Who taught Christianity to Paul?

[steeltoes]

Beats me. I don't read the NT anymore. I just listen to what other debaters say, and most of them assume that Paul met Peter in Jerusalem. Along with 'the brother of Jesus.'

You don't believe that?

Paul tells us that Peter's apostleship was appointed by God, just as Paul's was. Where is Jesus in all of this?

Paul claims to have met the "brother of the Lord", whatever that means, not the "brother of Jesus" as you mistakenly claim.

 

[Ingledsva]

*
Again - TANAKH tells us whom the type is - MOSES.

Nothing you say will change that.

Hi Ingledsva, I agreed with you that the TANAKH speaks of the Messiah being LIKE Moses. But you see, you declared that Moses never existed, so how can you believe that a non-existent Moses could ever be a "type" or "figure" of the coming One?

You need to stick to one story and stay with it. KB

And again you are trying to red-herring the discussion, however I will answer that.


Good grief man - we are discussing the religions of Abraham and their mythology.


I don't need to believe in the characters - to discuss what the texts say.


Also we were debating specific texts which lead to the bringing up the Tanakh text stating whom is actually a type of Mashiach.


In other words I used the Tanakh to show that the text does NOT say Adam is a type of Mashiach, - and show where it does say MOSES is a type.



*

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Paul tells us that Peter's apostleship was appointed by God, just as Paul's was. Where is Jesus in all of this?

I dunno. So you think the Peter whom Paul met was not the same Peter as was Jesus' disciple?

Paul claims to have met the "brother of the Lord", whatever that means, not the "brother of Jesus" as you mistakenly claim.

OK. I remember that now.

 

[steeltoes]

I dunno. So you think the Peter whom Paul met was not the same Peter as was Jesus' disciple?

Paul does not mention disciples, nor of a Jesus from Galilee, so it is tough to say what's going on.

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi psychoslice, yeah but, it really wasn't "red" riding hood, wasn't it "blue" riding hood? You would at least want to get the facts of the make believe story straight wouldn't you? But then again, maybe they were just "color" blind.

Look, all kidding aside, why do opposers of the Scriptures go to great lengths to debate them? Why do they waste their time? KB

Well, in my own case, I studied archaeology, and took comparative religions courses.

I am interested in the movements of ancient people, their contact, exchange of knowledge, mythology, and language, and how that resulted in the rise of the major players in world politics and religions up to now.



*

 

[Ken Brown]

Maybe they enjoy it, like a game, and also why do those who believe without proof continue to argue with someone who wants proof, I certainly don't believe in something just because a lot of other people believe it, do you ?.

Hi psychoslice, to be sure, I would like to be someone like Galileo, who believed in something and was certain about it, but just didn't have the proof to convince those who were in power over him. Eventually, he was proven right, but for a great portion of his life, he was treated as a heretic by the "experts" and those who had authority over him. He for sure did not believe in something just because a lot of other people believed it. KB

 

[Nakosis]

Paul knew Judaism.

Its not hard to figure out the NEW mythology that changed the current theology that made Judaism acceptable to gentiles.


He did not learn it from spirits

He learned it from following the movement persecuting them. Obviously he knew why he was persecuting them and understood at that time what the sect was all about and what its beliefs were.


Paul factually learned it from people and this dishonesty is one reason why I don't trust Paul as far as I can throw him.

Paul seems to add a lot of ideas which didn't originate from the gospels. So he was aware of the "Christian" group. However he was at odds with Peter about following Jewish law. I'm just curious what made Paul think he held any authority to make such a determination.

Although Rabbis at the time held similar thinking. Having Gentiles follow the noahide laws and not be taught the Torah. Maybe Paul was influenced by this...

 

[psychoslice]

Hi psychoslice, to be sure, I would like to be someone like Galileo, who believed in something and was certain about it, but just didn't have the proof to convince those who were in power over him. Eventually, he was proven right, but for a great portion of his life, he was treated as a heretic by the "experts" and those who had authority over him. He for sure did not believe in something just because a lot of other people believed it. KB

Hi Ken Brown, exactly, it was the church that gave him a hard time, those days were the dark ages or near the end of the dark ages. Religion has been around for many years and still no evidence. Galileo had proof, but most were blind from their beliefs that they couldn't see the truth.

 

[Ken Brown]

And again you are trying to red-herring the discussion, however I will answer that.

Good grief man - we are discussing the religions of Abraham and their mythology.

I don't need to believe in the characters - to discuss what the texts say.

Also we were debating specific texts which lead to the bringing up the Tanakh text stating whom is actually a type of Mashiach.

In other words I used the Tanakh to show that the text does NOT say Adam is a type of Mashiach, - and show where it does say MOSES is a type.
*

Hi Ingledsva, you know, we are discussing what PAUL says concerning who is the type of the coming One. Now, how do you read Paul where he says that Hagar is an allegory for the Old Covenant:

Gal 4:24-25 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

Ingledsva, where in the TANAKH does it state that Hagar is an allegory for the Old Covenant? And this question is not a red herring. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Hi Ken Brown, exactly, it was the church that gave him a hard time, those days were the dark ages or near the end of the dark ages. Religion has been around for many years and still no evidence. Galileo had proof, but most were blind from their beliefs that they couldn't see the truth.

Hi psychoslice, right on! KB

 

[outhouse]

Paul seems to add a lot of ideas which didn't originate from the gospels. So he was aware of the "Christian" group.

The gospels did not exist in Paul's time.

However he was at odds with Peter about following Jewish law. I'm just curious what made Paul think he held any authority to make such a determination.

The movement failed early on in Judaism

It flourished in the Diaspora within Hellenistic gentile communities. These communities existed and were practicing the movement before taught anyone.

Paul invented nothing, he only taught what was being taught by others, using his expert knowledge of Jewish teachings to correct problems he witnessed in some of these communities.

He didn't need authority to continue what already existed.

 

[Ingledsva]

And again you are trying to red-herring the discussion, however I will answer that.

Good grief man - we are discussing the religions of Abraham and their mythology.

I don't need to believe in the characters - to discuss what the texts say.

Also we were debating specific texts which lead to the bringing up the Tanakh text stating whom is actually a type of Mashiach.

In other words I used the Tanakh to show that the text does NOT say Adam is a type of Mashiach, - and show where it does say MOSES is a type.

Hi Ingledsva, you know, we are discussing what PAUL says concerning who is the type of the coming One. Now, how do you read Paul where he says that Hagar is an allegory for the Old Covenant:

Gal 4:24-25 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

Ingledsva, where in the TANAKH does it state that Hagar is an allegory for the Old Covenant? And this question is not a red herring. KB


ING - YES this is another RED-HERRING! Now back to our discussion.

Dude - got things a bit backward don't you?


The Christians of the time were trying to prove Jesus was the awaited Mashiach.


They did this by saying he was the one MOSES spoke of.


Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

And this –

John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me (JESUS), for he (MOSES) wrote about Me (JESUS).”


MOSES spoke of Mashiach in the Tanakh quote I provided, - and that is where he tells us GOD said he (MOSES) was a type of the coming Mashiach.


(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;


(YHVH) 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.


NOWHERE in Tanakh is Adam listed as a type of Mashiach!


Nor is it actually what is being said in Romans 5:15.


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.


And by the way - look at that sentence again.


Adam is NOT the "who" in the first section.


Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, - MOSES is the "who."


In the last half Adam ISN'T the "who." It is talking about "THEM" that had not sinned in the manner of Adam's "TRANGRESSION."


even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


That leaves MOSES who ended the "REIGN OF SIN." A "TYPE of the coming Mashiach. He also offered his life for the people - as Mashiach.



*

 

[steeltoes]

Paul seems to add a lot of ideas which didn't originate from the gospels. So he was aware of the "Christian" group. However he was at odds with Peter about following Jewish law. I'm just curious what made Paul think he held any authority to make such a determination.

Although Rabbis at the time held similar thinking. Having Gentiles follow the noahide laws and not be taught the Torah. Maybe Paul was influenced by this...

Paul tells us that he received his information from revelations of a risen Christ and from scripture, and that he learned not from any man, in other words he makes it up. This is a very different form of Christianity and apostleship than what we have come to know since the gospels were written. Paul and all the other apostles and epistle writers of Paul's time know absolutely nothing of a Jesus from Nazareth. It's understandable that Paul held authority, he was good at what he did.

 

[Ken Brown]

Dude - got things a bit backward don't you?


The Christians of the time were trying to prove Jesus was the awaited Mashiach.


They did this by saying he was the one MOSES spoke of.


Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

And this –

John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me (JESUS), for he (MOSES) wrote about Me (JESUS).”


MOSES spoke of Mashiach in the Tanakh quote I provided, - and that is where he tells us GOD said he (MOSES) was a type of the coming Mashiach.


(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;


(YHVH) 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.


NOWHERE in Tanakh is Adam listed as a type of Mashiach!


Nor is it actually what is being said in Romans 5:15.


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.


And by the way - look at that sentence again.


Adam is NOT the "who" in the first section.


Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, - MOSES is the "who."


In the last half Adam ISN'T the "who." It is talking about "THEM" that had not sinned in the manner of Adam's "TRANGRESSION."


even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


That leaves MOSES who ended the "REIGN OF SIN." A "TYPE of the coming Mashiach. He also offered his life for the people - as Mashiach.*

Hi Ingledsva, you should really look at the context or subject of what Paul is speaking about in Romans 5. First, it makes no sense in the flow of what he is saying to interject that Moses is a type or figure of the coming One. Why didn't he expound upon that statement, and WHY did he even bring it up? Please answer that.

The subject was that death was GIVEN to mankind, even to those who had not sinned as Adam did (breaking a direct command from Elohim). Paul's point was that between Adam and Moses, death was GIVEN because of Adam's sin, this was the GIFT that he gave, and his gift was the result of just ONE transgression. In this manner was Adam LIKE Mashaich, through the giving of a gift (condemnation and death). Now, the Law ENTERED to INCREASE Adam's transgression (v 20). So you now have sinners dying for their OWN sin, not Adam's, and this increasing of Adam's transgression (many transgressions), is the catalyst that produces Mashiach's gift (righteousness and life), therefore, when the transgression of Adam is increased, Grace (Mashiach's Gift) increases all the more (v20 also). Paul taught that sinners were slaying Mashiach THROUGH their sin, and this transgressing of the Torah (sinning) actually was turned into righteousness (doing what the Torah required sinners to do (sacrificing for their sin). This is the Free Gift of Righteousness that ALL sinners have available to them through their slaying of Mashiach, but it takes faith to believe and SEE.

You know, you can try to make the claim that Paul was saying Moses is the type or figure of the coming One in his speaking about how death was GIVEN and life was GIVEN, but it makes no sense whosoever in context. KB

 

[Yadon]

As we know he did not met Jesus. So who taught him Christianity?

He probably picked up parts from other Gnostic thinkers, including Joshua (Jesus) before making his own specific brand of it.

 

[outhouse]

He probably picked up parts from other Gnostic thinkers, including Joshua (Jesus) before making his own specific brand of it.

No.

But why would you say gnostics?


And why in the world would you veen begin to think he made up his own religion?

 

[oldbadger]

And why in the world would you veen begin to think he made up his own religion?

Hi outhouse......

This is what I believe, that Paul had a blindingly good idea, out of the blue, for manipulating masses. I believe that a huge % of Christianity is 'Pauline', that is, envisaged and developed by Paul.

I don't think that Yeshua produced the names, and many of the concepts, the ideas, the rules, etc etc Yeshua would never have identified Christianity with himself imb.
Therefore, nobody taught Paul...... Paul produced 80%+ of it.

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse......

This is what I believe, that Paul had a blindingly good idea, out of the blue, for manipulating masses. I believe that a huge % of Christianity is 'Pauline', that is, envisaged and developed by Paul.

I don't think that Yeshua produced the names, and many of the concepts, the ideas, the rules, etc etc Yeshua would never have identified Christianity with himself imb.
Therefore, nobody taught Paul...... Paul produced 80%+ of it.

Your right that Jesus had little to do with the movement in the Diaspora.

His was a jewish movement in Galilee with a different message.


Where I believe your are sorely mistaken, is that Paul created something. He did not. Paul tells us there were other teachers and other written scriptures. Paul was part of the movement already existing. If only one man taught one version, we would not see the movement spread everywhere in the Diaspora in a hundred years.

Instead, we know in Pauls time there were many scriptures floating around and many teachers promoting a Hellensitic version of the movement. Paul was actaully not viewed well by all in the beginning, he was almost heritical

Not only that if you didnt know his 7 attributed epistles were co authored with others, they were not just pauls work alone. His other epistles were alos autored by others already established in similar teachings. In pauls time the Hellenistic movement was well under way and gaining steam. It was not something paul started, spread and he was the only one doing so.

 

[Ingledsva]

Dude - got things a bit backward don't you?


The Christians of the time were trying to prove Jesus was the awaited Mashiach.


They did this by saying he was the one MOSES spoke of.


Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

And this –

John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me (JESUS), for he (MOSES) wrote about Me (JESUS).”


MOSES spoke of Mashiach in the Tanakh quote I provided, - and that is where he tells us GOD said he (MOSES) was a type of the coming Mashiach.


(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;


(YHVH) 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.


NOWHERE in Tanakh is Adam listed as a type of Mashiach!


Nor is it actually what is being said in Romans 5:15.


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.


And by the way - look at that sentence again.


Adam is NOT the "who" in the first section.


Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, - MOSES is the "who."


In the last half Adam ISN'T the "who." It is talking about "THEM" that had not sinned in the manner of Adam's "TRANGRESSION."


even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


That leaves MOSES who ended the "REIGN OF SIN." A "TYPE of the coming Mashiach. He also offered his life for the people - as Mashiach.

Hi Ingledsva, you should really look at the context or subject of what Paul is speaking about in Romans 5. First, it makes no sense in the flow of what he is saying to interject that Moses is a type or figure of the coming One. Why didn't he expound upon that statement, and WHY did he even bring it up? Please answer that.

The subject was that death was GIVEN to mankind, even to those who had not sinned as Adam did (breaking a direct command from Elohim). Paul's point was that between Adam and Moses, death was GIVEN because of Adam's sin, this was the GIFT that he gave, and his gift was the result of just ONE transgression. In this manner was Adam LIKE Mashaich, through the giving of a gift (condemnation and death). Now, the Law ENTERED to INCREASE Adam's transgression (v 20). So you now have sinners dying for their OWN sin, not Adam's, and this increasing of Adam's transgression (many transgressions), is the catalyst that produces Mashiach's gift (righteousness and life), therefore, when the transgression of Adam is increased, Grace (Mashiach's Gift) increases all the more (v20 also). Paul taught that sinners were slaying Mashiach THROUGH their sin, and this transgressing of the Torah (sinning) actually was turned into righteousness (doing what the Torah required sinners to do (sacrificing for their sin). This is the Free Gift of Righteousness that ALL sinners have available to them through their slaying of Mashiach, but it takes faith to believe and SEE.

You know, you can try to make the claim that Paul was saying Moses is the type or figure of the coming One in his speaking about how death was GIVEN and life was GIVEN, but it makes no sense whosoever in context. KB

I can make the claim because it is fact. I have already shown why it is fact.


As to the rest of the quote, we have already discussed several of the sentences earlier -


and they don't change the fact that MOSES is the "type," one iota!


PS. You keep confusing "CONTRASTING" which shows how they ARE NOT THE SAME -


with "TYPE" meaning similarities, HOW THEY ARE THE SAME.



Adam who brought sin is not a type of Mashiach -


Moses, who ended the "reign of sin," and "offered his life" for the people - IS!




*

 

[Ken Brown]

I can make the claim because it is fact. I have already shown why it is fact.

As to the rest of the quote, we have already discussed several of the sentences earlier -

and they don't change the fact that MOSES is the "type," one iota!

PS. You keep confusing "CONTRASTING" which shows how they ARE NOT THE SAME -

with "TYPE" meaning similarities, HOW THEY ARE THE SAME.

Adam who brought sin is not a type of Mashiach -

Moses, who ended the "reign of sin," and "offered his life" for the people - IS!
*

Hi Ingledsva, it appears we are at an impasse and this dead horse need not be beaten any longer. You take care and I'm certain we will speak again some day. KB