Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

Then tell me which apostle had greater training in the law that Paul and we can compare them. Maybe Peter was actually reading the Torah to Gamaliel, when he should have been fishing.

You are a bit confused, Peter very well seemed to know all of the Torah.

What Rabbis like Gamaliel taught were particulars of a particular school, perhaps it was simply a series of embellishments.

I already gave one example and I have gotten no response

Requote or tell me what post number.

 

[1robin]

You are a bit confused, Peter very well seemed to know all of the Torah.

I'm confused? I never said Peter did not know the Torah. I said Paul was more highly educated in it and/or the law. I am quite sure all the apostles were competent in Judaism's texts.

What Rabbis like Gamaliel taught were particulars of a particular school, perhaps it was simply a series of embellishments.

That is quite speculative and would have too be exhaustingly prove to be relevant. No matter who taught anyone else they had their own peculiarities. Gamaliel has a great refutation as a scholar. I have even heard Jews claim he was at that time the greatest. Whatever the case Paul knew his business and you would have to show in detail that Gamaliel was wrong on everything and that Paul's entire education came from him which is not the case. I just used his name because he is well known and in most circles very well respected. I am sure he was not Paul's only teacher regardless.

Requote or tell me what post number.

I followed that back a bit but could not find what it was about and have forgotten. I guess it was not important.

 

[Shermana]

I think Jesus was messenger of God.

:clap

Have a cigar!

:cigar:

 

[Shermana]

Whatever the case Paul knew his business and you would have to show in detail that Gamaliel was wrong on everything and that Paul's entire education came from him which is not the case.

No, what you would have to prove is that being taught under Gamaliel makes one "More Jewish" than the rest.

 

[1robin]

No, what you would have to prove is that being taught under Gamaliel makes one "More Jewish" than the rest.

No, that was not the basis for my claim. It was not even part of it originally. I mentioned him later as addition detail but never as a foundation. However even if I did I would think you must show it was not a foundation as he is known as a respected teacher in general. You must show he taught the wrong thing to even begin the discussion. History records more information about Paul's education in Judaism than any other apostle. You could say it is unproven but you could not say the evidence is in favor of my claim.

 

[Shermana]

You are asking me to disprove a negative of sorts, you are asking me to prove something wrong that is not provably wrong because there is no falsifiable standard. You made an assertion that Paul is the "most Jewish" because he claims to have studied under Gamaliel as a basis of your point regarding why the Law is not binding to Christians. It is you who must back up the claim that studying under Gamaliel makes Paul "more Jewish", it is not my job to justify the idea of Gamaliel being wrong, it is you who must justify that being under a revered Pharisaical teacher makes one "more Jewish" and then you must justify how that position bolsters whatever it is you are trying to claim about Paul.

As far as I'm concerned, there's a decent reason to believe that Simon the Zealot, what little we know about him, was the Most Jewish of all.

 

[1robin]

You are asking me to disprove a negative of sorts, you are asking me to prove something wrong that is not provably wrong because there is no falsifiable standard. You made an assertion that Paul is the "most Jewish" because he claims to have studied under Gamaliel as a basis of your point regarding why the Law is not binding to Christians. It is you who must back up the claim that studying under Gamaliel makes Paul "more Jewish", it is not my job to justify the idea of Gamaliel being wrong, it is you who must justify that being under a revered Pharisaical teacher makes one "more Jewish" and then you must justify how that position bolsters whatever it is you are trying to claim about Paul.

As far as I'm concerned, there's a decent reason to believe that Simon the Zealot, what little we know about him, was the Most Jewish of all.

I claimed Paul the most educated in Judaism of the apostles because that is what history shows. I mentioned Gamaliel in a later post, I believe as an additional detail not a foundation. If you wish to over turn what I said based on what Gamaliel taught then you must show what he taught was not Judaism. I straightened out what I meant by "more Jewish" immediately after I said it. Why it is brought back up at this point is a mystery. Maybe semantics is the only tactic that promises any success at all. There is no reason Peter should be said to have more education in Judaism than Paul. I make no claim he was undereducated either. The Bible does record that he lost every disagreement with Paul. Where do you get what you claim about Peter anyway? I can't think of any verses that comment on his education in the law or Judaism in general. Regardless far more evidence exists for Paul's thorough education in Judaism than Peters. It also shows Paul's dedication to that law until Christ got a hold of him.

 

[Shermana]

Maybe semantics is the only tactic that promises any success at all.

Speak for yourself, what was the whole point of bringing up Paul in the first place?

 

[1robin]

Speak for yourself, what was the whole point of bringing up Paul in the first place?

A hostile witness's testimony is always counted more reliable than a sympathetic one. Paul at one time was as hostile to Christ and grace as it is possible to be. The same Paul later became the greatest apostle of them all (text or doctrine wise if in no other way). Paul's testimony means more than anyone's and was used as an argument against the rejection of Paul as all works salvation model folks try so hard to do. I asked you in another thread for the exact level of law abiding that produces salvation. I am anxious to get it and you can use either thread you wish to provide it. BTW my statement was about the position you took, not about you. The problem is the best debater or most knowledgeable scholar can't make wrong things right, even though they try their hearts out.

 

[challupa]

I claimed Paul the most educated in Judaism of the apostles because that is what history shows. I mentioned Gamaliel in a later post, I believe as an additional detail not a foundation. If you wish to over turn what I said based on what Gamaliel taught then you must show what he taught was not Judaism. I straightened out what I meant by "more Jewish" immediately after I said it. Why it is brought back up at this point is a mystery. Maybe semantics is the only tactic that promises any success at all. There is no reason Peter should be said to have more education in Judaism than Paul. I make no claim he was undereducated either. The Bible does record that he lost every disagreement with Paul. Where do you get what you claim about Peter anyway? I can't think of any verses that comment on his education in the law or Judaism in general. Regardless far more evidence exists for Paul's thorough education in Judaism than Peters. It also shows Paul's dedication to that law until Christ got a hold of him.

Paul sold tents. How much education does that take?

 

[Shermana]

A hostile witness's testimony is always counted more reliable than a sympathetic one. Paul at one time was as hostile to Christ and grace as it is possible to be. The same Paul later became the greatest apostle of them all (text or doctrine wise if in no other way). Paul's testimony means more than anyone's and was used as an argument against the rejection of Paul as all works salvation model folks try so hard to do. I asked you in another thread for the exact level of law abiding that produces salvation. I am anxious to get it and you can use either thread you wish to provide it. BTW my statement was about the position you took, not about you. The problem is the best debater or most knowledgeable scholar can't make wrong things right, even though they try their hearts out.

Actually, Paul was very much about your works being the basis for salvation, he was very clear that those who engage in naughty behaviors will not be inheriting the Kingdom, it is the anti-works folk who seem to conveniently forget that and they will likely be conveniently forgotten when it's time to judge their deeds and they say "WAIT PAUL SAID YOUR WORKS DON'T MATTER" and the gatekeepers said "NEXT LIFE TRY ACTUALLY READING PAUL!". But that's another subject.

As for what level your law obedience is required, it's not quite what you think. Each sin you commit and don't atone for, in my interpretation as well as is my basis from certain books that "Orthodox" Christians are instructed to not regard as canonical, will cause you to be punished temporarily. Your righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom. Doers of Lawlessness will be rejected. To be free from a temporary stay in the nightmarish hell of Purgatory in between your lives, you must be clean as a whistle so to speak. And thus the purpose of this existence is to incarnate until we live completely pious lives, worthy of existence in the New Jerusalem so that we will not sustain it with lawlessness and the filth of gentile ways.

 

[1robin]

Actually, Paul was very much about your works being the basis for salvation, he was very clear that those who engage in naughty behaviors will not be inheriting the Kingdom, it is the anti-works folk who seem to conveniently forget that and they will likely be conveniently forgotten when it's time to judge their deeds and they say "WAIT PAUL SAID YOUR WORKS DON'T MATTER" and the gatekeepers said "NEXT LIFE TRY ACTUALLY READING PAUL!". But that's another subject.

Since we all engage in them including you then you have made salvation impossible. I can't believe you are saying the man who said this believes works are the basis for anything;
Ephesians 2:8-9

New International Version (NIV)

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV - For it is by grace you have been saved, - Bible Gateway

Since you did not separate Paul from the Bible the only course left is to separate him from this and most of his books. No apostle or Biblical author wrote more on grace than Paul by many times over. If grace means anything at all it means receiving what no one merits by works.

As for what level your law obedience is required, it's not quite what you think. Each sin you commit and don't atone for, in my interpretation as well as is my basis from certain books that "Orthodox" Christians are instructed to not regard as canonical, will cause you to be punished temporarily. Your righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom. Doers of Lawlessness will be rejected. To be free from a temporary stay in the nightmarish hell of Purgatory in between your lives, you must be clean as a whistle so to speak. And thus the purpose of this existence is to incarnate until we live completely pious lives, worthy of existence in the New Jerusalem so that we will not sustain it with lawlessness and the filth of gentile ways.

Ok then can you post the exact level of righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees so we may determine if we exceed it? We are all doers of lawlessness and all fall short so that is out. I have never heard a non-Catholic bring up purgatory. Do you subscribe to the transition zone where some must pay for some ambiguous set of sins before they can get to heaven? Pray tell what is the standard of a completely pious life and who has ever reached it? I have to get. Have a good one.

 

[1robin]

Paul sold tents. How much education does that take?

Paul was a tent maker and he was highly educated in the law and Judaism. The evidence suggest more highly educated than any other apostle and almost all Jews.

 

[Shermana]

Didn't we already go over the Ephesians issue? Was likely not written by Paul. Learn your Bible scholarship. There is more reason to doubt Ephesians than any other of the Pauline Epistles in terms of Authorship.

Otherwise, you're basically arguing for one verse of one epistle to trump and negate and nullify everything else Paul says on the matter.

You lose either way.

 

[Muffled]

]I would suggest that Jesus probably didn't come to start a new religion but instead to try and reform Judaism [/COLOR]along the lines he felt were important by creating his own school, which others had also done in the past. Therefore, I would also suggest that if Judaism is somehow to be disregarded, then maybe Jesus was a failure by creating a new religion that he probably didn't want to create in the first place. After all, remember he said he came "only for the Jews".

I don't believe this to be so. I beleive He knew in advance that Judaism is not easily transported to other cultures and Christianty would be.

 

[Muffled]

God created the world using the Logos, the First Created Being as his vehicle, this is Proverbs 8:22, "Wisdom" is the usual translation but it is most definitely referring to the actual incarnation of God's word as the Targums imply, not just some fancy poetic metaphor, but an actual being that comes up referenced in several other works as an actual live spirit of sorts.

John 1:1 says the Logos is God not a created being.

 

[Muffled]

Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work

The implication is that the authority to work on the Sabbath is the same for Jesus and The Father because they are one.

 

[metis]

But God rested on the Sabbath.

 

[1robin]

Didn't we already go over the Ephesians issue? Was likely not written by Paul. Learn your Bible scholarship. There is more reason to doubt Ephesians than any other of the Pauline Epistles in terms of Authorship.

Otherwise, you're basically arguing for one verse of one epistle to trump and negate and nullify everything else Paul says on the matter.

You lose either way.

I do not recall going over anything. You seemed to suggest you do not link Paul with Ephesian's but IMO that is just another tactic to get rid of Paul that is not as overt. The overwhelming majority of scholars link him with the book. In fact the only book that has well known reasonable doubts about it's author is Hebrew's I believe. That is kind of weird because Hebrews is the most textually accurate book in the NT. I am in no way what so ever limited to that one verse to defend Paul's' extreme commitment to grace which is why so many works people try their hardest to get rid of Paul altogether. I will get into that but wanted answers to my questions concerning the level of obedience that is required by Judaism, first.

 

[Shermana]

To insist Ephesians is 100% guaranteed to have been written by Paul when 80% of scholars, even conservative scholars say otherwise, is a tactic of desparation to avoid intellectual consensus on an issue and expect one to go by the same blind faith you do on the issue. I don't know where you got the idea that the majority of scholars link him to it. According to Raymond Brown, one of the top most authorities on the issues, his count was that 80% don't. Please double check your sources. I can provide links saying Ephesians is mostly doubted, can you do the same with your position?

Either way, you cannot use Ephesians 2:8-9 to completely contradict and overturn and trump and negate virtually everything else Paul says on the issue.