The Pauline Paradox

[2ndpillar]

a

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.

Dear fb,
Paul's "Christianity" had nothing in common with those he persecuted. Paul euphemistically nailed Yeshua's testimony to the cross, and came up with his own false gospel of grace, which undermines "justice" which is the "measuring line" of the "cornerstone" of what Yeshua taught (Is 28:16).

As for Paul seeing one in the "wilderness" Matthew 24:26, that would be on his own sole witness, something which does not pass mustard per Matthew 18:16 & Deut 19:15. Which is to say, "do not believe them", referring to anyone who says "He is in the wilderness" (Mt 24:16).

 

[fallingblood]

a

Dear fb,
Paul's "Christianity" had nothing in common with those he persecuted. Paul euphemistically nailed Yeshua's testimony to the cross, and came up with his own false gospel of grace, which undermines "justice" which is the "measuring line" of the "cornerstone" of what Yeshua taught (Is 28:16).

As for Paul seeing one in the "wilderness" Matthew 24:26, that would be on his own sole witness, something which does not pass mustard per Matthew 18:16 & Deut 19:15. Which is to say, "do not believe them", referring to anyone who says "He is in the wilderness" (Mt 24:16).

Before I go to far, quick question. Are you of the belief that the Bible is trust worthy, the infallible word of G-d; untrustworthy; or somewhere in between?

So my problem here is that I think Paul's idea of "Christianity" fell greatly in line with those who he once persecuted. Paul would have, at one time, nailed Jesus's testimony to the cross, as you said, but later on, he falls in line.

According to both Paul and Acts, he gets his version supposedly from Jesus himself. I doubt that, but in Galatians 2, Paul does give us a more likely scenario. He talks about meeting with Peter, and the Greek makes it clear that it isn't just a friendly visit, but instead that he's having an in depth conversation with Peter. It's over the course of a few days, and it is very likely that this is where Paul gets the message of Jesus.

Paul and Acts also confirm that Paul met with the Jerusalem sect, which was composed of James, the brother of Jesus, Peter, and a few other disciples. It is through this sect that Paul is given permission to preach to the Gentiles. It's pretty clear that he is under their authority, and if he was preaching something that had nothing in common with them, its doubtful he would be allowed to continue.

 

[2ndpillar]

Before I go to far, quick question. Are you of the belief that the Bible is trust worthy, the infallible word of G-d; untrustworthy; or somewhere in between?

So my problem here is that I think Paul's idea of "Christianity" fell greatly in line with those who he once persecuted. Paul would have, at one time, nailed Jesus's testimony to the cross, as you said, but later on, he falls in line.

According to both Paul and Acts, he gets his version supposedly from Jesus himself. I doubt that, but in Galatians 2, Paul does give us a more likely scenario. He talks about meeting with Peter, and the Greek makes it clear that it isn't just a friendly visit, but instead that he's having an in depth conversation with Peter. It's over the course of a few days, and it is very likely that this is where Paul gets the message of Jesus.

Paul and Acts also confirm that Paul met with the Jerusalem sect, which was composed of James, the brother of Jesus, Peter, and a few other disciples. It is through this sect that Paul is given permission to preach to the Gentiles. It's pretty clear that he is under their authority, and if he was preaching something that had nothing in common with them, its doubtful he would be allowed to continue.

Dear fb,
I must ask you if you are a Catholic, because you certainly think their canon is holy. If the founders of the Protestant church felt that the Catholic church was the whore of Babylon, where do you get your confidence in their rulings, and why don't you bow down to and kiss the Pope's ring?

As for the disciples giving Paul any leeway, I think Acts portrays that they told him to take a message to avoid fornication, things strangled, blood, etc. Apparently, Paul lost that letter. As for the apostles not pulling Paul out by the roots, that would be due to the commandment of Yeshua, whereas they were leave the tares among the wheat, in order not to disturb the roots of the wheat. (Matthew 13:29-30)

As for the meeting of Paul with John, James, and Peter, Paul quickly jumped while they were in his presence, and circumcised Titus, but as soon as they left, he started bad mouthing them and said they had nothing to "contribute to me", and then went on a rant against Peter.

As for Acts, written by some unknown writer, probably Luke, who witnessed nothing according to Luke 1:1-3, his testimony can not be used to confirm any matter, Matthew 18:16 (Dt 19:15).

As for Paul's testimony falling in line with that of Yeshua, I beg to differ. Yeshua taught the "word of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:19). Paul taught the false gospel of grace/cross, which would be the seed of the tare Matthew 13:24-25, which was sown right along side the wheat seed.

 

[omega2xx]

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

For a Jew accuse anyone of preconceived notions is hypocritical. Is that not what Jesus, the Messiah accused the Pharisees of?

 

[Desert Snake]

For a Jew accuse anyone of preconceived notions is hypocritical. Is that not what Jesus, the Messiah accused the Pharisees of?

Some of the Pharisees accused Jesus, but we also note that some thought He was ''possessed'', etc. This means that they observed the miracles, etc, but could not accept them. If there is really any defense here, it is that, the leaders, /Pharisaic, seemed to have to urge the accusation/persecution on, /of Jesus.
Hence, it is more than just an accusation; the Pharisees, /the ones being referenced in the Bible, were actively against Jesus, there was nothing ambiguous about it.
Jesus claimed Divinity, those Pharisees couldn't accept/ it, ...

 

[fallingblood]

Dear fb,
I must ask you if you are a Catholic, because you certainly think their canon is holy. If the founders of the Protestant church felt that the Catholic church was the whore of Babylon, where do you get your confidence in their rulings, and why don't you bow down to and kiss the Pope's ring?

Now you're just being insulting. I asked my question because I wanted to see how to respond. If you take the Bible literally, then I could just quote verses and their context, for an argument. If you dismissed the entire Bible, we probably wouldn't have a discussion. And if you took the Bible somewhere in the middle, I would respond with a more nuanced argument that looked partially at what the Bible said, but also other sources. My question was an honest one, and wasn't insulting.

And for the record, I'm not Catholic, nor did I imply that I think their canon is holy.

As for the disciples giving Paul any leeway, I think Acts portrays that they told him to take a message to avoid fornication, things strangled, blood, etc. Apparently, Paul lost that letter. As for the apostles not pulling Paul out by the roots, that would be due to the commandment of Yeshua, whereas they were leave the tares among the wheat, in order not to disturb the roots of the wheat. (Matthew 13:29-30)

First, Acts isn't historically accurate. It disagrees with what Paul says, and thus with such contradictions, scholars have generally argued that we can't trust Acts unless Paul also states something similar. What Paul and Acts agree with is that the Jerusalem sect, that made up of Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and other disciples, is that they were in control. Paul had to submit to them. To allow him to continue to preach, even though his message was completely different, would have been to allow a false prophet to deceive their followers, something Jesus most definitely didn't command.

As for the meeting of Paul with John, James, and Peter, Paul quickly jumped while they were in his presence, and circumcised Titus, but as soon as they left, he started bad mouthing them and said they had nothing to "contribute to me", and then went on a rant against Peter.

Nope. You're reading from Acts, which doesn't coincide with Galatians 1. Paul met with Peter, and the Greek makes it clear that the meeting was for teaching. As in, Peter taught Paul the message over a time. Paul then met with James, and was then gone. It was only 14 years alter that Paul went back to Jerusalem, with Titus. In chapter 2, we see Paul again submitting to the Jerusalem sect as he met with them in private, and made sure that the gospel he was preaching was correct. He asked them to confirm it, to make sure he wasn't misguided. It also then states that it is with the blessing of James, Peter, and John that Paul goes out to preach to Gentiles. But even then, there was a condition, that Paul had to make a collection to the poor. He once again submitted to that idea.

Sure, there may be some disagreements from time to time, but Paul is clear that he had found the blessing of the Jerusalem sect, and it was by their permission that he went to the Gentiles.

As for Acts, written by some unknown writer, probably Luke, who witnessed nothing according to Luke 1:1-3, his testimony can not be used to confirm any matter, Matthew 18:16 (Dt 19:15).

I don't use Acts. I use the letters of Paul. The only time I cite Acts is when it agrees with Paul.

As for Paul's testimony falling in line with that of Yeshua, I beg to differ. Yeshua taught the "word of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:19). Paul taught the false gospel of grace/cross, which would be the seed of the tare Matthew 13:24-25, which was sown right along side the wheat seed.

Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who taught about how the Kingdom of G-d would soon be here. That meant that it would replace the Kingdom of Earth, which was Rome. Paul taught the same thing. That the end was near. That a new Kingdom would replace the present one.

Yes, Paul included a message about Jesus dying, but that was because Jesus died. Of course he was going to say something about it, but the vast majority of his preaching had nothing to do with that. The death of Jesus really meant nothing for Paul. It was the resurrection that meant something. For Paul, the resurrection was a symbol of the end, as it meant the general resurrection was beginning. Which meant that soon, the Kingdom of G-d would wipe out the current Kingdom, and the end of our current time had occurred.

Paul and Jesus were largely in line. The difference was the audience.

 

[omega2xx]

Some of the Pharisees accused Jesus, but we also note that some thought He was ''possessed'', etc. This means that they observed the miracles, etc, but could not accept them. If there is really any defense here, it is that, the leaders, /Pharisaic, seemed to have to urge the accusation/persecution on, /of Jesus.
Hence, it is more than just an accusation; the Pharisees, /the ones being referenced in the Bible, were actively against Jesus, there was nothing ambiguous about it.
Jesus claimed Divinity, those Pharisees couldn't accept/ it, ...

Right. Everyone gets to believe the Bible record or reject it. Their problem is that have no evidence on which to reject the Bible record. The come with their personal bias, and think that is enough.

 

[Desert Snake]

Right. Everyone gets to believe the Bible record or reject it. Their problem is that have no evidence on which to reject the Bible record. The come with their personal bias, and think that is enough.

The bias is part of the doctrine. This is why, some believed that Jesus was actually using Satanic method etc./ because, it's either divine, or /something else, /for the witnesses, so forth. After a certain amount of time, scenario could be made into something else entirely, which was done, ie 'different Jesus', or whatever. Anyone maintaining the verbal tradition, obviously had to ascribe to Jesus, possession, or such ,//which is why we have that noted, besides the 'official' version/

 

[omega2xx]

The bias is part of the doctrine. This is why, some believed that Jesus was actually using Satanic method etc./ because, it's either divine, or /something else, /for the witnesses, so forth. After a certain amount of time, scenario could be made into something else entirely, which was done, ie 'different Jesus', or whatever. Anyone maintaining the verbal tradition, obviously had to ascribe to Jesus, possession, or such ,//which is why we have that noted, besides the 'official' version/

The official version, the Bible, is the only version that matters.

 

[2ndpillar]

Now you're just being insulting. I asked my question because I wanted to see how to respond. If you take the Bible literally, then I could just quote verses and their context, for an argument. If you dismissed the entire Bible, we probably wouldn't have a discussion. And if you took the Bible somewhere in the middle, I would respond with a more nuanced argument that looked partially at what the Bible said, but also other sources. My question was an honest one, and wasn't insulting.

And for the record, I'm not Catholic, nor did I imply that I think their canon is holy.

First, Acts isn't historically accurate. It disagrees with what Paul says, and thus with such contradictions, scholars have generally argued that we can't trust Acts unless Paul also states something similar. What Paul and Acts agree with is that the Jerusalem sect, that made up of Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and other disciples, is that they were in control. Paul had to submit to them. To allow him to continue to preach, even though his message was completely different, would have been to allow a false prophet to deceive their followers, something Jesus most definitely didn't command.

Nope. You're reading from Acts, which doesn't coincide with Galatians 1. Paul met with Peter, and the Greek makes it clear that the meeting was for teaching. As in, Peter taught Paul the message over a time. Paul then met with James, and was then gone. It was only 14 years alter that Paul went back to Jerusalem, with Titus. In chapter 2, we see Paul again submitting to the Jerusalem sect as he met with them in private, and made sure that the gospel he was preaching was correct. He asked them to confirm it, to make sure he wasn't misguided. It also then states that it is with the blessing of James, Peter, and John that Paul goes out to preach to Gentiles. But even then, there was a condition, that Paul had to make a collection to the poor. He once again submitted to that idea.

Sure, there may be some disagreements from time to time, but Paul is clear that he had found the blessing of the Jerusalem sect, and it was by their permission that he went to the Gentiles.
I don't use Acts. I use the letters of Paul. The only time I cite Acts is when it agrees with Paul.

Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who taught about how the Kingdom of G-d would soon be here. That meant that it would replace the Kingdom of Earth, which was Rome. Paul taught the same thing. That the end was near. That a new Kingdom would replace the present one.

Yes, Paul included a message about Jesus dying, but that was because Jesus died. Of course he was going to say something about it, but the vast majority of his preaching had nothing to do with that. The death of Jesus really meant nothing for Paul. It was the resurrection that meant something. For Paul, the resurrection was a symbol of the end, as it meant the general resurrection was beginning. Which meant that soon, the Kingdom of G-d would wipe out the current Kingdom, and the end of our current time had occurred.

Paul and Jesus were largely in line. The difference was the audience.

Dear fb,
Paul's gospel is the gospel of grace, predicated on death on the cross. Paul's gospel of grace was that Yeshua died for the sinners. Now all you had to do was believe the story as Paul tells it. On the other hand, Yeshua's gospel was the kingdom of heaven, whereas the "wicked"/sinners caught a train into the "furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mt 13:41-42). For one to enter into "life" one must keep the Commandments (Mt 19:17), which is in respect to the now, and the future. For the kingdom of heaven is "in your midst" (Luke:21) which parallels, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mt 4:17).
The kingdom in which king David rules (Ezekiel 37:24), is yet future.

And Paul didn't preach he was a prophet. The unknown writer of 2 Peter 3, didn't describe Paul as a prophet, but as "brother". As for Paul teaching he had the approval of the "Jerusalem sect" would have no credibility, as it is his own witness (John 5:31). Paul becomes a false prophet through the teaching of the "Christian" church which along with the writings of the unknown author of Acts, the church declares it the "Word of God". The book of Revelation (Rev 2:2) would point to Paul as being a "false apostle", who went and tried to fool the people of Ephesus, one of Paul's haunts. Keep in mind that Paul did say he would accurse anyone who said anything different from his gospel, including angels from heaven. (Gal 1:8) The man was full of himself. His followers kind of follow in his footsteps.

So all your arguments are based on that which you do not call holy? The only thing referred by Yeshua as "Scripture" was the OT (John 10:35), plus the testimony of Yeshua, per the account of Rev 19:10. I think you went way over that line. You are mixing traditions of men, and sketchy church history, with Scripture. The result seems to be confusion, exemplified by the nearly 38,000 different "Christian" sects.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

Bingo----thanks for yur input, although it will fall on ears that hear not.

 

[omega2xx]

If you don't mind, I would appreciate if you mentioned the text because I don't have a volume of the NT here with me. But probably yes because the gospel was written by a Hellenist former disciple of Paul and attributed to John for apostolic credibility.

What is lacking in credibility is your statement. John was NEVER disciple of Paul and you have absolutely no evidence that John did not write the gospel attributed to him

John was illiterate according to Luke in Acts 4:13 and illiterate people cannot write books.

Acts 4:13 does not say they were illiterate, it says they were uneducated and untrained. It refers to not being formally educated in the law as the Pharisees and Saducees were. The Jews put great importance in education and the chances are both Peter and John were educated in school as children.

 

[Ben Avraham]

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.

Evidence # 1 that the writers of the NT were not Jewish. Read Mat. 9:9; the Hellenist is talking about how Jesus met Matthew in all the details of how he became one of Jesus' Apostles. Matthew would never talk about his first experience with Jesus in the 3rd person. Evidence # 2, the same Hellenist who wrote that gospel and attributed it to Matthew the apostle of Jesus for apostolic credibility committed the blunder to report that Jesus had been born of God with Mary which was the exact description of the Greek demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. That's in Mat. 1:18. A Jew would never, blatantly, write about Greek Mythology involving a Jew.

 

[omega2xx]

Evidence # 1 that the writers of the NT were not Jewish. Read Mat. 9:9; the Hellenist is talking about how Jesus met Matthew in all the details of how he became one of Jesus' Apostles. Matthew would never talk about his first experience with Jesus in the 3rd person. Evidence # 2, the same Hellenist who wrote that gospel and attributed it to Matthew the apostle of Jesus for apostolic credibility committed the blunder to report that Jesus had been born of God with Mary which was the exact description of the Greek demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. That's in Mat. 1:18. A Jew would never, blatantly, write about Greek Mythology involving a Jew.

Matthew and John were Jewish.

You have absolutely no evidence who wrote any of the gospels. So you should not say someone else wrote it and attributed it to Matthew. Such statement only point to you personal bias. You do not have the ability to says for certain that Matthew would never take about his first experience with Jesus in the 3rd person.

There are many myths about a god giving birth to a god,k through a virgin. That in no way falsifies the birth of Jesus.

That a Jews would never write about Greek mythology involving a Jew is something else you can' prove. It that is true, then the story of Jesus birth is accurate. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Ben Avraham]

What is lacking in credibility is your statement. John was NEVER disciple of Paul and you have absolutely no evidence that John did not write the gospel attributed to him

Acts 4:13 does not say they were illiterate, it says they were uneducated and untrained. It refers to not being formally educated in the law as the Pharisees and Saducees were. The Jews put great importance in education and the chances are both Peter and John were educated in school as children.

You are not focusing on what you are reading. I am the last one on earth to say that John was a disciple of Paul. I said that the gospel of John was written by a Hellenist former disciple of Paul. John was a peasant of the fishing kind. He didn't even have a place of his own to live as he lived with Peter, another peasant of the same kind and both illiterate men. My evidence is based on the logical kind of men they were and, they could not be educated men.

 

[omega2xx]

You are not focusing on what you are reading. I am the last one on earth to say that John was a disciple of Paul. I said that the gospel of John was written by a Hellenist former disciple of Paul.

OK I did misread that.

John was a peasant of the fishing kind. He didn't even have a place of his own to live as he lived with Peter, another peasant of the same kind and both illiterate men.

Now it is you who is not focusing. The Bible DOES NOT say they were illiterate and it does not say he lived with Peter.

My evidence is based on the logical kind of men they were and, they could not be educated men.

Mine is based on what the inspired word of God says, not on my personal, biased opinions. My logic is better.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Matthew and John were Jewish.

You have absolutely no evidence who wrote any of the gospels. So you should not say someone else wrote it and attributed it to Matthew. Such statement only point to you personal bias. You do not have the ability to says for certain that Matthew would never take about his first experience with Jesus in the 3rd person.

There are many myths about a god giving birth to a god,k through a virgin. That in no way falsifies the birth of Jesus.

That a Jews would never write about Greek mythology involving a Jew is something else you can' prove. It that is true, then the story of Jesus birth is accurate. Thanks for pointing that out.

I understand you Omega; you cannot speak with logical understanding because you are enslaved by Christian preconceived notions. The whole of the NT, especially the gospels are crowded with Hellenistic evidences that none of them could not have been a Jewish man. You cannot detect the Hellenistic spirit throughout the NT because the religious education you grew up with won't allow you to be free. If it was not for the Jewish man called Jesus, I would not be here badgering you. I am sorry if you feel unsafe to be talking with me. Take it easy on Jesus and I'll take it easy on you.

 

[Ben Avraham]

OK I did misread that. Now it is you who is not focusing. The Bible DOES NOT say they were illiterate and it does not say he lived with Peter. Mine is based on what the inspired word of God says, not on my personal, biased opinions. My logic is better.

You just read Act 4:13 and agreed with me that they were uneducated. What is the difference between uneducated and illiterate? No difference! Neither one could write books, that's as simple as that! Your Logic is based on faith and it does not mean that it is better. Where faith starts, knowledge ends. That's why Paul said in II Corinthians 5:7 that Christians must walk by faith and not by sight. If by sight is to walk with understanding, it is only obvious that to walk by faith was to leave the understanding with Paul. Probably Paul hated wise Christians.

 

[omega2xx]

I understand you Omega; you cannot speak with logical understanding because you are enslaved by Christian preconceived notions. The whole of the NT, especially the gospels are crowded with Hellenistic evidences that none of them could not have been a Jewish man. You cannot detect the Hellenistic spirit throughout the NT because the religious education you grew up with won't allow you to be free. If it was not for the Jewish man called Jesus, I would not be here badgering you. I am sorry if you feel unsafe to be talking with me. Take it easy on Jesus and I'll take it easy on you.

What I can detect is non-supported OPINIONS. I can't help it if you don't even understand your own Scriptures.

I do not feel unsafe talking with you or anyone else, especially when all they do is blather and do not offer anything except their personal opinions. Your ignorance of the Bible makes me feel very secure. I would take it easy on you but, that might make me an enabler, and that is not a good thing, You know the adage---the truth shall set you free and you are like the Jews in Egypt, slaves making bricks. The first time you made bricks was to build the Tower of Babel. You even reject what your own Scriptures say and then have to embellish your remarks to try and make you point.

If anyone will feel unsafe it will be you because I will not take it easy on anyone who adds to God's word. O where have I heard that? I am almost sure you do. Now the question is, do you believe it? Maybe I should include "do you understand it?"

 

[Ben Avraham]

What I can detect is non-supported OPINIONS. I can't help it if you don't even understand your own Scriptures.

I do not feel unsafe talking with you or anyone else, especially when all they do is blather and do not offer anything except their personal opinions. Your ignorance of the Bible makes me feel very secure. I would take it easy on you but, that might make me an enabler, and that is not a good thing, You know the adage---the truth shall set you free and you are like the Jews in Egypt, slaves making bricks. The first time you made bricks was to build the Tower of Babel. You even reject what your own Scriptures say and then have to embellish your remarks to try and make you point.

If anyone will feel unsafe it will be you because I will not take it easy on anyone who adds to God's word. O where have I heard that? I am almost sure you do. Now the question is, do you believe it? Maybe I should include "do you understand it?"

Too bad that your knowledge of the gospel of Jesus which was the Tanach is deteriorating. You say that the first time we made bricks was to build the Tower of Babel when Israel did not exist yet at that time. That phase was the turn of the Gentiles to make bricks and cause all the confusion that still today refuses to leave them in peace.