What do you think of Paul the Apostle?

[Eli G]

In the mission of the real Christian we cannot be unbiased.

We know that there are enemies trying to confuse us, so we are prepared to defend the truth against any veiled attack by those enemies.

When Scripture is reduced to mere literature, we know something is wrong.

The Scriptures are our guide to reconsider our position, and if it is relegated to a second place in favor of the supposed "erudition" of the world, then it is no longer God we listen to but men.

 

[Ajax]

We know that there are enemies trying to confuse us, so we are prepared to defend the truth against any veiled attack by those enemies.

When Scripture is reduced to mere literature, we know something is wrong.

The Scriptures are our guide to reconsider our position, and if it is relegated to a second place in favor of the supposed "erudition" of the world, then it is no longer God we listen to but men.

Who cares what you believe, if you are unable to defend your beliefs in a discussion forum? This is not a preaching forum.
And they were men who wrote the Bible, most of whom remain unknown.

 

[Dimi95]

In the mission of the real Christian we cannot be unbiased.

We know that there are enemies trying to confuse us, so we are prepared to defend the truth against any veiled attack by those enemies.

When Scripture is reduced to mere literature, we know something is wrong.

The Scriptures are our guide to reconsider our position, and if it is relegated to a second place in favor of the supposed "erudition" of the world, then it is no longer God we listen to but men.

Can you read anything from the original written language ? No

So , how are you going to defend something that you don't understand in the first place?

@Ajax can do better then you , and he is not a Christian.

 

[Eli G]

The biblical texts are better documented than any ancient text known ... even better than any Jewish text of the post-apostolic era.

The Talmud, for example, is a compilation of oral Jewish traditions that were first written down in the 2nd century, while all the Christian wrtings were already circulating among Christian congregations of that epoch.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The biblical texts are better documented than any ancient text known ... even better than any Jewish text of the post-apostolic era.

The Talmud, for example, is a compilation of oral Jewish traditions that were first written down in the 2nd century, while all the Christian wrtings were already circulating among Christian congregations of that epoch.

There are no 2nd century texts in existence whatsoever.

 

[Eli G]

There are no 2nd century texts in existence whatsoever.

Start here

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ajax]

The biblical texts are better documented than any ancient text known ... even better than any Jewish text of the post-apostolic era.

Firstly, when we are talking about the Bible we mean both NT and OT. Therefore biblical texts refer to the writings in both books and your claim that biblical texts are better documented than any ancient text known, does not make any sense.
Secondly, the Hebrew bible was the source for many translations such a the Septuagint, written from the 3rd through the 1st centuries BCE, thus being in the pre-apostolic era.
Thirdly, none of the gospels is documented. None other, apart from the unknown gospel writers has written anything at that time. Not even Paul knows anything about the life of Jesus, except that he was crucified and resurrected.
And fourthly, since you want to devalue the Jewish texts, how can you believe that the gospels are the word of God, when God used Jewish texts to inspire the authors of gospels?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Start here

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where's the rest of it?

 

[Eli G]

Start here

Diatessaron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Inspired? I would definitely deny the writer of Matthew for being extremely dishonest in altering prophecies in order to fool Jews and present Jesus as the long awaited Messiah.

Yeap. That is exactly what Matthew does.

1. Matthew misquotes/mistranslates prophecies. For example, Matthew writes "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel' (which means, God with us)." (Matthew 1:22-23, ESV) But that's NOT what the prophet wrote. Here is the actual text of the prophecy: "Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel." So you see that Matthew alters the prophecy in two ways. First, he changes "young woman" to "virgin." The second is that he changes to verb tense of her being pregnant from present tense to future tense.

2. Matthew quotes out of context. For example, he writes, "And remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I called my son.'" (Matthew 2:15, ESV) However, let;s look at the original text: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." (Hosea 11:1, ESV) IOW, the prophet explicitly is speaking about ISRAEL, not the messiah, and the Exodus from Egypt. By leaving out the first part of the verse, Matthew yanks it out of context.

3. Matthew makes up prophecies out of whole cloth, such as, ""And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23, ESV) There is NO SUCH PROPHECY anywhere in the Tanakh (OT) that either uses those exact words, or even says in other words that the Messiah will come from Nazareth.

I cannot see any way for Matthew to make these sort of mistakes without a conscious, deliberate decision on his/their part to deceive.

 

[Eli G]

They started with Paul and have already moved on to Matthew... Don't make it so long and tedious. Just take off your mask and openly say that you detest Jesus Christ.


PS: what are you doing then trying to whisper something to Christians? No Christian is going to believe you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They started with Paul and have already moved on to Matthew... Don't make it so long and tedious. Just take off your mask and openly say that you detest Jesus Christ.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have no animosity towards Jesus at all. Brother J is a fellow Jew like me. He practiced second temple Judaism. He taught his fellow Jews to obey the Torah. However, I simply don't think he is a prophet, or the Messiah, or God. And while I bear him no ill will, the truth is that he is irrelevant to my religion.

 

[Ajax]

They started with Paul and have already moved on to Matthew... Don't make it so long and tedious. Just take off your mask and openly say that you detest Jesus Christ.


PS: what are you doing then trying to whisper something to Christians? No Christian is going to believe you.

It seems to me that you are not thinking rationally. Why should we detest Jesus? Everybody knows he was a charismatic person teaching to love each other, but he was not the Messiah the Jewish texts wrote about (which incidentally you don't consider these texts well documented)...

 

[Eli G]

I don't really mind what a non-Christian or anti-Christian thinks about Jesus. My posts are directed to people like me: Christians.

I don't care if religious Jews continue waiting for their own messiah for the years that remain to this world.

 

[Ajax]

I don't really mind what a non-Christian or anti-Christian thinks about Jesus. My posts are directed to people like me: Christians.

Then you had to specify in the beginning that your posts are directed to Christians only.
Instead you placed them in an open forum and you were at a loss for answers.

 

[Nakosis]

I get the following from the Jewish Encyclopedia about Saul of Tarsus aka Paul the self-acclaimed/and or unauthorized/fake Apostle of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), please, right?:

SAUL OF TARSUS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

Right?

Regards

It provides an interesting view of Paul.

 

[Nakosis]

What do you think of Paul the Apostle?

I think he is more the authority behind Christianity than Jesus, simply because when asking about Christian theology Christian usually more often than not refer to something written by Paul. Also all four gospels are said to have been influenced by Paul. So you can't separate the NT from Pauline theology.

 

[IsraelMoses]

I agree with @paarsurrey . You need to link us to whatever this "Gospel of Jesus" is.

I suspect you may be referring to the Gospel of Thomas, which is a collections of sayings he attributes to Jesus. (I know that the fictitious movie Stigmata refers to the Gospel of Thomas incorrectly as the Gospel of Jesus.) If that's the case, that you are referring to this Gospel of Thomas, please affirm.

What God downloads to the hearts of the individuals that seek to know Jesus' way. We have what the scribes, scholars give us, trusting that the Holy Spirit guidedthem.

 

[IsraelMoses]

I think he is more the authority behind Christianity than Jesus, simply because when asking about Christian theology Christian usually more often than not refer to something written by Paul. Also all four gospels are said to have been influenced by Paul. So you can't separate the NT from Pauline theology.

An obvious zealous, hard core guy about Jesus, a learning Apostle who gave his all, according to the various translations.

 

[IsraelMoses]

If Peter teaches anything against Moses then I have to put those words of Peter's on hold. I can't put Peter above Moses, because it is inappropriate to do that. Peter must comply with Moses not Moses with Peter. The same goes for Paul. If Christians aren't circumcised then there has to be reasoning which explains why we are not doing so. We cannot simply dismiss Moses because Peter or Paul says something else. Moses has precedent. He's definitely inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so Peter and Paul must comply with him not the other way around. Therefore simply taking Peter or Paul at their word seems insufficient, and its necessary to learn how they comply with Moses or not. Moses is prior and is not abolished, canceled or unnecessary. I'm not going to say that Peter or Paul should be ignored, but they must be understood and checked and tested and must comply with previous scripture. That's on the Christian.

In the traditional churches it is on the priests, and laypeople don't have to wrestle with such questions. Such things were done away by the protestants. It falls to me to deal with the naked Sun myself. I can and must question Peter and Paul and "Taste and see" whether the LORD he is good.

Excellent in your understanding. The older foundational Testament cannot be discarded or misinterpreted if you want the Truth. If the Apostles were all on the same page, as close in proximity of Jesus and didn't all agree ??? That is why that personal relationship is very important.