Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To me, there is so much similarity between the Old and New Testaments, that I believe the New Testament must have been written by early Christians who had converted from Judaism.
What do you think of the authorship of the New Testament?
And that’s why the Christian Old Testament is not the same as the Jewish Tanakh...The Old Testament was modified and edited in order to support the New Testament...
Nope. The Quran was written out of jealousy over the NT. Mohammed as the seed of Abraham through Ishmael was to rival Jesus as the seed of Abraham through Isaac.
Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism, they didn't convert from Judaism till around 125 A.D. The fathers of Christianity were Pharisees who never stopped being Pharisees as Paul never stopped being a Pharisee unless somebody wants to say that he lied about himself everytime he told us he was a Pharisee, and his proving he was still a Pharisee still walking in the laws of Moses in Acts, he was a Pharisee till the day he died, still walking in Judaism till the day he died.
Yea, Paul never said that he WAS a Pharisee but that he IS a Pharisee...
And that’s why the Christian Old Testament is not the same as the Jewish Tanakh...The Old Testament was modified and edited in order to support the New Testament...
But the Old and New testaments were both written from the perspective of people who hated their parents generation and were rebelling against it. This occurred in two separate times in Jewish history. After all, those older generations were the ones who became so complacent that they were vulnerable to outside attackers. The "misunderstanding" that you sense is really a kind of humor. No one could be that dumb.
I don't quite follow you here. The 'rebels' were twofold - the Jewish Messianists and the Greek Messianists. The Jewish ones were just Pharisees who thought the Messiah HAD come. The Greeks were just being taught a new religion. There were others - Mithras, Isis, Cybele, Attis.
But Dumb...well, it seems not too clever to us today, but because messages in dreams and mobile stars don't wash today. But mainly comparison with the other gospels shown up a clunking error. We'd perhaps excuse Matthew's two donkeys as a misreading of Zechariah (wasn't it?) but there were two donkeys there - the colt tagged along. Jesus only rode on the adult. Problem solved with limited damage. But the other three don't make the mistake and all agree just the one animal. Thus Matthew's misreading is shown up and he looks - not dumb, but didn't understand his Hebrew. This it is more evidence that he was no Jew. Thus he was a Greek. Then all the rest falls into place - the distancing from and hostility towards the Jews - beyond the other synoptics. The foolish nativity story made worse by the utter conflict with Luke. The fact that Jesus was called a Nazarene being not only explained but cast as fulfilled scripture - which it isn't. The clumsiness of the Emmanuel prophecy being fulfilled by someone called something else.
No, Matthew perhaps wasn't Dumb, but these days and being compared with the other gospels (which show him up badly) it doesn't make him look too good.
Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism, they didn't convert from Judaism till around 125 A.D. The fathers of Christianity were Pharisees who never stopped being Pharisees as Paul never stopped being a Pharisee unless somebody wants to say that he lied about himself everytime he told us he was a Pharisee, and his proving he was still a Pharisee still walking in the laws of Moses in Acts, he was a Pharisee till the day he died, still walking in Judaism till the day he died.
I'm willing to believe that he was a Pharisee. But not a very good one. I rather think that was what his breast beating was about, and a good half of why he couldn't wait to sideline the Law. At first (Romans) just for the Gentiles, but later (Ephesians, perhaps) making faith in Jesus remove the Law even from the Jews - which suited Paul perfectly.
Yea, Paul never said that he WAS a Pharisee but that he IS a Pharisee...
Yes. Obviously he was writing in Real Time (He Is), and we are reading it in retrospect (he Was). I take your point - it is not clear that he ever stopped regarding himself as a Jew and a Pharisee. Though he may have realised that by junking the Law for everybody, he had burned his bridge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
And that’s why the Christian Old Testament is not the same as the Jewish Tanakh...The Old Testament was modified and edited in order to support the New Testament...
Except that there are Qumran texts that suggest that the Jewish scriptures of Jesus time might have been rather different from the ones Judaism uses today. Some of the Q cave texts matched better the Septuagint (which matched the Gospel quotes) than the Jewish texts. The idea that the Septuagint was a bad translation may be up for revision.
Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism, they didn't convert from Judaism till around 125 A.D. The fathers of Christianity were Pharisees who never stopped being Pharisees as Paul never stopped being a Pharisee unless somebody wants to say that he lied about himself everytime he told us he was a Pharisee, and his proving he was still a Pharisee still walking in the laws of Moses in Acts, he was a Pharisee till the day he died, still walking in Judaism till the day he died.
Bad history. The trouble between hard line Jewish religionists and the new perceptions of Christians had led to serious conflicts during the reign of Nero in the CE 60s. Jews were expelled from Rome mostly because of the trouble being caused.
But expulsions of Jews happened earlier and even before Christianity had really got started
"References to an expulsion of Jews from Rome by the Roman Emperor Claudius, who was in office AD 41-54, appear in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2), and in the writings of Roman historians Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122), Cassius Dio (c. AD 150 – c. 235) and fifth-century Christian author Paulus Orosius. Scholars generally agree that these references refer to the same incident.[1][2]
The exact date is uncertain. The maximal time window for the expulsion of Jews from Rome is from January AD 41 until January AD 53. More detailed estimates such as those based on the AD 49 date by Orosius or the reduction of the AD 53 upper limit due to Proconsul Gallio's health are possible but controversial.
There were at least two expulsions of Jews from Rome before this event. In 139 BC the Jews were expelled after being accused of Judaizing among the local Gentiles. Then in AD 19 Tiberius once again expelled Jews from the city for similar reasons." (Wiki)
This would seem to be at the time that Paul was starting his mission and it wasn't until 45 AD (during the famine) that he saw the opportunity to collect for the 'Saints' in Jerusalem to buy some approval for his mission with Jesus' followers. It seems that the trouble from Jews and expulsions really were Jews and not Christians. If we can believe the account of Nero accusing the Christians, we have to suppose that they were making a bad reputation for themselves by the 50's AD, but doubtfully in the time of Claudius, let alone Tiberius.
I'm willing to believe that he was a Pharisee. But not a very good one. I rather think that was what his breast beating was about, and a good half of why he couldn't wait to sideline the Law. At first (Romans) just for the Gentiles, but later (Ephesians, perhaps) making faith in Jesus remove the Law even from the Jews - which suited Paul perfectly.
If Paul even insinuated that Jews should not keep the law, there should be no reason for me to explain.
OBVIOUSLY, if Paul even insinuated that a Jew should not keep any law, he should have been killed in the spot.....
Obviously he would be a false prophet, but worse than this, a traitor against his own people, and he should be hated and despised for what he is, a false prophet, a liar, and the worst sort of person there ever was, to betray his own people.
I don't need the words of a two faced lying coward, and if Paul ever taught Jews not to keep the customs of Moses, that is exactly what he would be. Why would I listen to such a low life individual.
You are letting Christians see for you, again, Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism, and you have to know this before you can understand.
You are falling back on what Christianity wants to believe and how they want to erase history of what was in the beginning.
IF Jesus or any disciple or Paul EVER spoke against keeping the customs of Moses they deserved death..
The lawless are deserving of Death, plain and simple, if even one disrespects the laws in any way derogatory against the customs of Moses, they deserve death, if they were running around as followers of Jesus in the first century teaching Jews not to follow Moses, they deserved death by law.
No question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. Obviously he was writing in Real Time (He Is), and we are reading it in retrospect (he Was). I take your point - it is not clear that he ever stopped regarding himself as a Jew and a Pharisee. Though he may have realised that by junking the Law for everybody, he had burned his bridge.