The Pauline Paradox

[Ben Avraham]

Even if Mary had been a direct daughter of David, Jesus would not be from the Tribe of Judah because the genealogical right would not come down through the mother but through the father.
So, Mary had to be a biological son of Joseph to be eligible to be the Messiah according to the individual concept of Messiah. So, the Pauline paradox remains all the same.

 

[Ben Avraham]

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

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

That stone according to Zechariah 3:9 is the same as the God's Servant the Branch aka Judah whose guilty had been removed in a single day which culminated with the return from exile in Babylon.
Simon had nothing to do with Christianity. Paul was the founder of it if you read Acts 11:26. Peter as a Jew, would have no business in the establishment of an anti-Jewish religion.

 

[Ben Avraham]

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)

Yes, a Hellenist former disciple of Paul's who was also a Hellenist. If you want an evidence that Matthew the Apostle did not write that gospel attributed to him for apostolic credibility, read Mat. 9:9.
That text was written by someone else other than Matthew the Apostle. There are many more evidences that a Jew could not have taken part in the writing of the NT. Luke too was a Hellenist daily
disciple of Paul. To understand why I am connecting the paradox with Paul, you must read your NT. Paul fabricated the idea that Jesus was the Messiah from the lineage of David and at the same
time he claimed that Jesus was the son of God. Then, if you read Mat. 1:18 that Joseph took no part in the conception of Jesus. (Acts 9:20; II Timothy 2:8)

 

[Desert Snake]

You are but don't take it literally. Remember that Jesus dies and is resurrected? Paul says Christians have been resurrected (past tense) too, yet we can go and look at their graves. (Eph 2:6, Col 2:12) They have also been seated in heavenly places with him. Now tell me, do you see Christians sitting in the sky? No, you don't; because its not talking about that. Do you see Christians crawling out of graves? No you don't, because that isn't what its talking about. When Jesus says "He that believes in me though he dies yet he lives" what does he mean? Possibly not what you are thinking he means, and when Revelation says Jesus is coming on the clouds of heaven, possibly that also does not mean that you are expected to wait for a man to fly down out of the sky.

I guess a lot of this is your opinion, and interpretation.

i notice that you are also using different ideas of what the 'literal' interpretation is.
the statements regarding some of those verses, indicate that.

 

[Desert Snake]

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)

This is a clever way of not having an actual Messiah, but it does not help your argument; it helps the interpretation of ''Messiah'', found in the NT. Jesu is the Messiah in the sense of the fulfilling the laws/set for israel, yet is not the individual that you are claiming 'Jesus' is supposed to be, /different Messiah, or second coming.

Even if Mary had been a direct daughter of David, Jesus would not be from the Tribe of Judah because the genealogical right would not come down through the mother but through the father.
So, Mary had to be a biological son of Joseph to be eligible to be the Messiah according to the individual concept of Messiah. So, the Pauline paradox remains all the same.

You are contradicting yourself. You just stated that the Messiah is not an individual, yet then you are giving reasons why the Messiah isn't Jesus, based on His lineage. You seem to be reading Scripture, the Torah etc, in the context that the Messiah is an individual,, yet at the same time, stating that the Messiah isn't an individual..

 

[wizanda]

That stone according to Zechariah 3:9

In Zechariah 3:10 the reference to sitting under the vine, and the fig tree, is a recurrent reference to the Messianic age, like we find in Micah 4:4, etc.

Simon had nothing to do with Christianity.

So when Yeshua said he will build his church on Simon, he was wrong?

Who is first quoted in Acts as teaching people jesus came as the saviour?

Who taught Paul when he came back from Arabia? Galatians 1:18

Peter as a Jew, would have no business in the establishment of an anti-Jewish religion.

Pauline Christianity isn't anti-Jewish, instead he endorses the children of Israel, by circumnavigating the law, and making Gentiles believe they're grafted on to a divorced people....

Where the statement, 'first Jew then Gentile', has helped maintain Jewish influence in the world.

 

[Ben Avraham]

In Zechariah 3:10 the reference to sitting under the vine, and the fig tree, is a recurrent reference to the Messianic age, like we find in Micah 4:4, etc.

No, the reference is the future life in Israel after return of the Jews from exile in Babylon. (Ezekiel 37:22)

So when Yeshua said he will build his church on Simon, he was wrong?

Jesus never said that he would build his church because he was a Jew and Jews don't build churches but synagogues. The guy who wrote these words was the Hellenist former disciple of Paul who wrote that gospel.

Who is first quoted in Acts as teaching people jesus came as the saviour?

You have got to give me the text so that I may be able to answer your question.

Who taught Paul when he came back from Arabia? Galatians 1:18

Himself created his gospel. Not even the apostles of Jesus taught any thing to him. They rather rejected him when he applied to join the Sect of the Nazarenes. (Acts 9:26)

Pauline Christianity isn't anti-Jewish, instead he endorses the children of Israel, by circumnavigating the law, and making Gentiles believe they're grafted on to a divorced people....

That's promotion of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. The Lord never divorced His son aka the People of Israel. Read Exodus 4:22,23.

Where the statement, 'first Jew then Gentile', has helped maintain Jewish influence in the world.

At least, among the Jews, this statement has never helped them because the meaning of it is a promotion of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. The saying is hypocritical to the least.

 

[Ben Avraham]

This is a clever way of not having an actual Messiah, but it does not help your argument; it helps the interpretation of ''Messiah'', found in the NT. Jesu is the Messiah in the sense of the fulfilling the laws/set for israel, yet is not the individual that you are claiming 'Jesus' is supposed to be, /different Messiah, or second coming.

You are contradicting yourself. You just stated that the Messiah is not an individual, yet then you are giving reasons why the Messiah isn't Jesus, based on His lineage. You seem to be reading Scripture, the Torah etc, in the context that the Messiah is an individual,, yet at the same time, stating that the Messiah isn't an individual..

 

[Ben Avraham]

This is a clever way of not having an actual Messiah, but it does not help your argument; it helps the interpretation of ''Messiah'', found in the NT. Jesu is the Messiah in the sense of the fulfilling the laws/set for israel, yet is not the individual that you are claiming 'Jesus' is supposed to be, /different Messiah, or second coming.

You are contradicting yourself. You just stated that the Messiah is not an individual, yet then you are giving reasons why the Messiah isn't Jesus, based on His lineage. You seem to be reading Scripture, the Torah etc, in the context that the Messiah is an individual,, yet at the same time, stating that the Messiah isn't an individual..

There is a Messiah; I am not trying to avoid that but, the Messiah is Israel aka the Son of God. (Exodus 4:22,23) If you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord. Using the power of Logic, the individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not! The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People
before the Lord forever. (Jeremiah 31:35-37) Hence, Jesus could not have been the Messiah; not on an individual basis but as part of the People he belonged to and only while he was alive. The fulfilling of the laws set for Israel was not the duty of
Jesus only but of the whole People of Israel. The reference in the singular when speaking about the Messiah is the same as when speaking about the Son of God aka Israel the People. (Exodus 4:22,23) "When Israel was a child, from Egypt I called
My Son." (Hosea 11:1) Please, read my quotes in order not to imply that I am talking from the top of my head.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Even if Mary had been a direct daughter of David, Jesus would not be from the Tribe of Judah because the genealogical right would not come down through the mother but through the father.
So, Mary had to be a biological son of Joseph to be eligible to be the Messiah according to the individual concept of Messiah. So, the Pauline paradox remains all the same.

Only for people that need to find fault with something so they have a reason not to believe.

 

[moorea944]

There is a Messiah; I am not trying to avoid that but, the Messiah is Israel aka the Son of God. (Exodus 4:22,23) If you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord. Using the power of Logic, the individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not! The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People
before the Lord forever. (Jeremiah 31:35-37) Hence, Jesus could not have been the Messiah; not on an individual basis but as part of the People he belonged to and only while he was alive. The fulfilling of the laws set for Israel was not the duty of
Jesus only but of the whole People of Israel. The reference in the singular when speaking about the Messiah is the same as when speaking about the Son of God aka Israel the People. (Exodus 4:22,23) "When Israel was a child, from Egypt I called
My Son." (Hosea 11:1) Please, read my quotes in order not to imply that I am talking from the top of my head.

There is a Messiah; I am not trying to avoid that but, the Messiah is Israel aka the Son of God. (Exodus 4:22,23)

I cant believe what i'm reading here... your saying that "you think" that the son of God is Israel? The Messiah? You have to remember something, God is the father of all, including Israel, but it's not talking about Jesus, the messiah yet. It's ok that scripture tells us that Israel are God's children, same with us. Look at 2 Sam 7 on what David is told about the "coming" messiah. Look at the prophet books. Your making the bible into something that it is not.

Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation?

Why would anyone think that?....

The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jeremiah 31:35-37) Hence, Jesus could not have been the Messiah;

Your missing so much because you want the bible to match your views about things. I cant believe the things your actually writting about... During Israel's time, they knew about a coming messiah, so your wrong again about Israel being the actual messiah. Jer 31 also tells us that there will be a new covenant with the nation of Israel too. Jesus also mentions that. We also read that in Heb 8 & 9.

I know you dont want Jesus to be our messiah, but you have no choice in that matter.

 

[CG Didymus]

I always say it over and over, if you take the bible literally you'll always find problems.

How can you say that? God is not the author of confusion. It all makes perfect sense if you have the right translation and interpret it the right way... and maybe shut down part of your brain also. That would be a big help.

 

[randomvim]

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!

1. Does the Bible or any authority of tradition say that Messiah would have to be direct son of a male from the house of David?

2. St. Mary was from the house of David.

Check out the book, "Behold your Mother" by Tim Staples. nice stuff.

3. God is not subject to any human thing, but that is part of how great Jesus was.

God choose a single lineage to prepare us.

 

[randomvim]

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.

What passages do you speak of?

 

[randomvim]

And that really is my point in #7. If I say "My mother was a virgin and she impregnated by the Holy Spirit and our son is literally God", what's your or anyone else's reaction? If Jesus said or implied that, does anyone seriously think he people back then would believe him? And who was there to see Mary getting pregnant in the first place besides some man-- I hope Joseph.

Some do not understand the heavy symbolic use of words especially found in early Jewish literature, so they believe it at the literal level instead of putting it into perspective.

Virgin birth is literal. there is no symbolism behind it as we see no symbolic use in Hebrew. may you point out where ?

Otherwise Archangel Gabriel described birth of our Lord that Mary said yes to. He described it as virgin.

Marriage is heavily involved with family. if any woman was to become pregnant. the family knew. furthermore - Joseph would have known.

Jewish tradition is tricky. way I have heard it explain - Joseph and Mary were wed., but there is a period of time in which the couple is together prior to being "legal" married. it's difficult to explain but I mention a book earlier which will help with this - I think it's in there.

If not I'm sure it may be found.

Let's not forget how scary and scandalous any pregnancy would have been out side of marriage.

 

[randomvim]

Did Paul actually preach the virgin birth?

Much of early Church did.

 

[psychoslice]

How can you say that? God is not the author of confusion. It all makes perfect sense if you have the right translation and interpret it the right way... and maybe shut down part of your brain also. That would be a big help.

So who's translation do we believe in, yours, the man down the road, Who's, and if your's why the hell should I believe in that ???>

 

[Ben Avraham]

Virgin birth is literal. there is no symbolism behind it as we see no symbolic use in Hebrew. may you point out where ?

Otherwise Archangel Gabriel described birth of our Lord that Mary said yes to. He described it as virgin.

Marriage is heavily involved with family. if any woman was to become pregnant. the family knew. furthermore - Joseph would have known.

Jewish tradition is tricky. way I have heard it explain - Joseph and Mary were wed., but there is a period of time in which the couple is together prior to being "legal" married. it's difficult to explain but I mention a book earlier which will help with this - I think it's in there.

If not I'm sure it may be found.

Let's not forget how scary and scandalous any pregnancy would have been out side of marriage.

With the permission of Metis, virgin birth is not literal. The symbolic used in Hebrew you ask is found in Amos 5:2. Joseph had no problem with that in his case as he knew that Mary would not commit adultery.

 

[Ben Avraham]

1. Does the Bible or any authority of tradition say that Messiah would have to be direct son of a male from the house of David?

2. St. Mary was from the house of David.

Check out the book, "Behold your Mother" by Tim Staples. nice stuff.

3. God is not subject to any human thing, but that is part of how great Jesus was.

God choose a single lineage to prepare us.

Read Genesis 49:10; Judah was the one with the Messianic scepter. From that day on, the Messiah which is not the king Messiah or the anointed High Priest, he is Judah aka Emanuel (God with us) if you read Isaiah 8:8.
Mary was not from the House of David. The closest tribal relationship with Mary I found was the Tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5,36)
I don't need to check any source outside the NT as "behold your mother is concerned." John was neither Jesus' beloved disciple nor stood there before Jesus at the Calvary. The statement "behold your mother" is a reference to Mary Magdalene
to take her mother-in-law Mary home with her.
Jesus was great all right but he was a human being and, in fact not a sinless one if you read Matthew 23:13-33 which justifies Ecclesiastes 7:20.
Hence God did choose the lineage of David from the Tribe of Judah. (I Kings 11:26) But Paul messed up the whole thing by denying that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph. (II Timothy 2:8; Acts 9:20)

 

[Ben Avraham]

I cant believe what i'm reading here... your saying that "you think" that the son of God is Israel? The Messiah?

I am saying nothing but reading in the Scriptures which you refuse to believe. That's why I said to check my quotes not to think that I am speaking from the top of my head. Moses in Exodus 4:22,23 for Israel being the Son of God
and Habakkuk 3:13 for Israel being the Messiah. As you can see, I hope, I am saying nothing from my own lips.

[quoteYou have to remember something, God is the father of all, including Israel, but it's not talking about Jesus, the messiah yet.

I am aware that God is father to us all but in a special way He Himself said "Israel is My Son."(Exodus 4:22,23; Hosea 11:1)

It's ok that scripture tells us that Israel are God's children, same with us. Look at 2 Sam 7 on what David is told about the "coming" messiah. Look at the prophet books. Your making the bible into something that it is not.

Please, mention the verse when quoting. I don't have time to read the whole chapter to find out what you mean. (2 Sam. 7:****) I am aware that many Jews still expect an individual Messiah to come but, generations after generations and
he never comes. I use Divine Logic and have the Messiah always at hand through the collective concept of Messiah.

Why would anyone think that?....

Well, some one must think according to the Scriptures that Jesus always referred to as the Word of God aka the Tanach. The NT he never even dreamed would ever rise.

Your missing so much because you want the bible to match your views about things. I cant believe the things your actually writting about... During Israel's time, they knew about a coming messiah, so your wrong again about Israel being the actual messiah. Jer 31 also tells us that there will be a new covenant with the nation of Israel too. Jesus also mentions that. We also read that in Heb 8 & 9.

The New Covenant according to Jeremiah 31:31 was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, period.

I know you dont want Jesus to be our messiah, but you have no choice in that matter.

Jesus can't be an individual Messiah because he is dead. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jeremiah 31:35-37)[/quote]