The Pauline Paradox

[oldbadger]

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..........................................

Hi....
Look, whilst Paul was a contract-busting false witness (imo ) he didn't get the above totally wrong, and there is no paradox in the above sentence.

Meshiah: Any Jew, whether priest or brigand, who aroused the peasant classes to unite against the Hellenised hypocritical, heretical and quisling upper class, the priesthood (remember what John the Baptist said about them!) would have been a Meshiah! It's just sad that Jesus, Yeshua BarYosef, failed to so unite the Galilean or any other people to this cause. So Paul fibbed there......

Son of God: Any Jew was and is a child of the Israelite God! It says so in the bible! The Israelites were the children of God! It's just a bit naughty that Paul wanted to make Jesus the ONLY Israelite Jewish Son of God!
Deuteronomy 14:1 You are the children of the LORD your God. Do ...
biblehub.com/deuteronomy/14-1.htm. Ye are the sons of the LORD your God.................

But it was (is?) possible for a Jewish person, a child of the Israelite God, to be a Meshiah. No probs.

 

[Augustus]

That is reasonable, but Paul seems aware of the paradox rather than unaware of it.

This is important to note.

People attacking religions like to think they were the first to notice the contradictions and the like that the 'stupid' people in the past included in their books. Like the people who compiled the Bible failed to notice that the Gospels didn't exactly match each other, and now that it has been pointed out it totally invalidates the entire belief system.

It's much more interesting to think about why they didn't see such things as important despite being aware of them.

 

[metis]

I know Christ is the redeemer as I have communed with him.
The rest is analysis, speculation and contemplation.

And I don't have a problem with that as I do believe we all should go in the direction of that which can make us a better person.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

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)

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.

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.

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!

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke: “Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23—says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

Read more at: http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html#genealogy

 

[fantome profane]

I am going to ask the question again, as it seems no one noticed it.

Did Paul actually preach the virgin birth? Are there any indications in any of his letters that Paul believed that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born?

 

[Hawkins]

Based on which Jewish view you can draw the conclusion that Paul the Pharisee made a paradox. Most original Jewish concepts were lost as a result of the AD70 siege. Today's Judaism was fabricated after AD200 by a group of un-legitimated rabbis, as the legitimated Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Sudducees were all gone.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Today's Judaism was fabricated after AD200 by a group of un-legitimated rabbis, as the legitimated Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Sudducees were all gone.

Why do you think so?

 

[metis]

Most original Jewish concepts were lost as a result of the AD70 siege. Today's Judaism was fabricated after AD200 by a group of un-legitimated rabbis, as the legitimated Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Sudducees were all gone.

The above is just so wrong and on multiple accounts, but if fabricating a nonsensical story floats your boat, go for it I guess.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Jesus speaks of the one to come after Him. Now, that is obviously the 'Messiah', that matches your ''definition''. The thing is, ''Messiah'', merely means ''a'' Messiah, and Jesus /fulfilled those /specific/ Messianic actions that are attributed to Him.
The coming Messiah that Jesus spoke of, may or may not be ''Jesus'', so that is going to depend on your belief.

I agree with you that to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, one must make use of faith because, literally, it seems impossible. Besides, we are not sure of any thing about Jesus in the NT because the whole book was not written by Jews
but by Hellenist former disciples of Paul. Jesus, if you check History without Christian preconceived notions, never even dreamed that the NT would ever be written.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Oh, I am speculating, but so are you.
He incarnated into human form to reveal to us our sin.
If omnipotence was universal there would be no sin.
If there was no sin, there would be no process of overcoming: the universe would be in a stagnant state of glory.

You would not be speculating if you quoted the Scriptures for an evidence to assert what you are saying. Thus, you simply expect us to take your word for it.
Sin has nothing to do with being Omnipotence universal or not. Sinfulness is subject to our Freewill.

 

[wizanda]

never even dreamed that the NT would ever be written.

Isaiah 8 says 'the testimony will be sealed up among the disciples', Yeshua forewarns about the gospel of John with its "I Am" statements, Paul with his false teachings, and Simon the stone (petros) misleading everyone.

So literally it has all happened as expected, covering thousands of years, and thus showing divine inspiration in the whole thing.

that to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, one must make use of faith

You can use reasoning with the Tanakh, and establish the whole case, once you remove the fallacies first.... Yet as stated previously, the Messiah is to come in the Messianic age, not before it.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Isaiah 8 says 'the testimony will be sealed up among the disciples', Yeshua forewarns about the gospel of John with its "I Am" statements, Paul with his false teachings, and Simon the stone (petros) misleading everyone.

So literally it has all happened as expected, covering thousands of years, and thus showing divine inspiration in the whole thing.

You can use reasoning with the Tanakh, and establish the whole case, once you remove the fallacies first.... Yet as stated previously, the Messiah is to come in the Messianic age, not before it.

The Messianic age is an embellishment for the return of the Jews aka the Messiah from exile. Every time we have the Jewish Commonwealth in place, it means that the Messiah aka Israel is back home.
Peter was a Jew just like Jesus and I do not agree that he misled any one. Paul yes, because he deserted Judaism to found Christianity in the city of Antioch. (Acts 11:26)

 

[Ben Avraham]

Based on which Jewish view you can draw the conclusion that Paul the Pharisee made a paradox. Most original Jewish concepts were lost as a result of the AD70 siege. Today's Judaism was fabricated after AD200 by a group of un-legitimated rabbis, as the legitimated Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Sudducees were all gone.

Paul preached about Jesus as of being of the lineage of David aka the Messiah and, on the other hand, he preached about Jesus as being the son of God, not a biological son of Joseph. (Acts 9:20; II Tim. 2:8) That's a paradox.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The above is just so wrong and on multiple accounts, but if fabricating a nonsensical story floats your boat, go for it I guess.

^ What he said.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I am going to ask the question again, as it seems no one noticed it.

Did Paul actually preach the virgin birth? Are there any indications in any of his letters that Paul believed that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born?

Not Paul per se but his Hellenistic disciple who wrote the gospel of Matthew. Read Mat. 1:18. The author witnesses about Jesus having been born of God with an earthly woman aka Mary.
Then, there are two kinds of virgin: Almah and Betulah. Almah was a young woman still able to conceive. Betulah is the virgin who has never been sexually with a man. We agree that Mary
was an Almah. Christians defend that Mary was betulah till death.

 

[RabbiO]

The above is just so wrong and on multiple accounts, but if fabricating a nonsensical story floats your boat, go for it I guess.

^ What he said.

What they said, I say.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then, there are two kinds of virgin: Almah and Betulah.

Rubbish, As has been noted repeatedly in these forums, almah does not mean virgin.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke: “Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23—says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

Read more at: http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html#genealogy

 

[fantome profane]

Not Paul per se but his Hellenistic disciple who wrote the gospel of Matthew. Read Mat. 1:18. The author witnesses about Jesus having been born of God with an earthly woman aka Mary.
Then, there are two kinds of virgin: Almah and Betulah. Almah was a young woman still able to conceive. Betulah is the virgin who has never been sexually with a man. We agree that Mary
was an Almah. Christians defend that Mary was betulah till death.

The author of Matthew was a disciple of Paul? That is quite a stretch. You would have had a better case if you said the author of Luke. But even then I see no evidence that they got this particular idea from Paul. Even if some of their ideas were influenced by Paul.

I do see the paradox you are trying to point out. But I don't understand why you are trying to connect it to Paul. (or how you are connecting it to Paul)

 

[wizanda]

The Messianic age

Peter

Petros isn't a name, it means a small stone, thus fulfilling Zechariah 3:9.

Christianity in the city of Antioch.

Paul and was taught by Simon, so they both established Christianity.