Who taught Christianity to Paul?

[Ingledsva]

I thought I would add this.


Romans 5:13 tells us whom 14 is talking about.


Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


MOSES brought the law – and the next line continues about MOSES.


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.


I’ve already explained that MOSES is the only “who” in verse 14. Adam is not the subject of the first half, - and “them” and similarity to Adam’s “TRANSGRESSION,” is the second part (= Adam not subject) – and the third part goes back to the “who” MOSES.


*

This is interesting to the general discussion – Like a politician - win at all costs - even with lies.


(Paul) 1 Corinthians 9:20-21: “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.”



*

 

[outhouse]

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

Just remember, due to your own personal opinion.

It is YOU against everyone else, you somehow thinks he knows more then anyone else and all the professors out there, by divivnity alone

Scary really.

 

[Ken Brown]

Just remember, due to your own personal opinion.

It is YOU against everyone else, you somehow thinks he knows more then anyone else and all the professors out there, by divivnity alone

Scary really.

Hi outhouse, I'm not done with you, I'm just beginning. With you, you have already admitted that Adam is the subject of WHO is a type or figure of Mashiach (the coming One), and you realize it was not Moshe, so that dead horse need not be beaten with you like it was with Ingledsva. With you, all we need is for YOU to bring in one of your vaulted experts/professors to discuss Romans 5:15 with me. How about someone like this Professor Wright, surely he would qualify for you wouldn't he? He is one of the world’s leading contemporary interpreters of Paul’s thinking, and has previously written more than seventy books, so I'm certain you would feel he would set me straight. Why don't you email him and invite him into the fray.

I am also very interested in getting a response from my last question to you (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3661177-post456.html). Waiting anxiously to hear from you. KB

 

[outhouse]

you have already admitted that Adam is the subject of WHO is a type or figure of Mashiach (the coming One),

I dont even think you can read English properly.

I stated the verse in context deals with sin and talked about Adam, but does in no way shape or form claim he is a type.

This is your faulty opinion.

It is YOU against everyone else, you somehow thinks he knows more then anyone else and all the professors out there, by divivnity alone

 

[outhouse]

By the way I like Wright.

He has some good opinions and does great work, but I dont follow to much of his views on Paul.

He is sort of radical in his own view.

 

[Ken Brown]

I dont even think you can read English properly.

I stated the verse in context deals with sin and talked about Adam, but does in no way shape or form claim he is a type.

This is your faulty opinion.

It is YOU against everyone else, you somehow thinks he knows more then anyone else and all the professors out there, by divivnity alone

Hi outhouse, then why did you answer my question on HOW Paul was thinking when he wrote that Adam was a type or figure of the coming One, with this response:

Outhouses Answer:The grace of one man who died for many.

Where there was death in Adam, there was life in Christ.

I am not absent in apologetics

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3653723-post290.html

You appear to be like a chameleon, changing what you say on a whim. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

By the way I like Wright.

He has some good opinions and does great work, but I dont follow to much of his views on Paul.

He is sort of radical in his own view.

Hi outhouse, great, he'll fit right in, bring him on!. KB

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse, then why did you answer my question on HOW Paul was thinking when he wrote that Adam was a type or figure of the coming One, with this response:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3653723-post290.html

You appear to be like a chameleon, changing what you say on a whim. KB

Nonsense


Its quite obvious you have comprehensive issues.

IF I ment Adam was a type I would have said so

 

[Ingledsva]

Nonsense


Its quite obvious you have comprehensive issues.

IF I ment Adam was a type I would have said so

He obviously has comprehension problems. LOL!


And he doesn't seem to understand that - a spirit/fairy/ect revealed it to me - isn't a great debate tool.



*

 

[outhouse]

He obviously has comprehension problems. LOL!


And he doesn't seem to understand that - a spirit/fairy/ect revealed it to me - isn't a great debate tool.



*

He also takes Paul as some divine character, who speaks of a coming "type" whatever that means, and cannot err


He is also completely ignorant to how many different versions of Paul's letters existed in different "types" yet he hangs his literal hat on his personal favorite.


Maybe he doesn't understand the oldest version goes back to 150 years after he wrote, and we can only study earlier version by those who hated Marcion and wrote about him and how much he erased of Pauls teachings we can figure out what was written a bit earlier.


Maybe he doesn't understand Paul wasn't well received in all Christian communities, while some loved him, many did not and hated him.

 

[Ken Brown]

Nonsense

Its quite obvious you have comprehensive issues.

IF I ment Adam was a type I would have said so

Hi outhouse, I didn't ask if you "ment" Adam was a type, I asked you what you thought PAUL was thinking when HE said that Adam was a type:

My original question to you - "Please, tell me how Paul was thinking when he said that Adam was a "type" or "figure" of the coming One?"

And my follow up question for my original question - "Hi outhouse, then why did you answer my question on HOW Paul was thinking when he wrote that Adam was a type or figure of the coming One, with this response?"

You should have answered my question at that time and said that Paul was not thinking that Adam was a type, but instead you try to pretend that you are "not absent in apologetics," and even quote from Wayne Barber, who has this to say SPECIFICALLY about Adam BEING the type or figure of the coming One:

Quote from Wayne Barber: [FONT=Times New Roman,Times]When did sin begin? It started with Adam. How do you know he is talking about Adam? Look at verse 14:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come"

If you’ll follow the context through verse 21, he’s comparing Adam and what he did and how it affected the human race with Jesus and what He did and how that affected the human race.
[/FONT]

So outhouse, do you accept the opinion's of those whom you quote from? Wayne Barber, whom you quoted, states on one side of his mouth that Paul is comparing Adam WITH "Jesus." Is the person you quote from wrong? KB

 

[outhouse]

Im not sure you can even read English properly to debate.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come

PATTERN

Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come.

a SYMBOL

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

a FIGURE

did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One.

a PRTOTYPE

who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. He is a foreshadowing of the one who would come.

a FORESHADOWING

 

[Ken Brown]

Im not sure you can even read English properly to debate.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come

PATTERN

Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come.

a SYMBOL

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

a FIGURE

did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One.

a PRTOTYPE

who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. He is a foreshadowing of the one who would come.

a FORESHADOWING

Hi outhouse, so you do not agree at all with the experts/college professors, and those whom you quote from? KB

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse, so you do not agree at all with the experts/college professors, and those whom you quote from? KB

No

You take "type" out of context.

The comparison was only in lack of sin, which I have explained clearly.


Your vague use of "type" and poor understanding of English and comprehensive skills, are the only reason this nonsense is repeated.


Not only that, you claim to know more then professors and all of christianity :areyoucra

 

[outhouse]

Im not sure you have the intellect to grasp this, but here goes.

Romans 5:12–21: Paul’s view of literal Adam - CMI Mobile


Paul calls Adam a type of Christ; Cranfield notes that in this context:
‘The word translated “type” (it is actually the Greek word from which the English “type” derives) denotes … a type in the sense of a person or thing prefiguring (according to God’s design) a person or thing pertaining to the time of eschatological fulfillment.’7

After noting that Adam is a type of Christ, it would normally be expected for Paul to elaborate on how the two are similar, but he instead contrasts them.


Adam and Christ must be equally historical

Paul is using a typology in this passage which requires Adam and Christ to be equally historical; he is arguing that both individuals acted in ways that had real and lasting consequences in human history. It is impossible for either to be symbolic for Paul’s argument to be coherent. Paul sees Adam and Christ as history’s two most important figures: Adam causing humanity’s downfall by his disobedience, and Christ triumphing over that downfall by his obedience.15 Using Adam as a type of Christ sets the stage for the contrast between ‘I’ in chapter 7 and the person in Christ in chapter 8.16 A literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis, then, underlies a fairly large section of Romans.
This passage is not the only place where Paul clearly regards Genesis to be a historically accurate document. Three chapters later, Paul points out that the whole creation was subjected to futility because of the Fall.17
Also, in another epistle, 1 Corinthians 15,

Paul calls Jesus ‘the Last Adam’, bringing resurrection from the dead, in contrast to ‘the first man, Adam’, who brought death.

And in 1 Timothy 2, Paul teaches on the role of men and women in church by appealing to the order of creation, Adam being created before Eve and the fact that Eve was deceived and Adam was not

 

[outhouse]

Calling all BOYDS


Have you read in pseudo Clementine the stories of Paul?

He was a Proselyte who was dating the temple leaders daughter who jilted him and sent him packing. A ticked off Paul then denounces Judaism taking their message to the gentiles.

I understand the lacking of historical context, but it is interesting to see how hated Paul was early on.

I think its understated how Paul use of rhetoric actually plays in his letters.

 

[Ken Brown]

Im not sure you have the intellect to grasp this, but here goes.

Romans 5:12–21: Paul’s view of literal Adam - CMI Mobile


Paul calls Adam a type of Christ; Cranfield notes that in this context:
‘The word translated “type” (it is actually the Greek word from which the English “type” derives) denotes … a type in the sense of a person or thing prefiguring (according to God’s design) a person or thing pertaining to the time of eschatological fulfillment.’7

After noting that Adam is a type of Christ, it would normally be expected for Paul to elaborate on how the two are similar, but he instead contrasts them.


Adam and Christ must be equally historical

Paul is using a typology in this passage which requires Adam and Christ to be equally historical; he is arguing that both individuals acted in ways that had real and lasting consequences in human history. It is impossible for either to be symbolic for Paul’s argument to be coherent. Paul sees Adam and Christ as history’s two most important figures: Adam causing humanity’s downfall by his disobedience, and Christ triumphing over that downfall by his obedience.15 Using Adam as a type of Christ sets the stage for the contrast between ‘I’ in chapter 7 and the person in Christ in chapter 8.16 A literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis, then, underlies a fairly large section of Romans.
This passage is not the only place where Paul clearly regards Genesis to be a historically accurate document. Three chapters later, Paul points out that the whole creation was subjected to futility because of the Fall.17
Also, in another epistle, 1 Corinthians 15,

Paul calls Jesus ‘the Last Adam’, bringing resurrection from the dead, in contrast to ‘the first man, Adam’, who brought death.

And in 1 Timothy 2, Paul teaches on the role of men and women in church by appealing to the order of creation, Adam being created before Eve and the fact that Eve was deceived and Adam was not

Hi outhouse, ok, I'll try one more time. There is NO contrast when you look at HOW Adam and Yeshua were similar, ACCORDING to the GIFT. But IF you look at the OFFENSE, there is no similarity, it is ONLY when you look at the GIFT that they are similar. They both gave something to mankind, and that is the type or figure that Adam has with the coming One. It's not very complicated if you understand Roman 5:15, "But not through the offense, RATHER (in this manner) the free gift." KB

 

[oldbadger]

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.

OK.... Yep..... like it.

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.

I don't believe that it was quite like this. Yes, the oral tradition was nurturing Christian sects, sects which Saul was helping to put down in places........ but then he 'clicked' on an idea and moved in a radically new way, and he then began to attempt to communicate with these separated sects to bond them into a unified movement...... his movement.

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

Well, yes...... he would have been viewed by some as heretical, because he was manipulating and adapting them into his own brand of 'controlling religion'.

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.

I've read that Paul's letters were not all his letters, and that they were joint efforts. But Paul was the driving force in all this, and it was his works which won through.

What amazes me is that Gospels such as Mark survived, because they almost seem to me to be 'alternative messages' and 'contentious' when compared to what Paul wanted. This is one reason why I feel so attracted to Mark and parts of L and Mat.

 

[outhouse]

There is NO contrast when you look at HOW Adam and Yeshua were similar, ACCORDING to the GIFT.

I knew you could not comprehend it. :areyoucra

After noting that Adam is a type of Christ, it would normally be expected for Paul to elaborate on how the two are similar, but he instead contrasts them.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, the oral tradition was nurturing Christian sects, sects which Saul was helping to put down in places........ but then he 'clicked' on an idea and moved in a radically new way, and he then began to attempt to communicate with these separated sects to bond them into a unified movement...... his movement.

.

It wasnt just oral traditions, there was plenty of writen traditions of all different kinds.

Even paul tells us of other scripture that no longer exist today.

Its been long known we only have a fraction of what once existed.

The movement was wide and diverse in Pauls time, because Judaism was wide and diverse.

Paul taught nothing new, he was just the scribe more or less for a community in some cases.