"Saul(Paul) vowed to destroy all Christians throughout the world"

[Ebionite]

You are aware of this, I suppose...

"The Apostle Paul had a chronic disease. Epilepsy is offered as the most likely hypothesis. Interpretation of parts of the Pauline epistles suggests the possibility of facial motor and sensitive disturbances coming after ecstatic seizures. Though unusual, there are, however, case histories of patients who experienced ecstatic auras." [Saint Paul disease. Ectasia and exstatic seizures] - PubMed

Festus had a similar diagnosis:

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

 

[1213]

I should have said vision rather than dream. Acts 10:10-28. There was no reason for Peter to know about the mission to the lost sheep of Israel:

He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
John 21:17

No problem, vision and dream are close enough. But, I think there is reasons to think Peter had the knowledge. First is obviously the Matt. 28:19-20. Second is for example this:

I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice. They will become one flock with one shepherd.
John 10:16

 

[Ebionite]

Matt. 28:19-20

The great commission includes the trinitarian baptismal formula, and text supporting the trinitarian doctrine exists in 1 John as a late addition. Also Eusebius' commentary on the great commission is inconsistent, suggesting that it was edited to conform with doctrine that was settled under Constantine.

I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice. They will become one flock with one shepherd.
John 10:16

The prophetic context for the lost sheep of Israel is that they would be reunited with the house of Judah:

Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and [for] all the house of Israel his companions:
And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
Ezekiel 37:16-17

 

[Kathryn]

You replied to 1213, who said "Everyone who chooses something, shows at the same time that he thinks it is superior to what he didn't choose. People don't choose something that they don't think is the best choice." Your reply was NOT TRUE, that is is true ONLY for those who are believers.

So yes, I did read your post carefully, and replied appropriately. You are mistaken if you think non-believers who have non-religious beliefs that are similarly not chosen, but they are simply convinced or not convinced. No one believes in anything they are convinced is wrong.

I agree with this and also often state that everyone justifies everything they believe. For instance, no one wakes up and says "Today I will be a jerk."

 

[Brickjectivity]

Were the crowds his disciples? That's all that matters. If they weren't then the "salt of the earth" metaphor wasn't being applied to them.

What would be surprising about a rabbi speaking authoritatively to his own disciples? It says the crowds were amazed because he was speaking (to them it appears) authoritatively.

The Pharisees were were condemned for making the law a burden (among other things). The law of Psalm 19:7 wasn't burdensome:

For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.
Matthew 11:30

I think that misses the irony in calling it a light burden to work twice as hard as a Pharisee. He is calling upon all of these Jews to embrace the Romans. It may be better than fighting the Romans and in that sense may be easier; but Jesus uses confusing figures of speech.

Do you have any facts which connect your position to the description of leaven that is found in the gospels?

He is always tripping people up with how he says things and does so on purpose. Its like when he tells his disciples to avoid the leaven of the Pharisees, yet in another parable he uses leaven positively (Mat 13:33). The thing about leaven is it affects the resulting bread, and some leaven is better than other leaven. That doesn't mean leaven is evil, but some tastes better or rises better. Combining two types of leaven is usually not a good idea. His disciples at first thought he must be talking about bread, and we are explicitly told they misunderstood him. We are told this for a reason not just to fill space. He does not speak clearly and does not hold himself responsible to be understood -- completely the opposite of a Pharisee with a disciple. Which is part of what he objects to about both Sadducees and Pharisees. He opposes both groups. He says that the Pharisee seeks out a promising student but can only make them twice as bad. (Mat 23:15) This pinpoints his objection. Its not what they are teaching. Its their insistence upon making themselves the channel of doctrine to the student. This is further supported by the first three chapters of the gospel John containing Jesus speech to Nicodemus and the entirety of James who at length discusses that each person must seek wisdom for themselves.

 

[Ebionite]

What would be surprising about a rabbi speaking authoritatively to his own disciples? It says the crowds were amazed because he was speaking (to them it appears) authoritatively.

The point is that crowd, taken to be representative of the Jews, is not the same as the group of disciples to which the metaphor of salt of the earth is applied.

I think that misses the irony in calling it a light burden to work twice as hard as a Pharisee.

The burden of the Pharisees was their exclusion from the kingdom of heaven.

He is calling upon all of these Jews to embrace the Romans.

No, that doctrine is from Paul eg Romans 13. Paying tribute to Caesar was conditional on what was due to Caesar (Matthew 22:17-21).

The thing about leaven is it affects the resulting bread, and some leaven is better than other leaven.

Why do you think that there are different types of leaven in the sense that it is used in the gospels?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The point is that crowd, taken to be representative of the Jews, is not the same as the group of disciples to which the metaphor of salt of the earth is applied.

Lets consider it. What about: [Mat 7:28 NIV] 28 "When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching,"

This Mat 7:23 supports that the Jews are the salt Jesus refers to, not just Jesus disciples; because the crowds are amazed at his teaching. There are other hints. The book Matthew is addressed to Jews, begins with a geneology, accesses Jewish events that cannot be understood outside of Judaism such as Jewish weddings, is peculiar to Jewish culture. I think though that another strong indication is the twelve apostles correlate to twelve tribes and are called by Jesus the "Fishers of men." Here is a blurb from the passage about the Jews who Jesus will summon through his fishers of men:

[Jer 16:16 NIV] 16 "But now I will send for many fishermen," declares the LORD, "and they will catch them. After that I will send for many hunters, and they will hunt them down on every mountain and hill and from the crevices of the rocks.​

and then it talks about their sin and finally that they will be taught his power and might ending in verse 21.​

21 "Therefore I will teach them— this time I will teach them my power and might. Then they will know that my name is the LORD."​

Hence the Jews are somehow necessary in Jesus conversations. Like the needed salt. His apostles are the fishers of men to bring them back to be that salt: one apostle for each tribe.

Another indication is Zechariah 14:21 In it even the bells on horses will be holy and all nations will recognize this. The Jews, again, are the ones in this figure who make a difference; hence Jesus probably thinks of the Jews as the salt. If they were not going to brought back and were to be disposed of then I would think differently.

The burden of the Pharisees was their exclusion from the kingdom of heaven.

Just an example of Jesus not relying upon language to transmit the spirit. Are you suggesting that Jesus' examples and explanations are always clear and that he doesn't expect us to receive revelation directly from the Father? If so I don't agree with that. He could explain many things. That I would agree about. It was this concept of transmission of the spirit which he did not agree about. At his baptism John B. has a vision of the spirit flying down and landing on him. Its the opposite of having the spirit infused through teaching. Also Jesus is the greater of the two, yet John B is to baptise him. This also suggests that Jesus is rejecting the discipleship methods of the time of all the major teaching groups including Sadducees and Pharisees.

No, that doctrine is from Paul eg Romans 13. Paying tribute to Caesar was conditional on what was due to Caesar (Matthew 22:17-21).

Maybe. Its not like I am stressed about being a Jew under Roman rule, because I'm in a free country. Its not a decision I need to make, but the Jews of this period do. Jesus does say things though like going twice as for for a Roman.

Why do you think that there are different types of leaven in the sense that it is used in the gospels?

It seems like a tangent not a main issue, but the Pharisees have a system of teaching. Jesus wants things done differently. Probably its comparing the Pharisee method of teaching as a leaven in the week of preparation for Pesach. It doesn't say so, and I don't see any mention of Pesach in the section. Its reasonable to think of it as leaven vs. none; but it doesn't say. Its left for us to interpret.

 

[Ebionite]

This Mat 7:23 supports that the Jews are the salt Jesus refers to, not just Jesus disciples; because the crowds are amazed at his teaching.

This logical fallacy is called a non-sequitur.

Non Sequitur Fallacy | Definition & Examples

A non sequitur fallacy is a statement or conclusion that does not follow logically from what preceded it. Non sequiturs can be responses that have nothing

www.scribbr.com

 

[1213]

The prophetic context for the lost sheep of Israel is that they would be reunited with the house of Judah:

I think the other sheep in John 10:16 means people in other nations, because Israel is just one nation.

 

[Ebionite]

I think the other sheep in John 10:16 means people in other nations, because Israel is just one nation.

Israel at that time was referred to prophetically as a house, not a nation. Other sheep would most probably be people with whom the shepherd-sheep relationship had previously existed, i.e. the house of Judah. AFAIK no others are referred to as sheep.

But made his own people to go forth like sheep, and guided them in the wilderness like a flock.
Psalms 78:52

 

[paarsurrey]

"Saul(Paul) vowed to destroy all Christians throughout the world"

Yes, Saul (Paul) himself admitted that he was and it is on record, right, please?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

That is true, he was sent to the house of Israel and was only with Israel. But, he sent his disciples unto the other nations, which means the message is also for the other nations.

. . . Chronologically speaking Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel. His original offer was only to Israel. But when they rejected him (such that Israel's leaders conspired to successfully force the Roman's into crucifying him) then, after he was resurrected from that holocaust, he sent his disciples to all the world to convert those who would receive him be they Jewish or Gentile.



John

 

[1213]

. . . Chronologically speaking Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel. His original offer was only to Israel. But when they rejected him (such that Israel's leaders conspired to successfully force the Roman's into crucifying him) then, after he was resurrected from that holocaust, he sent his disciples to all the world to convert those who would receive him be they Jewish or Gentile.

Yes, I agree that he was sent to Jews. And the message was first for Jews. But I believe the idea was in any case to declare the message also for others.

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes, I agree that he was sent to Jews. And the message was first for Jews. But I believe the idea was in any case to declare the message also for others.

Since God is omniscient, he can use his foreknowledge of events in order to guide history to its fitting end. God knew before he created the world that Israel would reject Christ's first advent. That didn't shock God, or make him hate Israel. On the contrary, it's all in the mix. Israel was under greater duress in the first century of this era than any people have ever been under. There's no people who would not have responded to the situation as Israel did or worse. I pray for the day when the veil will be lifted and Israel will see her Messiah, God, and Savior, without the fore-skene that blinds them.



John

 

[paarsurrey]

"Saul(Paul) vowed to destroy all Christians throughout the world"

"Paul, Apostle of Christ"+ is a 2018 American biblical drama film written and directed by Andrew Hyatt.", and the Wikipedia article mention one of its contents/plot as "Saul(Paul) vowed to destroy all Christians throughout the world"
paarsurrey agrees with this plot of the Biblical drama film, paarsurrey's argument is:

The Deviant Pauline NT Bible presents (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, as the the first Christian- a misnomer; rather Paul was the first Christian, having invented a new religion in the then Greek/Roman language naming it as Christianity (nothing to do with the truthful Israelite Messiah) to use it as a ploy to convert the simple followers of Yeshua to his own Hellenism [/paganism of dying rising (+atoning ascending) deity] , right, please?
That said, isn't it another way to destroy all Christians together with Christ?; while (Jesus) Yeshua claimed to be Israelite Messiah only, not of any other nation/people (Greeks, Romans whatever) please, right?

friend @Ebionite said:
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:24
1213 said:
I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice. They will become one flock with one shepherd.
John 10:16

2 Yes, Saul (Paul) himself admitted that he was [ persecutor/destroyer of the followers of (Jesus)Yeshua], and it is on record, right, please?

4 Jesus said:

Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teach-ing them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Matt. 28:19-20

I don't think there is any good Biblical reason to claim he was only for Israel.

5" Matt. 28:19-20 "

It ^ is neither the narrative of (Jesus)Yeshua nor of the Matthew, rather the above narrative is a Pauline anonymous document cunningly* doctored (by the Paulines) to look like as if it is/was of Yeshua and or of Matthew, right, please?

6 If your are going to argue that any part of the Bible could be fictional then why make an argument based on the Bible at all?

Any part that disagrees with your view you can simply claim as altered or fiction.

I used the word *cunningly ( see above), as Pauline-NT-Bible is a mix, those who alter/corrupt they mix truth and false cleverly.

7 "Saul(Paul) vowed to destroy all Christians throughout the world":

"Paul narrates his origins. As Saul of Tarsus, a Jewish boy, he was influenced by the zealotry of his leaders and witnessed the martyrdom of Stephen at their hands for professing faith in Jesus Christ. This event made "Saul vow to destroy all Christians throughout the world until the day he rode for Damascus with his brethren." He became blinded by God and heard His voice asking why Saul persecuted Him. This event along with Saul's meeting Ananias, a disciple of Christ, humbled Saul so deeply that he repented of his actions. Ananias restored Saul's sight and baptized him in the name of the Lord, which led to Saul rejecting his former name and becoming Paul." from plot of the film "Paul, Apostle of Christ"

Paul, Apostle of Christ - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

OMG this is about a movie again, from 2018.

Right?

Regards

 

[Colt]

"Saul(Paul) vowed to destroy all Christians throughout the world"

For above ^Wikipedia Paul, Apostle of Christ - Wikipedia
And the Deviant Pauline NT Bible projects (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, as the the first Christian- a misnomer; rather Paul was the first Christian, having invented a new religion in the then Greek/Roman language naming it as Christianity to use it as a ploy to convert the simple followers of Yeshua to his own Hellenism , right, please?
Isn't it another way to destroy all Christians together with Christ?; while (Jesus) Yeshua claimed to be Israelite Messiah only, not of any other nation/ people please, right?

Regards

No wrong! Paul got his theology from impulsive Peter. On Pentecost Peter began preaching a new Gospel about Jesus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Deviant Pauline NT Bible

Why do you use these rude slams? How would you like it if I referred to the Deviant Quran? Can't you disagree with Paul without being insulting?