Is this really faith in life?

a reply to: tetra50

Do you read Hebrew, actually.

The Book of Hebrews, was written in Greek by Paul or more likely an associate of Paul's, to Christians who were converts from Judaism who were discourage by problems with the Roman government, and were considering going back to Judaism.

The writer, he or she, was explaining how the Christian belief system was superior to the endless cycles of sacrifice in the old system that the Jews subscribed to.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: tetra50

Do you read Hebrew, actually.

The Book of Hebrews, was written in Greek by Paul or more likely an associate of Paul's, to Christians who were converts from Judaism who were discourage by problems with the Roman government, and were considering going back to Judaism.

thanks for the reply and your info, jmdewey60.


We both know all the books and gospels are a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic…I think we both know that.
I'm not sure the point in correcting me in response to this post.
What I experience in this matter and others , in this forum, is the dissemination of insular, smaller topics to get us off topic….
I find your response to be such, but no matter. I still appreciate your chiming in on this thread. But just because I said earlier that I wished more learned than me to show up and discuss the questions I've raised does not in any way mean I will be dealt with as though I am lacking in intelligence about the subject matter.
Thanks, and no offense intended.

Tetra

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why was Paul needed? Were Jesus' words not simple enough or powerful enough to understand?

The gospels were not theological dissertations.
The letters of Paul were written to deal with specific problems that came up.
Likely the gospels were not even written yet, so the words of Jesus were only coming in a direct way through what the Apostles were saying.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: manna2

Wait... isn't that the reason Jesus came? To simplify the law? He said the entire law hung on two commandments, to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. How much simpler could it be? Why did Paul have to come in and re-complicate it again?

Why was Paul needed? Were Jesus' words not simple enough or powerful enough to understand? Why does there have to be a middle-man? God gave us his word through Jesus, there is no need for anything else to be said: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Simple, concise, and to the point. Nothing else is needed.

I agree completely. for what that's worth. There is much historical contemplation about Paul's role, on the whole.
Because, after the crucifixion, Paul respun some of what Jesus said, or what the other apostles said he said…..

Regardless, what you've said at the end of your post, I find the most important point, herein….
What else should be said.
That is the whole point of the thread, encapsulated, right there….
are we discussing and caught up in "law" where that law has been broken repeatedly by those enforcing it, or is it truly about something as simple as--not did you sacrifice, and were you worth it--BUT, do you love God, your fellow man, and treat him/her as you would be treated.
Simple, concise, and to the point, as you've stated.
Tetra50

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why was Paul needed? Were Jesus' words not simple enough or powerful enough to understand?

The gospels were not theological dissertations.
The letters of Paul were written to deal with specific problems that came up.
Likely the gospels were not even written yet, so the words of Jesus were only coming in a direct way through what the Apostles were saying.

The letters of Paul were written while he was imprisoned. This is an important point, I think. Those were His "specific problems." We will never know if the gospels were written, yet. He was only one apostle. There were obvious issues between those apostles, as we can only imagine, being students of human nature: a group of twelve or so, and a woman, whose role is historically questioned and cast in a specific way by specific religions, dependent upon what their point to be portrayed is.

We should never miss that, I think, and the poster I replied to most recently raised the whole political aspect of this life and this crucifixion. For this political aspect of control of the masses, and belief, is, IMHO, all important.
Tetra

a reply to: jmdewey60

Why was there a need for theological dissertation? That only opens things up to corruption. Jesus said to love God and others as yourself, why is there a need to break that down into a hundred different theologies and ideas? Forgive others to be forgiven, what is hard to understand about that?

Jesus' words were very simple and powerful, there was no need for a middle man such as Paul. Paul said to submit to authority, Jesus never did such a thing, going to his death defending his teachings which the authorities tried to silence. Jesus did not submit to the authorities, otherwise he would have never stirred up so much controversy from the authorities.

1 John 2
6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

Paul telling us to submit to authority goes against how Jesus lived, so whoever submits to authority does not live as Jesus did.

Jesus went against the status quo, Paul teaches us not to fight it lest we be judged by God's servants the authorities (Romans 13).

The Gospel of Paul was immently important as he was a Pharisee who converted, or rather, described the importance of conversion as per Jesus's sacrifice. I will entertain this only upon its important for that sacrifice, as that is what this thread intends to address.

As such, he was the connection, in a way, between the Pharisees (those who didn not recognize Christ, nor Judaism)
and those who did….thus much made of his "conversion." This is partially why his gospel and role is questioned.
Tetra

a reply to: tetra50

Matthew 16
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus said to beware of the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Paul was a Pharisee before his supposed conversion and he aligned Jesus with OT doctrine. As we know, the OT or Torah was the book that the Pharisees and Sadducees considered to be from God.

Seems to me Paul is exactly who Jesus was warning us about, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: tetra50

Matthew 16
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus said to beware of the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Paul was a Pharisee before his supposed conversion and he aligned Jesus with OT doctrine. As we know, the OT or Torah was the book that the Pharisees and Sadducees considered to be from God.

Seems to me Paul is exactly who Jesus was warning us about, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I agree, totally.

There is much in scipture about yeast being not where it belonged, out of place. It is why the Jews made unleavened bread.

But I shouldn't speak of that, for these matters are more important than symbolism, perhaps derived for the purpose of mockery….

Yes, perhaps Paul is exactly who Jesus was warning us about, as Paul's gospels came after what happened to Jesus, but even that, alas, in these times,where time is questioned, shouldn't, I think, be taken as an arbitrator of anything, whatsoever.

That's the point of this thread: time, and what would happen if it were simply circular, redone: what would that do to the scriptures, asserting it's been respun…..
But that's a whole other point, perhaps….
Tetra
P.S. thanks for your participation

"in mankind nobody is higher or lower nor is anybody of middle status. Everybody with concerted effort toils along the path of progress"

"man's paradise is on earth; this living world is the beloved place of all; it has the blessings of Nature's bounties; live in a lovely spirit"

"live in complete harmony with Nature, experience the grace of God in the splendor of the universe"

"may this mind of mine which is the source of highest knowledge, the source of wisdom, the power of memory, the immortal flame of consciousness Within ALL beings, Resolve on what is noble"

The Holy Vedas

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: tetra50

Matthew 16
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus said to beware of the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Paul was a Pharisee before his supposed conversion and he aligned Jesus with OT doctrine. As we know, the OT or Torah was the book that the Pharisees and Sadducees considered to be from God.

Seems to me Paul is exactly who Jesus was warning us about, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Interesting. I always thought that saint Peter was someone whom Jesus chose to be someone like successor and lead the Christians. However I am not considered a Christian ! but saint Peter is respected with great esteem in my belief While Paul deserves hell. Sorry I did not want to annoy Christians, I just said what I believed.

a reply to: maes2

! but saint Peter is respected with great esteem in my belief While Paul deserves hell.

This is interesting to me because it is hard from me to imagine somehow that you would accept the Book of Acts as gospel.
That is where the negativity against Paul comes from.
Acts is a work of historical fiction written a hundred years after the events that it purports to chronicle.
Does Islam canonize what I, a Christian, consider just a way to put the writer's take on Christianity in story form?
On the face of it, if it is presented as fact, it is fraud, since the writer puts himself in the story as a first person observer.

a reply to: tetra50

Jesus is just a story for children just like Santa Claus and Easter Bunny. I know religious people get insulted by this and I don't know if your religious or not but I seriously HOPE NOT. Religion is nothing more than Mideval Mind Control that still works today.

a reply to: jmdewey60
well, It is constructive that we know many events that happened in the Israel tribe, it happened among muslims too !
For example Sunni muslims believe that the Messiah of Muslims, Mahdi is not born yet. And Shia muslims believe Mahdi was born thousands year ago, the twelfth Imam, He is alive and He will return.
At least they are unanimous that Jesus is alive and will return, because this is written in their Koran not History books.
Not all muslims pay attention to the difference between Saint Peter and Paul, the same as many Christians.
They believe both Saint Peter and Paul had the same value. So this is the main difference between Sunni and Shia !!
All of these are because of historical events. Anyhow history can not be omitted from life of humanity. However there can be wrong narrations in history too.
The point is who is the successor of prophets, Who has a capability to lead the believers. Sunni believes all companions of Mohammad had the same value. But Shia believes Ali had a special rank higher than other companions. All of these are because of different point of views towards History.
For example It is written in Gospels that Jesus said :

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever thou shalt bind on the earth shall be bound in the heavens, and whatever thou shalt loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heaven. -Matthew 16:19

While Paul was not even among the disciples.

a reply to: maes2

While Paul was not even among the disciples.

So how does this condemn Paul to Hell?
He wrote letters to churches that he was associated with, or wished to be associated with.
He was not setting himself up as Pope over all churches on Earth, just answering questions people had on theology and such.
Somehow to you, that must be rejected as so much rubbish, while accepting with open arms something that is essentially a hit piece purporting to be history while it is demonstrably not.

a reply to: jmdewey60
I have no right to condemn anyone to hell ! If I said hell it was because of narrations that I trust them, of course they are not an evidence for you. I should have not mentioned the word hell here.
But those who change or add somethings to the original beliefs, they are not on the right path !

Any how, some Christian scholars insist that statement of Jesus about Saint Peter is not important and the audiences are all the disciples not specifically Saint Peter. This may not be vivid from widespread translations. but translations which are more near the Aramaic text shows it is specifically about Saint Peter.

Matthew 16:18 Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Also I say to you, that you are Kaypha (This is translated as Peter I think), and upon this stone I shall build my church, and the gates of Sheol will not withstand it.”

If you pay attention to the Aramaic texts you see that the word "Kaypha" is repeated twice. The first time they have translated as Peter and the second time they have translated as "Rock".
So this can mean that Jesus based his church on Saint Peter.
I may not be a Christian but I can realize how Saint Peter is special. Very special.

a reply to: maes2

. . . translations which are more near the Aramaic text . . .

There is no "Aramaic text".
I'm not sure why people think there is.
What we have is a translation into Aramaic from the original Greek.
There are a few Aramaic words in the New Testament, but that does not mean that it was originally written in Aramaic.

Matthew 16:18 Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Also I say to you, that you are Kaypha (This is translated as Peter I think), and upon this stone I shall build my church, and the gates of Sheol will not withstand it.”

This is a symbolic formula that is borrowed from Isaiah 22:22, for a transference of ruler-ship.
Apparently the looser in this situation is the old accepted representative of God's kingdom, the temple and its leadership, and the high priests and the teachers of the Law.
The "winner" is the church, based on a spirit that connects Heaven and Earth, and in this prophecy of Jesus, it is, in this ceremonial form, directed at the person who is in the role of representative of that spiritual relationship, who at that moment was Peter.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
The "winner" is the church, based on a spirit that connects Heaven and Earth, and in this prophecy of Jesus, it is, in this ceremonial form, directed at the person who is in the role of representative of that spiritual relationship, who at that moment was Peter.

This is What I said ! Saint Peter was the Imam (leader) after Jesus !!
Even if you do not accept that Paul was not righteous Still you can not claim that Paul and Saint Peter had a same value. right ?

. . . translations which are more near the Aramaic text . . .There is no "Aramaic text".
I'm not sure why people think there is.
What we have is a translation into Aramaic from the original Greek.
There are a few Aramaic words in the New Testament, but that does not mean that it was originally written in Aramaic.

Do you mean Jesus and his disciples were Greek !
Some people think Jesus was an American and he would speak English and he will return in Washington DC
Ok, still the native language of Jesus was Aramaic and there are many references in Aramaic Gospels that Jesus said "Alla (God) my father".
The difference in the Aramaic and Greek words does not show that all of Aramaic Gospels were a copy of Greek Gospels. Maybe some of them are so !

a reply to: maes2

Even if you do not accept that Paul was not righteous Still you can not claim that Paul and Saint Peter had a same value. right ?

What would the purpose be of valuing them in the first place unless you were a Catholic who is trying to claim that Peter somehow transferred this position to Rome?
What has value is the authentic writings of Paul which became the backbone of the early New Testament.
And that does not include Acts, even if it has a character in it that is named Paul saying things, they are creations of the anonymous writer's imagination.

Do you mean Jesus and his disciples were Greek !

Jesus spent his childhood in Egypt, which would mean Alexandria, which was a Greek speaking city, even among the Jews.
"Aramaic" is a name that comes from a valley in Syria where it was spoken, and is not Hebrew or officially "Jewish".
Jesus did not live in Judea, but Galilee, on the other side of Sumeria from Judea, in an area that was probably 99% gentile.
They may not have even had an actual building for a synagogue but could have just had meetings in homes or in a public space.
There would have been Aramaic speakers but likely as not, the Jews were more cosmopolitan and were Greek speakers, and reading the Bible from the Septuagint.

Ok, still the native language of Jesus was Aramaic and there are many references in Aramaic Gospels that Jesus said "Alla (God) my father".

This sort of speculation may be pleasant to the mind of Muslims but it is not connected to reality, since an Aramaic gospel would only be a translation from the Greek.
Jesus was a diaspora Jew, meaning he never lived in Judea, and outside of Judea, Greek was the common language that Jews spoke.

The difference in the Aramaic and Greek words does not show that all of Aramaic Gospels were a copy of Greek Gospels. Maybe some of them are so !

I think that you should start the hard process of accepting the reality that religions engage in propaganda with their own members as the target.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: maes2

Even if you do not accept that Paul was not righteous Still you can not claim that Paul and Saint Peter had a same value. right ?

What has value is the authentic writings of Paul which became the backbone of the early New Testament.

How can it be rational !
Also majority of Muslims have narrated 50000 quotes from a Jew converted to Islam like Ka'ab al-Ahbar and They just have quoted 500 hadithes or so from Ali ibn Abi Talib. Ali whose rank was like rank of Saint Peter.
Do you know why !?
Just because Ka'ab al-Ahbar was supported by corrupted monarchies.
This is the purpose. It is not rational that Christianity received most of his teachings not from a great people like Saint Peter, but from Paul ! while both of them were living at the same time.
Something has lost both in majority of Christians and majority of Islam Because they got from converted Jews far more than great people like Saint Peter and Ali ibn abi Talib !

This sort of speculation may be pleasant to the mind of Muslims but it is not connected to reality, since an Aramaic gospel would only be a translation from the Greek.

Most of your Christian friends believe Jesus would speak Aramaic. Your point is different.

I think that you should start the hard process of accepting the reality that religions engage in propaganda with their own members as the target.

Do you have any suggestion for this !?