You are makeing this far too easy. Of all the apostles Paul had the only formal training in Old testament theology: HIS TRAINING IN JERUSALEM No doubt Saul left his home during his early adolescence and was taken to Jerusalem for his formal education in the most prominent rabbinical schools of that day. Among his teachers, young Saul had the privilege to be trained by Gamaliel, the most outstanding rabbi teacher of that time (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was one of the most honorable and reputable Jewish rabbis during the days of the Apostles (Acts 5:34). He was the grandson of Hillel, the founder of the most influential rabbinical school of Judaism. Gamaliel was also the president of the Sanhedrin in succession of his father.
Chatting with you is perhaps one of the most futile exercises known.
He was not trained in what JESUS WAS SAYING.. not that he wasn't trained as a Hebrew.
He did not train WITH JESUS. he was not trained BY JESUS.
I am fully aware of this description of Saul's training. In a real sense it supports many of my positions. Unfortunately for you at this point of the conversation it completely does not support your assertion. it is in fact, non sequitur, as we were talking about Paul knowing what JESUS was teaching [for anyone bothering to still read this], not how 'educated' Paul was about Judaism. Jesus wasn't teaching Judaism. And when he first arrived Paul knew very little about what he was teaching.
As far as the new testament is concerned:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...that I might preach him among the heathen (ethnos or nations) ..."
Galatians 1:11-12, 15-16
His claim to revelation from Christ is no less valid than any other apostle.
He was chosen by Christ himself, and affirmed by the other apostles.
His vision was a lie.
And his claim IS less valid, because the other apostles WERE THERE WITH JESUS. So their claims
would be more valid.
If they declared him authentic who are you to argue. Look who I'm talking to. His views were always upheld even in dissagreements with other apostles. He wrote more of the new testament that anyone. It isn't possible to prove any position as wrong as your is here.
Your arguments are naive at best. if HE wrote it then OF COURSE he would say everyone agreed with him - but I have made that point already.
So if God told them to write down the new covenant they could not have done it because you said so. Jesus himself introduced the new covenant.
Jesus was not God. Nor was he the Moschiach. But at that point we were discussing the new covenant - this supposed new covenant was ALREADY laid out previously by God; what Jesus preached was NOT it. I noted where it was.
Are you being this wrong on purpose? Ezekiel 4:5-6
“For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.”
· Punishment = 390 years + 40 years = 430 years
Because of their disobedience to God's commands, the Israelites (Jews) were taken captive in 605 B.C. by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chronicles 36:5-21).
I can supply about a hundred more and more can be found here:
Your concept does not stand up to history, as the overall fate of the Jews has gone up and down like all others. How do you explain this 'obvious' historical fluctuation in God's feeling about the Jews? Are thy occasionally suddenly believing in/following Jesus' new covenant and then falling again?
But really this citation is to cover for the rather heinous statement you made about the Jews.
I don't even like devine retribution.
1. I said even the thief himself said he broke the law and deserved punishment, and so your position is null and void. That means you won't admit it but instead cast about for a diversion.
But he DIDN'T say it in all gospels. As I noted. This means you only cherry pick ONE gospel to prove your points, if it's convenient. No diversion is needed to show that you are wrong again, here.
2. The only evidence that exists for this thief suggests he was not a law abiding Jew, so your statement that he was not only was wrong but completely made up.
What evidence is that? IN addition in that point of the conversation i was pointing out the asinine assertion you made that the thief was 'getting what he deserved', while
there was Jesus right next to him getting the same thing; the legitimacy of being charged by the Romans was the issue and it is obvious Jesus' was falsely charged; so I asked the obvious rhetorical question about the thief. It occurs to me now after observing you that further conversations cannot produce more than token annoyance, because you wander far off topic as soon as your argument weakens.
3. Have you actually read the bible? This same thief also declares that Jesus does not deserve his punishment, while the thief says that he does. For crying out loud it's in the same verse.
have you read the Bible? All four gospels tell a different story, even about the thief. I made a brief note of what gospel said what.
4.It is you who don't seem to even have a sunday school level of education about the scene.
that's because you're oblivious.
I was laughing so hard the Christian Phd I work with came over and read this stuff. He said you are a troll and being so wrong on purpose. I agree. Jesus is God and can declare Hitler righteous if Hitler believed, if he wants. Since all have sinned includeing the Jews and you, your complete denial of every biblical theme of justification by faith dooms everyone includeing you. Thank God you are completely wrong.
lol, a Christian PhD.. does he have the PhD in Christianity?
And I have not sinned. I do not commit the sins my religion has, which is something neither you nor your Phd pal can say.
Is he treating you for your addictions?
As fundy Christians you are not capable of understanding that Jesus failed to qualify. At this point I see that you are not capable of understanding the complexity of my proposition.
You have been educateing me alright. You have revealed not a lack of knowledge, but a aversion to it stronger than I would have ever guessed.
["Educating".]
You are just dreadfully disingenuous when things go against you.
can you try improving your grammar and spelling, please?
But that quote perfectly lines up with my position and stands in oposition to yours. I said you didn't produce a quote by me that justifies your claims and you still haven't.
You said I did not quote you; here you admit I did. That quote does in fact justify my claim, as you are there, saying what I said you said.
For God's sake, there are sections containing only ceremonial law.
BUT NOT ALL OF IT IS. And THAT is what you said. You were WRONG. Deal. At this point it certainly appears you've not even looked at all of them.
I never said that. Of course that has no bearing on you claiming I did. I said your rediculous addiction psychology is less than quackery, and the rest of psychology contains vast areas of guesswork.
No, I quoted an actual psych page or two on it; you called THEM false. And THEN, well lookie here: you deny saying it, then say it again. Delightful.
You are a dreadful liar when things go against you. I have shown you to be, several times now.
If you reject things said in a hundred places in the bible why would all four gospels make a difference. The gospels all cover different angles on purpose. They employ literary techniques such as telescopeing, etc..... If they did say the same exact things you would be the first one yelling they just copied one another. You have to step up your game or I have will have to look elsewhere for a challengeing discussion. I have never seen comments so the polar opposite of truths so well known that sunday school children understand them perfectly. Opposing viewpoints based on sound logic and consistency with what they are addressing are interesting, your isn't.
You have such a closed mind, lack of education and thread-bare virtues, blatant dishonesty, and poor writing habits that Im afraid responding to you will continue to only be slightly discomforting entertainment for some time to come. And nothing more, really.
