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.
That's fine, but I don't actually see Paul as very tolerant - not by today's standards. "Such and such behaviour is not to be done because I say so based on my opinion" I'd want to see some better justification than a string of denunciations and proscriptions on his say -so. And I certainly don't agree with his views on how women and slaves should behave - accepting ownership. No, Paul is no role model for my Atheist -Dogma Liberalism.
Agreed. Either he didn't get past his own prejudices on some subjects, or as I believe, these are some redactions by later controlling types.
You are forgetting the different gospels were written by different people with different theologies. So Matthew has Jesus say ALL the laws are to be kept until the universe is no more. Matthew 15 is rewriting Mark 7:15 to refute it, to make this about eating with unwashed hands.
But agreed, there were different kinds of Jews who hate none Kosher. Peter certainly did, as Paul called him an hypocrite for it.
We (or I) had a look at this passage a while ago. The original common passage would seem to be limited to criticism of ritual washing, given that saying that what goes in doesn't defile demands a clarification, such as Luke (in a passage which has his money -grubbing fingerprints all over it) has with 'all things are clean for you'. The Mark gloss seems not to be in the earliest texts, so (whether or not taking Luke as a guide) the explanation that Jesus declared all foods clean was not in the original gospel, other than as strongly implied. So it would seem that Matthew did not so much delete the 'eat what you like' gloss but Luke added it and others added it to Mark.
Of course Matthew can't be refuting Mark 7.15 because he has it himself at 15 -10. But perhaps you had Mark's more specific gloss at 7 19. But as I say Matthew couldn't have seen that as it was not in the original Bibles.
So I am still open to Matthew being a Christianised Jew with a concern for the OT and Laws of Moses, but some of the arguments put forward seem to vanish under scrutiny. Though my own Hard evidence that Matthew couldn't read Hebrew collapsed when it was shown to me (referencing the Qumran scrolls) that the OT of Jesus' time often agreed with Septuagint readings rather than the current OT translation.
But nobody is ever going to convince me that Matthew took the passage about the Sadducees and their rentamob yelling for Jesus' crucifixion (thus making the Romans, who actually did it, blameless) and making sure it applied to all Jews did not represent an antipathy towards Jews that would have had the Greeks of the time cheering, even if not Christian. If Matthew was a Jew, he'd sure switched sides.
That seems a little extreme, since Jesus taught the Jews not to keep the laws, particularly dietary laws and the sabbath.
In any case, it's moot. Paul is most definitely dead. So is Moses, for that matter, if he ever existed. From internal evidence, Moses was a mash-up of various hero stories, similar to Heracles. The murderer who ran away to live with the Kenites is not the same guy who learned the priest business from his father-in-law, Jethro.
You are sitting there making things up, Jesus said that if you wont keep the laws and you come here teaching people not to keep the laws, YOU are the least in the kingdom of heaven, not such a great goal.
you poor gentiles are poisoned so badly by the teachings of your forefathers and the Church of Rome's pagan lies. Just take it from here. The REAL Messiah said it as plain as could be "IF you love me.....KEEP MY commandments. HE did NOT come to destroy the Torah (Matthew 5) but to elevate it and follow it. He did NOT fail to show others how to follow it and followed it perfectly, unlike the pharisaical leaders of the day. Don't think for one second that it wasn't ALL about Torah. It always was and always will be. YHWH the Father indeed NEVER changed HIS Mind.........so why would the ONE HE sent to be with us to provide the perfect sacrifice for all sin for those that followed HIM and HIS Torah. Torah wasn't "law" it was Teaching and Instruction for a righteous life. If you think you will be in the Kingdom ignoring HIS Torah.......good luck with that. I won't count how many "IF" statements there are in ALL scripture. The "letters" which you xtians call the so called "new testament" is an invention of the Church of Rome. A altered collection of "Letters" written by the Talmadim (apostles) and fully illuminated and teaches directly out of Torah. Get a clue.
you poor gentiles are poisoned so badly by the teachings of your forefathers and the Church of Rome's pagan lies. Just take it from here. The REAL Messiah said it as plain as could be "IF you love me.....KEEP MY commandments. HE did NOT come to destroy the Torah (Matthew 5) but to elevate it and follow it. He did NOT fail to show others how to follow it and followed it perfectly, unlike the pharisaical leaders of the day. Don't think for one second that it wasn't ALL about Torah. It always was and always will be. YHWH the Father indeed NEVER changed HIS Mind.........so why would the ONE HE sent to be with us to provide the perfect sacrifice for all sin for those that followed HIM and HIS Torah. Torah wasn't "law" it was Teaching and Instruction for a righteous life. If you think you will be in the Kingdom ignoring HIS Torah.......good luck with that. I won't count how many "IF" statements there are in ALL scripture. The "letters" which you xtians call the so called "new testament" is an invention of the Church of Rome. A altered collection of "Letters" written by the Talmadim (apostles) and fully illuminated and teaches directly out of Torah. Get a clue.
Good post, the problem Christians have is their denial of the fact that the first church was simply Gentiles to Judaism, and Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism for 100 years, and if you don't read the New Testament knowing that you are reading about Gentile converts to Judaism, you will never have a chance to understand the New Testament. Whether or not Jesus was right or wrong, he didn't come teaching disrespect for Torah and he told it like it was when he spoke of the law. Christians just don't believe Jesus.
you poor gentiles are poisoned so badly by the teachings of your forefathers and the Church of Rome's pagan lies. Just take it from here. The REAL Messiah said it as plain as could be "IF you love me.....KEEP MY commandments. HE did NOT come to destroy the Torah (Matthew 5) but to elevate it and follow it. He did NOT fail to show others how to follow it and followed it perfectly, unlike the pharisaical leaders of the day. Don't think for one second that it wasn't ALL about Torah. It always was and always will be. YHWH the Father indeed NEVER changed HIS Mind.........so why would the ONE HE sent to be with us to provide the perfect sacrifice for all sin for those that followed HIM and HIS Torah. Torah wasn't "law" it was Teaching and Instruction for a righteous life. If you think you will be in the Kingdom ignoring HIS Torah.......good luck with that. I won't count how many "IF" statements there are in ALL scripture. The "letters" which you xtians call the so called "new testament" is an invention of the Church of Rome. A altered collection of "Letters" written by the Talmadim (apostles) and fully illuminated and teaches directly out of Torah. Get a clue.
Agreed. Either he didn't get past his own prejudices on some subjects, or as I believe, these are some redactions by later controlling types.
He's not alone in that. People believing that they are right in what they like and dislike because they just are, and anyone who disagrees is stupid or evil is pretty common. In fact I might say the norm for human reasoning. Tolerance is something that was innate in instinct perhaps, but had to be Sprung by complex society that had to o -exist. but a group with Rules which all must obey and any who deviate are to be proscribed, punished or eliminated is as common today as it was in Paul's time, and the assumption of a concensus 'this is bad' without evaluating it is still alive and well, regrettably.
Just a string of religious claims that ignore the questions. I don't doubt that bottom line is Have Faith, Don't question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
You are sitting there making things up, Jesus said that if you wont keep the laws and you come here teaching people not to keep the laws, YOU are the least in the kingdom of heaven, not such a great goal.
It's a puzzle when you find Jesus himself breaking the sabbath and permitting others to do it and even justifying it, and forr trivial reasons, not doing something Good, never mind Vital. That is a findamental commandment. Or do you argue that Jesus did not reject the sabbath as unimportant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
Good post, the problem Christians have is their denial of the fact that the first church was simply Gentiles to Judaism, and Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism for 100 years, and if you don't read the New Testament knowing that you are reading about Gentile converts to Judaism, you will never have a chance to understand the New Testament. Whether or not Jesus was right or wrong, he didn't come teaching disrespect for Torah and he told it like it was when he spoke of the law. Christians just don't believe Jesus.
You keep saying that, but I wonder what the relevance is. It's obvious that there was a split between Gentile converts to Christianity and Gentile converts to Judaism was a different religion altiogether. One observed Jesis law and the other didn't. And whatever is in the Gospels, that was Christianity.
Thus I doubt the claim that Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism for 100 years. I did read that Messianic Judaism (which would probably be a legal part of Judaism) went on for several hundred years before Rome imposed its' own Roman -Christian bishop. But I doubt that the Roman or even Arian Christianity was regarded by Jews as a legitimate form of Judaism as they had undoubtedly junked the Mosaic laws.
If you can give a sourse for that claim, I'd like to follow it up.
P.s Wiki has this on dual -covenant. This view is also reflected by modern Judaism, in that Righteous gentiles needn't convert to Judaism and need to observe only the Noahide Laws, which also contain prohibitions against idolatry and fornication and blood.[21]
Some Christians agree that Jews who accept Jesus should still observe all of Torah, see for example Dual-covenant theology, based on warnings by Jesus to Jews not to use him as an excuse to disregard it,[22] and they support efforts of those such as Messianic Jews (Messianic Judaism is considered by most Christians and Jews to be a form of Christianity)
It refers to the Noahide laws and the council of Jerusalem (which I doubt happened as in Acts, but Acts is based on Paul's mention of the letter from James). The James letter always looked to me so vague that I suspected that Paul was covering up much of what it said and claiming that it gave him just what he wanted. (I really ought to quote the passages) but if - as Wiki says (you can never be sure that someone isn't simply peddling their own beliefs) it was just saying that Gentiles following the Noahide laws would still have some part in the Kingdom of heaven when it came, Paul's view has some mileage, and it's possible that his opposition did come from more strict Jews and not from the apostles. But I definitely get the feeling of a change by Paul for deep respect for the apostles to near contempt. Also I have never been entirely clear just what 'part' the'associate Jews' would have in the Kingdom of God. You wouldn't find them invited to sit in the messianic Knesset, you can bet.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-06-2018 at 05:22 PM..
Just a string of religious claims that ignore the questions. I don't doubt that bottom line is Have Faith, Don't question.
It's a puzzle when you find Jesus himself breaking the sabbath and permitting others to do it and even justifying it, and forr trivial reasons, not doing something Good, never mind Vital. That is a findamental commandment. Or do you argue that Jesus did not reject the sabbath as unimportant?
You keep saying that, but I wonder what the relevance is. It's obvious that there was a split between Gentile converts to Christianity and Gentile converts to Judaism was a different religion altiogether. One observed Jesis law and the other didn't. And whatever is in the Gospels, that was Christianity.
Thus I doubt the claim that Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism for 100 years. I did read that Messianic Judaism (which would probably be a legal part of Judaism) went on for several hundred years before Rome imposed its' own Roman -Christian bishop. But I doubt that the Roman or even Arian Christianity was regarded by Jews as a legitimate form of Judaism as they had undoubtedly junked the Mosaic laws.
If you can give a sourse for that claim, I'd like to follow it up.
P.s Wiki has this on dual -covenant. This view is also reflected by modern Judaism, in that Righteous gentiles needn't convert to Judaism and need to observe only the Noahide Laws, which also contain prohibitions against idolatry and fornication and blood.[21]
Some Christians agree that Jews who accept Jesus should still observe all of Torah, see for example Dual-covenant theology, based on warnings by Jesus to Jews not to use him as an excuse to disregard it,[22] and they support efforts of those such as Messianic Jews (Messianic Judaism is considered by most Christians and Jews to be a form of Christianity)
It refers to the Noahide laws and the council of Jerusalem (which I doubt happened as in Acts, but Acts is based on Paul's mention of the letter from James). The James letter always looked to me so vague that I suspected that Paul was covering up much of what it said and claiming that it gave him just what he wanted. (I really ought to quote the passages) but if - as Wiki says (you can never be sure that someone isn't simply peddling their own beliefs) it was just saying that Gentiles following the Noahide laws would still have some part in the Kingdom of heaven when it came, Paul's view has some mileage, and it's possible that his opposition did come from more strict Jews and not from the apostles. But I definitely get the feeling of a change by Paul for deep respect for the apostles to near contempt. Also I have never been entirely clear just what 'part' the'associate Jews' would have in the Kingdom of God. You wouldn't find them invited to sit in the messianic Knesset, you can bet.
What year was it when Gentiles stopped keeping the worship system of Christ?
What year was the Sabbath changed?
You are assuming that Jesus ushered in a lawless time to turn people against his own religion and his own people in order to turn Jews into Gentiles by instituting paganism and lawlessness. Again, Gentiles were converts of Judaism and the entire New Testament teaches this. You are stuck in pre concieved anti Semitic ideas.
There is the law and the prophets, and the law and the prophets came to an end and they stand above everything.
Jesus came with the purpose of adding Gentiles to Jews, not the other way around.
After Jesus came, there was a debate going on for decades whether Gentiles should keep the laws or not, DECADES.
Then, a believing Jew writes some letters to some churches, and by some great miracle, people want to put this above the law and the prophets when it cannot even be compared.
If Paul said anything to contradict Jesus, he's wrong, and no matter what Paul said, mere letter to a church do not equate to God's word, and when God came to the end of his speaking,HE TELLS US SO, '' THIS IS THE END.''
If Paul ever taught any Jews disrespect for the law and the prophets, people should rip his words out of the bible, I have no problem with deleted everything Paul said, Paul is not God, and he is not God's prophet who speaks for God.
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.
