Finally someone who thinks of "Saint" Paul the same way that I do

[BirdDad]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...KQOmbC1WQeeuMYL34Bq1Bw&bvm=bv.103388427,d.dmo
it basically says that Paul was a false prophet who has misled multitudes of Christians.
Paul is quoted more than Jesus in almost every church that there is today.

 

[Retro Rob]

This has "TROLL" written all over it.

 

[BirdDad]

I am not a troll.
I find my discussion no different then those who start threads about God. I have a legitimate thread. Religious people worship Paul more than they do Jesus.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yep!! Troll written all over it!!

 

[Retro Rob]

Yep!! Troll written all over it!!

This isn't the first time I've been baited into an argument over whether or not people are Christians or "Paulists" despite both being accepted into the biblical canon.

Yeah, not even getting into that here.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

The Apostle Paul was an apostle. Jesus was cool with him and so am I.

 

[William Gaatjes]

At least Saint Paul can sing....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7s9A3s8iv8

 

[sao123]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...KQOmbC1WQeeuMYL34Bq1Bw&bvm=bv.103388427,d.dmo
it basically says that Paul was a false prophet who has misled multitudes of Christians.
Paul is quoted more than Jesus in almost every church that there is today.

How can one argue that Paul was the inventor of the Resurrection Gospel, when Jesus spoke of it clearly himself?

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” John 10:17-18

Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matt 20:28

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Paul was the third facet of Christ's personality, with John the Baptist being the first facet to appear in history, bookending the individual we ordinarily consider "Christ."

Paul indeed made many mistakes in attempting to set up a framework for the growth and dispersal of Christ's teachings. That's why it will be Paul's facet of the Christ that will return to "reorganize" the shambles of Christianity that are left.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Paul was the third facet of Christ's personality, with John the Baptist being the first facet to appear in history, bookending the individual we ordinarily consider "Christ."

Paul indeed made many mistakes in attempting to set up a framework for the growth and dispersal of Christ's teachings. That's why it will be Paul's facet of the Christ that will return to "reorganize" the shambles of Christianity that are left.

Could you be able to explain what you mean by "return"?

The Apostle Paul was an apostle. Jesus was cool with him and so am I.

Paul never met Jesus; only had a vision of Jesus after Jesus left the earth.

Paul is quoted more than Jesus in almost every church that there is today.

He was also highly influential on the Gospel writers. So even if he was a false prophet his falseness of 'grace by faith' pervades the gospels.


The whole Christian-church bailiwick falls apart when you point out the district lines were drawn wrong.

 

[crashtech]

The church my wife goes to is called "Followers of Christ," though they may as well be called "Followers of Paul," since they seem quite fond of his letters of admonition to the various young churches of the day. But he didn't even know Jesus. I'll stick to the words in red, thank you.

 

[sandorski]

Paul is a most interesting character.

1) His letters are the first writings that mention Jesus some 20 years after the alleged life of Jesus.
2) He never mentions anything about Jesus miracles, outside of the Resurrection anyway or many other details the Gospels claim
3) He claims a conversion event that couldn't possibly be confirmed by anyone
4) He asserts himself as one of the Apostles
5) He establishes the Theological foundation of Christianity more than any other New Testament character, arguably even more than Jesus.

It's almost as if he invented the whole thing, like Joseph Smith invented Mormonism.

 

[Charmonium]

He was also highly influential on the Gospel writers. So even if he was a false prophet his falseness of 'grace by faith' pervades the gospels. The whole Christian-church bailiwick falls apart when you point out the district lines were drawn wrong.

Exactly. The earliest gospel written is generally recognized as being the Gospel of Mark and the earliest date I've ever seen for it is 60AD. That's more than a generation after Jesus. However Paul is believed to have lived to 67AD.

Paul learned about Jesus from his followers who were still struggling with how to incorporate Jesus' message into Judaism. So everything he had to say was strongly influenced by his rabbinic background. Even though he preached the message to gentiles, in terms of how people should act, that was strongly influenced by Jewish tradition.

Even though the gospels were written much later than the epistles, for the most part, at least it is likely that they were based on an oral tradition and not pulled out of one man's ass.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Exactly. The earliest gospel written is generally recognized as being the Gospel of Mark and the earliest date I've ever seen for it is 60AD. That's more than a generation after Jesus. However Paul is believed to have lived to 67AD.

Paul learned about Jesus from his followers who were still struggling with how to incorporate Jesus' message into Judaism. So everything he had to say was strongly influenced by his rabbinic background. Even though he preached the message to gentiles, in terms of how people should act, that was strongly influenced by Jewish tradition.

Even though the gospels were written much later than the epistles, for the most part, at least it is likely that they were based on an oral tradition and not pulled out of one man's ass.

I agree; the probability of Jesus being a conspiracy is rather low. Further oral traditions were relatively serious at the time; it's not like one BS story building on another: This was THE form of communication with active quality control.

 

[BirdDad]

he was a false prophet. Jesus warned of these false prophets saying that they could deceive even the most elect if possible.

 

[Charmonium]

he was a false prophet. Jesus warned of these false prophets saying that they could deceive even the most elect if possible.

I guess it depends on what you mean by false prophet. I haven't read Paul in a long time but I don't recall his ever claiming divine inspiration. Because he was arguably the first 'missionary' to the gentiles, it was natural that they would write to him seeking guidance.

In that respect, Jesus didn't really give people a lot to work with. His message was pretty simple and not really all that different from the message of rabbi Hillel who was probably alive at the same time as Jesus (until about 10 AD). Hillel also preached that the essence of Jewish law was love. What made Jesus different was the claim that he was the son of god - the messiah.

Personally, I don't think that's a coincidence - that their lives overlapped.

There is one hypothesis that I think is supported by at least some evidence, that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera and that his wife/lover (Mary Magdalene) was a priestess of Ba'al. If so, Jesus was jewish only by virtue of the fact that membership in the tribe is only passed on through the matriarchal line. It also means that Jesus was the ultimate outsider and was going to have a much different view of the world than someone like Paul who was solidly w/in the temple establishment until his "conversion."

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I guess it depends on what you mean by false prophet. I haven't read Paul in a long time but I don't recall his ever claiming divine inspiration. Because he was arguably the first 'missionary' to the gentiles, it was natural that they would write to him seeking guidance.

In that respect, Jesus didn't really give people a lot to work with. His message was pretty simple and not really all that different from the message of rabbi Hillel who was probably alive at the same time as Jesus (until about 10 AD). Hillel also preached that the essence of Jewish law was love. What made Jesus different was the claim that he was the son of god - the messiah.

Personally, I don't think that's a coincidence - that their lives overlapped.

There is one hypothesis that I think is supported by at least some evidence, that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera and that his wife/lover (Mary Magdalene) was a priestess of Ba'al. If so, Jesus was jewish only by virtue of the fact that membership in the tribe is only passed on through the matriarchal line. It also means that Jesus was the ultimate outsider and was going to have a much different view of the world than someone like Paul who was solidly w/in the temple establishment until his "conversion."

Looks like that idea originates from a bunch of anti-christian jewish propaganda starting in the 4th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera


"Throughout the centuries, both Christian and Jewish scholars have generally only paid minor attention to the Toledot Yeshu.[22] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the literary origins of Toledot Yeshu can not be traced with any certainty, and given that it is unlikely to go before the 4th century, it is far too late to include authentic remembrances of Jesus.[23]"

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

If you know where you are, you're in Minneapolis. If you're lost, you're in St. Paul.

 

[Charmonium]

Looks like that idea originates from a bunch of anti-christian jewish propaganda starting in the 4th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera


"Throughout the centuries, both Christian and Jewish scholars have generally only paid minor attention to the Toledot Yeshu.[22] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the literary origins of Toledot Yeshu can not be traced with any certainty, and given that it is unlikely to go before the 4th century, it is far too late to include authentic remembrances of Jesus.[23]"

Except the same allegations are made in the Talmud. In addition, we can identify this soldier as being from Sidon around the time of Jesus' birth.

I'm not saying this is established fact but it's some worth considering.

All ancient writing is essentially propaganda in the sense that the writers put down what they saw as the truth w/o a great deal of concern for what we would call journalistic integrity. So if you're going to take the gospels seriously, and as for the later ones, you probably shouldn't, you also need to give some attention to other sources as well.

To me, having Jesus be a bastard dating a Ba'al priestess makes perfect sense. His ministry wasn't to the temple elite but to the average peasant. And not just Jewish peasants but even Roman tax collectors. That sort of background would fit perfectly with his message.

You also need to consider the copious works of the Gnostic sect of Christianity as found in the Nag Hammadi library. There you have some very cryptic sayings that seem authentic in the Gospel of Thomas. You also have the Gospel of Judas that claims Judas was doing Jesus' bidding by turning him into the Romans.

We're never going to know the real truth with any certainty. But what we do know for sure is that the gospels were heavily influenced by later beliefs about who Jesus was - or rather, who they needed him to be.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Except the same allegations are made in the Talmud. In addition, we can identify this soldier as being from Sidon around the time of Jesus' birth.

I'm not saying this is established fact but it's some worth considering.

All ancient writing is essentially propaganda in the sense that the writers put down what they saw as the truth w/o a great deal of concern for what we would call journalistic integrity. So if you're going to take the gospels seriously, and as for the later ones, you probably shouldn't, you also need to give some attention to other sources as well.

To me, having Jesus be a bastard dating a Ba'al priestess makes perfect sense. His ministry wasn't to the temple elite but to the average peasant. And not just Jewish peasants but even Roman tax collectors. That sort of background would fit perfectly with his message.

You also need to consider the copious works of the Gnostic sect of Christianity as found in the Nag Hammadi library. There you have some very cryptic sayings that seem authentic in the Gospel of Thomas. You also have the Gospel of Judas that claims Judas was doing Jesus' bidding by turning him into the Romans.

We're never going to know the real truth with any certainty. But what we do know for sure is that the gospels were heavily influenced by later beliefs about who Jesus was - or rather, who they needed him to be.

I'd put a lot more incredulity toward ideas that come up after the oral record stops being the central source of writing, but instead we land in "fan-fiction" from 200 years later.

Some story I tell about Abraham Lincoln is probably not all that 'true' even though it was only 150 years ago (for example, you should not believe me when I say he was a vampire hunter). I'm a much better source of info about the life-and-times of Richard Nixon.

 

[Charmonium]

I'd put a lot more incredulity toward ideas that come up after the oral record stops being the central source of writing, but instead we land in "fan-fiction" from 200 years later.

Some story I tell about Abraham Lincoln is probably not all that 'true' even though it was only 150 years ago (for example, you should not believe me when I say he was a vampire hunter). I'm a much better source of info about the life-and-times of Richard Nixon.

But the Talmud is oral tradition so if you're going to give oral tradition credibility in the context of the gospels, you have an obligation to give the same to other oral traditions.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just think that there is some element of truth there. Maybe small, maybe not so small. But the virgin birth story is an obvious fabrication that you don't see at all in the old testament. This more something from pagan mythology.

So it's obvious to me that the gospels are hiding something. The only real issue is what.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

But the Talmud is oral tradition so if you're going to give oral tradition credibility in the context of the gospels, you have an obligation to give the same to other oral traditions.

If it arose in that tradition at the time, I agree.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just think that there is some element of truth there. Maybe small, maybe not so small. But the virgin birth story is an obvious fabrication that you don't see at all in the old testament. This more something from pagan mythology.

Isaiah 7:14 (old testament)

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

Though one might argue that 'virgin' is any young woman...

So it's obvious to me that the gospels are hiding something. The only real issue is what.

I read the book closely and it's fairly obvious to me that Jesus was a preaching that some part of everyone ends up in Gehenna; the rest ends up married back into an eternal God.

One might even read the "I am God" statement of Jesus as "I am He, as You are He, as You are Me. And We are all Together"

A story which doesn't drive the sort of pro-forma benchmarks you need for the growing and prosperous entrepreneurial enterprise being franchised out (at no fee, even though his advice letters said he had every right to charge one) by Paul.

 

[Charmonium]

Isaiah 7:14 (old testament)

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

Though one might argue that 'virgin' is any young woman...

Sure but there are a few problems with that. The main one is that you don't have any actual virgin births in the OT. A prophesied birth doesn't really count for that purpose.

Another is, as you say, how to translate the hebrew word. But also there's the issue of the gospels being re-written to fulfill prophecy. IIRC, the whole trip down to Egypt by Mary and Joseph was another part of the prophesy which we only find in the later gospels.

I read the book closely and it's fairly obvious to me that Jesus was a preaching that some part of everyone ends up in Gehenna; the rest ends up married back into an eternal God.

One might even read the "I am God" statement of Jesus as "I am He, as you are He, as you are me. And we are all together"

A story which doesn't drive the sort of pro-forma benchmarks you need for the growing and prosperous entrepreneurial enterprise being franchised out (at no fee, even though he had every right to charge one according to his letters) by Paul.

You completely lost me with the Gehenna reference. I know that Jews don't believe in an afterlife in the same way as Christians to. They believe that when you're dead, you're dead but that you will be resurrected when god returns. So they believe in physical resurrection into perfect bodies rather than a true afterlife. Maybe that's what you were getting at?

 

[JEDIYoda]

You completely lost me with the Gehenna reference. I know that Jews don't believe in an afterlife in the same way as Christians to. They believe that when you're dead, you're dead but that you will be resurrected when god returns. So they believe in physical resurrection into perfect bodies rather than a true afterlife. Maybe that's what you were getting at?

You really do not know a lot about what Jews believe......kind of accurate but more wrong than right!!

 

[TeeJay1952]

Do Jews believe in the hereafter such as life after death?
THE AISH RABBI REPLIES:

The afterlife is a fundamental of Jewish belief.
The creation of man testifies to the eternal life of the soul. The Torah says, “And the Almighty formed the man of dust from the ground, and He blew into his nostrils the SOUL of life” (Genesis 2:7). On this verse, the Zohar states that “one who blows, blows from within himself,” indicating that the soul is actually part of God’s essence. Since God’s essence is completely spiritual and non-physical, it is impossible that the soul should die. (The commentator Chizkuni says this why the verse calls it “soul of LIFE.&#8221

That’s what King Solomon meant when he wrote, “The dust will return to the ground as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.” (Ecclesiastes 12:17)

For anyone who believes in a just and caring God, the existence of an afterlife makes logical sense. Could it be this world is just a playground without consequences? Did Hitler get away with killing 6,000,000 Jews? No. There is obviously a place where good people receive reward and bad people get punished. (see Maimonides’ 13 Principles of Faith)

The question of “why do bad things happen to good people” has a lot to do with how we look at existence. The way we usually perceive things is like this: A “good life” means that I make a comfortable living, I enjoy good health, and then I die peacefully at age 80. That’s a good life. Anything else is “bad.”

In a limited sense, that’s true. But if we have a soul and there is such a thing as eternity, then that changes the picture entirely. Eighty years in the face of eternity is not such a big deal.

From Judaism’s perspective, our eternal soul is as real as our thumb. This is the world of doing, and the “world to come” is where we experience the eternal reality of whatever we’ve become. Do you think after being responsible for the torture and deaths of millions of people, that Hitler could really “end it all” by just swallowing some poison? No. Ultimate justice is found in another dimension.

But the concept goes much deeper. From an eternal view, if the ultimate pleasure we’re going after is transcendence - the eternal relationship with the Almighty Himself, then who would be luckier: Someone who lives an easy life with little connection to God, or someone who is born handicapped, and despite the challenges, develops a connection with God. Who would be “luckier” in terms of eternal existence? All I’m trying to point out is that the rules of life start to look different from the point of view of eternity, as opposed to just the 70 or 80 years we have on earth.

So what is the afterlife exactly?
When a person dies and goes to heaven, the judgment is not arbitrary and externally imposed. Rather, the soul is shown two videotapes. The first video is called “This is Your Life!” Every decision and every thought, all the good deeds, and the embarrassing things a person did in private is all replayed without any embellishments. It’s fully bared for all to see. That’s why the next world is called Olam HaEmet - “the World of Truth,” because there we clearly recognize our personal strengths and shortcomings, and the true purpose of life. In short, Hell is not the Devil with a pitchfork stoking the fires.

The second video depicts how a person’s life “could have been…” if the right choices had been made, if the opportunities were seized, if the potential was actualized. This video - the pain of squandered potential - is much more difficult to bear. But at the same time it purifies the soul as well. The pain creates regret which removes the barriers and enables the soul to completely connect to God.

Not all souls merit Gehenom. It is for people who have done good but need to be purified. A handful of people are too evil for Gehenom, and they are punished eternally. Pharaoh is one example.

So what about “heaven?”
Heaven is where the soul experiences the greatest possible pleasure - the feeling of closeness to God. Of course not all souls experience that to the same degree. It’s like going to a symphony concert. Some tickets are front-row center; others are back in the bleachers. Where your seat is located is based on the merit of your good deeds - e.g. giving charity, caring for others, prayer.

A second factor in heaven is your understanding of the environment. Just like at the concert, a person can have great seats but no appreciation of what’s going on. If a person spends their lifetime elevating the soul and becoming sensitive to spiritual realities (through Torah study), then that will translate into unimaginable pleasure in heaven. On the other hand, if life was all about pizza and football, well, that can get pretty boring for eternity.

The existence of the afterlife is not stated explicitly in the Torah itself, because as human beings we have to focus on our task in this world. Though awareness of an eternal reward can also be an effective motivator.

For further study, see Maimonides’ Foundations of the Torah, “The Way of God” by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzatto, and the commentary of Nachmanides to Leviticus 18:29.

May the Almighty grant you blessings, success - and eternal life!

* Zohar, Mishpatim, Exodus 1:1 * AriZal - Sha’ar Hagilgulim

from “Ask The Rabbi” - http://www.aish.com/rabbi/