Paul Conspired to Hijack Christianity and Succeeded, page 4

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:41 PM

link

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Mary didn't have a drop of the actual bloodline of David in her, did she?

The Catholic Church says that both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David. So according to Sacred Tradition in the church, the messiah did indeed come from David's line. Of course that's tradition that has been passed down and it isn't in scripture.

Looking at scripture I see that the apostles weren't fond of Paul at all. In fact, Paul has some rather unpleasant words to say about Peter and even brags about getting into a fight (of words) with him. Paul also brags that he has worked harder than any other apostle ... etc etc

This may make me spend some extra time in purgatory for saying this, but I have always gotten the feeling that Paul was a bit 'on the outs' and that he thought himself better than the other apostles ... or a harder worker .. or smarter ... etc

I'm not a Paul fan.

Icarus Rising

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:17 PM

link

This thread has been an interesting exercise for me, and I now read the epsitles with a new perspective. I'm not judging Paul or the authenticity of the Bible, but it is clear observationally there was tension between him and the Jerusalem Church.

This morning reading 2nd Timothy, I was struck by Chapter 4:6-13, seen in this new context.

6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.

7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

9 Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me:

10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

12 And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus.

13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

Apparently, he is expecting to die and is getting his affairs in order. He seems somewhat bitter about being abandoned by everyone but Luke, and is trying to gather the faithful, in the form of Timothy and Mark, to his side. He also asks for his cloke, books, and especially the parchments. Why is he asking for them? I'd think he would want them copied and widely circulated at this point, but it seems he has some other immediate intent for them. Interesting.

orangetom1999

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:37 AM

link

The Catholic Church says that both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David. So according to Sacred Tradition in the church, the messiah did indeed come from David's line. Of course that's tradition that has been passed down and it isn't in scripture.

Looking at scripture I see that the apostles weren't fond of Paul at all. In fact, Paul has some rather unpleasant words to say about Peter and even brags about getting into a fight (of words) with him. Paul also brags that he has worked harder than any other apostle ... etc etc

This may make me spend some extra time in purgatory for saying this, but I have always gotten the feeling that Paul was a bit 'on the outs' and that he thought himself better than the other apostles ... or a harder worker .. or smarter ... etc

I'm not a Paul fan.

THere are several problems here often avoided by Priests/Preachers/Ministers. First off the humanity of Christ..in his human form decends from Adam..we see this in Luke...the lineage of a man from Adam. Luke also being the perfect person to record this lineage as a man ..a gentile doctor. IN his priesthood intrestingly enough he does not decend from Levi..not at all..but from Melchizadek. Many would have us think it is from the Levitical priesthood of the Olde Testament line..not so. For he was out of the Tribe of Judah..not Levi. His priesthood in the New TEstament is recorded in John when he is baptized in the River Jordan at about 30 years of age. Matthew records Christ the King...from Abraham to David from David to his physical birth..fourteen generations to David and Fourteen Generations to His birth. Born a King.

Ironically the Book of Mark does not show any lineage..as it shows Christ the Servant..and Servants dont have any lineage recorded historically speaking. A very intresting omission.

My point in all of this is that many churchs and church doctrines often conceal this aspect of His life....in favor of church dogma...or the tradition of that particular church.

So you see lineage has several different aspects to it in the Bible and it is not always what men are wont to make of it according to mens traditions.
This is also a view often not shown or cleared up by men of the Cloth so to speak while they teach their traditions.

Whether the Apostles were fond of Paul or not...is of no consequence. Where does it say that Paul was incorrect or that the other Apostles proved Paul to be incorrect or in error?? This is what is missing from the Bible..the demonstration by the other Apostles to show that Paul was incorrect.

Remember something very telling about Paul..he was a Pharisee ..of the tribe of Benjamin. Not just any Pharisee but from the inner circle. Very educated. Paul undoubtedly knew more Olde Testament than most Hebrews of his day. Which means he undoubtedly knew more Olde Testament than most of the Apostles.
This is very telling also because it means that once he is converted he also knew the difference betweent the New and Olde Testaments better than most of the other Apostles. WE see this clearly in the Book of Hebrews where more Olde Testament is used because this Epistle is to Hebrews who would be more familiar with Olde Testament teachings than would be Gentiles.
This aspect of Paul is what makes Paul so fit to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Once again..the problem with Paul is that he said to much. Todays "Experts " have difficulty getting around Paul and his epistles..so they must discredit Paul by any means...just as did the Pharisees themselves so attempt to do to both Jesus and Paul. These Pharisees are still at it today.

THanks,
Orangetom

abovereproach

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link

Sailghoti, thanks for starting this thread! I have the same problem you have--sometimes I wonder if the religion I was brought up in should be called "Christianity" or "Paulianity"!!!

I have long had a problem reconciling the Jesus of Nazareth of the Gospels with the Christ of Paul (and John, for that matter.) The Church teaches that Jesus was both man AND God--fully human and fully divine. I know, that's a difficult concept to grasp, but theology is never easy.

My problem is that the Christ of Paul comes across as ONLY divine--there doesn't seem to be even a flicker of humanity in Paul's picture of Christ. If we didn't have the Gospels, I expect many more people than already do would doubt whether such a person ever existed--this wholly divine Christ would probably be viewed as no more "real" than Mithras or Apollo or any other ancient god who supposedly died and was resurrected.

I just can't "relate" to this bloodless Christ of Paul--I cannot see any relationship between him and the Jesus of the Gospels. Jesus of Nazareth has feelings--he can weep, he feels sympathy for outcasts and the poor, he has passionate feelings about injustice, he can get angry, he has friends whom he loves--THAT Jesus I can relate to. That Jesus even faced temptations, as the Gospels tell us. He is born, he is raised by devout Jewish parents, he is called to preach--he has a real humanity to him. You can understand that this Jesus would have suffered on the Cross and in the Garden of Gethsemane before his Crucifixion--it's hard to imagine Paul's Christ as being "human" enough to suffer over anything.

Orangetom, I don't think "error" has much if anything to do with the problems between Jesus's hand-picked disciples and Paul. I think it was much more over Paul's perception of Jesus--after all, James and Peter and the others had known Jesus in life--they had travelled with him, eaten with him, slept beside him, talked with him, touched him, known him as a beloved friend and teacher. Then Paul--who never knew Jesus in life--comes in claiming to know Jesus better than his own friends and family did--presenting this other-worldly Christ figure that must have seemed wholly alien to the people who actually had known Jesus--claiming to be the anointed one to speak for his Christ.

Yes, there was plenty of antagonism between the disciples and Paul--not fully acknowledged in the Bible but it still comes thru pretty clearly. The leaders of the Jerusalem Church--and incidentally, the chief of the Jerusalem Church was Jesus's brother James, not Peter--must have been appalled to see this man, Paul, who had once vigorously persecuted them, show up claiming not only to be an apostle like them, but even better--apparently Paul felt that Jesus had "hand-picked" him to straighten out the "errors" of the Jerusalem Church!! I agree with you, Flyersfan, that Paul seems pretty arrogant--while he protests his modesty and laments his "unworthiness", that doesn't stop him from trying to undermine the authority of the Jerusalem Church at every possible opportunity! THAT is why the original apostles were hostile to Paul--he had a very bad track record (persecuting Christians), he was an outsider, and he apparently was badly lacking in tact to say the least--how many times does he himself admit that people wanted to kill him?!

Nygdon--you ask if Paul was a "hijacker" why didn't the original apostles "call him out as such"? The answer is: THEY DID!! That's why he was repeatedly summoned to Jerusalem, to answer to James and Peter and the other apostles for his (highly questionable) actions and theology.

And there is no question that Paul was deeply influenced by contemporary "mystery religions"--such as Mithras, Apollo, and many others. There was a lot of belief back then in "gods" who were born of virgins (and fathered by gods such as Zeus), suffered bloody deaths and were later "resurrected".

abovereproach

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link

Err--not quite finished. (I know--I talk a lot!
)

I was going to add that the religion of Mithras in particular was a major "competitor" with Christianity for a number of years. Mithraism was wildly popular in the Rome of the first century A.D. A number of "cave temples" dedicated to Mithras have been found throughout Rome and other major cities of the ancient world. According to the legend, Mithras was born in a cave, to a virgin, founded a religion of mystery and sacrifice, and---his birthday? December 25th!

One major drawback to Mithraism was that ONLY men were allowed to become full initiates. Women were not welcomed, or even permitted, to be followers of Mithras. It was a religion that many Roman soldiers embraced, but obviously any "religion" that excludes half the human race is not going to go very far!! It's a wonder that the Mithras worship lasted as long as it did--or that it ever posed a real "threat" to Christianity! But it
did.

Christianity, on the other hand, warmly welcomed women. Early Christianity even allowed women to be leaders--such as the deaconess Phoebe, not to mention close friends of Jesus such as Mary Magdalen, and the sisters Mary and Martha.

In fact, some people believe that it was the devoted women of the early Church that helped it to survive!!

I will have to say one thing in Paul's defense.
Many scholars think that the more anti-female writings in letters attributed to Paul (such as not allowing women to speak in church) were not written by Paul but by some of his followers--who may have been a lot more "conservative" and hostile to women than Paul himself was.

orangetom1999

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link

Orangetom, I don't think "error" has much if anything to do with the problems between Jesus's hand-picked disciples and Paul. I think it was much more over Paul's perception of Jesus--after all, James and Peter and the others had known Jesus in life--they had travelled with him, eaten with him, slept beside him, talked with him, touched him, known him as a beloved friend and teacher. Then Paul--who never knew Jesus in life--comes in claiming to know Jesus better than his own friends and family did--presenting this other-worldly Christ figure that must have seemed wholly alien to the people who actually had known Jesus--claiming to be the anointed one to speak for his Christ.

Lets take a look at this one closely. First off as you aptly state ..Paul did not walk with Jesus as declared in the Scriptures. Why would you expect Paul to declare the Humanity of Jesus??
What Paul would know very well is the doctrine both in New Testament applications as well as its pedigree going back to the Olde Testament.
I need to remind you of something here also about us as being Human..for many of us this is the very best we can do..to reduce most things to Human expectations..and belief systems. If you know any Bible at all..both Olde and New Testaments this is not our purpose for being here..to gauge everything through human expectations and belief systems. This process I will remind you is precisely what got the Hebrews into trouble over and over...since this is also what the nations surrounding Israel were already doing. The Hebrews were told not to do this very thing...do as the nations around them were doing ..for it was abomination.
Do you think this is any different to New Testament Believers??

What was it that Paul got on the Apostles about who knew Jesus in his walk on this earth? What did he reproach them about....what did it concern??

It was the continuation of Olde Testament practices which he declares over and over ...they are bondage. This is not what happened since the Cross. With Peter If I recall it concerned the practice of the Jews to seperate themselves from others at meal times.

In other places you see Paul disapproving of the practice of some infiltrating the churchs claiming that one need be circumcised to be saved. Paul disapproves of this greatly.

IN our Humanity ...we tend to call or label this arrogant. It was not so. It was plain what Paul was teaching.

As Believers we are not here to extoll our Human virtues...for our human virtues are worthless...before the Living God. We are here to give praise to our God and try in the very poor way we do to seperate ourselves leven from Unleven..new wine from olde and not to take on the appearence of this world ..including the great humanity of his world.

Another name for this type of conduct is Salty...we are the Salt of the Earth..not the sugar. Salt is what holds back corruption..not sugar. The Human method of this world is to get us to claim our Humanity and lose the Salt...replacing it with sugar. No thanks. When ever knowlegable people of the "Humanitys" meet Salty people they tend to lable them Arrogant..not knowing about Salt or how it functions.

As to Hijacking..I will remind you and the readers of this thread that the Hebrews and specifically the Hebrew Leadership were already Hijacking the Olde Testament with traditions of men and substituting this for the Law of Moses they claimed to be keeping and observing in all points.

They were the Hijackers...and were also bent on infiltrating Christianity and substituting/hijacking Christianity back into the bondage of the Olde Testament which they themselves were not in fact keeping.

Some of you need to be very careful with this Hijacking mindset ...with those who know some of both Olde and New Testaments.
This constant Hijacking is what got the Hebrews into trouble over and over ..seven times in the Olde Testament. This Hijacking is what also lost them the nation...by 70 AD and the Roman General Titus sacking Jerusalem..resulting in the Disaporia.

AS to Paul being summoned to Jerusalem....did they prove Paul wrong in what he was teaching as the Apostle to the Gentiles??

Paul could not have been deeply influenced by the Contemporary Mystery religions. This is a no brainer simply because it is what the Hebrews themselves were already doing in thier Hijacking applications. Quietly sneaking the practices of these Mystery Religions into the Law of Moses as if they were in fact part of the Law of Moses when they were no such thing.

What do you think it means in the Olde Testament when the Kings are scorned for planting Groves and High places in the hills to worship in the day time and then worshiping in the Valleys at night?? THese were the practices of the nations surrounding Israel...the abominations. THese practices have thier origins in the Mystery Religions. Paul was totally against this.

What were the Groves and High places??..they were the Bunny Clubs of those days where the Priests sacraficed their temple virgins. Abomination.
THe original Hebrew Religion...was nothing like the religions of the nations surrounding Israel..there were strict prohibitions against this type of conduce and Paul would have known this clearly.

Humanity ...would approve of the groves and high places ..both today and back in those times. The Olde and New Testaments do not approve of this. Paul knew and understood this clearly.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Icarus Rising

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link

Imo, this whole issue is resolved in 2 Peter 3:15-17

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

That about sums it up, doesn't it?

Sun Matrix

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link

Originally posted by FlyersFan

The Catholic Church says that both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David. So according to Sacred Tradition in the church, the messiah did indeed come from David's line. Of course that's tradition that has been passed down and it isn't in scripture.

This is incorrect. The genealogy is in scripture. There is never need to go to the supposed Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.
This is the lines as traced through Joseph. They are the bloodlines of a King thru the House of David.

Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias F1 begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost
Text

These are the bloodlines of Mary. They are the bloodlines of a priest through the lineage of Levi and through the House of David. Jesus had both the blood lineage of a king and priest in the Order of Melchizedek.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Icarus Rising

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link

Sorry Sun, but those read like two different genealogies of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus. Mary isn't mentioned at all. Any connection to the Levitical priesthood is tenuous, at best.

Imo, Jesus inherited the blessings and promises of Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, which were passed down to Ephraim and Manasseh, and came directly from Abraham as a result of the First Covenant with God. Again, imo, Moses usurped the blessings and promises of Joseph, son of Jacob when he gave them to his brother Aaron in the form of the Levitical priesthood. Samuel, son of Elkanah (of mount Ephraim) and Hannah, was the first attempt to reconcile this, but it went astray when the Jews requested a king to reign over them.

I do agree that Jesus Christ represented the unification of the priesthood and the kingship, the blessings and promises and the birthright, but, imo, through the House of Joseph and the House of Judah, not the House of Levi and the House of Judah. I believe a careful reading of the entire Bible will support this, something that, imo, has been deliberately hidden and obscured throughout history.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by Icarus Rising]

FlyersFan

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
This is incorrect. The genealogy is in scripture. There is never need to go to the supposed Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

No SunMatrix. It's YOU who are incorrect. Mary's geneology is not in scripture.

And, dispite your anti-Catholic bias, there are times to turn to Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church. There is nothing 'supposed' about it. Sacred Tradition has been handed down for hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of years. It's there. It's real.

Mary was of the house of David according to Sacred Tradition. Take it or leave it. I know you, Sun Matrix, will leave it. But others will take it and therefore I present that information to those who wish to know it.

dAlen

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Mary didn't have a drop of the actual bloodline of David in her, did she?

The Catholic Church says that both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David. So according to Sacred Tradition in the church, the messiah did indeed come from David's line.
I'm not a Paul fan.

here is the jewish responce to the geneology issue.

As for Paul, its perspective...(as is with everything...even the above link.)

Peace

dAlen

dAlen

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link

Originally posted by FlyersFan
And, dispite your anti-Catholic bias, there are times to turn to Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church. There is nothing 'supposed' about it. Sacred Tradition has been handed down for hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of years. It's there. It's real.

But if a evangelical christian would believe you...then they would have to accept the 'sacred tradition of the Jews' or at least be open to it. (i.e. the talmud,zohar, etc.)

Personally, I think that evangelical christians could benefit if they were to 'search with all their hearts'...at least, I benefited. I actually have peace now.

Peace

dAlen

Sun Matrix

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Sorry Sun, but those read like two different genealogies of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus. Mary isn't mentioned at all. Any connection to the Levitical priesthood is tenuous, at best.

No sorry. The Luke genealogy is of Mary. That why Luke said.........(as was supposed) the son of Joseph. In Genesis the Messiah will come from the seed of a woman. The Jews were and are meticulous record keepers of genealogy as the Messiah was to come through the House of David.(and did come through the House of David.)

[edit on 6-3-2007 by Sun Matrix]

Sun Matrix

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link

Originally posted by FlyersFan

No SunMatrix. It's YOU who are incorrect. Mary's geneology is not in scripture.

If if wasn't the Jews would have shot it down thousands of years ago. You might try a little research.

And, dispite your anti-Catholic bias, there are times to turn to Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church. There is nothing 'supposed' about it. Sacred Tradition has been handed down for hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of years. It's there. It's real.

You're right it has been handed down for thousands of years and comes form Babylon. As I said earlier in another thread Lent has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with the tradition of Weeping for Tammuz the Babylonian savior. If you want to go through the tradition of the Sacraments and their Babylonian origin we can do that. Or how about the origin of the Sacred Heart...........all from Babylon, as Mystery Babylon blinds the world.

Mary was of the house of David according to Sacred Tradition. Take it or leave it. I know you, Sun Matrix, will leave it. But others will take it and therefore I present that information to those who wish to know it.

No Mary was of the House of David by Bloodline, no tradition is necessary or acceptable.

orangetom1999

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link

But if a evangelical christian would believe you...then they would have to accept the 'sacred tradition of the Jews' or at least be open to it. (i.e. the talmud,zohar, etc.)

Personally, I think that evangelical christians could benefit if they were to 'search with all their hearts'...at least, I benefited. I actually have peace now.

You guys lost me here....

Why do we need to go to these sacred books??? Whats wrong with the Bible itself?? THe Geneology is not in there??

By the way...you folks do know that sin passes by the Father ..not the mother???

To be born sinless he had to be born of a virgin. This is the requirement. Ironically it is one of the Bible Doctrines so often under attack.
This puts the Human face on Jesus of Nazereth. THis way we can spend hours and years going round and round by "Experts" with "Sacred Writings " to clear the path for us on some placebo lineage issue.
Once you spend hours and years on the lineage issue you lose sight of the sin issue...which is core Bible doctrine and then substitute ..."sacred books" for something so simple.

He had to be born sinless...meaning no earthly father!!!

Beware the Pharisees....whether they are Judaic Pharisees or Hellenic Pharisees(Catholic). Which Pharisees do you want?? Which "Sacred Writings/Placebos" do you want to spend years debating??
THey have had thousands of years to keep you on this type of string. You would think by now some of us would have caught on to this fingerprint.

THe Pharisees are still here!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom

dAlen

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link

Originally posted by orangetom1999

You guys lost me here....

Why do we need to go to these sacred books??? Whats wrong with the Bible itself?? THe Geneology is not in there??

You dont need to go to any sacred books. If you read the NT you see other 'sacred books' such as Enoch referred there. And Enoch does go a long way in clarifying the flood account.

As for Geneology...there is a big debate between the rabbis and Michael Brown. (Jews for Jesus type dude...well the front apologist for christianity to the Jews)

But anyway...its all good.

Peace

dAlen

- as Paul said, you have the spirit to guide and teach you...so your right...you dont need anything 'outside of you'.

orangetom1999

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link

You dont need to go to any sacred books. If you read the NT you see other 'sacred books' such as Enoch referred there. And Enoch does go a long way in clarifying the flood account.

As for Geneology...there is a big debate between the rabbis and Michael Brown. (Jews for Jesus type dude...well the front apologist for christianity to the Jews)

Glad to hear you understand that about sacred books and not needing to go to them.

Concerning Enoch. I dont see any sacred book called Enoch mentioned in the New Testament. I see the name Enoch coming up 3 times. Hebrews, Luke, and Jude.

Luke 3:37
Hebrews 11:5
Jude 1:14

I dont see the book of Enoch mentioned here in my Bible but only Enoch mentioned by name as were many others.

As to Michael Brown..you have me there. I have never heard of this person. Nevertheless I am very dubious about any geneology offered up by "experts" on this topic. I often find it to be misleading from Bible intent to the traditions of men whether done by rabbis, priests or ministers.

Thanks,
Orangetom

queenannie38

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link

Originally posted by sailghoti
So great was the conflict between Paul's brand of Christianity and that taught by Jesus prior to his crucifixion there was much animosity, open conflict and even outright rejection between Paul and several of the disciples chosen and publicly acknowledged by Christ.

Why? Because he had gone about for several years hunting down their own number! To kill them or at the very least have them convicted in some court. He was an accessory to Stephen's murder! Can you blame them?

BUT yet...they came around, didn't they? Peter became Paul's advocate!

There is far more similarity between what Paul taught and what Jesus taught than there is difference.

I believe in God, but this is often the God of Spinoza or Einstein.

Is there not but ONE God? One creator of us all? It is only our perceptions which differ...God is God.

Sun Matrix

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link

You have voted orangetom1999 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Correct..............the book of Enoch is not mentioned.

shantyman

posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link

What an interesting thread...I still am not quite sure how geneology really plays a role here. The crux of the matter - despite Jesus' bloodlines through Mary - is whether or not Paul 'hijacked' the church that Christ founded.

There is an excellent website that has a nice treatment of the early church
'From Jesus to Christ'

There were two traditions vying for control in the 1st century. While Christ lived as a man, he was a respected teacher and Rabbi in the Jewish tradition. Christianity posits that after the Resurrection - which we Christians have just begun to celebrate - Christ enjoined the Apostles to bring the Gospel to all. By doing so, there was a shift. Now, I already hear the argument 'Where is the proof that Christ ever rose from the dead?'. Well, that's a matter of faith. There are few - if any documents that go into any detail outside of the Gospel.
The 1st faction was one which sought to maintain Jewish traditon and simply amalgamate Christ's teachings into the existing faith. The other sect sought to create a Christian faith with antecedants to Judaism but free of the existing heirarchy and social proscriptions. One could easily argue that without the works of Paul evangelising the faith, Christianity would never have spread to be the dominant faith in the world. Indeed, the tenets of traditional Judaism would have greatly circumvented the growth of Christianity.

Christians maintain that Paul was converted when Christ appeared to him. Once again, a matter of faith. One could posit an argument that he made up this story to jump onto a good thing. I can't see this. Paul - as Saul - was indeed the 'golden haired boy' (sorry, I can't recall who brought this up first - apologies to the author). Becoming a missionary was hardly a smart career move. He was arrested for preaching to Gentiles.

27 When the seven days were nearly completed, the Jews from the province of Asia noticed him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd, and laid hands on him,
28 shouting, "Fellow Israelites, help us. This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place, and what is more, he has even brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this sacred place." 10
29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him and supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.
30 The whole city was in turmoil with people rushing together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the gates were closed.
31 While they were trying to kill him, a report reached the cohort commander 11 that all Jerusalem was rioting.
32 He immediately took soldiers and centurions and charged down on them. When they saw the commander and the soldiers they stopped beating Paul.
33 The cohort commander came forward, arrested him, and ordered him to be secured with two chains; he tried to find out who he might be and what he had done.
34 Some in the mob shouted one thing, others something else; so, since he was unable to ascertain the truth because of the uproar, he ordered Paul to be brought into the compound.
35 When he reached the steps, he was carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob,
36 12 for a crowd of people followed and shouted, "Away with him!"
37 Just as Paul was about to be taken into the compound, he said to the cohort commander, "May I say something to you?" He replied, "Do you speak Greek?
38 So then you are not the Egyptian 13 who started a revolt some time ago and led the four thousand assassins into the desert?"
39 Paul answered, "I am a Jew, of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city; I request you to permit me to speak to the people."
40 When he had given his permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned with his hand to the people; and when all was quiet he addressed them in Hebrew.

- Acts 21:27-40 (NAB)

Following his arrest, he languished for some two years in prison. Transported to Rome, he was shipwrecked, survived, completed the journey, and likely was beheaded at the order of Nero. Some accounts maintain that he was released or escaped to Ispana. This is unlikely - I doubt Paul would have been ameneable to spending the remainder of his life without his Mission.

As a man whose profession included suppressing the Christian 'heresy' in Judea, Paul knew that his conversion and acts would not have a good ending.

We can argue that Paul was insane or that he truly received a vision from Christ - as a Roman Catholic, I am strongly biased to the latter (of course!). I will argue that - whatever reason you choose - his actions were not the actions of a man seeking to profit or make his mark. As perceptive and brilliant as he was, there was no chance that he saw any material benefit in his missionary work. Delusion or revelation - he worked tirelessly and boldly to create a universal church. He opened Christ's teachings and the promise of His salvation to the known world.

There are those who argue that Paul created a messiah out of whole cloth - there is a book written by Hiram or Hyam Macoby...the Mythmaker (?). In it, he charges that Christ never made himself out to be the Son of God - he made a lot of Pilate's questioning and the response 'You say that I am.' I remember skimming through the book and not being impressed - others may be advocates. His thesis rings hollow to me for the reason I have consistently repeated - what gain would there have been for Paul??

Finally, some of the seminal events of the early church seem to marginalize Paul. The Council of Nicea, the tremendous debates over the concept of the Trinity and Christology really don't feature Paul as an authority. Having said that, Catholics - myself included - believe that Paul was truly divinely inspired and that he set Christianity on the path that led it to the faith that it is today.