What do you think of Paul the Apostle?

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

My understanding is that "prophet" in religious matters, is a term used for "God inspired wisdom." Yes, it may involve speculation on the future, but not as thought of with psychics. It would be more in relationship of Jesus's wisdoms in pre-revolution Judea. "Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's"; "visit those in prison, feed the hungry, care for the widows..."; "you cannot serve two masters"; etc. Jesus was trying to prepare the masses for the new disporia to come if the unrest did not settle and the people return their focus to God instead of what Rome was up to, IMO.

I mean wouldn’t that mean that the writers for example the gospels, would then be prophets instead of apostles?
Prophets were send by god for a purpose and obviously all came to share the main message of monotheism, the oneness of god

In Judaism, there are prophets, which are human beings who receive dreams and visions and speak for God (usually to chew us out for not obeying him). There are also "malakhim" aka messengers, which usually get translated as angels. I don't know enough about Islam to know if those words mean the same for them.

yeah I it’s similar apart from the angel part.

 

[Spice]

Luke 12:51-52. Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on, five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three.…

Paul was the perfect choice to fulfill that prophesy. Even in this modern forum discussion, the division effect still works when you mention Paul. What better way to test blessed are the humble and the peace makers.

The world was not ready for the kingdom of Jesus at the time of Jesus. What was needed was a remediation period and Paul fit the bill. Jesus promises to leave behind the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Truth, which the world cannot receive. The reason it cannot receive is due to law. Law created another master that made it hard to deviate for the Spirit.

This brings us back to law, which was the way of the world then, as now. If you have specific laws or commandments to follow; spiritual and/or civil, and the Spirit was to inspire you, and you had to deviate, who do you follow? This is part of the division that was created. Those under law are the children of the bondwoman or slaves to the law, with no freedom to make that choice of the Spirit. They will deny the spirit, if it does not go by their law. The children of the promise are not under law, but are free to listen to the Spirit guide them. That was why Paul rubbed people the wrong way, since he appears to be breaking all the rules, by showing his faith in the Spirit. It bucked the law.

Matthew 12:30-32: Jesus Said, "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

Those who preferred the law, by who may have had the Spirit, blasphemed the Spirit, if the Spirit did not follow the law. If they had broken the law to please the spirit that was forgivable. Paul is all over the place, since that is how he had to act to follow the spirit, since he was not a slave to law, any law. If God tells you something through the spirit, you don't put him on hold, and ask a police officer. You do it and even if you pay a fine this will be forgiven.

Jesus summarize his version of the law; Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

To love God, after the promise of the Spirit, meant you could not deny the living Spirit/God if you were moved, even if it is against the law, since those laws were secondary or they all hang on those two commandments; hang below. The new law of God is simple.

Love your neighbor as yourself may require tough love, confidence building and not just indulgence. Paul becoming all things to all men was his was his way of expresses his love with universal empathy. It rubs those under the law the wrong way, since the Spirit is seen as a metaphor and not an actual inspiring phenomena.

That's a first for that particular rationalization.

So what say you to: Matt 5:18
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
And please don't refer back to his having fulfilled the law, for as the chapter continues he re-emphasizes the law and finishes with: 48You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
THAT is what needs to be accomplished before heaven and earth pass away. Certainly we can agree that is not finished, therefore the law is unchanged. Jesus's "fulfillment" was to give us The Way to accomplish the Father's will.

 

[Spice]

I mean wouldn’t that mean that the writers for example the gospels, would then be prophets instead of apostles?

Neither prophets nor Apostles were writers of the gospels. The Apostles preached and taught the gospels, and prior to the total loss of the Good News as they were directly taught, as they were persecuted more and more, their followers had Scribes to write down what each "camp" professed as The Way. This precaution to save the message was most likely not written until after the first Jewish Revolt in 70 AD, which destroyed the 2nd temple, the city of Jerusalem and what remained of the original following of Jesus known as The Way. The outlying churches would have had Paul's letters, and with the persecution of Nero, documenting what was known would have been a safety step that many hands were involved in. ie. Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi Codices

The book of Joel, which Peter speaks of in Acts predicts many will prophesy before the end times, and of course Jesus warned to be careful and watchful of the fruit of prophets, particularly any that say they had seen him.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's a first for that particular rationalization.
So what say you to: Matt 5:18
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
And please don't refer back to his having fulfilled the law, for as the chapter continues he re-emphasizes the law and finishes with: 48You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
THAT is what needs to be accomplished before heaven and earth pass away. Certainly we can agree that is not finished, therefore the law is unchanged. Jesus's "fulfillment" was to give us The Way to accomplish the Father's will.

Earth abides forever - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B; Psalm 104:5
Heaven is God's home - 1st Kings 8:39 - God will Not destroy His home nor the forever abiding Earth.
Since Heaven and Earth will Not pass away Jesus was teaching how impossible it would be for Scripture to Not be accomplished.
Yes, Jesus gives us the Way to accomplish his Father's will ( thy kingdom come......... )
The ' Way' Jesus said is found at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 to tell nation wide about the coming of God's Kingdom - Daniel 2:44; 7:13-14

 

[IndigoChild5559]

yeah I it’s similar apart from the angel part.

I see. That's fine.

I find it interesting that different authors seem to mean different things by "malakh" (messenger). Let me give you three examples.

1. In Genesis 18, Abraham sees "three men," which he invites to dinner. One of the "men" speaks on behalf of God, explaining that Sodom is going to be destroyed. Abraham argues with God, which is fascinating in its own right but not really part of this discussion. Then two of the "men" go to Sodom, and in Genesis 19:1 they are referred to as MALAKHIM. Some have argued this means they were heavenly beings that only appeared to be men. IMHO I think it is more likely that they were ordinary men, not heavenly beings, who were simply "messengers" of God.

2. In Exodus 3 we read, "2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.". So what is the messenger in this case? Clearly a burning bush is not a man. But it doesn't seem to be a heavenly being either. Rather it seems to be a manifestation of God. Think of it this way: Let's say the Dodgers are playing the Angels at baseball, and you view it on TV. The image on the screen is NOT the actual game, which is happening far away. The image on the screen would be like an "angel" of the game, if you are following me.

3. Enoch, which is not canonical, but is certainly a religious text written by Jews sometime around the 2nd or 3rd century BCE, has a LOT to say about angelology. Here is just one example where the four Archangels are clearly described as "oh holy ones of heaven":
1 Enoch 9:1-3:
"And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their crying up to the gates of heaven. And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying: "Bring our cause before the Most High."'"

I'm really limiting this post to Malakhim. If you want to delve further into angels, two other words you should investigate are seraphim and cherubim.

 

[Spice]

Earth abides forever - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B; Psalm 104:5
Heaven is God's home - 1st Kings 8:39 - God will Not destroy His home nor the forever abiding Earth.
Since Heaven and Earth will Not pass away Jesus was teaching how impossible it would be for Scripture to Not be accomplished.
Yes, Jesus gives us the Way to accomplish his Father's will ( thy kingdom come......... )
The ' Way' Jesus said is found at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 to tell nation wide about the coming of God's Kingdom - Daniel 2:44; 7:13-14

I agree in World Without End, just as I believe God's will, or the commandments, will never be forfeited. Now the 613 laws of Leviticus I do believe were meant to change as mankind evolves.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Neither prophets nor Apostles were writers of the gospels. The Apostles preached and taught the gospels, and prior to the total loss of the Good News as they were directly taught, as they were persecuted more and more, their followers had Scribes to write down what each "camp" professed as The Way. This precaution to save the message was most likely not written until after the first Jewish Revolt in 70 AD, which destroyed the 2nd temple, the city of Jerusalem and what remained of the original following of Jesus known as The Way. The outlying churches would have had Paul's letters, and with the persecution of Nero, documenting what was known would have been a safety step that many hands were involved in. ie. Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi Codices

The book of Joel, which Peter speaks of in Acts predicts many will prophesy before the end times, and of course Jesus warned to be careful and watchful of the fruit of prophets, particularly any that say they had seen him.

First hearing this. Are you attached to a certain denomination. Just being curious

 

[Spice]

First hearing this. Are you attached to a certain denomination. Just being curious

No attachment to denomination nor particular religion though reared as a progressive Christian. I question and explore pretty much everything.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

No attachment to denomination nor particular religion though reared as a progressive Christian. I question and explore pretty much everything.

Okay that makes sense.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree in World Without End, just as I believe God's will, or the commandments, will never be forfeited. Now the 613 laws of Leviticus I do believe were meant to change as mankind evolves.

Please clarify for me how you reconcile with the commandments "will never be forfeited" with "meant to change as mankind evolves"? Thanks, my friend.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What do you think of Paul the Apostle?

First, the idea of an "apostle" only exists in Christian thinking. To me as a Jew, there is nothing special about Paul. He has no special authority. He is an ordinary man.

So what do think of Paul? I think he mutilated the teachings of Jesus, and created a new Gentile religion responsible for countless deaths of Jews over the last 2000 years. I agree with Graetz that Paul is the Great Apostate. So you will forgive me if I don't have warm, fuzzy feelings for Paul.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

Well at least you got Zealot correct, but you are still not using the correct terms Zionists and Jews. Fix your English so that people won't think you are a moron.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe that we cannot and should not question God.

I'm curious what you think about Abraham arguing with God about the morality of destroying Sodom. Do you think Abraham was sinning by challenging God?

How about when Moses argued with God to save the Jews from being destroyed after the Golden Calf? Do you think that Moses was sinning by arguing with God?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think like this:
Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you; as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Pet. 3:15-16

What do you think of Romans 3:7, where Paul admits he is a liar?
“Someone might argue, ‘If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?’”

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Paul on women:
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church I Cor 14.34-35
"A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve." 1 Timothy 2:11-13
Paul on sex (including gay sex): "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men....will inherit the kingdom of God" 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
On non-believers: "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14-16

Other than the passages above, which are not really controversial for that period, Paul was a good man and preached love and kindness towards all, very much like Jesus.

Really excellent summation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not a fan. See my post in your thread "Why do you believe in the Biblical God."

My biggest issue is explained in his own words found in 1 Corinthians 9 -- I don't care for that person's view.

My guess is that the thing you dislike about Paul in 1 Cor 9 is that he basically comes across as "I'm better than you all, I'm special, I have authority, I have the same status as those who were actually Jesus' chosen disciples. You all need to shut up and listen to me without arguing and do the things I say." Do I have that pegged?

 

[Spice]

Please clarify for me how you reconcile with the commandments "will never be forfeited" with "meant to change as mankind evolves"? Thanks, my friend.

I think the 10 commandments are on the same basis as the Noahide Seven in that they apply to all eras of mankind for the overall benefit of mankind. In a manner of speaking, common sense.

From what I remember reading of the 613, there are quite a few repetitions in spelling out both the negative and affirmative perspectives, and the majority were for priest and rabbis in conducting rituals, with some directed for all in food restrictions, cleanliness, etc., many as safety precautions for living in the ancient days. To my very limited understanding, a great deal are no longer abided except by the strictest of the Orthodox.

 

[Spice]

My guess is that the thing you dislike about Paul in 1 Cor 9 is that he basically comes across as "I'm better than you all, I'm special, I have authority, I have the same status as those who were actually Jesus' chosen disciples. You all need to shut up and listen to me without arguing and do the things I say." Do I have that pegged?

That's a good start. LOL

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think the 10 commandments are on the same basis as the Noahide Seven in that they apply to all eras of mankind for the overall benefit of mankind. In a manner of speaking, common sense.

From what I remember reading of the 613, there are quite a few repetitions in spelling out both the negative and affirmative perspectives, and the majority were for priest and rabbis in conducting rituals, with some directed for all in food restrictions, cleanliness, etc., many as safety precautions for living in the ancient days. To my very limited understanding, a great deal are no longer abided except by the strictest of the Orthodox.

Well, my friend, perhaps I will understand you better if we deal with some concrete examples.

One set of commandments is for Jews to only eat kosher food (no pork, shellfish, mixing meat with dairy, etc.) It seems to me that your first statement indicated these commandments remains in effect forever (like the Orthodox claim), and that your second statement would mesh with keeping kosher being voluntary rather than an obligation (the Reform position). I don't see how someone could believe both views simultaneously. Where do you stand on kashrut? Are Jews obligated or not?

BTW, the Conservative position is much more nuanced, but is really outside the scope of my post.

 

[Spice]

Well, my friend, perhaps I will understand you better if we deal with some concrete examples.

One set of commandments is for Jews to only eat kosher food (no pork, shellfish, mixing meat with dairy, etc.) It seems to me that your first statement indicated these commandments remains in effect forever (like the Orthodox claim), and that your second statement would mesh with keeping kosher being voluntary rather than an obligation (the Reform position). I don't see how someone could believe both views simultaneously. Where do you stand on kashrut? Are Jews obligated or not?

BTW, the Conservative position is much more nuanced, but is really outside the scope of my post.

Well, I'm very limited in my knowledge of Judaism, though I have tried to understand how the gospels fit. I never bought into many of the Christian concepts as you may have noticed in my participation on RF. I'm sure you're aware of the BeliefNet Quiz? Years ago I rated 97% Jewish. Go figure! 100% Liberal Quaker, though. So maybe I'd be 97% Reformed?

Anyway, I see most of the dietary laws as I said previously as safety precautions. The people were nomads so setting up camp and packing up had to be streamlined and I would imagine meats weren't always brought to safe internal temps. Shellfish and pork can kill you.

As far as the kushrut, and yes I had to Google the word, is pretty much the same concept used by Native Americans and in a very basic way falls into "do not murder." In food sources it is proper to be respectful of the life, not to be cruel, and not to be wasteful. I read once about kosher slaughter and how a special technique and special knife was used by trained men. I thought if my dad saying once how as a young man he didn't like that job, but he was good at it, so at hog killings he was given the task. Commercial farming concerns me a great deal. Even though the slaughter methods may be better than 100 years ago, the living conditions of these poor animals are horrible. Yep, I got off the mark. I'm more likely to give quiet thanks to the former life on my dinner plate than God that created it.