Has Saint Paul hijacked Christianity?

[Ben Avraham]

There is nobody who can unriddle this paradox...simply because it's just one of the many contradictions of the Pauline theology. But if someone is able to find a single passage in the entire Old Testament, which speaks about Mary, and says that the Messiah would have been born from a virgin...I will acknowledge I am wrong.

As I said, I acknowledge there are lots of beautiful Christian-like passages in his epistles.
Nevertheless, if we analyze the two Epistles to the Corinthians, it is clear that Paul is not able to hide his antipathy towards the Greek culture, that he judges totally corrupt and characterized by immorality.
I think I can empathize with those Greeks, in whose minds the concept of sexual morality didn't even exist (and had never existed in their culture). So therefore, it must have been traumatic to them, to be strictly reproached and shamed by a Jewish person, who took for granted that certain things are to be considered immoral.
We can't even deny that the Hellenistic culture (at that time) was very open-minded and slightly oriented towards a revaluation of the woman's role. So...I am totally sure that Paul's openly misogynistic statements must have disoriented those Corinthians.

You are right. No one can find a passage in the Tanach about Mary which refers to Jesus as born of a virgin. Fist, because there is nothing in the NT that can be found in the Tanach and second, the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is about the Fall of the
virgin aka Israel if you read Amos 5:2 and the birth of the child called Emmanuel which is a reference by name to Judah as that child born of the virgin Israel. (Isaiah 7:14,15, 22; 8:8) Prophecies cannot be interpreted literally.

 

[Kenny]

You are right. No one can find a passage in the Tanach about Mary which refers to Jesus as born of a virgin. Fist, because there is nothing in the NT that can be found in the Tanach and second, the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is about the Fall of the
virgin aka Israel if you read Amos 5:2 and the birth of the child called Emmanuel which is a reference by name to Judah as that child born of the virgin Israel. (Isaiah 7:14,15, 22; 8:8) Prophecies cannot be interpreted literally.

And yet, so many Jewish people during the era of Jesus DID believe that it was a fulfilling of prophecy. Go figure that there are differences of viewpoints.

 

[metis]

There was a letter that was written to three women without punctuation about which one he wanted as a wife. The three added the punctuation, each reading into it what they wanted to see--having him pick her. He added the punctuation as it actually was... none of them.

We interpret what we want to read... and I don't find a contradiction but rather a harmony.

OF COURSE, I read it the right way.

Except in my case I have no irons in the fire since I'm not Christian, so I'm absolutely totally 100% objective! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

 

[metis]

BTW, when I was a teenager growing up in a fundamentalist Protestant church (or at least trying to), my parents got me the book "Harmony of the Gospels" whereas the narratives were compared word-for-word and side-by-side to show that they matched, but what repeatedly caught my attention was the fact that very often they didn't match.

 

[Desert Snake]

The Pauline Paradox

When Paul started preaching about Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, he never realized that he had created a huge paradox.

You see, for Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to be a biological son of Joseph's, who was the one from the Tribe of Judah, whose Tribe the Messiah was supposed to come from. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. She was of the family of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron the Levite. (Luke 1:5,36)

Since Jesus is also claimed to be the son of God, he could not be the Messiah, because God is not subject to human genealogies.

On the other hand, if Christians decided to grab the chance of at least to make of Jesus the Messiah by agreeing to drop the tale of the virgin birth, and to admit that he was indeed Joseph's biological son, he could not be son of God; and here the situation would get worse because even the doctrine of the Trinity would collapse.

That's indeed a huge paradox that can be accepted only by faith, which requires no explanation. But then again, where faith begins, knowledge ends. And for lack of knowledge, People perish. (Hosea 4:6)

Now, if there is anyone out there with enough wisdom to unriddle this paradox, I'll be more than happy to take my hat off to him or her. If not, the Sphynx will keep waiting patiently beside the Egyptian pyramids for the passers-by.

Good luck!

Because you are of the Jewish religion, i do not expect you to agree with my /religious adherence,,
however..
there is no ''Pauline Paradox''
The paradox is encountered from your own faulty interpretation, of the Scripture, and your //differing religious concepts

 

[Desert Snake]

BTW, when I was a teenager growing up in a fundamentalist Protestant church (or at least trying to), my parents got me the book "Harmony of the Gospels" whereas the narratives were compared word-for-word and side-by-side to show that they matched, but what repeatedly caught my attention was the fact that very often they didn't match.

John 18:36 /Jesus's Kingdom
Matthew 28: 18 /Jesus's authority
2 Timothy 4:1 /Jesus's Kingdom

Really?...
The deity of Jesus clearly matches the Epistles, and ultimately, that is what is being 'argued', whether directly, or indirectly, in this thread /obviously

 

[metis]

John 18:36 /Jesus's Kingdom
Matthew 28: 18 /Jesus's authority
2 Timothy 4:1 /Jesus's Kingdom

Really?...
The deity of Jesus clearly matches the Epistles, and ultimately, that is what is being 'argued', whether directly, or indirectly, in this thread /obviously

What does this have to do what I posted, which was centered on Paul? The general question in the OP is whether Paul's writings match what Jesus taught?

On top of that, there are many variations found within the gospels themselves, which is what I posted last. How you responded above doesn't match what I was posting nor what the point of the OP is about.

 

[Desert Snake]

What does this have to do what I posted, which was centered on Paul? The general question in the OP is whether Paul's writings match what Jesus taught?

They are 'different' teachings, because there is no need to write the same thing twice. Why would you expect them to be exactly the same? The point is, there aren't contradictions.

 

[metis]

They are 'different' teachings, because there is no need to write the same thing twice. Why would you expect them to be exactly the same? The point is, there aren't contradictions.

OK, an exercise for you: How many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where were he/they located, what did he/they say, and how did the women at the tomb respond? To save you some time, no two gospels agree. Check them out if you don't believe me.

BTW, I didn't use the term "contradictions", instead using the "didn't match" instead, which is clearly obvious if you'd spend some time checking it out for yourself.

 

[Desert Snake]

The general question in the OP is whether Paul's writings match what Jesus taught?

The original premise isn't presenting what Paul taught. It's presenting bad interpretations /that contradict each other, and a fictional theory as to why those ''teachings'', /not actually what is being taught,, are not matching to the Gospels, or what Jesus taught in the Gospels. The entire premise is wrong, to begin with. This is why it matters to know ''what'' you're arguing, before you present arguments

 

[Desert Snake]

BTW, I didn't use the term "contradictions", instead using the "didn't match" instead, which is clearly obvious if you'd spend some time checking it out for yourself.

There's a big difference.
pizza/hotdog : contradiction
pizza/ pepperoni pizza: not a exact ''match''/
hmmm

 

[metis]

The original premise isn't presenting what Paul taught. It's presenting bad interpretations /that contradict each other, and a fictional theory as to why those ''teachings'', /not actually what is being taught,, are not matching to the Gospels, or what Jesus taught in the Gospels. The entire premise is wrong, to begin with. This is why it matters to know ''what'' you're arguing, before you present arguments

There are several things brought up in the OP, not just the above, and even some Christian theologians have speculated that Paul may have gone too far on some, but certainly not all, of his teachings. I don't share that opinion but some definitely have it nevertheless. In order for you to understand where I'm coming from on this you need to go back and read my post #31.

 

[metis]

There's a big difference.
pizza/hotdog : contradiction
pizza/ pepperoni pizza: not a exact ''match''/
hmmm

It is if it says "pepperoni pizza" versus "plain pizza".

Anyhow, I betcha didn't check out these variations at Jesus' tomb as found in the gospels. And there are plenty more variations found within the scriptures.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is if it says "pepperoni pizza" versus "plain pizza".

Anyhow, I betcha didn't check out these variations at Jesus' tomb as found in the gospels. And there are plenty more variations found within the scriptures.

I'm going to , not a problem

 

[Ben Avraham]

And yet, so many Jewish people during the era of Jesus DID believe that it was a fulfilling of prophecy. Go figure that there are differences of viewpoints.

Sorry Ken but, there is not a single prophecy in the Tanach that finds fulfillment in the NT. I guarantee you what I am saying. You have all the right in the world to test what I am saying by mentioning any thing in the Tanach
which you believe has found fulfillmet in the NT. I'll be more than happy to show you what the reference is pointing to.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Because you are of the Jewish religion, i do not expect you to agree with my /religious adherence,,
however..there is no ''Pauline Paradox'' The paradox is encountered from your own faulty interpretation, of the Scripture, and your //differing religious concepts

One does not have to be religious at all to understand Logic. Paul claimed that Jesus was the Messiah even knowing that he was not a biological son of Joseph which was the one from the Tribe of Judah.
To be the Messiah, one must be from the Tribe of Judah and the genealogical tree applies only to those who are biologically related to a father from that Tribe. If Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph, he
could not have been the Messiah. That's a paradox. You cannot bake your cake and eat it too.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Because you are of the Jewish religion, i do not expect you to agree with my /religious adherence,,
however..
there is no ''Pauline Paradox''
The paradox is encountered from your own faulty interpretation, of the Scripture, and your //differing religious concepts

I think the paradox may have been that he was hated on two sides not just one, as for someone stating that he didn't fight philosophies of some of the pagan world that might mean drown your kid or something, maybe he didn't,he just pushed in Jesus tried to wipe their mind clean from it, and told them how to get along. I don't think he had any idea that these pagan philosophies would contradict them themselves, or maybe he did that's why he started contradicting himself. He taught freedom in grace but they want more? They want rules in church Or were they creating more drama?. Paul did kind of skip a little on me. really...Yes he had a serious thorn in his side because of the things that were going on and the other-side with some of the Judaic counsel he preferred to convince at times listening at times condemning the truth with themselves with some points of knowledge and then the pagan side getting all out of control. In that whole midsection of strife;I think even if he would, he would have preferred to just preach to the jews (not after saul to paul) maybe Ouw roo, like a twister I was born to walk a lone, walking down the only road I've ever known; That's what I kinda see..So its as if that's what I see; a little happening here and there and at the same time it's kind of like a bit leavened the lump from two sides. Because it's usually within the "body" that leavening of the scribes and Pharisees come about. How then is it interpreted grace to freedom, to rules, to this how one should lay down his life or go about and act. Paul did have some believing as well as others. So he did have a paradox between differing sects. I don't always agree or feel within the grace God I have to nitpick myself down to just Paul's words if anything, there are still some noticing points he made towards things and contradictions. He didn't explain in great detail like the mysteries, so does one rely on what philosophies or interruptions of ancients to pagan practices or beliefs and even in some Judaic principles? I would have my head in the clouds (fun for a moment) or drunk on I don't even know what so I'll just go back to Jesus beware of the leavening of the herods, scribes, and Pharisees. Cheers. Technically everybody scribes leads or judges partially even so I'll take that soberly back to Jesus Christ in Him, Cheers again and no wolf.

 

[Ben Avraham]

BTW, when I was a teenager growing up in a fundamentalist Protestant church (or at least trying to), my parents got me the book "Harmony of the Gospels" whereas the narratives were compared word-for-word and side-by-side to show that they matched, but what repeatedly caught my attention was the fact that very often they didn't match.

You are right. Myself, I have published a book about the Contradictions of the NT and I found material for 210 pages. To come up with a book as "Harmony of the Gospels" , no offense meant but, it is a joke.
All one needs is to read the NT without Christian preconceived notions.

 

[Kenny]

Except in my case I have no irons in the fire since I'm not Christian, so I'm absolutely totally 100% objective! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

ROFL - I like it when people are fully confident... even when they are wrong.

Always enjoying your presentation and humor.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry Ken but, there is not a single prophecy in the Tanach that finds fulfillment in the NT. I guarantee you what I am saying. You have all the right in the world to test what I am saying by mentioning any thing in the Tanach
which you believe has found fulfillmet in the NT. I'll be more than happy to show you what the reference is pointing to.

It would be like many scientists... both looking at the same evidence and coming to two different conclusions. In the book of Matthew, they are easily more than a dozen places that says "that it might be fulfilled".