The Pauline Paradox

[Kenny]

Maybe-- maybe not. It's a myth (doesn't mean false), so the importance to me is what's being taught here.

I think it is important (of course, for me it's true). It establishes that God has the power of life as well as establishing that the creation of Israel was by His design and not man's. Of course, that's my bias... but it does make me happy. Actually, it gives me a great appreciation for the people of Israel.

 

[Desert Snake]

I can, however, give you a big memorized list of Bible verses. That's important to me.

Not knocking that, but many people also have verses memorised, and have the incorrect conclusions. Just some perspective.

 

[Kenny]

Not knocking that, but many people also have verses memorised, and have the incorrect conclusions. Just some perspective.

Obviously. But we are talking about memorization and not interpretation.

 

[metis]

By all means.... NO! But then again, that isn't important to me.

I can, however, give you a big memorized list of Bible verses. That's important to me.



Not vague at all. But didn't you just establish my point? How can there be oral tradition if it isn't memorized?

Because we also know that oral traditions tend to be gradually changed over time. In anthropology, this is one of the things we try and keep track of because changes in culture tend to alter oral traditions as well. Google the history of the belief in "Santa Claus" as an interesting example.

 

[metis]

I think it is important (of course, for me it's true). It establishes that God has the power of life as well as establishing that the creation of Israel was by His design and not man's. Of course, that's my bias... but it does make me happy. Actually, it gives me a great appreciation for the people of Israel.

Why does it have to be historically true in order to teach the moral lesson you mention? Why isn't the message alone sufficient to make you happy?

In the 2nd century church, this kind of question came up in regards to Jesus' parables, namely did what's found in these parables actually take place, and it was argued both ways? The eventual consensus became that it wasn't important whether the events actually happened because the importance is the message within. [source: Dr. Hanson (Anglican) in "Tradition In the Early Church"-- an absolutely top-shelf book, imo]

 

[whirlingmerc]

One would think if a genealogy has significance.. like a royal lineage... people today might know their ancestors
The davidic and Levitical descent would be significant and reason a person then might know if it applied

I know some back to 1774 but I had no reason to know more

 

[metis]

One would think if a genealogy has significance.. like a royal lineage... people today might know their ancestors
The davidic and Levitical descent would be significant and reason a person then might know if it applied

I know some back to 1774 but I had no reason to know more

But there are two reasons why that became impossible in the vast majority of cases, with one of them being what I already mentioned in regards to records lost, but the other has to do with intermarriage. Tribal importance was significant prior to the Babylonian exile but lost its significance (with the exception of the priesthood-- Levi) afterwards since people began to mix together, and this occurred for five centuries. Without records, anyone could claim that he was "the Messiah", and it was virtually impossible to prove them wrong, and there was a great number of men making this claim. Of course, neither could the person making such a claim proves themselves right, and because of this the "wait-and-see" attitude developed. IOW, if and when "the Messiah" appears by fulfilling all the prophecies, we'll all know it because it'll become abundantly clear to all.

 

[Kenny]

Because we also know that oral traditions tend to be gradually changed over time. In anthropology, this is one of the things we try and keep track of because changes in culture tend to alter oral traditions as well. Google the history of the belief in "Santa Claus" as an interesting example.

LOL... But we KNOW the change in Santa Clause.

I guess that, for me, I don't find it difficult to memorize 28 generation when the DNA to the culture of that time was to know your decedents. My children memorized the book of 1 John for school. So I find it plausible.

If I am wrong, then I will ask your forgiveness when we see each other in the Kingdom of our Maker.

 

[metis]

LOL... But we KNOW the change in Santa Clause.

I guess that, for me, I don't find it difficult to memorize 28 generation when the DNA to the culture of that time was to know your decedents. My children memorized the book of 1 John for school. So I find it plausible.

If I am wrong, then I will ask your forgiveness when we see each other in the Kingdom of our Maker.

First of all, frankly I don't think it makes one iota of difference in the long run if the genealogy is correct or not-- it's just academic to me. As to the latter, I've been told so many times I'm going to hell that I'm sorta looking forward to the trip. Please periodically send me some ice-water, OK?

 

[Kenny]

Why does it have to be historically true in order to teach the moral lesson you mention? Why isn't the message alone sufficient to make you happy?

I'm not saying that a moral lesson can't make me happy. Under the banner of "happy" are both true accounts and fictional.

It makes me happy/joyous because it speaks of purpose, value and so much more. There is so much prophetic purpose as it relates to my belief in Jesus Christ. It gives so much purpose for the creation of Israel as it continues to fulfill prophetic declaration made hundreds and thousands of years before (like the recreation of the nation that has never been achieved by any other--nothing short of a miracle IMO)

In the 2nd century church, this kind of question came up in regards to Jesus' parables, namely did what's found in these parables actually take place, and it was argued both ways? The eventual consensus became that it wasn't important whether the events actually happened because the importance is the message within. [source: Dr. Hanson (Anglican) in "Tradition In the Early Church"-- an absolutely top-shelf book, imo]

I'm surprised that there was even a discussion on that. I see that as being, many times, men making the simple complicated.

Parable: a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
Allegory: a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concreter material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.

Obviously they didn't take place for otherwise they wouldn't be called a "parable".

 

[Kenny]

First of all, frankly I don't think it makes one iota of difference in the long run if the genealogy is correct or not-- it's just academic to me. As to the latter, I've been told so many times I'm going to hell that I'm sorta looking forward to the trip. Please periodically send me some ice-water, OK?

Water coming your way...

I don't remember Jesus ever going around saying "you are going to hell" but rather "The Kingdom of God has come nigh unto you". There is a big difference IMO.

 

[metis]

Obviously they didn't take place for otherwise they wouldn't be called a "parable".

But "parable" doesn't mean nor imply it didn't take place. What you've done is to accept an interpretation as if it were the only real option. It's not because it means essentially means "parallel", which could be a real even or not.

So, with that error, you're now apparently going to hell with me. I get the upper bunk!

 

[Kenny]

But "parable" doesn't mean nor imply it didn't take place. What you've done is to accept an interpretation as if it were the only real option. It's not because it means essentially means "parallel", which could be a real even or not.

So, with that error, you're now apparently going to hell with me. I get the upper bunk!

ROFL....

Metis... you know I am ALWAYS right!

But on the logical and more serious side "24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field." - isn't it pretty self evident?

 

[whirlingmerc]

It's an illustration 'thrown along side" of something else

the word parabole is from the greek for 'thrown (bole) allong side (para)'
para - along same root used in parallel and paraclete ( one who runs along side)
The parables usually are drawn form real life things familiar to the hearers

 

[metis]

ROFL....

Metis... you know I am ALWAYS right!

But on the logical and more serious side "24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field." - isn't it pretty self evident?

Not necessarily, and if it were self-evident, then why was it discussed and disagreed with in the 2nd century? According to Hanson, the argument on the real-history side was that Jesus would not tell an untruth, so if he said it happened, it happened. The counter argument was that it doesn't make a difference if it's a real event-- it's the message. Sound familiar.

 

[Kenny]

Not necessarily, and if it were self-evident, then why was it discussed and disagreed with in the 2nd century? According to Hanson, the argument on the real-history side was that Jesus would not tell an untruth, so if he said it happened, it happened. The counter argument was that it doesn't make a difference if it's a real event-- it's the message. Sound familiar.

LOL--OK--OK!! The message is important!!!!

It just happens to be true too!

 

[Kenny]

It's an illustration 'thrown along side" of something else

the word parabole is from the greek for 'thrown (bole) allong side (para)'
para - along same root used in parallel and paraclete ( one who runs along side)
The parables usually are drawn form real life things familiar to the hearers

thanks for the great breakdown of the word. Appreciated!

 

[metis]

LOL--OK--OK!! The message is important!!!!

It just happens to be true too!

Ah, Gandhi would be so proud of you, as he said all too many Christians elevated the man but forgot his message.

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> as they say
as it is written
:read:
John 3:6
Flesh and blood give birth to flesh and blood, but the Spirit gives birth to things that are spiritual.
7 Don't be surprised when I tell you that all of you must be born from above.
8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you don't know where the wind comes from or where it's going. That's the way it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
9 Nicodemus replied, "How can that be?"
10 Jesus told Nicodemus, "You're a well-known teacher of Israel. Can't you understand this?
11 I can guarantee this truth: We know what we're talking about, and we confirm what we've seen. Yet, you don't accept our message.
12 If you don't believe me when I tell you about things on earth, how will you believe me when I tell you about things in heaven?
13 No one has gone to heaven except the Son of Man, who came from heaven.
14 "As Moses lifted up the snake on a pole in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.
15 Then everyone who believes in him will have eternal life."
16 God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.
17 God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but to save the world.


by the way
we are not concern about that
doctrine of the Trinity
whether it would collapse or will it stay
for the triune god of those who invented that relegious belief is just a cloak to used god in their own agenda
so that they may conquer the world for their empire the old babylon itself


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

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!

 

[Ben Avraham]

If you read Zechariah 11:10, it says the covenant made with all people is broken, i.e. the Abrahmic covenant.

No, it is not. The Abrahamic Covenant was not made with all peoples, but with the people of Israel only. The basis of the Abrahamic Covenant is the circumcision and, to this very day, we still circumcise our children on the 8th day of birth.

That is well off, lets dissect it....

• 1 - Yeshua in the synoptic gospels divorces Israel, and says that the faithful are chosen to be within the 2 2 Messianic age....
  2 - That doesn't mean Christians either, it means those who are enlightened saints.
• 3 - The gospel of John ascribes that salvation/jesus was sent to the Jews, thus making them still a chosen people.
• 4 - According to Acts Simon says that jesus came to save the Jews by his death.
• 5 - Paul teaches that Christians are grafted onto the house of Isreal, which are first inline, thus still a chosen people.
• 6 - Not aware of anything in James, and Jude.
• 7 - Revelations has it that out of the tribes of Israel the enlightened saints are chosen.

1 - Jesus did not divorce Israel. I think you have Paul in mind. He was the one who divorced Israel out of his life.
2 - That's for sure. Christians were saints by faith, not by enlightenment. (II Cor. 5:7)
3 - The Law was the only salvation given to the Jews. (Exodus 20:1-14
4 - Simon Peter did not write the book of Acts. The Prophets say that no one can save another by his death. (Ezekiel 18:3, 20)
5 - That's Replacement Theology because Christians cannot be grafted unto the House of Israel without conversion according to Halacha. (Isaiah 56:1-8)
6 - James said that faith without the Law is akin to a body without the breath of life. Dead there is.
7 - Yes, but only the enlightened ones according to the Law and the Prophets. (Isaiah 8:20 - KJV)

So clearly the only one causing it is Yeshua; as it is prophesied in the Tanakh, and really the only one with the authority to do so.

Yeshua can no longer cause any thing if you read Ecclesiastes 9:5,6.

Luke 12:3 What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.

I think Luke made a mistake because Jesus said to listen to "Moses" aka the Law and Christians don't want to hear that. (Luke 16:29-31)

Matthew 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

I agree with that but according to Mat. 5:11 when Jesus said that the Jews would be persecuted falsely for his sake.

There are loads of verses indicating Yeshua knew the gospel would go global, as does the Tanakh.

Yeshua never even dreamed that the NT would ever rise. The only gospel he was familiar with was the Tanach which he would refer to as the Word of God.

From Yeshua's parables, not from Paul, John and Simon, who seem determined that the children of Israel are still chosen, and do not understand how prophecy fits together.

Behold! I am a child of Israel. If you try me I'll tell you how prophecies fit together.