Are Muslims right about Paul?

[sojourner]

Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple?

Ben Witherington's musings present 0 evidence that Lazarus wrote John. Witherington's selling books -- not engaging in in-depth scholastics.

 

[sojourner]

Adam was given laws. The first being not to eat from the tree of knowledge of Good and evil.

Funny thing that if no part of the Law is to be dismissed, that "do not eat from the tree..." doesn't appear in "subsequent versions" of Torah.

 

[Simplelogic]

the mosaic law was something quite different to the laws of God that came prior. For example, Noah is given no dietary restrictions after exiting the Ark...

Genesis 9:1 God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth. 2 A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.

Prior to this law, only vegetation was given as food for Adam and his offspring:
Genesis 1:29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you.

The mosaic law has very strict dietary regulations...something that Noah and his offspring did not have.

Likewise, Noah did not practice circumcision as required by the mosaic law. And we know this because Abraham is his great great ... grandson was not circumcised nor practiced it...he was very old when God gave him that instruction. If he was following the mosaic law, the would have circumcised his household when his sons were newborns and Abraham would have been one of those sons to be circumcised...but he wasnt. This proves the mosaic law of circumcision did not exist prior to Moses time.



Noahs animals were divided into clean and unclean based on what could be offered as a sacrifice...not based on what could and couldn't be eaten.
But it was only in the mosaic law where the dietary restrictions are found....prior, as i showed in the scripture above, Noah had permission to eat 'every' kind of animal.





Adam received no laws from God. Adam was disfellowshiped from Gods family. He was cast into the wilderness and in complete spiritual darkness. God did not communicate with him after he was expelled.

It was Able who chose to offer God a blood sacrifice... not Adam.

Ok, lets put on our thinking caps for a second. When YHVH told Adam:

“Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you."

Do you believe that this literally means every plant?? Surely Adam was not going around eating poisonous berries or poison ivy. Hyperbole is used throughout the Scriptures and it needs to be read in the proper context. Surely YHVH was saying that edible plants were to be food for Adam.

Now lets move forward to animals:

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Genesis 9:3

"Everything" is referring to the diet change from only plants to animals and plants! This is "everything" being mentioned. This does NOT mean that Noah was eating every animal. The very fact that he knew which ones were clean and unclean confirms this point. To suggest that these laws only pertained to sacrifices is completely unscriptural. There are numerous clean animals that are never to be used in a sacrifice.

Genesis 6:21: "And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.'"

 

[Simplelogic]

Much of YHVH's laws were given before Sinai. They were largely forgotten until YHVH had Moses right them down for the children of Israel. The whole notion of Abraham living in a dispensation without law is only found in Paul's writings. Abraham was considered righteous for keeping YHVH's commandments as I stated earlier.

 

[sojourner]

Much of YHVH's laws were given before Sinai. They were largely forgotten until YHVH had Moses right them down for the children of Israel. The whole notion of Abraham living in a dispensation without law is only found in Paul's writings. Abraham was considered righteous for keeping YHVH's commandments as I stated earlier.

You do, of course, understand that the whole Sinai thing is entirely mythic and not a historical occurrence?

 

[Simplelogic]

You do, of course, understand that the whole Sinai thing is entirely mythic and not a historical occurrence?

Actually Mt. Sinai has been found and the top part of it is still burnt. Please tell me why I should believe your baseless claim of it being a fairy tale? I am willing to listen to logic from anyone, but not baseless claims which have nothing to back them up.

 

[Prophet]

And the Lord said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes and be ready by the third day, because on that day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, ‘Be careful that you do not approach the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain is to be put to death. They are to be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on them. No person or animal shall be permitted to live.’ Only when the ram’s horn sounds a long blast may they approach the mountain.”

Putting all to death without question all those who possibly may have viewed how the fire on the mountain was fueled makes the "miracle" of God setting Sinai ablaze fairly easy to explain.

 

[sojourner]

Actually Mt. Sinai has been found and the top part of it is still burnt. Please tell me why I should believe your baseless claim of it being a fairy tale? I am willing to listen to logic from anyone, but not baseless claims which have nothing to back them up.

There is nothing in the archaeological record to indicate that there was ever either a group of Israelites in Egypt, or a mass migration across the Sinai Desert, or an incursion of a different culture into Israel. The whole thing is completely mythic and has no basis in history.

Logical, with the archaeological record at its base.

 

[Simplelogic]

And the Lord said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes and be ready by the third day, because on that day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, ‘Be careful that you do not approach the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain is to be put to death. They are to be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on them. No person or animal shall be permitted to live.’ Only when the ram’s horn sounds a long blast may they approach the mountain.”

Putting all to death without question all those who possibly may have viewed how the fire on the mountain was fueled makes the "miracle" of God setting Sinai ablaze fairly easy to explain.

You must not be familiar with the account "prophet". Your cover up theory doesn't hold any water. You have made an assumption here. Just because the rest of the Isrealites were not permitted to go up the mountain does not mean that they couldn't see the fire on the Mt Sinai for themselves.

And to the eyes of the sons of Israel the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a consuming fire on the mountain top. Ex 24:17

16And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled. 17And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. Ex 19:16-17

Nice theory.

 

[Simplelogic]

There is nothing in the archaeological record to indicate that there was ever either a group of Israelites in Egypt, or a mass migration across the Sinai Desert, or an incursion of a different culture into Israel. The whole thing is completely mythic and has no basis in history.

Logical, with the archaeological record at its base.

You are mistaken on this point.

 

[outhouse]

Ben Witherington's musings present 0 evidence that Lazarus wrote John. Witherington's selling books -- not engaging in in-depth scholastics.

I dislike him so much. He has a wealth of knowledge, but his bias steer's his work way to much.

 

[outhouse]

You are mistaken on this point.

Stop it


:biglaugh:

 

[nazz]

Did Paul corrupt the message of Jesus?

I wouldn't say that, no. But he may have held on to certain religious traditions that Jesus would not approve of.

 

[Sabour]

I wouldn't say that, no. But he may have held on to certain religious traditions that Jesus would not approve of.

Wait.

Jesus peace be upon taught that salvation was through belief and following the commandments. Paul said believe and you will go to heaven.

Jesus peace be upon said there is only one God. Paul made God equal to three.

I wouldn't say he came with somethings that Jesus peace be upon him wouldn't approve to. I would say he went completely in the opposite way.

 

[outhouse]

Much of YHVH's laws were given before Sinai. They were largely forgotten until YHVH had Moses right them down for the children of Israel. The whole notion of Abraham living in a dispensation without law is only found in Paul's writings. Abraham was considered righteous for keeping YHVH's commandments as I stated earlier.

Moses FACTUALLY has no historicity as ever existing.


Israelite's were never in Egypt, and evolved from displaced Canaanites.

There was no conquest, no exodus, and no Abraham.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved [77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period


Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures


Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, Finkelstein states in the same book that at the time proposed by most scientists for the Exodus, Egypt was at the peak of its glory, with a series of fortresses guarding the borders and checkpoints watching the roads to Canaan. That means an exodus of the scale described in the Torah would have been impossible.[33]

While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

 

[Simplelogic]

I wouldn't say that, no. But he may have held on to certain religious traditions that Jesus would not approve of.

Yet he claims he learned his doctrine from Jesus in his personal visions…hmm.

Here is one of Paul's pagan influences:

Kicks Against the Pricks

Euripides : "kicks against the pricks" (Euripides, Bacchae.)

Aeschylus:. "kicks against the pricks." (Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1624.)

Acts 26:13 "kicks against the pricks" (Luke quoting Paul's vision account)
Note on Euripides: The context is that Dionysus discards his divine nature and walks in the human world disguised…Dionysus, the god disguised in human form, tells him that his efforts to resist the new movement will be completely worthless; he is not contending against flesh and blood, but against a god. “You are mortal, he is a god. If I were you, I would control my rage and sacrifice to him, rather than kick against the pricks” [From Euripides, The Bacchae]. Source:

A. N. Wilson, Paul:The Mind of the Apostle (W. W. Norton & Co., N.Y., 1997), pp. 75-76.

 

[Simplelogic]

Here is another one:

'We are indeed His Offspring' and "in thee we live and move and have our being"
Aratus : "for we are indeed his offspring." (Aratus, Phenomenae / Phainomena 1-5)
Epimenides (6th Century BC): "for in thee we live and move and have our being." (About Zeus)
Acts 17:28 - Paul teaches: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

 

[outhouse]

. Paul made God equal to three.

.

Maybe you could show us exactly where Paul does this?

 

[Simplelogic]

And another:

'Cretans Are Always Liars'
Epimenides "the Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies...." (Epimenides, Cretica -- a poem scolding the Cretans for making a tomb to Zeus because Epimenides believed Zeus to be eternal.)

Titus 1:12 "One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own said, The Cretans [are] always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies...."

 

[Simplelogic]

One more:

First learn Piety at Home
Publius Terentius Afer (Terence) (Latin comedy writer) 190 BC: "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home." (Andria Act IV -- at this link pp 34-44.)

1 Tim 5:4 "But if any widow have children or nephews let them learn first to show piety at home"