The Pauline Paradox

[fallingblood]

I don't think being Jewish should have caused Paul to believe in physical resurrections. He would have believed in the future generations though and would have felt a responsibility toward both them and past generations. That's just what I think though. I know at least one prophet promised long life for the lucky generation that found itself in a future golden age. What we have are statements by Jesus and our NT authors to deal with, and Jews aren't backing Christian claims of any kind. We should stop discussing what Jews think before one of them shows up and asks how many ephas in a cup of sugar.

That might be a good topic for another discussion. For me to show that Paul being Jewish, or specifically a Pharisee, caused him to believe in a physical resurrection, I would have to demonstrate that in the first century, that was the Pharisaic idea. As you point out, there are contrary arguments as to what Paul believed, so it may be interesting. I will pull out some books and possibly start on such an argument for a different topic. I agree it may be time to stop along that path for now though, at least in this topic.

This is where we disagree, so while I respect and appreciate your very worthwhile efforts and studious nature I still can't see your point of view. Having read Matthew and checked all of its fulfillments one by one, I can tell you that absolutely none of his 'Fulfillments' have anything to do with any prediction written anywhere in the Bible. Instead they are allusions to topics. The language cannot be taken literally whatsoever. Let me refer you to a scholar on this point (since I'm not one): Richard B. Hays has a book out titled Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. He discusses the gospel Mark first and then Matthew. Of Mark he says (1st chapter 2nd paragraph) "...Our discussion will be anchored in the passages that Mark explicitly cites, yet these explicit citations repeatedly gesture toward wider contexts and implications that remain not quite overtly stated--just as the risen Lord remains absent in the Gospel's final scene (Mark 16:1-8)...." (Italic and bold are mine to emphasize.) Just as in Mark, Matthew also guestures toward wider contexts and implications. His 'Fulfillments' are allusions. In fact substituting 'Allusion' for 'Fulfillment' would have made a lot more sense if the translators would have been so kind. Hayes says that Matthew is even more aggressive than Mark in making intertextual allusions but stops short of pointing out what is pretty plain to this layperson. There aren't any fulfillments in Matthew, and Matthew's 'Resurrection' is also not to be taken without a grain of salt.

I think we agree much on the content here. Where we seem to differ is partially on what first century thought was, and that can be a difficult subject either way. But what you said here makes sense.

Rome is a factor and the destruction of the temple. Paul's reasoning could have been that with doom impending that they had reached a real Hezekiah moment. It doesn't mean that he believed in afterlife of people coming out of their graves to receive awards.

That's definitely true. Paul was certainly living during a troubling time for Jews. I guess that's not a point I've really considered. While I know that the Temple would be destroyed around 70 C.E., possibly during Paul's life, I never really thought about the fact that there would have been signs of that impending doom, and Paul most likely saw, or could imagine what might come. I do have to think about that more.

I am passionate about this. I am quite angry about millions of people living for the afterlife when Jesus would only have wanted us to seize this day and make this day worthwhile and at great personal cost. If I seemed to imply that you were rude it was only to manipulate you. I am the one who should apologize, but on the other had you did leave yourself wide open by claiming that I was just cherrypicking. Of course there are posters who do cherry-pick, and they are quite annoying. Let us not get so galvanized that we cannot discern disagreement from cherrypicking.

I think we agree here. Personally, I don't think much about the afterlife, as I believe such an idea rests in the realm of faith. I have enjoyed out discussion here.

First century? That is one of the more difficult times to find out about.

I agree here as well, but the first century really is the time period I'm most interested in. For Christianity, I think it was a critical time period. Specifically, the events that led up to the first century, and the Jewish thought that was going on led a way for Jesus and his ministry, and eventually Christianity. While there is a lot of information missing, I think some things can be gleamed over, such as what the current ideas within Palestinian Judaism were in the first century. It's a topic I will have to refresh up on and will possibly create a new topic on that.

 

[Ben Avraham]

You see wrong then. I do not deny everything in the NT. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I deny all the NT. I deny that Acts is historically accurate, but that's largely because we are faced with a challenge. Either Acts or Paul can't be write, as they sources often disagree. I choose Paul, because he is a primary source, one that is actually stating his views, views that the author of Acts often states aren't the views of Paul.

Paul was a Jew. He wasn't preaching anything that was anti-Jewish, or that was meant to replace Judaism. He was taking Jewish ideas, and taking them to Gentiles. Paul was also taking from the Tanach. So I'm not sure where the problem is.

It seems to me that more or less, you have no valid argument, and thus must dismiss.

Right! Paul was a Jew but there is more than one way for a Jew to lose his Jewish identity and, Paul lost his when he founded an anti-Jewish religion aka Christianity if you read Acts 11:26. Barnabas had been assigned to take care of the Jewish Synagogue of the Nazarenes in Antioch but, he had a sinful fixation with Paul and, instead of going straight to Antioch to do his job, he went to Tarsus to look for Paul and to invited him to join him in Antionch. At the end of a whole year, Paul had overturned the whole Synagogue of Antioch into a Christian church for preaching his own peculiar gospel. Hence all the members started being called Christians for the first time. BTW, he never decided to go to the Gentiles. All his life was in the synagogues of the Jews, from his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace.(Acts 9:1,2 and 28:17)

 

[fallingblood]

Right! Paul was a Jew but there is more than one way for a Jew to lose his Jewish identity and, Paul lost his when he founded an anti-Jewish religion aka Christianity if you read Acts 11:26. Barnabas had been assigned to take care of the Jewish Synagogue of the Nazarenes in Antioch but, he had a sinful fixation with Paul and, instead of going straight to Antioch to do his job, he went to Tarsus to look for Paul and to invited him to join him in Antionch. At the end of a whole year, Paul had overturned the whole Synagogue of Antioch into a Christian church for preaching his own peculiar gospel. Hence all the members started being called Christians for the first time. BTW, he never decided to go to the Gentiles. All his life was in the synagogues of the Jews, from his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace.(Acts 9:1,2 and 28:17)

Paul didn't loose his Jewish identity. In fact, Paul mentions numerous times his Jewish identity. Paul specifically says that the gospel is meant for the Jew first. He is among those Jews.

Christianity at the time of Paul, was still a Jewish sect. It wouldn't split until after the First Jewish Revolt. Even until the 4th Century, there were still Jewish Christians. The two did not need to be opposed.

Also, Paul didn't found Christianity. Christianity, literally means a partisan of Christ. One could be Christian and Jewish, which why, again, we had Jewish Christians until at least the 4th Century, and why Paul could be identified as both. More so, Acts 11:26 only states that the term Christian was first used in Antioch. It doesn't say that it had anything to do with Paul.

As for the Nazarenes, again, we know virtually nothing about them. They are only briefly mentioned. In fact, what you're saying about Baranabas and Paul doesn't even make sense when one considers that Acts states that Paul was the ringleader of the Nazarenes.

The whole scenario that you presented really doesn't make sense as there is no evidence for it. And Paul disputes your claim. Paul specifically states that he was an apostle to the Gentiles. Acts and Paul disagree with each other.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Paul didn't loose his Jewish identity. In fact, Paul mentions numerous times his Jewish identity. Paul specifically says that the gospel is meant for the Jew first. He is among those Jews.

Christianity at the time of Paul, was still a Jewish sect. It wouldn't split until after the First Jewish Revolt. Even until the 4th Century, there were still Jewish Christians. The two did not need to be opposed.

Also, Paul didn't found Christianity. Christianity, literally means a partisan of Christ. One could be Christian and Jewish, which why, again, we had Jewish Christians until at least the 4th Century, and why Paul could be identified as both. More so, Acts 11:26 only states that the term Christian was first used in Antioch. It doesn't say that it had anything to do with Paul.

As for the Nazarenes, again, we know virtually nothing about them. They are only briefly mentioned. In fact, what you're saying about Baranabas and Paul doesn't even make sense when one considers that Acts states that Paul was the ringleader of the Nazarenes.

The whole scenario that you presented really doesn't make sense as there is no evidence for it. And Paul disputes your claim. Paul specifically states that he was an apostle to the Gentiles. Acts and Paul disagree with each other.

If it is true that Paul insisted on keeping his Jewish identity even after he founded Christianity, it means that there was no difference between him and the "Jews-for-Baal" of the time of Elijah. If you read I kings 18:21, Elijah got so upset with them that he wanted to know for how long they would straddle the issue between HaShem and Baal. If the Lord is God, follow Him; and if Baal, follow him! The point was that they could not hold unto their Jewish identity while serving Baal as a pagan. I see no difference between them and Paul who straddled the issue between HaShem and his "Christ" built on the basis of Hellenism. As the "Jews-for-Baal" would not listen to Elijah, this took them down to the Wadi of Kishon and slit the throats of 800 of their prophets. (I kings 18:40)

 

[omega2xx]

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)

Not really. Mary was also from the tribe of David, through Nathan and don't Jews determine the mother to be the main one to establish if the person is a Jew.

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.

The incarnation made God a man.

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.

Not necessary.

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![/QUOTE]

No one can explain anything to you. If you can't understand that God emptied Himself of His godly attributes to become man's Savior, you will never understand what you call a paradox, even if you understood wha a paradox is.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Not really. Mary was also from the tribe of David, through Nathan and don't Jews determine the mother to be the main one to establish if the person is a Jew.

The incarnation made God a man.

Not necessary.

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.

No one can explain anything to you. If you can't understand that God emptied Himself of His godly attributes to become man's Savior, you will never understand what you call a paradox, even if you understood wha a paradox is.

Listen Omega, if you want to feed on your myths, go right ahead and do it. I won't bother you as long as you don't involve a Jew who can no longer defend himself. You know very well that Jesus was a Jewish man whose gospel was the Tanach and you are so-to-speak invading private propriety and still get annoyed if another Jew stands in defense of the dead ones. You Christians!

 

[Desert Snake]

Listen Omega, if you want to feed on your myths, go right ahead and do it. I won't bother you as long as you don't involve a Jew who can no longer defend himself. You know very well that Jesus was a Jewish man whose gospel was the Tanach and you are so-to-speak invading private propriety and still get annoyed if another Jew stands in defense of the dead ones. You Christians!

Judaism doesn't accept Jesus in any aspect. Jesus was not even the same group of Jews , /Pharisees, at least in practice, as what you are claiming, is the legitimate group of Jewish tradition, in the area/
Your theories don't make any sense.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Judaism doesn't accept Jesus in any aspect. Jesus was not even the same group of Jews , /Pharisees, at least in practice, as what you are claiming, is the legitimate group of Jewish tradition, in the area/Your theories don't make any sense.

We do! Believe me, we do! Who we do not accept is Paul who lost his Jewish identity when he founded an anti-Jewish religion aka Christianity. (Acts 11:26) But Jesus was born a Jew, the son of Joseph with Mary, lived as a Jew whereas a very short life and died Jewish. There is nothing more important to a Jew than the Law and, Jesus declared to have come to fulfill and to confirm the Law down to the letter. (Mat. 5:17-19) Besides, Jesus declared loud and clear that to achieve salvation we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) How would not the other Jews accept such a loyal colleague? It was Paul who deserted Judaism, not Jesus.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Not really. Mary was also from the tribe of David, through Nathan and don't Jews determine the mother to be the main one to establish if the person is a Jew.

Even if Mary was one of the daughters of king David, it would not help Jesus. The Tribal genealogy would come down only through the lineage of the father. So, Jesus had to be a biological son of Joseph to have been from the Tribe of Judah. Hard to admit but, Jesus was not Messiah. I am sorry!

 

[Desert Snake]

We do! Believe me, we do! Who we do not accept is Paul who lost his Jewish identity when he founded an anti-Jewish religion aka Christianity. (Acts 11:26) But Jesus was born a Jew, the son of Joseph with Mary, lived as a Jew whereas a very short life and died Jewish. There is nothing more important to a Jew than the Law and, Jesus declared to have come to fulfill and to confirm the Law down to the letter. (Mat. 5:17-19) Besides, Jesus declared loud and clear that to achieve salvation we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) How would not the other Jews accept such a loyal colleague? It was Paul who deserted Judaism, not Jesus.

The Jewish authority fought against not only Christians, but Jesus Himself. Judaism further removed itself from the Jesusistic paradigm, with the advent of codified //books/teaching/adherence, that does not allow for the theological beliefs of the Nazarenes/ Jesus's group, and the other's who followed Him.

 

[David T]

Well you articulated a problem with scientific realism which the text actually attacks. If you go back to the moment when Joseph chooses to marry Mary rather than have her executed, he breaks from scientific analytical realism of the day. Scientific realism or theological doctrine dictated he have her executed but instead he contradicted the old testament and married her. In context to him being the biological father is again conscipus scientific realism, where as the text is touching in the unconscious emotional state. So the paradox lay between the conscious definition and the unconscious heart. It's like saying all truth starts with a metronome" scientific realism" or chronos why is Joseph not moving to a metrome beat or "kairos" Artists are challenged by this tendency in culture all the time. The text is art of art not scientific realism. It's pre literate in the New testament.

 

[Desert Snake]

Even if Mary was one of the daughters of king David, it would not help Jesus. The Tribal genealogy would come down only through the lineage of the father. So, Jesus had to be a biological son of Joseph to have been from the Tribe of Judah. Hard to admit but, Jesus was not Messiah. I am sorry!

The followers were skeptical too. Remember, even after the crucifixion, Jesus had to convince certain apostles, etc. This Messiah was the 'first', and obviously, since Judaism has no Messiah, there is nothing to compare Him to.
If there is any ''Messiah'', it's Jesus.

Praise Him!

 

[omega2xx]

Even if Mary was one of the daughters of king David, it would not help Jesus. The Tribal genealogy would come down only through the lineage of the father. So, Jesus had to be a biological son of Joseph to have been from the Tribe of Judah. Hard to admit but, Jesus was not Messiah. I am sorry!

No so, the only requirement was to be in the line of David. However it is irrelevant. Both genealogies of Jesus go through David. One through Soloman, one through Nathan.

 

[omega2xx]

The followers were skeptical too. Remember, even after the crucifixion, Jesus had to convince certain apostles, etc. This Messiah was the 'first', and obviously, since Judaism has no Messiah, there is nothing to compare Him to.
If there is any ''Messiah'', it's Jesus.

Praise Him!

The Jews have a Messiah. They just have recognized Him yet.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Well you articulated a problem with scientific realism which the text actually attacks. If you go back to the moment when Joseph chooses to marry Mary rather than have her executed, he breaks from scientific analytical realism of the day. Scientific realism or theological doctrine dictated he have her executed but instead he contradicted the old testament and married her. In context to him being the biological father is again conscipus scientific realism, where as the text is touching in the unconscious emotional state. So the paradox lay between the conscious definition and the unconscious heart. It's like saying all truth starts with a metronome" scientific realism" or chronos why is Joseph not moving to a metrome beat or "kairos" Artists are challenged by this tendency in culture all the time. The text is art of art not scientific realism. It's pre literate in the New testament.

Listen David, the only option left is worse than to deny that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph. He would be the biological son of a Roman soldier because, according to Josephus in his book "Wars of the Jews" thousands of young Jewish ladies were raped only in the First Century. As a result of that, thousands of children were born without a Jewish father. If you read John 8:41, Jesus' peers who grew up with him knew of some thing about that as to imply that Jesus had been born as a result of fornication.

 

[Ben Avraham]

No so, the only requirement was to be in the line of David. However it is irrelevant. Both genealogies of Jesus go through David. One through Soloman, one through Nathan.

What's the matter, are you afraid to break the spells of Christian preconceived notions? Pity!

 

[David T]

Listen David, the only option left is worse than to deny that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph. He would be the biological son of a Roman soldier because, according to Josephus in his book "Wars of the Jews" thousands of young Jewish ladies were raped only in the First Century. As a result of that, thousands of children were born without a Jewish father. If you read John 8:41, Jesus' peers who grew up with him knew of some thing about that as to imply that Jesus had been born as a result of fornication.

And out of the blackest part of man's self centeredness rose the most innocent of innocence and that love is a trancendental yhe love of a very very jewish man of an innocent woman, and her Child she bore. For that which manifests around us is that which manifests within us etermally

 

[fallingblood]

If it is true that Paul insisted on keeping his Jewish identity even after he founded Christianity, it means that there was no difference between him and the "Jews-for-Baal" of the time of Elijah. If you read I kings 18:21, Elijah got so upset with them that he wanted to know for how long they would straddle the issue between HaShem and Baal. If the Lord is God, follow Him; and if Baal, follow him! The point was that they could not hold unto their Jewish identity while serving Baal as a pagan. I see no difference between them and Paul who straddled the issue between HaShem and his "Christ" built on the basis of Hellenism. As the "Jews-for-Baal" would not listen to Elijah, this took them down to the Wadi of Kishon and slit the throats of 800 of their prophets. (I kings 18:40)

First, Paul didn't found Christianity. Paul tells us that he first persecuted the movement, and later joined it. He couldn't have joined something if he was the founder.

It is different from the Jews-for-Baal. Jesus was not considered G-d until later on. Paul saw Jesus as the messiah, and a figure who was ushering in the end of times. It wasn't an either or situation, because Jesus wasn't a god, or considered to be G-d.

Even if he was considered to be G-d, that is still different. Paul does speak of Jesus in terms of the Spirit of G-d, and one can argue that Jews had a binitarian view of G-d. Jesus, at best for Paul, fell into that Jewish idea.

More so, Jews were also preaching the message of Jesus. Jesus's own brother, James, a Jew, also taught that Jesus was the Messiah, and probably that the end was coming. Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and his followers also were.

So again, the big difference is that it wasn't either you serve G-d or Jesus. For Paul, to follow Jesus, his message, one had to believe in G-d.

 

[12jtartar]

Even if Mary was one of the daughters of king David, it would not help Jesus. The Tribal genealogy would come down only through the lineage of the father. So, Jesus had to be a biological son of Joseph to have been from the Tribe of Judah. Hard to admit but, Jesus was not Messiah. I am sorry!

Ben Avraham,
One thing that we have not discussed, is the prophecy by Daniel, which gives the exact date that the Messiah would appear, Daniel 9:25,26. In fact the Jews understood Daniel's prophecy and were looking for him when John the Baptist appeared, Luke 3:15, that is why they thought that John was the Messiah. The Bible also tells us that John the Baptist came 6Months before Jesus, the Messiah, Luke 1:24-37, 39-44. Notice that in these Scriptures, Mary said that had not relations with a man, so she qualified as both, a Maiden and a Virgin. An consider the greeting of Elizabeth, how the baby inside her leaped, and Elizabeth knew that the baby would be her Lord.
Later Peter recognized Jesus as the Christ, Messiah, the son of the living God, Matthew 16:13-17.
One more thing to reason on; all these people were Jews, many, many who followed Jesus as the Messiah.
Deuteronomy 19:15 tells us that in the Mosaic Law Covenant two or three should establish a matter. The matter of Jesus' identity was definitely established!!! Jesus went on to fulfill all the things that were written in the Law about him, which would be an impossibility if he were not the Messiah, because some of the things that were foreshadowed were not possible for Jesus to control, several dozen things on the conservative side.
With all the evidence of when Jesus would appear, the only way that anyone would not understand, is they just will not, which seem to be willful blindness. Since Daniel prophesied that Jesus was to come at a time that the people were looking for the Messiah to come, the Jews must have missed the coming!!! If I were a Jew, I would go back over these Scriptures, and try to find out why the Messiah has not come, the first time, because when he comes the second time it will be for Judgment, 2Thessalonians 1:6-10, Matthew 25:31-46, you might not have realized that he came 2,000 years ago.

 

[12jtartar]

What's the matter, are you afraid to break the spells of Christian preconceived notions? Pity!

Ben Avraham,
Why aren't you afraid to break the Mosaic Law about ever matter is to be established by two or three??? You have have many witnesses that were Jews, Paul, James, John, Peter, Luke, Mark, Matthew, who wrote about what the saw and heard, and many , many others who believed in Jesus, even so much that they were willing to be persecuted, even to the death, for their beliefs.
Historians say that there is more proof that Jesus walked the earth, than there is that Abraham Lincoln did.
Is it really possible that one man who was really an imposter, could have so much influence over the world, for all this time. Some say that he has caused more changes in men than all the armies that ever marched, and all the rulers or Kings that ruled on earth. This single solitary man who never commanded an army, or ruled a nation, who not even wrote a book, who was not even rich in worldly goods.