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.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Paul WAS a Jew, and fully aware of the then-current interpretations of Judaism. He has his own interesting interpretations of them, but I have never been a fan of Paul, personally.
Did Paul really exist?...And if so, was he really a Jew?...And if so was he really a Pharasee?...And if so was he really taught by Gamaliel?...And if so why was he so violent against the Christians?...
Yep, fair enough. Though I think our ideas of what constitutes a proper פשט are extremely different, and where are differences are coming into conflict.
You did not ask for it in the OT, you asked where in the NT that it said that. I showed you, so now after you have been shown you try a red herring.
Why don't you show us all what your rabbis said is in the OT? you cannot because like I said it is all speculation via midrash and changes the plain reading of the scripture.
Now I know you have come to reject the NT, however even if you were to take it as a midrashim example what the writer said in Hebrews does NOT change the plain meaning of the words, it just gives abes reasoning of why he did what he did.
Not only does your rabbis have to change the plain meaning of the scripture to get their understanding they also take away from abe one of faiths greatest examples. That being that because God had promised in Issac that abe had so much faith in God that abe believed God in order to fulfill His word would even raise the dead to do so.
Your rabbis simply have a lower view of abe then those who believe what the NT says, which is pretty bad as abe is the father of their nation.
I am capable of reading transliterated Hebrew, and capable of recognizing acronyms - especially when I'm already familiar with that particular school of interpretation, even if I don't practice it. Do you understand that פשט is part of prds or should I have transliterated it for you? Perhaps you need to reread my post again to get the point I was making, instead of asking me whether I "understand what PaRDeS is"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Did Paul really exist?...And if so, was he really a Jew?...And if so was he really a Pharasee?...And if so was he really taught by Gamaliel?...And if so why was he so violent against the Christians?...
Yes, yes, yes, possibly, and I believe the final answer is in the Greek New Testament - whether his own testimony is reliable or not, I don't know.
I am capable of reading transliterated Hebrew, and capable of recognizing acronyms - especially when I'm already familiar with that particular school of interpretation, even if I don't practice it. Do you understand that פשט is part of prds or should I have transliterated it for you? Perhaps you need to reread my post again to get the point I was making, instead of asking me whether I "understand what PaRDeS is"?
Yes, yes, yes, possibly, and I believe the final answer is in the Greek New Testament - whether his own testimony is reliable or not, I don't know.
That's the point that I am trying to make...The Great Gamaliel didn't really have a problem with the followers of the way, they were just another Jewish sect, at that time, however, it is not that he was a rather peaceful man, so if Paul was his star pupil, how did Paul become so violent?...
You did not ask for it in the OT, you asked where in the NT that it said that. I showed you, so now after you have been shown you try a red herring.
No, no, no...You provided it and I said to try and find THAT in your OT...
Quote:
Why don't you show us all what your rabbis said is in the OT? you cannot because like I said it is all speculation via midrash and changes the plain reading of the scripture.
So, what is written in Hebrews then is speculation and changes the plain reading of scriptures...
Quote:
Now I know you have come to reject the NT, however even if you were to take it as a midrashim example what the writer said in Hebrews does NOT change the plain meaning of the words, it just gives abes reasoning of why he did what he did.
And that is speculation...Not truth...
Quote:
Not only does your rabbis have to change the plain meaning of the scripture to get their understanding they also take away from abe one of faiths greatest examples. That being that because God had promised in Issac that abe had so much faith in God that abe believed God in order to fulfill His word would even raise the dead to do so.
What do you mean by they changed scripture?...The Gentiles are the one that change the plain meaning of the Scriptures by changing what it says here and there in their KJV...
It takes nothing away because there is nothing else there to the story...
Quote:
Your rabbis simply have a lower view of abe then those who believe what the NT says, which is pretty bad as abe is the father of their nation.
No, they don't...And that smacks of Anti-Semitism...Considering that your NT wasn't written until a couple hundred years after the fact, how can you be sure it is accurate?...Just by blind faith?...
No, no, no...You provided it and I said to try and find THAT in your OT...
So, what is written in Hebrews then is speculation and changes the plain reading of scriptures...
And that is speculation...Not truth...
What do you mean by they changed scripture?...The Gentiles are the one that change the plain meaning of the Scriptures by changing what it says here and there in their KJV...
It takes nothing away because there is nothing else there to the story...
No, they don't...And that smacks of Anti-Semitism...Considering that your NT wasn't written until a couple hundred years after the fact, how can you be sure it is accurate?...Just by blind faith?...
Richard the Hebrew quote I gave, even if you take it as a midrashim, of the same type that your rabbis gave, it does not take away from the plain reading. It is no more speculation then the rabbis you quoted. However the rabbis you quoted changed the plain reading of the scripture, the Hebrew writer did not.
The JPS and Fox says basically the same thing the KJV does Richard, so like in the other thread you will have to tell me why I should follow the translation you give. Looks to me you have fallen in with some kind of Jewish cult that translates the TANAKH differently then others do.
Ya sure Richard anything spoken contrary to what some Jew has said is anti-Semitism, total red herring and a stupid thing to say considering Jesus was a Jew and it is him I follow. Also just for you so you do not try to use that stupid anti-Semitic statement toward me again I will let you in on a little secret. I also am of one of the tribes of Israel.
Richard the NT might have not have been written until a couple of hundred years after the fact, but what does that say about the OT? several hundred years had passed before the OT was put together, so how can you be sure how accurate it is?.... blind faith back at you.
That's the point that I am trying to make...The Great Gamaliel didn't really have a problem with the followers of the way, they were just another Jewish sect, at that time, however, it is not that he was a rather peaceful man, so if Paul was his star pupil, how did Paul become so violent?...
Yes, that is a very good point. This is why I put down "possibly" as the answer, with the only "evidence" we have being a single passage in the Book of Acts (basically one-half of the Luke-Acts work), a work by an anonymous author (traditionally, but most certainly mistakenly, ascribed to the Apostle Luke) who frequently disagreed with the teachings of Paul. I think you might be hard-pressed to find a New Testament scholar who would claim that Paul was a student of Gamaliel nowadays.
I am not very much involved in the Greek New Testament, and am definitely not a fan of Paul - so I cannot offer much in this area. The reason given for Paul's divergence from Gamaliel's views on the emergent Christians - in other words, why did he decide to persecute the Christians before his conversion - is dependent on passages in the NT, which again boils down to how reliable the various documents are, or as I said: "whether his own testimony is reliable or not, I don't know".
Despite this conflict between the philosophy of Gamaliel and Paul, it is clear that Paul was familiar with the Judaism of his time - even when he chose to diverge from it, he did it with at least a working knowledge of the various traditions in order to argue against them, if you will. I don't think the other Apostles (and I use the term "Apostle" VERY lightly in regards to Paul, for an epileptic fit while on the road doesn't make someone an "Apostle" heh heh) were fans of Paul, for these very reasons.
An interesting puzzle for me is why did Paul choose to diverge so deeply from both Judaism and the recorded teachings of Jesus? I don't think there are any Christians alive today. I think there are Pauline Christians alive today. I don't think Jesus would have appreciated his transformation into Christ, personally.
Richard the NT might have not have been written until a couple of hundred years after the fact, but what does that say about the OT? several hundred years had passed before the OT was put together, so how can you be sure how accurate it is?.... blind faith back at you.
Both of you might have to make this a little more specific. While the collections as a whole were certainly not "canonized" until many years after the individual books themselves were written, and many of the books were written many hundreds of years after the "facts" they record - some of the works are not necessarily historical records, but are in the forms of different genres: poetry, wisdom, epistolary, apocalyptic....
The Gospels were late, at least 30 years after the purported events (assuming Mark was the first canonical Gospel we have), but as Pneuma points out as well, many of the books of the Hebrew Bible that claim historical events are indeed very much later than the times they purport to record (the book of Ruth and Esther both belong to the Ketuvim ("Writings") because of their late authorship). Of course, some will discount this as meaning nothing in the face of traditional views of authorship.
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.
