Judaisms Core

[Ehav4Ever]

What specific reasons would lead to the Pauline accounts being inaccurate?

First, you would have to start with the book of Acts.

1. You would have to ask the question of how the author got all of the details that were private information that only the individuals involved would have known. W/o an answer for how they were able to get some of the facts around events that the author obviously didn't witness one has to place a huge question mark on it.
2. The next step is asking, why did the author pen this text in Greek? Who was the audiance? Why was not, early on, a version of the book of Acts penned in Hebrew or Aramaic? These were the languages of the Jews of the time who were considered trustworthy by most of the Jewish population.
3. Then one would need to question why the book of Acts claims that a so called Pharisee from Tarsus was in Jerusalem at the time frame that Paul is claimed to have witnessed the "supposed" execution of Stephen and how the author knew what Paul was supposidly thinking at that time.
4. There would need to be information of how and why Paul who was supposidly from Tarsus came to be in Jerusalem. Also, the claim that learn from Gamliel is a very strange assertion for an obviously Hellonized person like Paul from Tarsus. There is also the question of if he was a young man in Jerusalem learning from Gamliel, why no one seems to know him as such a student and also why Tarsus would have any relevance to him if he was in Jerusalem at such a young age.
5. The claims made my the author(s) of the Pauline information about him being a Pharisee of Pharisees, but that is like a person claiming to have been a decorated Navy Seal but they have never been in the military.
   • Also, the claim that he was the son of Pharisees is a strange claim to make being that he was "supposidly" from Tarsus. The author doesn't seem to know what being a Pharisee meant in the 2nd Temple period.
6. The book of Acts also claims he started working for the High Priest who would have been a Sadducee. How then can Paul claim to be a Parush? He would not have been working for the High Priest if he was.
7. Also, the book of acts makes the following statement. [Act 22:5 NLT] (5) The high priest and the whole council of elders can testify that this is so. For I received letters from them to our Jewish brothers in Damascus, authorizing me to bring the Christians from there to Jerusalem, in chains, to be punished.
   • During the Roman occupation the high priest would not have had the authority to issue such a letter let alone given any of the Pharisees the power to do such a thing.
   • Further to this, essentially this is saying that Paul was illegally kidnapping people in Damacus and somehow had a military style batlion to hold them all the way back to Jerusalem.
   • There is no historical information to prove such a thing was being done. See the map below. That is a distance of about 317 km on a modern highway.

The following may help.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Bible tells that Jews expected Messiah before Jesus came on earth. Do you think that is true, and if so, why do you think they expected Messiah?

There is a concept that we Jews have had historically.

It is the anticipation that the there would one day be a restoration of the Torah based kingdom / government in the land of Israel. The lead to this kind of situation will be a Davidic descendant, who has a biological Jewish father from the tribe of Yehudah (Judah) and a Jewish mother, who leads the Jews of the land of Israel in keeping the Torah of Hashem. This individual will considered to be a potential mashiahh if he leading the Jewish people towards this goal by teaching Torah in like with the Oral Torah, leading in the building of the Temple, leading the return of lost Israeli tribes back to the land of Israel, and causing the world to be at peace. If he accomplishes this, and only after he accomplishes it, can we Jews say he is the mashi'ahh. If he dies in the process, or before, he accomplishes all of this he can only be considered to someone who triad and failed. The idea Jews have is that this person can happen in any generation, if the generation is worthy of it.

 

[Ebionite]

You would have to ask the question of how the author got all of the details that were private information that only the individuals involved would have known.

You made the claim of unreliability, so it is up to you to show evidence of that rather than trying to shift the burden of proof onto me.

Since you don't have any evidence the accounts should be taken at face value - at least until there is a reason to question their reliability.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You made the claim of unreliability, so it is up to you to show evidence of that rather than trying to shift the burden of proof onto me.

Since you don't have any evidence the accounts should be taken at face value - at least until there is a reason to question their reliability.

You may have misunderstood. I am not trying to prove to you who Paul was or was not. You asked me a question, and I am answering it.

I don't need to prove anything about Paul. Whoever he was or wasn't isn't relevant for me, I am not a beleiver in Jesus / Yeshu / Yeshua - thus it isn't my issue. I am not trying to convince you to take a stance or change your stance on Paul, it doesn't matter to me.

Again, a question was posed to me and I am answering it. I don't have a burdon of proof in that matter. People who want to beleive whatever they want about Paul are free to do so.

 

[Ebionite]

You may have misunderstood.

I didn't misunderstand you. The point is that the burden of proof is yours for your claim that the Pauline writings are unreliable.

I don't need to prove anything about Paul.

Straw man. The issue is the reliability of the Pauline writings, not Paul's character, doctrine, or history.

Again, a question was posed to me and I am answering it. I don't have a burdon of proof in that matter.

Another straw man. The burden of proof relates to your claim that the Pauline writings are unreliable, not to any questions that I have asked.

What you have done is to act as if there is no presumption of innocence (re document authenticity), which is also something that Paul did for people when he described the ideas that led to the doctrine of original sin. This in itself tends to support the idea that Paul was a Pharisee, since Rabbinical Judaism is an extension of Pharisee ideology.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I didn't misunderstand you. The point is that the burden of proof is yours for your claim that the Pauline writings are unreliable.

Greetings. If you think that I trying to proove to you or anyone anything about Paul, you did misunderstand.

Let's just take it from this angle. From your perspective I have unsucessfully tried to prove something. I am perfectly fine with that assessmnt. Since the historical or fictional Paul is of no real concern for me we can leave it at that.

Cheers.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Another straw man. The burden of proof relates to your claim that the Pauline writings are unreliable, not to any questions that I have asked.

Okay. You are correct. I have unseccesfully tried to prove something.

 

[Betho_br]

The Christian concept of a messiah doesn't belong to Judaism. That is what is meant by what I wrote. The word (משיח) doesn't mean a messiah as in a "savior" like it does in Christianity. The concept is completely different since in Judaism, a (משיח) is a political statement where in Christianity the concept of a messiah is associate with salvation.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon
Matthew 1:21 King James Version

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save(σώσει) his people from their sins.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon
σώσει

Matthew 1:21 Hebrew Gospel
וְתֵלֵד בֵּן וְתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ יֵשּׁוּעַ כִּי הוּא יוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת־עַמִּי מֵעֲוֹנוֹתָם

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Definition

יָשַׁע​

1. to save, be saved, be delivered
   1. (Niphal)
      1. to be liberated, be saved, be delivered
      2. to be saved (in battle), be victorious
   2. (Hiphil)
      1. to save, deliver
      2. to save from moral troubles
      3. to give victory to

Jesus' project was broad, and also included the liberation of his people. He did so partially, since he was unable to unify Israel around his project, within the unstable situation in which he found himself, he instructed the church of Jerusalem to flee to the mountains when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Roman Army.

 

[Ebionite]

Greetings. If you think that I trying to proove to you or anyone anything about Paul, you did misunderstand.

I didn't ask for proof. You made a claim that the Pauline writings were unreliable but were unable to show any evidence for that and attempted to shift the burden of proof by setting conditions for their acceptance.

Your behavior tends to support the idea that the Pauline writings are reliable (my #85).

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Your behavior tends to support the idea that the Pauline writings are reliable (my #85).

Again, Paul is of no importance to me and most Jews would feel the same. Let's just say he is whoever you say he is.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon
Matthew 1:21 King James Version

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save(σώσει) his people from their sins.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon
σώσει

Matthew 1:21 Hebrew Gospel
וְתֵלֵד בֵּן וְתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ יֵשּׁוּעַ כִּי הוּא יוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת־עַמִּי מֵעֲוֹנוֹתָם

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Definition

יָשַׁע​

1. to save, be saved, be delivered
   1. (Niphal)
      1. to be liberated, be saved, be delivered
      2. to be saved (in battle), be victorious
   2. (Hiphil)
      1. to save, deliver
      2. to save from moral troubles
      3. to give victory to

Jesus' project was broad, and also included the liberation of his people. He did so partially, since he was unable to unify Israel around his project, within the unstable situation in which he found himself, he instructed the church of Jerusalem to flee to the mountains when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Roman Army.

Sounds Christian to me. Thanks.

 

[Ebionite]

Again, Paul is of no importance to me and most Jews would feel the same. Let's just say he is whoever you say he is.

I'm taking the Pauline epistles at face value. Some of the Pauline epistles have been criticised as being inauthentic, but I have not seen any good arguments for that.

I have found three references to Paul in the Tanak. The first is from Habakkuk:

Behold, his soul [which] is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, [he is] a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and [is] as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:
Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, Woe to him that increaseth [that which is] not his! how long? and to him that ladeth himself with thick clay!
Shall they not rise up suddenly that shall bite thee, and awake that shall vex thee, and thou shalt be for booties unto them?
Because thou hast spoiled many nations, all the remnant of the people shall spoil thee; because of men's blood, and [for] the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein.
Habakkuk 2:4-8

 

[Betho_br]

Sounds Christian to me. Thanks.

Certainly, you're not wrong if we consider what is taught by "Christianity."

My interpretation is quite different. I am not saying that you must respect or appreciate it; it is merely an interpretation.

My perspective is that the author of Matthew, when addressing the Gospel to the Jews, omitted some generations (for example, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah - 2 Chronicles 21:4-26:23). When in verse 8 it says that Joram begot Uzziah, he was using "begot" in the sense of "was an ancestor of." It is likely that he did this to present a systematic summary of three periods in the history of Israel (the Monarchy, the Captivity, and the Messiah), each with fourteen generations, totaling forty-two patriarchs, as representative of the 42 gods of the NOMOS of Egypt.. Additionally, he included women, which was uncommon in genealogies, especially those of dubious reputation. In the same book, in chapter 2, Jesus is taken to Egypt to escape persecution. It is also stated that Jesus hid in the Tribe of Ephraim due to persecution (Hosea 7:11; 9:8; John 11:54), which recalls the governor of Egypt, Joseph, and the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On (Genesis 41:50–52). Ephraim was born in Egypt.

He also rejected the tents of Joseph and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim; instead, he chose the tribe of Judah and Mount Zion, which he loved. Psalm 78:67-68

The city of Shiloh is one of the most significant biblical locations. The site is first mentioned in the Bible when Joshua erected the tabernacle, where the Ark of the Covenant was placed (Joshua 18:1). The site served as the "capital" of Israel for over 300 years before Jerusalem.
In verses 60-67, we saw how God rejected the descendants of Joseph and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim (v. 67). But God was not completely giving up on His people. He was, in effect, removing the scepter from Joseph and passing it to Judah, as originally predicted by Jacob (cf. Gen. 49:8-12).

Isaiah 19:18-22 New International Version

In that day five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the Lord Almighty. One of them will be called the City of the Sun. In that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the Lord at its border. It will be a sign and witness to the Lord Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the Lord because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them. So the Lord will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will acknowledge the Lord. They will worship with sacrifices and grain offerings; they will make vows to the Lord and keep them. The Lord will strike Egypt with a plague; he will strike them and heal them. They will turn to the Lord, and he will respond to their pleas and heal them.

In summary, Jesus was ambitious and had a multiethnic project, embracing a plurality of nations and various Jewish sects.

 

[metis]

The shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) is about YHWH, not Elohim.

They are one and the same.

 

[Betho_br]

They are one and the same.

"Elohim" is also referred to deities (for example, Gen 35:2; Ex 18:11; Job 1:6; Ps 8:5) or human magistrates (Ex 21:6; 1 Sam 2:25). "Theos" in the Christian Bible (New Testament) certainly refers to gods and divine judges as well, depending on the context.

 

[metis]

I think it would be good, if they would remain Jews and become disciples of Jesus.

"Jew" is the nationality, "Judaism" is the religion.

 

[metis]

"Elohim" is also referred to deities (for example, Gen 35:2; Ex 18:11; Job 1:6; Ps 8:5) or human magistrates (Ex 21:6; 1 Sam 2:25). "Theos" in the Christian Bible (New Testament) certainly refers to gods and divine judges as well, depending on the context.

Within Judaism there's commentaries on why the use of the plural since "...im" is plural. One commentary has it that it refers to YWHH and His angels.

Clearly, it's used as a substitute name for YHWH but it's unclear why the plural is used. There are other names for YHWH as well that are used, and many of those are from Sumerian theology, which we sometimes refer to as being of the "El Tradition". During synagogue services, "Elohaynu" is often said.

See: Elohim - Wikipedia

 

[Ebionite]

They are one and the same.

No they are not. Moses was a member of Elohim.

 

[Betho_br]

No they are not. Moses was a member of Elohim.

and Jesus?

 

[metis]

No they are not. Moses was a member of Elohim.

Since you didn't check out the link I provided you, the above is a moot point. So why didn't you check it out, Ebionite?