Jewish Messiah

[Eli G]

Only if Paul/Saul's testimony in Acts 26 is interpreted as being untruthful.

I don't see how that is so.

No, there were no Christians at that time.

Saul persecuted the followers of Jesus Christ, so in that sense Christians, even if they weren't using that title at that moment. A few months later, they were called Christians.

Acts 22 contradicts Acts 26 because in Acts 26 Saul isn't told to go to Damascus but instead is told that he is to be a minister and witness when his actual role was to bear the name and to suffer.

I don't see what is the problem you think is in the fact that Saul had to go first to Damasco as Jesus said to him to do first... and later do his bigger mission.

Do you think that was the only time Jesus told Paul what to do? (Read Acts 18:9,10; 23:11 ...).

 

[paarsurrey]

The biblical account is clear:

1) Saul was sent by the Pharisees to Damascus to persecute Christians there.

Acts 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threat and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that he might bring bound to Jerusalem any whom he found who belonged to The Way, both men and women.
... 22:4 I persecuted this Way to the point of death, binding and handing over to prisons both men and women, 5 as the high priest and all the assembly of elders can bear witness. From them I also obtained letters to the brothers in Damascus, and I was on my way to bring those who were there in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished.

2) Saul was "getting near to Damascus" on his anti-Christian mission when Jesus appeared to him.

Acts 9:3 Now as he was traveling and getting near Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him
... 22:6 But as I was traveling and getting near to Damascus, about midday, suddenly out of heaven a great light flashed all around me ...

3) Jesus told Saul to go to Damascus, his previous destination, and that there he must do certain things.

Acts 22:10 At that I said: ‘What should I do, Lord?’ The Lord said to me: ‘Rise, go into Damascus, and there you will be told about everything it is appointed for you to do.’

4) Saul met Ananias, was baptized and remained preaching Jesus in Damascus for a time, confusing the Jews who already knew him as a persecutor of Christians.

Acts 9:8 Saul then got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. (...) 19 (...) He stayed for some days with the disciples in Damascus, 20 and immediately in the synagogues he began to preach about Jesus, that this one is the Son of God. 21 But all those hearing him were astonished and were saying: “Is this not the man who ravaged those in Jerusalem who call on this name? Did he not come here for the purpose of arresting them and taking them to the chief priests?” 22 But Saul kept on acquiring more and more power and was confounding the Jews who lived in Damascus, as he proved logically that this is the Christ.
... 26:19 Therefore, King Agrippa, I did not become disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but to those in Damascus first (...)

The event in which Jesus tells Saul to continue on his way to where he was going, Damascus, is only recorded in Acts. 22:10, but it does not contradict at all the rest of the story according to the other biblical accounts. Rather, it explains to us why Paul continued to Damascus instead of returning to Jerusalem where he had come from.

" Saul was sent by the Pharisees to Damascus to persecute Christians there "
Friends @rosends , @Clear , @IndigoChild5559 , @Ebionite

And didn't he (Saul/Paul) continue that mission firmly even afterwards in a more clever way, and by faking a vision to defraud the credulous "Christians" better to be called Paulines rather than "Christians", right??

Regards

 

[Eli G]

" Saul was sent by the Pharisees to Damascus to persecute Christians there "

And didn't he (Saul/Paul) continue that mission firmly even afterwards in a more clever way,

Paul himself was persecuted as a Christian.

and by faking a vision to defraud the credulous "Christians"

Paul's haters invention.

better to be called Paulines rather than "Christians", right??

According to you: was Peter Christian or Pauline (whatever you think that is)?

2 Pet. 3:15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Ebionite]

I don't see how that is so.

Idolatry is associated with blindness. Isaiah 53 is referenced here, which is about the righteous servant of Psalm 35, not the slain lamb of the book of Revelation.

That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
John 12:38-40

Saul persecuted the followers of Jesus Christ, so in that sense Christians, even if they weren't using that title at that moment. A few months later, they were called Christians.

No, only the followers at Antioch were called Christians.

 

[Ebionite]

And didn't he (Saul/Paul) continue that mission firmly even afterwards in a more clever way, and by faking a vision to defraud the credulous "Christians" better to be called Paulines rather than "Christians", right??

It's quite possible that Paul's reported visions were due to mental illness.

And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
Acts 26:24

Christianity is also associated with the teachings of the Messiah.

 

[Eli G]

No, only the followers at Antioch were called Christians.

Are you serious?

Acts 11:26 and, after he found him, he brought him to Antioch. It thus came about that for a whole year they gathered together with them in the congregation and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.

Reading comprehension ... Keywords and expressions:

FIRST means there was a later;

The disciples means that word was aplied to ALL DISCIPLES everywhere.

So, there you are: first there at that moment and everywhere after that to all disciples.

 

[Eli G]

It's quite possible that Paul's reported visions were due to mental illness.

It's quite possible that any of the forumers here say what they say due to mental illness.

Have a wonderful weekend.

 

[Ebionite]

Are you serious?

Yes. the term Christain was a derogatory one, which was associated with the Hellenistic culture of Antioch.

The disciples means that word was aplied to ALL DISCIPLES everywhere.

No, some of the disciples were called Ebionites. They were called Christians retrospectively by the Church Fathers.

 

[Ebionite]

It's quite possible that any of the forumers here say what they say due to mental illness.

Mental illness is associated with idolatry, and the accommodation of idolatrous practices was a feature of the early church.

 

[Clear]

CLEAR SAID : "

1) EBIONITES UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM LACKS IMPORTANT SUPPORT

@Eli G said : “12 While doing this as I was traveling to Damascus with authority and a commission from the chief priests ..” (post #428)

@Ebionite replied : “You haven't shown anything from Acts 26 which describes how Paul was told to go Damascus by Jesus as is described in Acts 9 and Acts 22”

So, to be clear, your unsubstantiated claim rests on the fact that in Lukes’ Narrative, Luke does not report to King Agripa that Paul was sent to Damascus when the King already knows Paul was sent to Damascus by the Jews to persecute the Christians when the King already knows Paul was sent to, going to and found IN Damascus when the Jews accosted Paul and his controversy with the Jews started?

Really?

Why would Luke even need to include that detail in his telling of the story of Paul?

What would be the necessity for Luke?



2) THE FACT THAT EBIONITES UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM LACKS SUPPORT MEANS THIS CLAIM, LIKE THE OTHERS, CAN BE DISMISSED UNLESS HE CAN OFFER SUPPORT FOR IT.

While the last two parts of Ebionites claim have been debunked in posts #425 and #426, the third portion of his claim fairs no better.
Without some sort of rational and logical support for Ebionites, claim, it remains an illogical and silly claim with unintended consequences.

For examples :

A) Ebionites unsubstantiated claim does not even distinguish between Paul who did not write the text Ebionite quotes from and the author of the text. Ebionite has not told us why he blames Paul instead of the author of the text he criticizes.
The goal seems to simply be to criticize Paul.

b) Ebionites unsubstantiated claim incorrectly equates an omission in the early story in Acts 9 with a more detailed version in Acts 26 as a lie but does not equate his own various omissions and later detailed discussion with lying.

Why is Paul a liar because of a simply omission in the text but not Ebionite when he does the same thing?

This Ebionites unsubstantiated claim refuses to answer the question as to why Lukes' omission make Paul a liar but Ebionites MANY omissions does not make Ebionite a Liar?

C) Ebionites unsubstantiated claim that equates textual omissions in the sacred text with lying creates a rule that catches many, many other prophets in it’s net and makes them liars and "false witnesses” (his definition) as well.

For example, Ebionites creation of this “rule” means Moses is a false prophet and Abraham, etc.

D) Ebionite (so far) refuses to explain why his criteria only applies to Paul.

G) Ebionites unsubstantiated claim relies on the silly assumption that Annanias only spoke 33 words to Paul and no more (NIV) during the “several days” Paul spends with the disciples in Damascus.
Is there anyone in the forum who actually believes this assumption that no other discussion took place between Paul and Annanias and the other disciples during these "several days"?

Anyone?

Unless Ebionite can substantiate his unsubstantiated claim, the claim can be dismissed out of hand as a modern version of what the Jews did anciently :

When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy. They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him. (Acts 13:45)

But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers. (Acts 14:2)


Ebionite. Your refusal to offer any rational and logical answers to such questions (so far) is good evidence that you have no real rational and logical data to support your claim. This is the fifth strike out in a row for you.


DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE THE DATA AND SUPPORT FOR THIS SPECIFIC CLAIM EBIONITE IS MAKING THAT EBIONITE LACKS?

Does anyone else in the forum believe in Ebionites unsubstantiated claim enough to try to answer the questions Ebionite was asked but refused to answer?" (POST #432)



Ebionte replied : "The substance of the claim is that: "Acts 26 and Acts 9 differ as to who told Paul what he was to do, where he was told, and what he was told." (POST #434)


I agree with you that the ONLY substance to your claim is that Luke adds details to the narrative in Acts 26 that he did not mention in Acts 9.

However, since this is the ONLY "substance" and your claim produces many more problems that it answers and you cannot (or have refused to) answer the questions your claim creates. Readers also note that no one (so far) believes your claim enough to try to offer any other data as support and no other reader has tried to support your claim, then as far as I can tell, your claim is a "dead horse" and does not need to be beaten any further if you don't actually have any other data to support your claim than to simply repeat over and over that one narrative offers details omitted in another.

So, if there is no other support than your claim, I don't see a reason to beat this dead horse and am perfectly satisfied if readers come to a conclusion based on the data they now have. Since your claim has gone nowhere, I think I will switch to the thread dealing with "where are the dead" in the biblical debates thread.

In any case Ebionite, I hope your own spiritual journey is enlightening and wonderful.

Clear
μνεν νε μ

 

[Ebionite]

UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM

From my #440:

Acts 22 contradicts Acts 26 because in Acts 26 Saul isn't told to go to Damascus but instead is told that he is to be a minister and witness when his actual role was to bear the name and to suffer.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Eli G and @Ebionite

1) THE CLAIM THAT CHRISTIANS DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE CONVERSION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL (Saul)

Eli G said ; 1) Saul was sent by the Pharisees to Damascus to persecute Christians there. (post 435)

Ebionite replied : "No, there were no Christians at that time." (post #440)

I just wanted to make a single historical correction. Eli G is correct in his point and Ebionite is (once again) in error.

Ebionite claims there were no Christians at that time but (obviously), there were. Ebionite concluded from Acts 11:26 that there were no Christians before Antioch, but that is NOT what the scripture says.

The text says : And it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians,” (Acts 11:26). While Christianity existed, the Christians were not CALLED christians. This text does not tell us no Christians existed, merely that they were not CALLED Christians. The verb χρηματίζω in this sentence (i.e. to be called) does not mean "coming into existence", but instead means to "be called" or "taking a name from".

It seems that ebionite simply and erroneously misinterpreted this text in creating this specific theory.


2) THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CLAIM THAT A FORM OF CHRISTIANITY EXISTED BEFORE CHRIST (i.e. a Messiah/Christ was expected long before the sect ocalled Rabbinic Judaism existed)

If the early Jahwistic religious literature (e.g. 1 enoch, etc) and the early Judeo-Christian literature (e.g. Testament of Adam) are correct, then "Christianity" existed long, long, long before the sect known as rabbinic Judaism (i.e. hasmonean period) even existed.



Clear (μ&μ σινετιω)

 

[Ebionite]

I just wanted to make a single historical correction. Eli G is correct in his point and Ebionite is (once again) in error

I'm not in error. Christianity got it's name from the Hellenised doctrine that was being taught by Paul. The disciples never called themselves Christians, and that name was derogatory for those disciples who rejected the accommodation toward foreign power that Paul supported.

And I wasn't in error before, unless you think that quoting the KJV is a mistake.

OTOH your error is the repeated failure to acknowledge the facts about Paul's lie to Agrippa about his role, which was to make the name known per Acts 9. not to be a minister and witness as he said in Acts 26.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And I wasn't in error before, unless you think that quoting the KJV is a mistake.

You might want to consider using a better translation.

 

[paarsurrey]

Christianity got it's name from the Hellenised doctrine that was being taught by Paul.

I rated our friend @Ebionite's post as winner for the above sentence, Paul never became a follower of the truthful Israelite Messiah, as I understand, instead he tried and converted the credulous to his religion of Hellenism- who already believed "dying, rising and atoning deity" just using the nomenclature of "Christ" and "Christianity", I understand, please, right?

Regards
_______________
"A dying-and-rising, death-rebirth, or resurrection deity is a religious motif in which a god or goddess dies and is resurrected.[1][2][3][4] Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the ancient Near East. "

Dying-and-rising god - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I rated our friend @Ebionite's post as winner for the above sentence, Paul never became a follower of the truthful Israelite Messiah, as I understand, instead he tried and converted the credulous to his religion of Hellenism- who already believed "dying, rising and atoning deity" just using the nomenclature of "Christ" and "Christianity", I understand, please, right?

Regards
_______________
"A dying-and-rising, death-rebirth, or resurrection deity is a religious motif in which a god or goddess dies and is resurrected.[1][2][3][4] Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the ancient Near East. "

Dying-and-rising god - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's really more complicated than that. In the earliest days of Christianity, there was more than one group. You had Nazarenes, Jewish believers in Jesus who continued practicing Judaism (including sacrifices). You had Marcionites (long story, you can google it). You had Gnostics (matter is evil, spirit is good, esoteric knowledge will save you). And you had what I will call the proto-Catholic/Orthodox group that was established by Paul. In time, only the proto-Catholic/Orthodox group would survive --- all the rest disappeared.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Eli G and @Ebionite

1) DID CHRISTIANS EXIST BEFORE THEY WERE CALLED "CHRISTIANS"?

Clear said :
1) THE CLAIM THAT CHRISTIANS DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE CONVERSION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL (Saul)

Eli G said ; 1) Saul was sent by the Pharisees to Damascus to persecute Christians there. (post 435)

Ebionite replied : "No, there were no Christians at that time." (post #440)

I just wanted to make a single historical correction. Eli G is correct in his point and Ebionite is (once again) in error.

Ebionite claims there were no Christians at that time but (obviously), there were. Ebionite concluded from Acts 11:26 that there were no Christians before Antioch, but that is NOT what the scripture says.

The text says : And it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians,” (Acts 11:26). While Christianity existed, the Christians were not CALLED christians. This text does not tell us no Christians existed, merely that they were not CALLED Christians. The verb χρηματίζω in this sentence (i.e. to be called) does not mean "coming into existence", but instead means to "be called" or "taking a name from".

It seems that ebionite simply and erroneously misinterpreted this text in creating this specific theory. (post #453)



Ebionite responded : “I'm not in error. Christianity got it's name from the Hellenised doctrine that was being taught by Paul.” (post #453)




2) REGARDING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PAUL WAS SENT TO PERSECUTE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT EXIST OR WAS HE SENT TO PERSECUTE A PEOPLE WHO DID EXIST ?

Of course your claim that Christians did not exist at the time Paul was sent to persecute them is a silly, illogical, error or a semantic game.

WHERE the name of a thing (or group) comes from is irrelevant to the EXISTENCE of a thing (or a group).

Acts 11:26 does not indicate that “there were no Christians” at the time Paul was sent to Damascus, merely that they were given a specific name. Disciples who believed in Christ existed, and Paul was sent to persecute these people who existed.

It is illogical to claim Paul had been persecuting individuals who did not exist (such as Stephen) and was sent to persecute other similar people who did not exist. .

Ebionite, If you claim a non-existent people were named Christians in Antioch, where is your data and what is your logic?


Clear
μνε νε μ

 

[Ebionite]

I rated our friend @Ebionite's post as winner for the above sentence, Paul never became a follower of the truthful Israelite Messiah, as I understand, instead he tried and converted the credulous to his religion of Hellenism- who already believed "dying, rising and atoning deity" just using the nomenclature of "Christ" and "Christianity", I understand, please, right?

Regards
_______________
"A dying-and-rising, death-rebirth, or resurrection deity is a religious motif in which a god or goddess dies and is resurrected.[1][2][3][4] Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the ancient Near East. "

Dying-and-rising god - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks for that. Apart for his encounter on the road to Damascus, Paul's claim to having received doctrine for Jesus wasn't witnessed by any anyone else in the Bible and could have been due to mental illness. In Acts 26 Festus describes Paul as being mad.

Paul, along with the other Pharisees, were politically aligned with accommodating foreign influence in Judea. This contrasted with the region of Galilee which was known for its nationalism.

Tammuz is mentioned in the Bible is the context of the abomination of women weeping for Tammuz in the temple.

The resurrection doctrine is problematic for Christianity because the prophetic Psalms 35, 69, and 109 which are referenced in relation to religious prejudice describe the righteous servant and the crucified very differently. The righteous servant is described as being jubilant while the crucified man has very low self esteem.

 

[Ebionite]

Hi @Eli G and @Ebionite

1) DID CHRISTIANS EXIST BEFORE THEY WERE CALLED "CHRISTIANS"?

Clear said :
1) THE CLAIM THAT CHRISTIANS DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE CONVERSION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL (Saul)

Eli G said ; 1) Saul was sent by the Pharisees to Damascus to persecute Christians there. (post 435)

Ebionite replied : "No, there were no Christians at that time." (post #440)

I just wanted to make a single historical correction. Eli G is correct in his point and Ebionite is (once again) in error.

Ebionite claims there were no Christians at that time but (obviously), there were. Ebionite concluded from Acts 11:26 that there were no Christians before Antioch, but that is NOT what the scripture says.

The text says : And it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians,” (Acts 11:26). While Christianity existed, the Christians were not CALLED christians. This text does not tell us no Christians existed, merely that they were not CALLED Christians. The verb χρηματίζω in this sentence (i.e. to be called) does not mean "coming into existence", but instead means to "be called" or "taking a name from".

It seems that ebionite simply and erroneously misinterpreted this text in creating this specific theory. (post #453)



Ebionite responded : “I'm not in error. Christianity got it's name from the Hellenised doctrine that was being taught by Paul.” (post #453)




2) REGARDING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PAUL WAS SENT TO PERSECUTE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT EXIST OR WAS HE SENT TO PERSECUTE A PEOPLE WHO DID EXIST ?

Of course your claim that Christians did not exist at the time Paul was sent to persecute them is a silly, illogical, error or a semantic game.

WHERE the name of a thing (or group) comes from is irrelevant to the EXISTENCE of a thing (or a group).

Acts 11:26 does not indicate that “there were no Christians” at the time Paul was sent to Damascus, merely that they were given a specific name. Disciples who believed in Christ existed, and Paul was sent to persecute these people who existed.

It is illogical to claim Paul had been persecuting individuals who did not exist (such as Stephen) and was sent to persecute other similar people who did not exist. .

Ebionite, If you claim a non-existent people were named Christians in Antioch, where is your data and what is your logic?


Clear
μνε νε μ

Replied here

 

[Clear]

Given Ebionites failure to provide data and logic for the claim that Christians did not exist when Paul was going to Damascus to persecute them

1) Does ANY reader believe Ebionites claim that Christians did not exist before they were called "Christians? in Antioch?

2) Is there a single reader who believes Ebionites claim that the Christians Paul had persecuted (such as Stephen in Acts 7:60), and the Christians he was sent to damascus to persecute did not exist before antioch?

3) IS there ANY reader who sees supporting data in Ebionites claim that Christians did not exist before they were called "Christians" in Antioch? If you see data and logic in this claim, can you point it out to other readers?

4) Is there ANY reader who can help Ebionite out by providing data and logic that he's been unable to provide in support of his claim that Christians did not exist before they were called "Christians".

If no one can help Ebionite out with data and logic he either cannot or will not provide, then this seems to be another error and another dead horse that needs not be beaten any more.

Clear