• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who taught Christianity to Paul?

outhouse

Atheistically
You never supported this though. It also ignores that Sepphoris was not attached to Rome. Sepphoris, as all of Galilee, was not ruled directly by Rome, but by a client king. So there is a big difference.


No Boyd.

It was a important military site for Romans.

Because I have not placed a source does not mean it did not happen. So here I finally found my source.

The Bible and Interpretation

Josephus became the Jewish general who prosecuted the war against Rome in the Galilee and in Golanitis. By his own testimony, he found the citizens of Sepphoris fearful of their fellow Galileans because of the city’s friendship with the Romans and because of their agreement with Cestius Gallus, Legate of Syria.

Josephus also claims that Sepphoris was the "strongest city in Galilee," an observation of a military man and, therefore, to be taken seriously.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Hi Ingledsva, great, I'm glad you are willing. Rom 5:14 states that Adam is a "type" or "figure" of the coming One. Rom 5:15 states HOW Adam is a "type" or "figure" of the coming One. Do you "see" it? Or are you like outhouse and his professors which tries to show a CONTRAST, not a similarity, between Adam and the coming One? KB

Could you please stop embarrassing yourself. :facepalm:


Romans 5:15-17


The question we have been asking as we go through this is, "Are you in Adam or are you in Christ?" That is the question you have to ask. It doesn’t matter how good you think you are. It doesn’t matter how many nice things you have done for people. It doesn’t matter how much money you have given to the church or whatever. It does not matter! What matters is, "Have you been born from above? Have you been justified? Have you been made righteous or reckoned righteous by putting your faith into Jesus Christ?"

In verses 15-17 Paul begins to pick this up. It is very easy to figure out what Adam did. Being self-centered and selfish, he decided he wanted to be like God, and therefore, he chose to sin. He made a conscious choice to sin. As a result, death was imputed to the whole human race. Spiritual death, physical death, mental death. He sinned selfishly, unrighteously, and for that reason imputed death to all men.

So when you talk about the contrast of what Christ did and what Adam did, you are really just talking about what Christ did because it’s so easy to understand what Adam did. It will take us until Jesus comes again to fully grasp everything He has done for mankind by dying on the cross and by paying for our sin.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
There were factually diferent degrees of Hellenism.

Those Aramaic speaking Jews in Galilee were not as Hellenized as say the rich people in Sepphoris.

Galileans were not as Hellenized as the Saducees.


And there were traditional born and raised Israelites, who were not Romans worshipping Judaism now called Jews.

Israelites were enemies to their oppressors whom many also ended up being Jews in this multi cultural environment . You cannot get around his my friend.

Hey, outhouse. I wanted to ask you again if you might try to answer the question I put to you earlier.

When Paul suddenly converted to the new religion, why did he go to Arabia rather than rushing to Jerusalem to speak to the apostles and learn about the physical life of his Lord, Jesus?
 

Ken Brown

Well-Known Member
Could you please stop embarrassing yourself. :facepalm:

Romans 5:15-17

The question we have been asking as we go through this is, "Are you in Adam or are you in Christ?" That is the question you have to ask. It doesn’t matter how good you think you are. It doesn’t matter how many nice things you have done for people. It doesn’t matter how much money you have given to the church or whatever. It does not matter! What matters is, "Have you been born from above? Have you been justified? Have you been made righteous or reckoned righteous by putting your faith into Jesus Christ?"

In verses 15-17 Paul begins to pick this up. It is very easy to figure out what Adam did. Being self-centered and selfish, he decided he wanted to be like God, and therefore, he chose to sin. He made a conscious choice to sin. As a result, death was imputed to the whole human race. Spiritual death, physical death, mental death. He sinned selfishly, unrighteously, and for that reason imputed death to all men.

So when you talk about the contrast of what Christ did and what Adam did, you are really just talking about what Christ did because it’s so easy to understand what Adam did. It will take us until Jesus comes again to fully grasp everything He has done for mankind by dying on the cross and by paying for our sin.

Hi outhouse, I'll try very hard not to embarrass myself. Now please, why would you quote someone who obviously doesn't have a clue as to how Adam and the coming One are similar (a type or figure)? KB
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Hey, outhouse. I wanted to ask you again if you might try to answer the question I put to you earlier.

When Paul suddenly converted to the new religion, why did he go to Arabia rather than rushing to Jerusalem to speak to the apostles and learn about the physical life of his Lord, Jesus?

I dont think he ever converted to the Jewish movement at all.

I dont think there were real apostles in Jerusalem.

And if there were, why would he go there and expect to be welcomed after hunting down sect leaders for years?

And next, why would he go knowing full well his version was not a Jewish movement within Judaism like the original apostles? .


And last, Pauls Jesus lived in Heaven, Paul would have known all to well what daily life was like in Galilee. He would not have been concerned about a Galilleans daily activities or teachings.
 

Boyd

Member
There were factually diferent degrees of Hellenism.

Those Aramaic speaking Jews in Galilee were not as Hellenized as say the rich people in Sepphoris.

Galileans were not as Hellenized as the Saducees.
They were all Hellenized though. And we can't make general statements because we don't know much about Galileans or Sadducees in general. We also can't make assumptions based on wealth. Not all Aramaic speaking Jews in Galilee were poor, and not all rich people in Sepphoris were highly Hellenized. If there are different degrees of Hellenism (which seems almost useless), then we have to assume that stretches to all.
And there were traditional born and raised Israelites, who were not Romans worshipping Judaism now called Jews.
The term traditional here means nothing though. There was no traditional Judaism at that time. Judaism changed from one location to another, and sometimes from family to family.

At the same time, there were "traditional" born and raised "Israelites" who were Sadducees, and who were wealthy. In fact, most Sadducees were born into that group. They were not Romans, nor ever were Romans.
Israelites were enemies to their oppressors whom many also ended up being Jews in this multi cultural environment . You cannot get around his my friend.
I'm not trying to get around it. I'm trying to paint a picture with all of the colors, instead of just black and white. Yes, some Jews (the term Israelite doesn't really serve here as Israel was no more) were enemies to their oppressor. Many Jews simply accepted life as how it was, and that was that. Other Jews found it best to side with their oppressor, instead of making waves.

No Boyd.

It was a important military site for Romans.
At one point, yes. But it's history goes back quite a bit. After Herod the Great died, it became a place in which a number of individuals rose up and revolted against Rome. It was then destroyed by the Romans.

It was this destruction which allowed Herod of Antipas, a new client king, to rebuild the site, which in turn put heavy taxes and stress on the surrounding communities of Jews. This is what Jesus was born in to.

There were actual Romans stationed there permanently. Yes, Romans could occupy the site, as they could anywhere, but for the most part, they did not. After the First Jewish war, it became a spiritual center for Judaism.
Because I have not placed a source does not mean it did not happen. So here I finally found my source.
I wasn't suggesting it didn't happen. I just doubt the idea.
The Bible and Interpretation

Josephus became the Jewish general who prosecuted the war against Rome in the Galilee and in Golanitis. By his own testimony, he found the citizens of Sepphoris fearful of their fellow Galileans because of the city’s friendship with the Romans and because of their agreement with Cestius Gallus, Legate of Syria.

Josephus also claims that Sepphoris was the "strongest city in Galilee," an observation of a military man and, therefore, to be taken seriously.
I do like James Strange. I've had some very nice chats with him. One thing to notice though is the context. What was the agreement with Cestius Gallus? It was one of peace. That peace is what was seen as a friendship. The mentality was either you are for us, or you are against us.

The citizens of Sepphoris were fearful at that point (and Josephus only speaks of one specific moment in time), because others around them were rallying up for a war, and Sepphoris wasn't going along (and they had reason. It wasn't that long before that their city was destroyed for trying to do the same thing). And it certainly would upset many that the strongest city in Galilee was staying out of the fight.

If you continue on reading what Strange has to say though, he does mention that Sepphoris shared in the common culture of Galilee. They also had very poor their as well. It wasn't just the rich.

He also mentions that other communities in Galilee also refused to fight.


So yes, at one point in time, during a war, were the surrounding communities were getting to fight while Sepphoris remained peaceful, the citizens were afraid. But otherwise, it was a center of rebellion before Jesus, and would, after the war, become a center for Jewish spirituality.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Hi outhouse, I'll try very hard not to embarrass myself. Now please, why would you quote someone who obviously doesn't have a clue as to how Adam and the coming One are similar (a type or figure)? KB

They are not similar.

Adam is based on mythology from Mesopotamia. The name is also a mistranslation.

Adam never existed by all historical accounts.

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity


What part of MYTH dont you understand :slap:

Adam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Arabic: آدم) as a proper name, predates its generic use in Semitic languages. Its earliest known use as a genuine name in Historicity is Adamu, as recorded in the Assyrian King List.[2] Its use as a common word in the Hebrew language is ׳āḏām, meaning "human".





Yehoshua probably existed as a man.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
after the war, become a center for Jewish spirituality.

What evidence is there for this. ? None. Not a single synagogue has ever been found from the first century


It was thought for a long time to be a Gentile community, and only the lack of pig bones have placed a more jewish population, more so then once thought.

I like Strange as well.
 

Boyd

Member
What evidence is there for this. ? None. Not a single synagogue has ever been found from the first century


It was thought for a long time to be a Gentile community, and only the lack of pig bones have placed a more jewish population, more so then once thought.

I like Strange as well.
There have been some first century synagogues found (not in Sepphoris that I recall, but elsewhere). But neither should we expect to find any. Synagogues are not necessarily buildings at this time, but community gatherings. Often, the synagogue structure itself was nothing more than a house, which is why it is so difficult to really pick out what a synagogue was at this time.

Jewish texts do tell us quite a bit of Sepphoris. That is how we know it was a center for Jewish spirituality. And while we haven't found any synagogues from an early time period, scholars don't doubt that there were some there. Strange even states that there must have been some there in the first century.

And it isn't just the lack of pig bones that tell us that Sepphoris was mainly Jewish. It is also the discovery of many Jewish ritual baths, beneath most of the floors of the houses so far excavated.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
I dont think he ever converted to the Jewish movement at all.

What do you think happened to the Church in Jerusalem? Which Christian branch is its modern heir?

I dont think there were real apostles in Jerusalem.

So Paul never really met Peter, in your opinion? Did he meet the 'brother of Jesus' named James?

And if there were, why would he go there and expect to be welcomed after hunting down sect leaders for years?

I don't know. I thought that most all biblical scholars agree that he did indeed go to Jerusalem and meet with at least Peter. Why do you disagree that he did that?

And next, why would he go knowing full well his version was not a Jewish movement within Judaism like the original apostles?

Because they had known the earthly Jesus.

Ask yourself: If you embraced a real (now deceased) man as God-on-earth, and if you had a chance to visit with those who had known him in real life... you wouldn't care about speaking with them, about questioning them?

And last, Pauls Jesus lived in Heaven, Paul would have known all to well what daily life was like in Galilee. He would not have been concerned about a Galilleans daily activities or teachings.

I'm lost. Paul wouldn't have cared about what Jesus taught during his earthly ministry??
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I'm lost. Paul wouldn't have cared about what Jesus taught during his earthly ministry??

You might be lost.

Why would Paul care, when he purposely changed the movement far away from what Jesus on earth taught??

Pauls movement was night and day different then Jesus movement in Galilee, so Paul could not focus on a earthly Jesus.

Pauls theology delt with Gentiles and the mythology that developed after Jesus death.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I don't know. I thought that most all biblical scholars agree that he did indeed go to Jerusalem and meet with at least Peter. Why do you disagree that he did that?


So if Paul murdered a few of the original apostles while he was persecuting them.

Would his teachings be exactly as we see them today? I think so.

Im not sure he got to any of the real apostles, but if he had, he would not tell us.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Why would Paul care, when he purposely changed the movement far away from what Jesus on earth taught??

I don't know that he changed the movement away from what Jesus on earth taught. I don't even think there was a Jesus on earth anywhere around that time.

Pauls movement was night and day different then Jesus movement in Galilee, so Paul could not focus on a earthly Jesus.

Yet he seems to speak with great admiration of Jesus. To me, it seems he would have wanted to know more about the man.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I don't know that he changed the movement away from what Jesus on earth taught. I don't even think there was a Jesus on earth anywhere around that time.



Yet he seems to speak with great admiration of Jesus. To me, it seems he would have wanted to know more about the man.

He speaks of his percieved theology.

I think if Paul were alive today, we would be one of those dudes that knowns everyting, never shuts up and bothers people
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Just to be clear... you are disagreeing with the scholarly consensus about Paul having met Peter?

Yes.


I dont think the Peter in Jerusalem would be one of the Galilean peasants.

I think he was a Hellenist who was a fierce follower of the movement.


I just dont trust Paul whole cloth in what he states
 

Ken Brown

Well-Known Member
They are not similar.

Adam is based on mythology from Mesopotamia. The name is also a mistranslation.

Adam never existed by all historical accounts.

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity

What part of MYTH dont you understand :slap:

Adam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Arabic: آدم) as a proper name, predates its generic use in Semitic languages. Its earliest known use as a genuine name in Historicity is Adamu, as recorded in the Assyrian King List.[2] Its use as a common word in the Hebrew language is ׳āḏām, meaning "human".

Yehoshua probably existed as a man.

Hi outhouse, we are not discussing the imaginations of YOUR mind concerning how Adam is a "type" or "figure" of the coming One, we were discussing what the writer of Romans 5:14 imagined concerning how they were similar. It is a whole different argument as to whether or not Adam actually existed, but we were discussing Paul and if I had ever taken any college courses so I could better understand what HE wrote. This thread is about "who" taught Paul, and Romans 5:14-15 shows exactly WHO taught Paul, the same Teacher that has taught me. Otherwise, how would I know what Paul was saying in HOW Adam and the coming One were similar.

Where is the help you need, those vaulted professors? KB
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
Why are you writing such ridiculous crap? We don't have to bring in professors.

What exactly do you wish to discuss concerning Romans 5:15?

ROMANS 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Hi Ingledsva, great, I'm glad you are willing. Rom 5:14 states that Adam is a "type" or "figure" of the coming One. Rom 5:15 states HOW Adam is a "type" or "figure" of the coming One. Do you "see" it? Or are you like outhouse and his professors which tries to show a CONTRAST, not a similarity, between Adam and the coming One? KB



Actually it is contrasting Adam and Messiah -


and pointing out that MOSES was a type of the coming Messiah. He was given the law. He offered them life free of sin.


Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


MOSES - Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;


Deu 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.


Deu 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.


Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.




*




*
 

outhouse

Atheistically
This thread is about "who" taught Paul, and Romans 5:14-15 shows exactly WHO taught Paul, the same Teacher that has taught me.

Well that is factually impossible. :facepalm:

You can claim supernatural aspect until the cows come home, but you have only faith and wish and want, nothing more. :shrug:
 

Ken Brown

Well-Known Member
Actually it is contrasting Adam and Messiah -

and pointing out that MOSES was a type of the coming Messiah. He was given the law. He offered them life free of sin.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

MOSES - Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Deu 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

Deu 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. **

Hi Ingledsva, NO, the writer of Romans 5:14 says they are similar, and he is not contrasting Adam and Messiah, he is saying that Adam is a "type" or "figure" of Messiah.

To understand what Paul says here, it would help tremendously if one properly understood Paul's teaching on Grace. KB
 
Top