|
Post by snow on Apr 23, 2014 16:27:53 GMT -5
Paul and Jesus were living in the same times, bit of a different culture I'll give you that, but he was a Jew and knew the customs, the culture and the times. That excuse for contradicting so much of Jesus teachings is pretty weak imo.
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Apr 23, 2014 18:03:16 GMT -5
Paul and Jesus were living in the same times, bit of a different culture I'll give you that, but he was a Jew and knew the customs, the culture and the times. That excuse for contradicting so much of Jesus teachings is pretty weak imo. I agree. I've often wondered why so many things Paul taught seemed to be in direct contrast to what Jesus taught. If, as he claimed, he was called by Christ I would expect him to teach the same gospel Christ taught. Odd that his focus was often on outward appearance and customs of the day instead of the simple message Christ taught. I'm beginning to doubt that anything of a religious nature is anything more than something created by man to suit his own agenda. I do NOT connect spirituality and religion!
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 23, 2014 18:21:18 GMT -5
I do NOT connect spirituality and religion! Some Atheist are Spiritual. To me saying one is Spiritual has a lot of religious baggage and doesn't tell me much about what one believes. This older short video address the OP and the Spiritual. youtu.be/rLIKAyzeIw4
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 18:40:14 GMT -5
hmmm i don't know a spiritual atheist? what would that look like...
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 23, 2014 19:01:50 GMT -5
hmmm i don't know a spiritual atheist? what would that look like... I don't use the word spiritual to describe myself, as to me it invokes a supernatural element. I do; wonder, ponder, contemplate, reflect, speculate, but I don't see that as spiritual, as in "supernatural". I picture a spiritual atheist as; Spinoza, Einstein, Buddha, .... I
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Apr 23, 2014 19:21:45 GMT -5
hmmm i don't know a spiritual atheist? what would that look like... I don't use the word spiritual to describe myself, as to me it invokes a supernatural element. I do; wonder, ponder, contemplate, reflect, speculate, but I don't see that as spiritual as in "supernatural". I picture a spiritual atheist as; Spinoza, Einstein, Budda, .... Perhaps what you say is correct. Perhaps the word "spiritual" is too closely connected to the religious world. I also "wonder", "ponder", "contemplate", "reflect", and "speculate". I'm an analyst by nature. I don't consider these as supernatural elements but I DO believe they define a sixth sense that many don't exercise. I believe this sixth sense is very much a part of who we are. Curiosity is a GOOD thing. It helps us form conclusions (although they may be temporary conclusions).
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 23, 2014 19:50:22 GMT -5
I don't use the word spiritual to describe myself, as to me it invokes a supernatural element. I do; wonder, ponder, contemplate, reflect, speculate, but I don't see that as spiritual as in "supernatural". I picture a spiritual atheist as; Spinoza, Einstein, Budda, .... Perhaps what you say is correct. Perhaps the word "spiritual" is too closely connected to the religious world. I also "wonder", "ponder", "contemplate", "reflect", and "speculate". I'm an analyst by nature. I don't consider these as supernatural elements but I DO believe they define a sixth sense that many don't exercise. I believe this sixth sense is very much a part of who we are. Curiosity is a GOOD thing. It helps us form conclusions (although they may be temporary conclusions). I agree with what you write. I get new ideas from; hunches, intuition, the creative process of art and invention. I don't know where theses ideas come from, except from the working of my brain. Some may say that's your sixth sense, some may say it's spiritual. My pet theory is that the sixth sense is just an emergent property of our brain. It constructs "novel" from the familiar, to our amazement, and amusement.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 23, 2014 22:14:22 GMT -5
Paul and Jesus were living in the same times, bit of a different culture I'll give you that, but he was a Jew and knew the customs, the culture and the times. That excuse for contradicting so much of Jesus teachings is pretty weak imo. I agree. I've often wondered why so many things Paul taught seemed to be in direct contrast to what Jesus taught. If, as he claimed, he was called by Christ I would expect him to teach the same gospel Christ taught. Odd that his focus was often on outward appearance and customs of the day instead of the simple message Christ taught. I'm beginning to doubt that anything of a religious nature is anything more than something created by man to suit his own agenda. I do NOT connect spirituality and religion! You can't understand the difference between Paul and the 12 apostles without understanding their different perceptions of the world and deity. Paul, in a perfectly normal Greek mindset, believed in such things as a "Christ" -- there were many Christs in his culture, and humans had souls that needed to be saved and thus needed a Christ. Jews did not believe in "Christs" -- they believed in Messiahs and there were also many of them. But messiahs were never intended to save humans' souls because humans didn't have souls to save. In the Jewish world, the "god" did not socialize or cavort with human beings. In the Greek world the many gods did all kinds of things with human beings, and produced half divine babies with human women, which were resurrected at death to rejoin the gods in their abode. There were lots of them. (Sound familiar.) So which does Christianity sound like, Jewish or Greek? Without knowing this, how could anyone reading the Bible we have been left with ever recognize what was going on between the believers in Jerusalem and the Christians in in the rest of the world. People don't notice that the believers in Jerusalem NEVER called themselves Christians -- they weren't looking for such a one. How skillfully the ECF convinced everyone that "messiah" and "Christ" mean the same thing. No one in Jesus' day got them confused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 2:43:52 GMT -5
Bob, are you refering to Paul as in Jesus' "chosen vessel" and Peter's "beloved brother"?
The only serious difference between Paul and SOME of the apostles was the role well-respected Jewish traditions still held in the new church. The modern churches (post 1st Century) also were opposed to Paul. That's where a lot of this "Pauline Christianity" really comes from, not contemporary writers like Eisenman.
SOME Jews didn't believe in heaven. SOME Jews didn't believe in a god who would "cavort" with man. MANY people in Jesus day saw Him as the Messiah - and His own enemies would at least conceded He did "good works."
And the Jewish Messiah, spoken of in most books of the bible, is a far cry from the Greek god myths. This is a guilt-by-association" style argument.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 24, 2014 11:21:42 GMT -5
Paul and Jesus were living in the same times, bit of a different culture I'll give you that, but he was a Jew and knew the customs, the culture and the times. That excuse for contradicting so much of Jesus teachings is pretty weak imo. I agree. I've often wondered why so many things Paul taught seemed to be in direct contrast to what Jesus taught. If, as he claimed, he was called by Christ I would expect him to teach the same gospel Christ taught. Odd that his focus was often on outward appearance and customs of the day instead of the simple message Christ taught. I'm beginning to doubt that anything of a religious nature is anything more than something created by man to suit his own agenda. I do NOT connect spirituality and religion! I've thought that for a long time. All the diet, dress and rules all are man made. They have nothing to do with spirituality. This has found it's way into New age stuff too. They are just as rigid in some areas about diet. Some believe if you eat meat for example, that you won't be able to be enlightened. Others believe you need to do yoga a certain way to open up yourself to higher vibrations etc.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 24, 2014 11:23:10 GMT -5
hmmm i don't know a spiritual atheist? what would that look like... Many Buddhists are atheists and they are spiritual, so Buddha comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 24, 2014 11:30:43 GMT -5
I agree. I've often wondered why so many things Paul taught seemed to be in direct contrast to what Jesus taught. If, as he claimed, he was called by Christ I would expect him to teach the same gospel Christ taught. Odd that his focus was often on outward appearance and customs of the day instead of the simple message Christ taught. I'm beginning to doubt that anything of a religious nature is anything more than something created by man to suit his own agenda. I do NOT connect spirituality and religion! You can't understand the difference between Paul and the 12 apostles without understanding their different perceptions of the world and deity. Paul, in a perfectly normal Greek mindset, believed in such things as a "Christ" -- there were many Christs in his culture, and humans had souls that needed to be saved and thus needed a Christ. Jews did not believe in "Christs" -- they believed in Messiahs and there were also many of them. But messiahs were never intended to save humans' souls because humans didn't have souls to save. In the Jewish world, the "god" did not socialize or cavort with human beings. In the Greek world the many gods did all kinds of things with human beings, and produced half divine babies with human women, which were resurrected at death to rejoin the gods in their abode. There were lots of them. (Sound familiar.) So which does Christianity sound like, Jewish or Greek? Without knowing this, how could anyone reading the Bible we have been left with ever recognize what was going on between the believers in Jerusalem and the Christians in in the rest of the world. People don't notice that the believers in Jerusalem NEVER called themselves Christians -- they weren't looking for such a one. How skillfully the ECF convinced everyone that "messiah" and "Christ" mean the same thing. No one in Jesus' day got them confused. I agree. That is why the Ebonites didn't believe Jesus was divine. Some scholars point to James, Jesus' brother was the leader of the Ebonites. The whole divinity thing came later long after Jesus had been crucified.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 24, 2014 12:36:38 GMT -5
[/p] Here's a well documented article on the many differences between Paul's teachings and Jesus' teachings:
www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/175-pauls-contradictions-of-jesus.html
[/quote] ~~ Nathan: People write things when they do NOT fully grasp or understand Paul's teachings. Paul supported the teaching of Jesus. He simplified and made it clearer to understand the teachings of Jesus. One of the reasons, people think Paul contradicts Jesus teachings because they do NOT know the circumstances, or the troubles/problems, issues he was dealing with, and the customs/cultures in his days.Jesus Says The Law Continues, But Paul Says No. 1) Jesus's View on the Law. Jesus emphasized the validity of the Law up through the passing away of Heaven and Earth, thus confirming its inspiration and ongoing validity. In Matthew 5:17-19 we read: (17) Think not that I came to destroy the Law [of Moses] or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law, till all things be accomplished [i.e., all things predicted appear on the stage of history]. (19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (ASV) Compare Luke 16:17 similarly says at a different time than the Sermon on the Mount -- meaning Jesus repeated the same point twice: " It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. (Luke 16:16-17 NIV.) Thus, Jesus can never be accused of seducing any Christian from following the Law. Jesus cannot be a false prophet under Deuteronomy 13:5 (false prophet is anyone who has miracles and wonders but seduces you from following the Law). Jesus said the Law remained valid until the Heavens and Earth pass away. This passing of heaven and earth occurs at the end of the Millennium. This is 1000 years after Christ's Second Coming, according to the Book of Revelation. Paul's View on the Law. Paul says the opposite. Paul is blunt in Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, 2 Cor. 3:11-17, Romans 7:1-3 et seq, and Galatians 3:19 et seq. The Law is "abolished," "done away with," "nailed to a tree," "has faded away,' and was "only ordained by angels...who are no gods." If we were to cite Paul's condemnations of the Law in one string, the point is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for everyone. See Eph. 2:15 ("setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations"); Col. 2:14 ("having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;") 2 Cor. 3:14 ("old covenant"); Gal. 5:1 ("yoke of bondage"); Rom. 10:4 ("Christ is the end of the law"); 2 Cor. 3:7 ("law of death"); Gal. 5:1 ("entangles"); Col. 2:14-17 ("a shadow"); Rom. 3:27 ("law of works"); Rom. 4:15 ("works wrath"); 2 Cor. 3:9 (ministration of condemnation); Gal. 2:16 ("cannot justify"); Gal. 3:21 (cannot give life); Col. 2:14 ("wiped out" exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 ("given by angels...who are no gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial beings/elements"). Finally, in Romans 7:1-6, Paul claims when Jesus died, the husband died and this dissolved the Law's bonds between the husband (God of Sinai) and wife (God's people). This henceforth made the "law dead to us." (Romans 7:4.) This death-of-God-the-husband released the Jews, Paul contends, and when Christ resurrected the bonds of marriage with the old God were not renewed. (The implication, we contend, was Paul meant a new God emerges or otherwise if the same husband-God resurrected, why wasn't the bond to the Law renewed? Paulinists come near to admitting this is the only logical meaning while even confessing they are uncomfortable with the passage's 'seemingly' polytheistic explanation... Uggh. On our thorough analysis of Romans 7:1-6, see our webpage discussion.) For more discussion on Paul's abrogation of the Law, see chapter five of Jesus Words Only excerpted at this link. How do those devoted to every word from both Paul and Jesus resolve the contradiction? Here is a perfect example: If [Jesus] is saying [in Matt 5:17 by saying He fulfilled the Law, and meant] he is the 'end of the Law' [as Paul taught in Romans 10:4], then why does he say in the next verse that the Law will never disappear? ...There is something exasperating about trying to understand a verse like this....What the verse seems to say contradicts what we know from other verses in the New Testament. The truth is we cannot be expected to understand this verse. ~~ Nathan: Paul's teachings do NOT contradict against Jesus' teachings. Paul supported Jesus teaching by explained it clearer. Gal. 3:22-25 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.2) Jesus Teaches There Are Only 12 Apostles Into Eternity, But Paul Adds Himself To The List As a Thirteenth Matthias was voted to replace Judas in Acts 1, with the Holy Spirit deciding between two candidates. Hence, the 12 were established long before Paul became a Christian. However, our Savior made the permanent tally of the Apostles established at exactly twelve --- for obvious reasons of historical symbolism. One can see the historical symmetry at Rev 21:12-14. Twelve apostles to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul was never numbered in that circle; not even Barnabas in his Epistle recognizes Paul’s Apostleship!: "[The Apostles] to whom he gave the power of the Gospel to preach; and there are twelve as a testimony to the tribes, because there are twelve tribes of Israel." (Epistle of Barnabas 8:3). However, Paul repetitiously claimed he was an apostle. Yet, not once did Jesus ever call Paul an apostle. Read for yourself Paul's vision accounts in Acts 9, 22 and 26. In these accounts, Jesus said Paul would be a martus. That means "witness," not "apostolos" (messenger). ~~ Nathan: Jesus did NOT teach there are ONLY 12 apostles. In Luke 10 we read Jesus sent out another 70 apostles=sent ones. Barnabas, was one of the 70 apostles in Luke 10. It was Barnabas, who took Paul into the ministry in Acts 11:25 when most of the apostles thought he/Paul was a Pharisee spy sent to join their group. In Acts 14:14 it called apostles Barnabas and Paul.
The word apostles= sent one or messenger. In Acts 9 Jesus had chosen and apostle/Sent Paul as a chosen vessel as a messenger/ambassador to the Gentiles people. Peter wrote concerning Paul's wisdom.... II Peter 3:15-17 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked.... [/quote][/p]
Nathan ~ I was just sharing what somebody else had shared with me regarding the differences in teachings between Paul and the Twelve Apostles. However, I actually agree with everything you said above. I also feel that Paul clarified a lot of the teachings of Jesus regarding the New Covenant which came into effect after his death and resurrection through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I also believe the author of this article has somewhat a slanted view here in a number of areas and I don't particularly agree with him as a result. However, I did notice a few differences with Paul's teachings due to his emphasis on God's grace and mercy, but also supported with a changed lifestyle due to becoming a new creature in Christ.
I wonder if the author of this site might be Jewish or a member of some reformed church group, due to some of his conclusions regarding the law of Moses and Jesus' references to it? However, I feel the apostles and Paul were in agreement on what they both taught and worked out any differences in their Councils, which continued down through the centuries even after the Roman Church was legalized by Constantine in 313 A.D. However, that's just my personal opinion, but I feel we share the same views here regarding Paul.
professing.proboards.com/thread/21980/gospel-john-fake?page=2
www.jesuswordsonly.com/aboutauthor.html (Jesus Words Only Site ~ About the Author)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 24, 2014 13:25:22 GMT -5
hmmm i don't know a spiritual atheist? what would that look like... Wally ~ I don't know how to actually define it, but I would figure it would be related to one's moral character or spiritual core related to one's soul. People who are atheists can have just as much moral integrity as the next guy, Christian or not. That's just a false premise that people project through religion which is quite inaccurate, IMHO. For instance, somebody like Tom Harpur who wrote "The Pagan Christ" was an Anglican priest previously. He now considers himself to be a "Cosmic Christian" of sorts because he doesn't embrace Christianity in the same way that most Christians do today regarding Jesus. He sees Jesus as being more of a moral teacher around which people created a deity and made up stories or myths to go along with the image of a God-man. Does that make any sense to you as I present this picture, because that's basically what people who adhere to this myth theory regarding Jesus and Christianity are inclined to believe from my research. However, I don't embrace this theory myself, since I feel there is some historical information to support Jesus' existence, especially that he had a following and was baptized and crucified. In addition, a lot of first century records were destroyed by the fires in Rome ~ some of which were set by Emperor Nero himself and blamed on the Christians. Possibly this fact may account for the absence of more information available today on Jesus and his ministry?
Although I have studied a lot of these different Bible scholars in the past year to get a grasp on the basis behind their beliefs, I'm not sure I agree with them on many of the points they bring out. Personally, I take their works as general information, but I don't endorse their specified beliefs that Jesus was a myth or God never existed in the first place.
Hopefully, that explains my references to these different articles in my threads and posts? I still hold to my Christian beliefs in my quest for more information regarding the times in which Jesus lived and what was the accepted practices in the first century.
Also, I don't feel a lot of the O.T. laws pertaining to different things are any standard to be used within today's culture and society. Most of these Old Testament laws were pretty severe for the crime and would never be acceptable by today's standards of conduct! For instance, parents would be stoning their rebellious teenagers for being stubborn and hard-headed, which comes naturally with growing up and maturing ~ the terrible teens are just a repeat of the terrible twos on a larger scale! I wonder how many parents developed grey hair before their children become adults from all the stress and worry that goes into raising kids today? However, in O.T. times, it was perfectly O.K. to take your kid out and have a public stoning of him for not shaping up to your expectations as parents. The same punishment of stoning was also in order for homosexuals during ancient times, which was more unfair than anything else, since a person's natural predisposition in this area is something they are born with and not necessarily developed later. There's just too much scientific and medical data out there today to support this position, which makes such homophobia unjustified, regardless what it says in the Bible. Therefore, I personally believe a person needs to take into consideration the customs of these times when things are written, which goes back many centuries even before Christ. Also, if God thought homosexuality was such an abomination, why did He create man with such a predisposition in the first place? Why didn't He just made everybody heterosexual and be done with it? JMT
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 24, 2014 13:59:36 GMT -5
You can't understand the difference between Paul and the 12 apostles without understanding their different perceptions of the world and deity. Paul, in a perfectly normal Greek mindset, believed in such things as a "Christ" -- there were many Christs in his culture, and humans had souls that needed to be saved and thus needed a Christ. Jews did not believe in "Christs" -- they believed in Messiahs and there were also many of them. But messiahs were never intended to save humans' souls because humans didn't have souls to save. In the Jewish world, the "god" did not socialize or cavort with human beings. In the Greek world the many gods did all kinds of things with human beings, and produced half divine babies with human women, which were resurrected at death to rejoin the gods in their abode. There were lots of them. (Sound familiar.) So which does Christianity sound like, Jewish or Greek? Without knowing this, how could anyone reading the Bible we have been left with ever recognize what was going on between the believers in Jerusalem and the Christians in in the rest of the world. People don't notice that the believers in Jerusalem NEVER called themselves Christians -- they weren't looking for such a one. How skillfully the ECF convinced everyone that "messiah" and "Christ" mean the same thing. No one in Jesus' day got them confused. I agree. That is why the Ebonites didn't believe Jesus was divine. Some scholars point to James, Jesus' brother was the leader of the Ebonites. The whole divinity thing came later long after Jesus had been crucified.Findingthetruth ~ Perhaps that's something worth researching in conjunction with James, who was Jesus' half-brother and leader of the Church at Jerusalem? I will have to look more into this matter myself. However, I'm not exactly convinced he was the leader of the Ebonites who surfaced after A.D. 70. From Paul's own description in Galatians 1, I see this group as some heretical group that surfaced in the Jerusalem Church and led some people astray from their original beliefs regarding Jesus as the resurrected Christ? I wouldn't be surprised if these Judaizers, who are probably these Ebionites, were entering into the church and bringing their false doctrine with them in hopes of winning converts away from Christian teachings. These people, from historical records, actually considered Paul some sort of apostate and spread unsavory rumors about him, too, as found in 2 Corinthians 11? I wouldn't be surprised if this heretical group wasn't Paul's "thorn in the flesh," he referenced in 2 Corinthians Since Paul was just talking extensively about the false teachers coming into the church and "masquerading as false apostles," I found a little ironic here?
www.blueletterbible.org/faq/thorn.cfm (Paul's Thorn in the Flesh)
biblehub.com/titus/1-11.htm (Titus 1:11) (False teachers infiltrating towns and upsetting Christian churches there and disrupting whole households)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 24, 2014 14:19:19 GMT -5
Funny this topic should come up. I had written a short series about this a while back to post on my blog.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 14:58:48 GMT -5
Nathan, I clicked on the link on #1 posting. www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/175-pauls-contradictions-of-jesus.html On the second one re Jesus keeping the law - I can see how the "argument" is structured: there are THREE TYPES OF LAW, and the author is apparently ignorant of this, or wants YOU to be ignorant of it. The MORAL LAW is now upheld even stronger (ie adultery) The JUDGMENT LAWS (inheritance, marriage, property etc) don't have Christian relevance. The ORDINANCE LAWS (rites, rituals, symbols of the Levitical priesthood etc.) no longer apply. And this is why we don't go killing little lambs anymore. All these symbols pointed to the Messiah, and Jesus has fulfilled it all.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 24, 2014 15:26:38 GMT -5
Funny this topic should come up. I had written a short series about this a while back to post on my blog. Dubious ~ Which topic are you referring to here ~ Paul's thorn in the flesh or the differences between the teachings of Paul and Jesus and the 12 Apostles?
By the way, I believe I found some pertinent information on James, the Brother of Jesus, also called James the Just, who was leader of the Church at Jerusalem. What I didn't know before was that there's a Gnostic Gospel in his honor and he was obviously revered highly by the Gnostics, which may have included this sect of the Ebionites. There is also mention of these Ebionites in other places in this article, too.
I brought this subject of the Ebionites up previously in one of my posts, as I wondered what connection they had within the early church in Jerusalem, if any, other than being considered a heretical element by the ECF's and often written about by Ireneaus within the 2nd century as a heresy manifesting itself within the early church. It is belief they became apparent around 70 A.D. within the early church, too. Your mention of the his connection to the Judaizers also came up in this article, which is long. However, I went to show an excerpt on the modern biblical translation regarding James that you referenced earlier in your post for others to view.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 24, 2014 15:59:33 GMT -5
Nathan, I clicked on the link on #1 posting. www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/175-pauls-contradictions-of-jesus.html On the second one re Jesus keeping the law - I can see how the "argument" is structured: there are THREE TYPES OF LAW, and the author is apparently ignorant of this, or wants YOU to be ignorant of it. The MORAL LAW is now upheld even stronger (ie adultery) The JUDGMENT LAWS (inheritance, marriage, property etc) don't have Christian relevance. The ORDINANCE LAWS (rites, rituals, symbols of the Levitical priesthood etc.) no longer apply. And this is why we don't go killing little lambs anymore. All these symbols pointed to the Messiah, and Jesus has fulfilled it all. Bert ~ I posted that article as an opinion that someone else had presented relating to Paul and one worthy of discussion. However, I tend to hold to the same views as Nathan expressed earlier in relation to Paul and don't especially buy this gentlemen's interpretation of things either. He perhaps believes the modern historian view on this matter as shown below in contrast to the traditional view of Christian theologians? I also mentioned this in an earlier post to Nathan.
I like to research things out and bring up my findings for discussion, which is just a practice of mine. However, it doesn't necessarily reflect my own views on the matter in a number of my threads. I just like interesting and controversial subjects to discuss as I find them a good mind teaser, you might say? Anything that can keep my brain cells alive and functioning in my 60's is a benefit to me. However, I think I found a few of my answers from further research on James, the Leader of the Jerusalem Church and his possible connection to these Ebionites, who were a form of Judaizers with a number of different beliefs different from the apostles, by the way. It is also believed that this group later joined the religion of Islam in the 7th century due to these particular beliefs, too.
hardquestions.wordpress.com/tag/ebonites/
|
|
|
Post by botany on Apr 24, 2014 21:43:18 GMT -5
I can sum it up easily: Jesus defended an adulteress, and Paul would have hunted her down and stoned her.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 25, 2014 10:45:50 GMT -5
You can't understand the difference between Paul and the 12 apostles without understanding their different perceptions of the world and deity. Paul, in a perfectly normal Greek mindset, believed in such things as a "Christ" -- there were many Christs in his culture, and humans had souls that needed to be saved and thus needed a Christ. Jews did not believe in "Christs" -- they believed in Messiahs and there were also many of them. But messiahs were never intended to save humans' souls because humans didn't have souls to save. In the Jewish world, the "god" did not socialize or cavort with human beings. In the Greek world the many gods did all kinds of things with human beings, and produced half divine babies with human women, which were resurrected at death to rejoin the gods in their abode. There were lots of them. (Sound familiar.) So which does Christianity sound like, Jewish or Greek? Without knowing this, how could anyone reading the Bible we have been left with ever recognize what was going on between the believers in Jerusalem and the Christians in in the rest of the world. People don't notice that the believers in Jerusalem NEVER called themselves Christians -- they weren't looking for such a one. How skillfully the ECF convinced everyone that "messiah" and "Christ" mean the same thing. No one in Jesus' day got them confused.
I agree. That is why the Ebonites didn't believe Jesus was divine. Some scholars point to James, Jesus' brother was the leader of the Ebonites. The whole divinity thing came later long after Jesus had been crucified. Snow & Bob ~ This is getting interesting, for sure! Did some of these insights come from the book, "Zealot" or from other things you and Bob have both read on this topic relating to James, the brother of Jesus and the Jerusalem Church? I'm still a bit confused here, but I'm beginning to see a pattern in the chain of thought going back to early Christianity and how it was originally presented.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 25, 2014 11:11:39 GMT -5
I agree. That is why the Ebonites didn't believe Jesus was divine. Some scholars point to James, Jesus' brother was the leader of the Ebonites. The whole divinity thing came later long after Jesus had been crucified. Snow & Bob ~ This is getting interesting, for sure! Did some of these insights come from the book, "Zealot" or from other things you and Bob have both read on this topic relating to James, the brother of Jesus and the Jerusalem Church? I'm still a bit confused here, but I'm beginning to see a pattern in the chain of thought going back to early Christianity and how it was originally presented.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11
Some of the insights for me came from the Zealot, but also from earlier studies I have made. There is a pattern once you have read enough biblical scholars thoughts about what happened. What Christians believe happened, because that is what they have been told happened, isn't exactly the truth. Once you have read enough different books on the subject one thing becomes crystal clear. Christianity is not what a majority of people think it is. It's history has been so messed with by the various groups that were all struggling for recognition and preservation of what they believed to be right, that it's almost impossible to know what really happened. The 'truth' did not win this, only power.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 25, 2014 12:01:37 GMT -5
I can sum it up easily: Jesus defended an adulteress, and Paul would have hunted her down and stoned her. haha, I'm not so sure. If she cheated with another woman, though ...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 25, 2014 13:24:00 GMT -5
I agree. That is why the Ebonites didn't believe Jesus was divine. Some scholars point to James, Jesus' brother was the leader of the Ebonites. The whole divinity thing came later long after Jesus had been crucified. Snow & Bob ~ This is getting interesting, for sure! Did some of these insights come from the book, "Zealot" or from other things you and Bob have both read on this topic relating to James, the brother of Jesus and the Jerusalem Church? I'm still a bit confused here, but I'm beginning to see a pattern in the chain of thought going back to early Christianity and how it was originally presented.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11
Actually I've been reading about Saint Augustine. The little I know about Ebionites describes perfectly what Saint Augustine condemned in favor of Paul's theology -- especially the hell part.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 25, 2014 13:33:34 GMT -5
Snow & Bob ~ This is getting interesting, for sure! Did some of these insights come from the book, "Zealot" or from other things you and Bob have both read on this topic relating to James, the brother of Jesus and the Jerusalem Church? I'm still a bit confused here, but I'm beginning to see a pattern in the chain of thought going back to early Christianity and how it was originally presented.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11
Actually I've been reading about Saint Augustine. The little I know about Ebionites describes perfectly what Saint Augustine condemned in favor of Paul's theology -- especially the hell part. And incidentally, "Ebionite" means something like "the poor". Christians throughout the first two centuries were for the most part very poor, and not well respected in the Pagan society of the Roman Empire. Especially because they would not acknowledge there was any god but theirs, and because they would not kill for the state. It was when the likes of Saint Augustine espoused Greek/Pagan theology that rich Pagans became attracted to that brand of Christianity, and they eventually took over because they accepted to kill for the state, married themselves to the Roman government, accepted a judicial role in the Roman Empire -- and even assisted the Roman government in ridding themselves of those "filthy, barbaric Jewish believers".
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Apr 25, 2014 14:38:57 GMT -5
You guys jump on hoary junk scholarship like it is something new or something that raises new issues.
Paul didn't preach the same gospel as Jesus? Peter didn't seem to think so. Paul focused so much on outward appearance? Out of all the epistles that occupies how many verses?
Now Paul is a Greek with a Greek mindset? Where'd that come from? Seems to me that he was born a Roman at the fairly new Roman colony at Tarsus and was raised in Jerusalem as a Pharisee and educated in the school of Gamaliel. Later he even concentrated on newer Roman colonies like at Phillipi and Corinth.
So we know exactly what for sure about the Ebionites? Almost nothing is known apart from a very few very brief mentions from centuries later and the rest is nothing more than speculations resting in a leaky boatload of formal and informal fallacies. If Christians under that name ever existed - and that doesn't seem to be established - that group can't honestly be used to show much of anything about the early church or Christianity because there is hardly anything written about them from back then.
And 'believers in Jerusalem NEVER called themselves Christians' - how would anyone know that with the slightest degree of certainty?
And Paul would have hunted down an adulteress? Why would anyone jump to that? Paul's the guy who said that Jesus has set us free from the penalty of the Law in Romans 7 which is the only place he mentions an adulteress.
Augustine started a Roman Empire purge of Jews? Really? When did this happen?
People peddle such crock in tired old fields because it is one of the few ways to get a review in the pop press and make a buck off of the publics gullibility and appetite for sensationalism. Want to make a splash in English lit - make a lit crit-based claim that 4 different people authored Shakespeare's plays. Want to snag a book deal in mid-century history - make a 'new' claim that CIA agents asassinated Kennedy or that the Moon landings were faked. Want to make a pile of cash in climatology or solar science - make a claim that global warming is a bunch of hype. Want to make a splash in theology - make a claim based on stylistic comparisons that Jesus was a woman or use out of context selectivity to claim that Jesus commanded all ministers to follow a certain pattern. It is almost funny how people will leave their skepticism at the door when they come across bunkum that caters to their prejudices.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 25, 2014 14:52:28 GMT -5
haha, welcome to religion, blandie!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 15:31:26 GMT -5
I can sum it up easily: Jesus defended an adulteress, and Paul would have hunted her down and stoned her. ONCE.
|
|