Who taught Christianity to Paul?

[AmbiguousGuy]

Dude they were the Nazis of the Levant! ya man they took out whole Roman legions with a single cross


Your taking a dive with that reply.

If you can't answer my question, you might think about replying, "I don't know."

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I explained it pretty clear.

No, you have not yet answered who gave Paul the authority to arrest Christians in foreign cities.

If you don't have a guess about that, I can understand. It's a difficult question.

 

[outhouse]

No, you have not yet answered who gave Paul the authority to arrest Christians in foreign cities.

If you don't have a guess about that, I can understand. It's a difficult question.

I dont know that Romans authorized him as much as turned their backs to the Saducees orders.

Romans worked hand in hand in the runnng of the temple, Romans placed Caiaphas in power.

I think Romans would have been happy not to have had to get involved.

guess

They key is "Saducees orders" whom we know worked with Romans hand in hand.

Romans gave the saducees the nod to take care of their own business, then the Saducees sent paul out to protect the temple from this percieved threat to Temple money and Roman taxes

 

[steeltoes]

If you can't answer my question, you might think about replying, "I don't know."

Replying, "I don't know" is wiser than dishing out the made up nonsense we read about Paul here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

guess

They key is "Saducees orders" whom we know worked with Romans hand in hand.

Romans gave the saducees the nod to take care of their own business, then the Saducees sent paul out to protect the temple from this percieved threat to Temple money and Roman taxes

OK. So you are saying that the Sadducees in Jerusalem had the right to send its policemen into foreign cities and arrest people in those cities. Yes?

Do you have any references for that opinion?

 

[outhouse]

OK. So you are saying that the Sadducees in Jerusalem had the right to send its policemen into foreign cities and arrest people in those cities. Yes?

Do you have any references for that opinion?

No you miss the boat again

The Romans giving them the nod implies Romans giving the Saducees to go ahead to take care of business. That would make it a Roman order, just not too paul directly.

But now your geting into how Romans policed different countries within the empire. Im sure there is plenty of information about how Romans policed what they needed too.


Paul states he persecuted them violently, does thta mean he shook their hands and patted them on their back?

 

[steeltoes]

OK. So you are saying that the Sadducees in Jerusalem had the right to send its policemen into foreign cities and arrest people in those cities. Yes?

Do you have any references for that opinion?

What a tangled web we weave.

 

[steeltoes]

Galatians: For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.


That's what we have to go on. So, what is this church of God? Christianity? Good luck with that.

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi Ingledsva, no, it wasn't Moses whom the writer of Romans 5:14 was comparing to Messiah. Would you disagree with the view of Jamison-Fausset-Brown?

Jamison-Fausset-Brown Commentary:

The simple meaning is, as nearly all interpreters agree, that Adam is a type of Him who was to come after him in the same public character, and so to be "the second Adam").

Now, I will disagree with these vaulted commentators as to their explanation of HOW Adam is a type of Him who was to come, but to WHO they say the coming One was patterned from, I would be in total agreement, just like nearly all interpreters agree, that Adam is a type of Him who was to come.

Ingledsva, are you so bold as to disagree with nearly ALL interpreters? You are becoming like me, aren't you? KB

ABSOLUTELY! If they are so stupid they can't read the Bible and understand what it actually STATES - that MOSES is the TYPE - and thus have made up crap that it actually DOES NOT SAY!


To say a one whom caused sin to come into the world - is a type of a saving Messiah - is ludicrous.


NOWHERE in TANAKH does it say Adam is a type of Messiah, - But TANAKH DOES STATE that MOSES is a type of the Messiah to come!


Christianity is as usual - making stuff up - because they don't understand the Hebrew.



*

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What a tangled web we weave.

Yeah, a good theory is one which can answer the most questions with the least entanglement or contradiction.

 

[outhouse]

Beings Paul was a roman citizen I dont see a issue with him policing the empire to keep tax revenue flowing through the temple, which much ended up in Roman hands.

Why not?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Beings Paul was a roman citizen I dont see a issue with him policing the empire to keep tax revenue flowing through the temple, which much ended up in Roman hands.

Why not?

I'd find it hard to believe that the Romans gave Paul police powers like that, but I don't know much about how it all worked.

 

[Ken Brown]

ABSOLUTELY! If they are so stupid they can't read the Bible and understand what it actually STATES - that MOSES is the TYPE - and thus have made up crap that it actually DOES NOT SAY!

To say a one whom caused sin to come into the world - is a type of a saving Messiah - is ludicrous.

NOWHERE in TANAKH does it say Adam is a type of Messiah, - But TANAKH DOES STATE that MOSES is a type of the Messiah to come!

Christianity is as usual - making stuff up - because they don't understand the Hebrew.*

Hi Ingledsva, remember when I told you I used to bar tend at a steak house in Muldoon, AK, and now you are willing to challenge and question the lofted commentators of the Scriptures, well, it appears that we have several things in common. Good for you, and I mean that in all sincerity.

Since you are willing to challenge the "experts" and those who are considered to be the authority in interpreting the Scriptures, I will open up a little to you.

When Paul stated that Adam was a figure or type of the coming one, he did not want the comparison to be through THE OFFENSE, but rather, the FREE GIFT. Both Adam and Messiah gave mankind a gift, and that IS the comparison, the type or figure which Paul spoke about. Adam's gift was condemnation and death, and Messiah's was righteousness and life. Adam's gift was the result of ONE transgression (offense), and Messiah's gift was the result of MANY transgressions (offenses) (see v16). So again, you cannot make the comparison through the offense, but rather through the free gift that they both gave.

ALL traditional christian commentators, theologians, college professors, and teachers are caught with their pants down at their ankles. They are clueless in understanding how Adam was a type or figure of the coming one, and the correct translation of the first sentence of Romans 5:15, should be as follows:

"But not through the offense, rather the free gift."

Do you see it? Paul had just stated Adam was a type or figure of the coming One, so his next statement explains how Adam was a type or figure of the coming One. And it was not through the offense, rather it was through the free gift that they both gave to mankind. So you are correct, there is no comparison between the Messiah and Adam if you look at the offense/transgression, but if you look at the free gift that they both gave, there is a comparison.

I hope you will join me in this understanding of what Paul meant when he said that Adam is a type or figure of the coming One. KB

 

[Ingledsva]

ABSOLUTELY! If they are so stupid they can't read the Bible and understand what it actually STATES - that MOSES is the TYPE - and thus have made up crap that it actually DOES NOT SAY!

To say a one whom caused sin to come into the world - is a type of a saving Messiah - is ludicrous.

NOWHERE in TANAKH does it say Adam is a type of Messiah, - But TANAKH DOES STATE that MOSES is a type of the Messiah to come!

Christianity is as usual - making stuff up - because they don't understand the Hebrew.

Hi Ingledsva, remember when I told you I used to bar tend at a steak house in Muldoon, AK, and now you are willing to challenge and question the lofted commentators of the Scriptures, well, it appears that we have several things in common. Good for you, and I mean that in all sincerity.

Since you are willing to challenge the "experts" and those who are considered to be the authority in interpreting the Scriptures, I will open up a little to you.

When Paul stated that Adam was a figure or type of the coming one, he did not want the comparison to be through THE OFFENSE, but rather, the FREE GIFT. Both Adam and Messiah gave mankind a gift, and that IS the comparison, the type or figure which Paul spoke about. Adam's gift was condemnation and death, and Messiah's was righteousness and life. Adam's gift was the result of ONE transgression (offense), and Messiah's gift was the result of MANY transgressions (offenses) (see v16). So again, you cannot make the comparison through the offense, but rather through the free gift that they both gave.

ALL traditional christian commentators, theologians, college professors, and teachers are caught with their pants down at their ankles. They are clueless in understanding how Adam was a type or figure of the coming one, and the correct translation of the first sentence of Romans 5:15, should be as follows:

"But not through the offense, rather the free gift."

Do you see it? Paul had just stated Adam was a type or figure of the coming One, so his next statement explains how Adam was a type or figure of the coming One. And it was not through the offense, rather it was through the free gift that they both gave to mankind. So you are correct, there is no comparison between the Messiah and Adam if you look at the offense/transgression, but if you look at the free gift that they both gave, there is a comparison.

I hope you will join me in this understanding of what Paul meant when he said that Adam is a type or figure of the coming One. KB

I do not agree.


Death is not a gift.


The Tanakh tells us whom the forerunner types of Mashiach are -


and Adam is NOT one of them, -


MOSES IS -


thus - Christians made this one up.



*

 

[Ken Brown]

I do not agree.


Death is not a gift.


The Tanakh tells us whom the forerunner types of Mashiach are -


and Adam is NOT one of them, -


MOSES IS -


thus - Christians made this one up.*

Hi Ingledsva, why are you even trying to interpret writings from the NT? KB

 

[Ingledsva]

*
I do not agree.


Death is not a gift.


The Tanakh tells us whom the forerunner types of Mashiach are -


and Adam is NOT one of them, -


MOSES IS -


thus - Christians made this one up.

Hi Ingledsva, why are you even trying to interpret writings from the NT? KB

What is that supposed to mean?


I just told you Christians are wrong -


and TANAKH tells whom the forerunner is = MOSES.


Adam is not called a forerunner type anywhere in Tanakh.




*

 

[Ken Brown]

What is that supposed to mean?


I just told you Christians are wrong -


and TANAKH tells whom the forerunner is = MOSES.


Adam is not called a forerunner type anywhere in Tanakh.*

Hi Ingledsva, this thread is about "Who taught Christianity to Paul," and my contention is that the same Teacher who taught Paul, also taught me and those who believe as I do. Now, whether or not Paul was correct in his understanding of how ADAM was a type or figure of the coming One, HIS understanding was NOT that Moses was the type or figure, but rather it was Adam. So don't try to say that Paul was teaching in Romans 5:14 that Moses was the type, it was his understanding that Adam was the type or figure of the coming One.

Getting back to the theme of this thread, Paul taught what he was FIRST taught:

1Cor 15:1-4 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Mashiach died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Paul was taught, as of FIRST importance, that Mashiach suffered, died, was buried, and then was raised on the third day ACCORDING to what was WRITTEN in the TANAKH. In the TANAKH, there is an Ordinance which is the Foundation of the Torah, and WITHIN this Ordinance is where you find the Gospel, as WRITTEN by Moses. KB

 

[outhouse]

I'd find it hard to believe that the Romans gave Paul police powers like that, but I don't know much about how it all worked.

Do you think only the Roman army took care of business and law breakers?


Or do you think they were smart enough to have other methods of dealing with perceived trouble makers?

Before the end of the republic and the rise of the empire Rome did not have any sort of police force. Law enforcement was based on the principle of self help. If you wanted a criminal punished you would have to find a way to do it yourself.
Once Augustus took power he instituted three levels of police in Rome. The first was the vigiles. Next came the Urban cohort which dealt with higher level crime in the city. There were about 3,000 stationed in Rome. They handled most of the ordinary crimes in the city and would probably have been the ones that arrested people or brought them to court if they resisted. If gangs got out of hand in the city they would be the first to subdue them.
The next level of police force in the city was the praetorian guard. They were the generals body guard and also an elite military unit stationed in Italy. Along with protecting the emperor they patrolled the highways and dealt with bandits.

Source(s):

Lecture with Professor John Evans
"policing in the roman empire" by christopher j fuhrmann

 

[outhouse]

and my contention is that the same Teacher who taught Paul, also taught me and those who believe as I do

This is unsubstantiated nonsense.

You have no evidence, you have a opinion based on wish and want and faith alone. Nothing more.


You bring nothing at all to the table that furthers anyone's education here on Paul.

You taught yourself and its obvious through your ignorance on these topics.

 

[Ingledsva]

*
What is that supposed to mean?


I just told you Christians are wrong -


and TANAKH tells whom the forerunner is = MOSES.


Adam is not called a forerunner type anywhere in Tanakh.

Hi Ingledsva, this thread is about "Who taught Christianity to Paul,"


ING - Which we were not discussing...


and my contention is that the same Teacher who taught Paul, also taught me and those who believe as I do.


ING - Totally impossible.


Now, whether or not Paul was correct in his understanding of how ADAM was a type or figure of the coming One, HIS understanding was NOT that Moses was the type or figure, but rather it was Adam.


ING - He isn't wrong - when his sentence is read correctly, he is saying it is MOSES. And It is MOSES, as Tanakh tells us.


So don't try to say that Paul was teaching in Romans 5:14 that Moses was the type, it was his understanding that Adam was the type or figure of the coming One.


ING - I told you that you were reading the sentence wrong. Moses is the subject - that is the type - in that sentence. Repeating what TANAKH has already told us.


Getting back to the theme of this thread, Paul taught what he was FIRST taught:

1Cor 15:1-4 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Mashiach died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Paul was taught, as of FIRST importance, that Mashiach suffered, died, was buried, and then was raised on the third day ACCORDING to what was WRITTEN in the TANAKH. In the TANAKH, there is an Ordinance which is the Foundation of the Torah, and WITHIN this Ordinance is where you find the Gospel, as WRITTEN by Moses. KB

1. These last two have nothing to do with our discussion.

2. Not everything that Paul teaches is in Tanakh.

3. Some things Christians claim are about Jesus - are not about Jesus. Such as Emmanuel in Isaiah.

4. Mosses didn't actually write any of the texts attributed to him. The texts were written much-much later.

5. I'm with the crowd that thinks someone that hunted down Christians, never actually met Jesus, "claimed" he had a vision, wasn't trusted by other disciples, and took over, adding in Pagan thought, etc, most likely was not an actual apostle. He grabbed - and altered - the movement.


*