted in part, but I'd like to quote all of it, with the parts excluded in bold:
Acts 21:17-32
Odd reaction for those who didn't care for Paul... Anyway, let's continue:
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly.
18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
There was a misunderstanding going on. Paul is the suspected writer of the book of Hebrews, though he wrote it anonymously (supposedly) because of this misunderstanding. Peter struggled with this in Acts 9, too, when he saw his vision before eating with Cornelius. But what of verse 30? What of James kicking Paul out of the temple? Let's look at the context and find out if it was, in fact, James who commanded this...
27When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28shouting, "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place." 29(They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area.)
30The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. 31While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.
Well, I don't know about you, but after reading that in context, it certainly seems different from what I read quoted before.
James is one of the most misunderstood books of scripture. Martin Luther actually went through a period believing it shouldn't have been canonized (he later changed his mind) because of such misunderstanding. There was a fascinating discussion of James and faith without works here that might shed some light on what James is talking about and why it is in sync with what Jesus and Paul taught.
It was interesting that you quoted Titus 1:10 as evidence that Paul's teachings were against Christ’s...After all, Jesus didn't have any problem with those who were circumcised and proud of it (read: Pharisees), did he...
Noahide Laws,
Now this one took me for a flip. I did not expect Phariseeism to show up so quickly. Remember what I posted previously...Phariseeism is still with us today..Hasn't Changed one iota since the time of the Hebrews before the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
There are still people who want to put us back in Olde Testament bondage or what is refered to as the Bondage of the Law.
Jesus fulfilled the Law in all parts when he lived on this earth. This is clear in the Olde Testament and part of what we call the New Testament. What is often ignored about the New Testament is that part of this New Testament is actually Olde Testament. For the Testament is of no effect without the death of the testator..meaning that when Jesus Lived and walked with the Apostles it was still the Olde Testament. Only with His death did the New Testament go into effect.
Now contrast this with the obvious disobedience of the Hebrews and particulary the Hebrew leadership of the day ...claiming to keep the Law in all parts yet the obvioius disobedience of the woman caught in adultery. The switching of gods and Gods Law ..to something else.
THe Noahide Laws are in fact the very cult feature they try to attribute to others. THey are bondage.
As to things a Gentile must do to convert...convert to what ..Judiasm/.the Law?? Were any of the Apostles teaching and preaching a return to the Law of Moses?? To circumcision which is of the Law??
Believers..period are converted by the Blood of the Lamb ..not by anything else. Not by any work that they do but by the Blood of the Lamb.THe Lamb without blemish.
Pauls warnings are to caution believers about the Pharisees and the traditions of men which were being passed off as necessary for Christians..to bring them back to the bondage of the law..just as is done by the Noahide Laws. Phariseeism comes in alot of varietys.
Being saved by The Blood of the Lamb eliminates all of these traditions of men....also known as works...ie ..things we must do to be converted. This line ..what we must do to be converted is a dead giveaway of works/traditions of men.
BEWARE..the Pharisees are still around.
Thanks,
Orangetom
Now this one took me for a flip. I did not expect Phariseeism to show up so quickly. Remember what I posted previously...Phariseeism is still with us today..Hasn't Changed one iota since the time of the Hebrews before the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
There are still people who want to put us back in Olde Testament bondage or what is refered to as the Bondage of the Law.
Jesus fulfilled the Law in all parts when he lived on this earth. This is clear in the Olde Testament and part of what we call the New Testament. What is often ignored about the New Testament is that part of this New Testament is actually Olde Testament. For the Testament is of no effect without the death of the testator..meaning that when Jesus Lived and walked with the Apostles it was still the Olde Testament. Only with His death did the New Testament go into effect.
Now contrast this with the obvious disobedience of the Hebrews and particulary the Hebrew leadership of the day ...claiming to keep the Law in all parts yet the obvioius disobedience of the woman caught in adultery. The switching of gods and Gods Law ..to something else.
THe Noahide Laws are in fact the very cult feature they try to attribute to others. THey are bondage.
As to things a Gentile must do to convert...convert to what ..Judiasm/.the Law?? Were any of the Apostles teaching and preaching a return to the Law of Moses?? To circumcision which is of the Law??
Believers..period are converted by the Blood of the Lamb ..not by anything else. Not by any work that they do but by the Blood of the Lamb.THe Lamb without blemish.
Pauls warnings are to caution believers about the Pharisees and the traditions of men which were being passed off as necessary for Christians..to bring them back to the bondage of the law..just as is done by the Noahide Laws. Phariseeism comes in alot of varietys.
Being saved by The Blood of the Lamb eliminates all of these traditions of men....also known as works...ie ..things we must do to be converted. This line ..what we must do to be converted is a dead giveaway of works/traditions of men.
BEWARE..the Pharisees are still around.
Thanks,
Orangetom
Yes they are. Still condemning, still pointing their finger, pointing out transgressors, damning them for their iniquities.
That is not the intent of the NT at all. Christ was all about the spirit of the law, the seed of promise. The spirit of the law brings life, the letter of the law, death by sin.
The spirit of the law transcends the letter, as those who truly keep the spirit of the law will automatically keep the letter of the law. They will also do this without condemning others, praying that transgressions will be recognized and repentance forthcoming. Gentle admonition and patient long-suffering are their trademark.
Are there Pharisees of the NT? Is there a new form of bondage to the New Covenant in effect that was never the intent of Christ?
That is not the intent of the NT at all. Christ was all about the spirit of the law, the seed of promise. The spirit of the law brings life, the letter of the law, death by sin.
The spirit of the law transcends the letter, as those who truly keep the spirit of the law will automatically keep the letter of the law. They will also do this without condemning others, praying that transgressions will be recognized and repentance forthcoming. Gentle admonition and patient long-suffering are their trademark.
Are there Pharisees of the NT? Is there a new form of bondage to the New Covenant in effect that was never the intent of Christ?
Paul didn't hijack anything.
He is not responsible for the Christian faith...(those that taught and twisted his writings did that for him.)
Paul, like Jesus, were well educated Jews.
Jesus disciples, those closest to him, were do-do birds.
"Uh, we don't get it Jesus...what do you mean"
response - "Oh, your so slow...'stupid'"
The crowds were confused even more.
So with Paul. Educated, understood both written and oral law.
Understood "prophesy"/kabbalah, if you will.
And, like Jesus, those that followed didn't get what he said.
Ah, such is life. Many Jews could be enjoying the N.T. now if they didn't have the 'doctrine' of the 'church', ie. their interpretation of it, shoved down their throats. (a.k.a. Jews for Jesus, evangelical Christians, etc. who think they understand Judaism better than...Jews. - now I admit, most Jews are secular, so lets say the 'die hard Jew' (a.k.a. Chassidic for example.)
Peace
dAlen
If you want to see the Jewish stance on Paul you can check here I should say that this does not necessarily reflect my opinion. As I have said, Jews are on the 'defense', so to speak, and would better be served trying to explain the teachings of Paul to the Christian vs. trying to distance themeselves from him. But it is as it is.
Also, while Im thinking about it, you can go here to learn Judaism. It may be quite insightful for some of you. But be warned not to proselytise...its an online 'learning' environment.
[edit on 27-2-2007 by dAlen]
He is not responsible for the Christian faith...(those that taught and twisted his writings did that for him.)
Paul, like Jesus, were well educated Jews.
Jesus disciples, those closest to him, were do-do birds.
"Uh, we don't get it Jesus...what do you mean"
response - "Oh, your so slow...'stupid'"
The crowds were confused even more.
So with Paul. Educated, understood both written and oral law.
Understood "prophesy"/kabbalah, if you will.
And, like Jesus, those that followed didn't get what he said.
Ah, such is life. Many Jews could be enjoying the N.T. now if they didn't have the 'doctrine' of the 'church', ie. their interpretation of it, shoved down their throats. (a.k.a. Jews for Jesus, evangelical Christians, etc. who think they understand Judaism better than...Jews. - now I admit, most Jews are secular, so lets say the 'die hard Jew' (a.k.a. Chassidic for example.)
Peace
dAlen
If you want to see the Jewish stance on Paul you can check here I should say that this does not necessarily reflect my opinion. As I have said, Jews are on the 'defense', so to speak, and would better be served trying to explain the teachings of Paul to the Christian vs. trying to distance themeselves from him. But it is as it is.
Also, while Im thinking about it, you can go here to learn Judaism. It may be quite insightful for some of you. But be warned not to proselytise...its an online 'learning' environment.
[edit on 27-2-2007 by dAlen]
Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Yes they are. Still condemning, still pointing their finger, pointing out transgressors, damning them for their iniquities.
That is not the intent of the NT at all. Christ was all about the spirit of the law, the seed of promise. The spirit of the law brings life, the letter of the law, death by sin.
The spirit of the law transcends the letter, as those who truly keep the spirit of the law will automatically keep the letter of the law. They will also do this without condemning others, praying that transgressions will be recognized and repentance forthcoming. Gentle admonition and patient long-suffering are their trademark.
Are there Pharisees of the NT? Is there a new form of bondage to the New Covenant in effect that was never the intent of Christ?
Icarus Rising,
Yes there are Pharisees of the New Testament as well. This is why so many have problems with Christianity today and rightfully so. There are in fact Pharisees who would have us back to Olde Testament works and do so smoothly under the guise of what most think is New Testament.
This is so just as did the Pharisees in the Olde Testament switch doctrines and practices to the Traditions of men..so too do the Pharisees of the New Testament switch and substitute Doctrines fo Men for the New Testament.
These Noahide Laws are an example though there are others. This stuff is just repackaged and relabeled phariseeism.
What is so intresting to me is that much of this is being done by learned men who have been through bible or divinity schools...for whom we would think would know better. Not necessarily so.
THat Paul was learned means in this case that he was educated a Pharisee..meaning he knew precisely, once he was converted, where the Pharisees and the Hebrew leadership had switched from the Law to the Traditions of men. WE see this knowlege over and over in his Epistles...teaching us ..warning , encouraging us.
This is precisely why so many dont like Paul..he puts Light on what this world does not want Light upon. In this case the Light is with the Capital L letter.
Thanks,
Orangetom
new topics
-
Orange County Makes Shoplifting a Felony
Other Current Events: 3 hours ago -
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness: 5 hours ago -
The reason it works is.....
General Chit Chat: 6 hours ago -
Dick Van Dyke saved from Wildfire by neighbours on his 99th birthday
People: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Orange County Makes Shoplifting a Felony
Other Current Events: 3 hours ago, 10 flags -
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness: 5 hours ago, 9 flags -
The reason it works is.....
General Chit Chat: 6 hours ago, 6 flags -
Dick Van Dyke saved from Wildfire by neighbours on his 99th birthday
People: 9 hours ago, 4 flags
active topics
-
Orange County Makes Shoplifting a Felony
Other Current Events • 14 • : nugget1 -
The Acronym Game .. Pt.4
General Chit Chat • 1025 • : FullHeathen -
Christmas Dinner ??
Food and Cooking • 18 • : network dude -
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness • 9 • : network dude -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3810 • : 777Vader -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7953 • : underpass61 -
Dick Van Dyke saved from Wildfire by neighbours on his 99th birthday
People • 1 • : soulrevival -
The reason it works is.....
General Chit Chat • 3 • : BeyondKnowledge3 -
London Christmas Market BANS Word ‘Christmas’
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 44 • : Oldcarpy2 -
1 Billion dollars
General Entertainment • 12 • : Blueracer