It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saul, Adherent of Christ or Anti Christ?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
So, if Christ is indeed the Word of God, or the Logos, he promises that his words, will not pass away (Matthew 24:35), and not one letter will disappear (Mat 5:18), then is that not a validation of the scriptures before him?

Indeed the Word will not either. Christ was the living embodiment of the Word. The Word was made flesh, and he dwelt (real translation is tabernacled) among us. (John 1)

Other promises, his word is settled forever (Psa 119:89), shall stand forever (1 Peter 1:25), and again Word stands forever (Isaiah 40:8)

Those same promises are also made of the New Testament by Peter (2 Peter 1:21), Paul (2 Tim 3:16,17, Hebrews 4:12). In them we learn that men, who were moved by the Holy Spirit, wrote those same scriptures and as an echo to this, 1 Kings 8:56 and Ezekiel 12:25.

That's where God has promised me, and to those that read his book.

Which brings up a philosophical issue. I think that IF you are writing something the Holy Spirit wants you to write (OT/NT), and you intentionally try to change it, God whom created heaven and earth, can just as easily reorganize that Ink on the parchment to exactly what he wants.

Here I stand on his promise, that the scripture cannot be broken, his words will not fade away, etc. Indeed they haven't in the OT, nor the NT.


Can you show me where I have ever came close to saying not to keep the commandments? Can you show me where I have said that Jesus is wrong?


Again, fresh start here. Dialog, not debate. I was assuming from a wrong principal, and that is my fault.


See, I am not telling you not to do these things, I am telling you that you must. That is what the disagreement is with Paul, who claims that Jesus is the end


I'm assuming you mean the apparently contradiction between Matthew 5:17-20, and Romans 10:4?

One MUST be right, and if one is right, it MUST be Yeshua. I have a feeling this is where you are coming from, and in a way, we are a lot a like.


I see why you could see that. Indeed, you would be correct because I also agree that if Paul meant that he's dead wrong and must be set aside. The Spirit HAS pointed out this to you as "something is wrong" just as it did me when I read it.

But you didn't go far enough, you stopped there and blamed Paul for being against the law but did not check what the text says -- in the Greek. Your only error here is you depended on the translators.

If the translators had done Romans 10:4 properly, you would not be saying this. In fact, Paul is alluding to Christ as the fulfillment of the law -- not the end. In the English, it gives the impression of "finality". Ie, the law ENDED, which clearly IS a contradiction to what Christ said. I'll explain by rule #2.

The Greek word τέλος (telos) in Romans 10:4 translated "end", can convey variations in meaning, including "the last in succession of a series", "it's close", "the purpose of, aim, or end which all things relate"

With that in mind, lets look at Romans 10:4 again and instead of using the English word "end", use one of the variations of the meaning of the Greek word.

"Christ is the [purpose and the end to which all things relate] of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. " -- ie all things in the law, point to Christ. Nothing about the END of the law.

All things in the law point to Christ, which is exactly the view I hold and exactly what Christ said he was doing in Matthew 5:17.

You can even flip this around. If you are righteous and believe, then you must accept that Christ was a fulfillment the and the purpose of law. Again, exactly what Matthew 5:17 said and implied.

Paul is not saying the law is ended, he is saying everything in the scripture points to Christ! Yes, even the way the tabernacle was setup, every part used in there speaks of Christ. Yes, even in the physical temple you can find his attributes. EVERYTHING in the Old Testament speaks of him. It's exciting and will lead you on a treasure searching trip the rest of your life in scripture!


Edit: And in context (Romans 10:1-5), he's talking about Israel, namely the Pharisee's. Essentially he's berating them just as Christ did.

He's calling them ignorant, going about to fulfill the law in their own way to their own righteousness-- oblivious to the fact that Christ was the purpose and fulfillment of the law and only thru Christ can they be righteous.

It's not just there either. Luke 24:25-27 says the same thing. "Then said He unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself"


And again in Hebrews 10:7 "In the volume of the book it is written of Me"


Look at John's Vision in Rev 1:1, and compare the Brass, the fiery eyes, etc to the law. You'll see they all speak of an attribute or aspect of Christ in the OT.

As such there is no contradiction. Paul is accurate to state that the purpose or "end" if you want to use the English of the law was to point to Christ. Indeed it's was. Truth is when the Word and the Deed become one, and Christ is truth. If the Torah/law is truth, then by default, he had to fulfill.

Paul expounds this in Gal 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Ie, sort of like the the saying. The ends justify the means.


I believe every page of the Bible, even in the Torah, points to Jesus Christ. Every place name, word, etc speaks of Christ. He himself said it, and Paul said it here as well.

For further backup, this translation issue is very clear in the New King James Version's rendering of 1 Timothy 1:5, where τέλος (telos) is properly translated as purpose in the clause "the purpose of the commandment is love." instead of "end" in the KJV. In this same verse the NRSV translates telos as "aim" and the NIV renders it as "goal."

I hope that resolved your apparent contradiction. I just ask that you limit inquires of contradictions to just a few per day. I can't keep taking 7 hours out of my work day to respond and my 9 month old daughter doesn't let me type for more than 5 minutes when at home. 8)

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Not Authorized]

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Not Authorized]




posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Deleted double post

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Not Authorized]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia


Thus in comes Jesus, who then gives the understanding and by that understanding people can see how and why to keep the commandments as I mentioned before. That is progression. Paul turning it back into a literal is not progression.

In some strange way that's God being fair, so no one has a super advantage. The Gentiles too have to go through a long progression. It's been long and bloody and nasty.



If you seek salvation in the death of Jesus, then you are saying the truth must be sacrificed in order for you to live. This means you must be living in the lie. And that is why they conspired to kill him, so their lie could live. The blood sacrifice and such is a manipulation designed to keep people from seeing that it is in the life and example of Jesus that true salvation can be found, not his death.

This is where we agree. The cross is the stumbling block(obstruction like tire shredding devices) as Paul wrote. He merely stated blood sacrifice without explaining any logic for it. He just said it was 'according to the scriptures'. This is what Christians must get past.



And so I think of Paul also in this manner. But yet, if in a few hundred years by chance someone does decide to take these writings and create a religion based on them and try to pass me off in the same manner, then I hope and pray that someone will please come along and fix the errors on those peoples parts. And I certainly would not consider that person as having bad will towards me for doing that, or for pointing out any errors or misunderstandings in my writings that may be there.

While you obviously consider what I'm saying to be disrespectful to Paul, I do not see it that way. This is also exactly the way I would want Paul and others to treat me if I have errors.

You're doing a good job. Sorry I doubted your motives.




[edit on 28-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
This Saul of Tarsus person (born and raised in what is today present day Turkey, NB:" he was not a 'Palestinian Jew' but a Greek Speaking Diaspora Jew who rejected the Torah Abiding Theology of the original disciples of 'Iesous') was a man who ran around claiming (in writing !) over and over and over and over and over again ('methinks the lady doth protest too much' !) he was an 'Apostle of Iesous Christos' but in fact had never 'met' R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazr (Gk. Iesous) 'in the flesh' (only in dreams and visions, like my cook and like my ex-gardner).

This Saul of Tarsus (whose Roman name was Paul) never claimed to have actually 'seen' this Iesous person, only that 'he was manifested unto me' (whatever that means) which echoes Mithraic and other Gnostic Mystery Religion language of the time (then competing against Judaism and Christianity for converts) e.g.'in the day when Serapis was manifested unto his believers in a vision of light...' generally at the end of their baptism induction ceremonies when the 'light' was brought into a darkened room &tc.

The accounts of his so-called vision in his epistles (the edited ones that have come down to us in 3rd and 4th century fragments and copies in Greek) do NOT match the account of his socalled vision in the 2nd half of the 3rd Gospel (aka 'Book of Acts of the Apostles' penned by the same author as the 3rd gospel writer, 'Luke' whoever he was--the gospel is in fact anonymously dedicated to one Theophilos, whoever he was).

So we do not have a coherent statement as to what actually happened. Did he see a Light but not hear a voice? Or did he Hear a Voice but not see a Light? (The words LIGHT ('or) and VOICE/SOUND/THUNDER (qol) in Hebrew oral and written tradition was linked to Thunder and Lightning, where it was thought the VOICE of YHWH the clan god of Yisro'el spoke (YHWH THUNDERS from Zion, yea, he utters his VOICE from Jerusalem)
and we even have the socalled BRONTOLOGION from the Dead Sea Scrolls (writen about 80BCE) where thunderclaps are interpreted as words in Hebrew by way of divine speech ('if two thunder claps are followed by a pause then one more, it means ...")

In the 4th canonical Greek Gospel ('according to Yohanon' whoever he was) we have 'and it thundered; and some standing by said, behold it thundered. Others said, no, behold, An Angel of YHWH has spoken something to him...' in other words, the early Nazorean community (inlfuenced by persons such as the Dead Sea Scroll sect at Qumran/Secacah/Damascus) believed that one could get prophetic speech from the clan god of the Jews from Thunder and Lightning.

So this Saul of Tarsus person may well have been either struck by lightning or was 'interpreting' the Thunder Claps in terms of 'divine speech.'

What is curious perhaps about this socalled Saul of Tarsus person NOT see or hear or know of this Iesous in the flesh, but he hated and argued with the disciples, whom he called hypocrites in Galatians chapter 2 ('those so called Pillars of the Church !') because they kept kashrut (kosher) dietary laws like their founder did, as well as kept away fromt the goyim (gentiles) whom the Nazorean Community of Iesous (and his blood brother Yakkov, or James the Priest/Righteous One) considered 'ritually unclean' and 'idolatrous'.

This Saul person also did not quote this Iesous person very much (the few quotes we do have from this Saul person are NOT found in the canonical Greek gospel material that later got voted into the 'Bible' e.g. 'as the Lord said, It is more Blessed to Give than to Receive' &tc.

Thnis 'Paul/Saul' individual spoke and wrote koine Greek (unlike the original 'disciples' of 'Iesous' who were Aramaic speaking Galilean fisherman --- and he seems not to have been very interested in the historical person whom he never actuallly met in person ('it seems that our Lord stemmed from the Line of David according to the flesh' &tc. does not say much) and more interested in a Christ-like vision of a Messiah figure, rather than the socalled Bar Enasha (son of man) that was the focus of the Galilean Aramaic speaking Nazorean 'Messianic Jews' of 'Peter' and 'James'--the group that gave birth to the later Ebioinim ('the poor ones') which are even mentioned in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls (that was one of the titles of the Followers of the Way at Qumran, who penned and copied the Dead Sea Scroll material at Seccacah, or as they called it 'the wilderness of Damasq' where the sons of light were awaiting the overthrow of the Kittim (the Romans) who had invaded Palestine in 63 BCE.

For further insight into the false claims of this Saul Person (whom the Messianic 'Christian' Nazorian Ebionim followers of the historical 'Iesous' used to call that 'obscene heretic who flouts the Torah and knows nothing of which he speaks...') see a general-audience book called THE MYTHMAKER, PAUL AND THE INVENTION OF CHRISTIANITY written by British Ashkenazi Talmudic scholar formerly at Leeds, Mr Hyam Maccoby who brings out some of this in his examination of some of the inconsistencies inherent in Paul's epistolary correspondence, and the issues with contradictory facts outlined in the 'Book of Acts' which tended to whitewash the schism between the Nazorean Aramaic speaking 'Messianic' Torah-Abiding-Jesus Knowing Kashrut Eating Disciple based 'Jewish Christianities' of Kephah/Peter - Yakkov/James and the Ebionim with their bitter non Aramaic speaking, non Jesus knowing enemies, the opposing group of Greek Speaking Diaspora Pauliine 'Christians' (who survived the Jewish War more or less in tact) scatterted trhoughout the Roman Empire.

Curious that the original 'disciples' of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean who were Torah Abiding and Gentile Hating 'Messianic Jews' lived and travelled with the Daviddic pretender R. Yehoshua bar Yosef IN THE FLESH and knew his teachings more or less 'died off' during the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (AD 66-72) along with 900,000 Jews and their Messianic related 'churches', whereas this Greek speaking loudmouth upstart from Turkey (who did NOT know this iesous person in the flesh at all) who moreover who fought and hated the 'disciples' and ended up preaching his own proGentile non Circumciscion 'Gospel' with his own non-Torah abiding (and gentile loving) crew, lived on to breed more and more until what we have today (mostly) of persons tho style themselves 'Christians' are all of his 'heresy' !!!



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


Yeah, I didn't even get into the parts about Acts where Pauls story changes multiple times.

Even more odd is that none of the stories themselves actually line up with what is said to happen. The men around Paul should have not seen or heard anything. The exception to this rule was Moses.

In numbers 12, it says that if there be a true prophet among you, god will speak to them in a vision or dream. Yes he was angry with them when it was said, but I don't think that means much in terms of what is said and done.

Well in a vision from my experience(believe it or what, don't care), those around you will neither hear or see anything. Because it's not something that happens externally. When I had my vision the person standing next to me had no clue at all. If it is to happen externally as Paul says, where those around him could see, hear or whichever story you want, then that would mean he would have seen what Moses seen.



Numbers 12

6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

7My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

8With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?


I'm no prophet, but I've had a vision. Anyone can claim a vision, so it's kind of moot. But I certainly have not had the experience Moses had.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 

Mr Hyam Maccoby who brings out some of this in his examination of some of the inconsistencies inherent in Paul's epistolary correspondence,. . .
You may want to consider the possibility that not everything in the New Testament canon attributed to Paul was actually written by Paul.
A good place to start would be "Colossians As Pseudepigraphy", by Mark Christopher Kiley.



[edit on 28-1-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Hi JM Dewey

Actually, I am very conversant in the apparent Pauline Insertions and Forgeries in the canonical Greek NT.

What we do not know would be the OMMISSIONS i.e. deleted sentences or whole letters that may have been removed from his original correspondence (presumably we only have a handful in the 'bible' of a much larger literary correspondence collection which is...well, lost.

I was actually referring to the so-called 7 authentic 'epistles' of 'Paul' as it compares with some of the itinerary and other accounts when compared to the kinds of things we read in the 3rd gospel's 2nd work, the socalled Book of 'Acts', i.e. when compared to what is written in viz. I Corinithians, Galatians, Romans, I Thessalonians, Phillipians & Philemon. These are more or less considered authentic (for the most part) by scholarship today. the rest have been tampered with or faked from whole cloth in Paul's name--a common occurrence at the time (see the ancient copies of Deutero-Isiaiah, where chapters 40-55 and TritoIsiaiah in Is. 56-66 are not by the same person who wrote the oracles later compiled (out of order !) in proto-Isaiah chapters 1-39) -- so literary 'pious-forgeries' were common in biblical times--in other words, nothing new.

Of course, even within the 'authentic 7 Pauline epistles' we see evidence of later tampering by 'scribal insertions' especially I Corinithians (e.g. 14:34-35

"Let your females keep silent in the churches: For it is not permitted unto them to speak outloud; they are commanded to be under obedience, as it also says in the Torah.

And if [females] want to learn something, let them ask their husband at home: for it is a crime for a woman to speak in the church."

These inserted (non Pauline) statements ref 'females speaking in the churches' are not gramatically 'Pauline' and does not make use of his vocabulary being full of Hapax Legomena, which is supportive evidence of this) and contradict what is said elsewhere e.g. in I Corinithians 11:5 on the subject of women not only freely speaking, but also freely prophesying etc.

We all know that II Corinthians is actually composed of at least (4) Pauline letters (later patched together into one fake letter, by an amateur) and that the Pastorals are not by Paul in their present form (I-II Timothy & Titus) though they may contain a few sentences in Paul's shorter correspondence alla the kind of language in Philemon.

Ephesians (or 'Laeodiceans' as it says in some copies !) is a circulatory letter probably made up after Paul died, and nobody knows who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews (obviously not Paul but a Levitical Priest in the 2nd temple, different but not unlike the compiler of the Apocalypse of Yohanon (Book of Revelation) who must also have been a priest to judge from the highly technical language being used throughout).

'Colossians' is a later fabrication using a lot of non-Pauline language and syntax, with even more hapax legomena and no-one knows who wrote II Thessalonians, which might even pre-date some of the Pauline letters.

But if one reads only the '7' authentic epistles and compares the stories in them against the events as they are described in 'Acts' (whoever the author of the 3rd gospel was), we find that we are not dealing with very accurate information, but patches of traditions that were compiled long after the event byh persons who simply were NOT 1st hand knowledgable or even very conversant with the original period or locations or events.

Sorry if I confused you !



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 

Sorry if I confused you !

Right. The term pastoral letters can be taken a couple ways, I suppose.
I guess my point is, despite whatever we have written that has come down to us about Paul, the actual person, Paul, may not have been such a horrible person. Too bad we will not know for sure in this lifetime.
Anyway, I have gotten to the point that I can not take anything from the Bible without a grain of salt, anymore. I felt bad reading an earlier post on this thread where the poster was supporting his argument from the New testament, and every verse was from the 6 "contested" books of Paul. On one hand I feel a compulsion to warn him, on the other hand I feel a compassion to the human person, attached by a thin cord to his hold on a reality that probably makes him feel secure and perhaps, in a certain way, happy.
Personally, I have no fear, whatsoever, of loosing a belief in God, even though I may get to the point where I might think I have no idea who God is, exactly. Standing still is death, I do know that. But dropping into the abyss is also death, so it is imperative to keep your whits about oneself and just go back, continuously, to the struggle.



[edit on 29-1-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


Affirming what some others have said:
(1) Paul was affirmed by the apostles who knew Jesus Christ personally. One can infer from Acts that they talked at length with him and were convinced through the Holy Spirit that his story of receiving the gospel from the revelation of Jesus Christ was authentic. This is clear in the NT and there is no evidence for doubt from within the Bible.
(2) To clear up your confusing emphasis on "Hellinistic", accord to the NT, Paul, a Jew, was a Roman citizen from Tarsus (Turkey). In religious terms, he was a Pharisee and a son of a Pharisee. He studied under senior rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee and great scholar of Mosaic law.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 

Badmedia, I think I can see where you are coming from. You asked for some evidence to contradict your thougtful research. Here is one that addresses some of your concerns regarding Paul:

1Cor 1:10-17

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephasa”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


On one hand I feel a compulsion to warn him, on the other hand I feel a compassion to the human person, attached by a thin cord to his hold on a reality that probably makes him feel secure and perhaps, in a certain way, happy.

I felt the same way. Poster gave every appearance of joy, a fruit of the spirit.

You have heard it said, 'God is not a respecter of persons.' but I say unto you today, God respects people very much, it's their religions and stockpiles of knowledge that have no honor compared to respect God has for the individual.

It is not to the wise or the knowledgeable or the powerful that the reward of 'well done, good and faithful servant' is given, but to those who with their lives have shown their willingness to serve their fellows in whatever way they can, even if it's within a religious tradition.

Even I lost sight of that in the give and take of debate and the proving of one's self smarter or more right.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Deutero-Isiaiah, where chapters 40-55 and TritoIsiaiah in Is. 56-66 are not by the same person who wrote the oracles later compiled (out of order !) in proto-Isaiah chapters 1-39) -- so literary 'pious-forgeries' were common in biblical times--in other words, nothing new.


Interesting Sigis. Considering that the Lord said himself that the prophet Isaiah wrote not only your "proto-Isaiah", but also your "TritoIsaiah", and your "Deutero-Isaiah."

John 12:38-40 quotes Isaiah, in which the Lord directly attributes them to the prophet Isaiah. Then he quotes Isaiah 53, and Isaiah 6:8-10. Seems to be the same Isaiah.

Same thing with Matthew 5:18 quoting Isaiah 29 and Matthew 4:15 is a quote of Isaiah 9, or Isaiah 61 is quoted by Yeshua, which of course, he attributes to the prophet Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21. There are many more examples, but I'm not going to find them for you cause it's not worth wasting my time on.

Must have been pretty good forgeries to fool The Lord of Righteousness, wouldn't ya say?

If you don't believe what the Lord says Sigis, you got bigger problems than who wrote the book of Isaiah.

As for the rest of your statements against Paul, all I can say is thank you. Why? You just validated Acts 15, and the end of Acts, Galatians, and and many other places in the Bible with the struggle against the Judizers and the Sanhedrin.

As you can no longer kill Paul directly, the only way to attack him now is to attack his letters. Ironic, wouldn't you say? Living proof that Paul is still attacked by the same type of people 2000 years after his death.


Acts 23:12
"And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul."

Ironically, if Paul was alive today. The same type of people would be plotting to kill him, with the same methodology -- even though he was an observant Jew.


JUDE 1:14-19

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

Sounds familiar if you ask me.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Hi Not Authorised--

It is quite clear that you are not in any way familiar or even remotely conversant with the issues pertaining to the unpointed Paleo-Hebrew Vorlagen that scholars have been poring over since antiquity (especially the ancient much older material that was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls in caves 1-11.

If you were familiar with unpointed paleo-Hebrew and could actually read the various 'oracles' arranged (out of order!) and later attributed to 'Isaiah' say in chapters 1-39 (which was grouped together by a single final editor or team), and was LATER ATTACHED to another collection, viz. chapters 40-55 (which made use of another writer and editorial team from 150 years or more later, based on the vocabulary and material esp. internal content) and chapters 56-66 (which used an even later, third writer-editor imitating the first one, albeit poorly), then you would know better than to babble such nonsense about the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah being anything like a literary unity, which it clearly is NOT.

Nor does it appear that you are conversant with any Aramaic (and therefore cannot read the Targums which offer even more variants to the Hebrew consonantal Vorlag, nor understand the basics of the underpinnings of the teachings of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean, aka Gk. 'Iesous') nor do you seem to have any Greek at all--nor in any way familiar at all with any of the various contradictory Greek Old Testament LXX versions floating around in Antiquity, even those found amongst the Dead Sea Scroll fragments and their Contradictory Vorlagen paleo Hebrew consonantal Underlays to the mangled Greek texts (I'm speaking about the OLDER fragments in caves 1-11 not the Wadi Murab'aat later copies &tc.) (consonantal paleoHebrew underlays to the contradictory Greek texts) out there beyond the time of Origen and his Hair Pulling Hexapla...

It's a pity really, that you do not know of which you speak, like so many other 'fundies' that purport to bark their mis-information out on threadlets like this one. Did you not know that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef was quoting a far different old testament text family than the English Masoretic version that you read today? Have you even HEARD of an ARAMAIC Targum and know what kinds of differences and ADDITIONS to the original texts are included in them?

If you were conversant with the ancient texts themselves and had bothererd to take the time and trouble to study them LETTER FOR LETTER you'd be singing a vastly different tune.

A detailed study of the textual issues of hand written copies of texts that were eventually voted into the 'bible' is necessary for you to be able to understand the nuances of the discussion at hand. Otherwise you will forever be groping in the dark hoping for miracles that will never save you or your lame and grossly mis-informed arguments.

You simply MUST be conversant in the 'ancient languages of the Bible' to be able to see / note all the different writing styles between different sections, including syntax, distinctive vocabulary (especially hapax legomena), sentence length, phrase length, Weltanschauung, historical references, internal theologies etc. and if you are NOT conversant in ancient languages and rely on watered down smoothed over modern translations (which seek to hide the differences in style, for ecclesiastical reasons) you will never ever ever ever be able to understand the text in front of you at all.

As far as ancient references to older texts, you cannot use that as any kind of barometer of truth by any stretch. Higher modern textual criticism (like the bashing of the flat-earth theory, or the belief that fevers and diseases are caused by daemons etc that we see in the bible etc.) since the Age of Enlightenment especially is a fairly modern development say sine the time of Strauss and Renan, all the way up to current times with sophisticated linquistic tools (and information sharing e.g. over tools such as the world wide web, which is a fairly modern development too !) simply were NOT available to the ancients who rarely questioned their 'sacred' hand copied, and gradually hand-manipulated texts (over time and in different places, hence the 6 to 7 versioins of the old testament that Origen had to grapple with in his Hexapla of c. 200 CE) and if the established priesthood (whether Jewish, i.e. before Rome ground Jerusalem to powder or later Christian clergy) said they were sacred, then the 'sheeple' would simply have to accept their word for it.

But no more. We are living now in the Information Age (although one would never know it by reading your drivvel above).

Critical thinking in the Judeo-Christian world is not something that has been embraced until fairly modern times--so it looks like you have some serious catching up to do---especially if you want to be conversant in all the massive texutal issues that have been raised especially since the consonantal Vorlagen to the various LXX Greek Old Testament MSS have been discovered at Qumran amongst the Dead Sea Scroll Material, and now are beginning to be 'leaked' to the masses (despite 50 years of an ecclesiastical and rabinnic coverup of the textal mess of the 'bible' which is deliiberately kept from the prying eyes of the masses until fairly recently).

With all the information out there at the present time (Bart Ehrman's books are a great start for a beginner like you to be able to find his footing with actual facts) there is really no excuse for not doing the necessary homework, and the internet has an abundance of material that could guide you 'into the light' of reality, and away from the gullible superstitious stance that fundamentalist 'Christians' (who have no working knowledge of the original Aramaic sayings of their purported founder) seem to wallow in.

Pity, really...time to open the mind and let the facts flood into your consciousness like Dr Ehrman did 20 years ago---it might have been a frightening experience for someone with his own originally fundamentalist background, but, in the end, he said it was more than worth it.



[edit on 29-1-2010 by Sigismundus]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pumpkinorange
 


To add to pumpkins post, it is also inferred by the text that not only was he a Pharisee, but a voting member of the Sanhedrin. He was a Pharisee of Pharisee's, zealous for the law.

He had the inside track for this profession, studying under Gamaliel who was the head of the Sanhedrin.

We lose that connotation being Gentiles. He was a professional law keeper before his conversion.

It's ironic with that in mind, when people claim Paul never met Jesus or saw Jesus while he lived. As a Pharisee, it would have been nearly impossible for Saul to not have encountered Christ at least once during his 3 1/2 years on Earth.

Saul just didn't pop into existence after the ascension, he was probably older than Christ, as it's estimated that he lived from 5 BC to 67 AD

A lot people point to Acts 9 that Saul "met" Christ on the road to Damascus. More accurately, it would be when Paul was converted to Christ. Nothing about being a 'first encounter', or meeting Christ the first time.

Remember, after Christ's resurrection -- not even his Apostles recognized him. Paul's first question was "who are you", is not a statement of unknowing, but that in his resurrection body NO one recognized him unless Christ allowed it.

In fact, Saul very likely debated with Christ in Jerusalem. Christ's encounters with the Pharisees are described in detail, debates that the Pharisees, and thus Saul who was a Pharisee, lost.

It certainly would explain the 1000+ allusions or direct quotes of Jesus by Paul (some of which you will NOT find in the synaptic Gospels). He was probably there himself, listening, being rebuked, and rejecting Christ. After his conversion, whats more provocative is if Paul WAS there, then the Holy Spirit did exactly what it was supposed to.. bring Christ's words into remembrance.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." John 14:26-27.

Interesting eh?

Even more so, at the very least, he must have been in Jerusalem during the required feasts when Jesus was preaching his ministry. Passover, The Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles. He could have met, heard, or been apart of the crowds at ANY time.

When Jesus was condemned to death Saul had to have have been there in Jerusalem at passover. As such, he could have been part of the trial and later, the leaders saying to crucify him.

It's interesting that the Holy Spirit doesn't mention him by name in the synaptic gospels if we was, but just a blanket "Pharisee's" statement. You'll have to do your own homework as to why.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized
I'm not so sure we were ignorant. Maybe. But I view it as we are rebellious. Adam was given one commandment, "don't eat that fruit", and what did he do? Eve ate it, but Adam was expressly told not to do so. Only after Adam ate it, did we fall.

Adam couldn't even get one simple commandment right.


In the bible, I know atleast 1 of the instances where Jesus is healing the blind, it's not talking about an actual blind person, but rather a person who is ignorant and can not "see" the understanding, and Jesus heals this person by giving them understanding.

In genesis, it's not just about eating from the tree of knowledge, but rather it is what will happen as a result of that. That is the reason why men are removed from the garden, not because of them eating from the tree itself. But because they will now do evil things, the reason why they weren't to eat of it anyway.


Either way, God was not surprised. He was already working on our salvation before the foundation of the world. He knew we would fall and become who we are today. (Rev 13:8, 1 Peter 1:18-20, Ephesians 1:3-7, 2 Timothy 1:9, Romans 8:29-30, Hebrews 12:2, Job 19:25, etc). I look at it simply, that God was already dealing with you and your sin, before the world began.


And you think salvation is found in the sacrifice and blood of Jesus? If so, then I couldn't disagree more.



You are fond of John which ironically, is what I'm studying at the moment. I agree that we did NOT have a good nature -- but not ignorant. In fact, our heart is evil (Matthew 15:19, Gen 6:5, and many others), and unrepairable and has to be replaced (Ezekiel 36:26).

More so, Yeshua defined our problem, in which it's not ignorant per say, but that men (me and you) love darkness, more than they love light. That also is our condemnation. (John 3:19). Also further to back that up is Job 24:12-17, Isaiah 29:15


"because their deeds were evil." This is talking about them doing evil things. This is talking about the wicked. The wicked are those who are not ignorant, and know the truth but still do evil things. This is not the same as people who are simply poor in spirit.



Ignorance in it's pure-form, would require us to love neither darkness nor light. If we were truely ignorant, we would still be in the garden today, as how would we be accountable for sin we did not commit willingly? We were held accountable the moment God said to Adam, "don't eat that!".


Again, this is only true among the wicked. I will give you an example of how people's ignorance is used against them.

Jesus says specifically, do not fear that which can kill the body, instead fear that which can kill the soul. Well the most popular method of manipulating people into doing things is through fear of the body and security of the body. In doing so, if you tell a person who doesn't understand and thinks they are nothing more than their body, then that person will likely go to great lengths to protect themselves, including going around and having wars with people on the other side of the planet.

They do this in ignorance. If they really understood the soul, the commandments and so forth, then they would not do or support evil things. That which is evil is against the commandments, and so the way manipulation works is to find ways to justify those actions. Which is usually done by pointing out the evils of the other side, while hiding the evils of their own actions(matthew 7 on hypocrisy). This is done with propaganda etc to highlight these actions, and put down anyone as the enemy who might point out their own evil actions. We've had a very recent lesson in this.

If these people were informed at the entire situation, they would see that both sides are merely playing the evil for each other, thus the beam and the mote and the only way to get them out is to look at things from the other side. In doing so, ignorance is lost and the person is able to make the correct choice.

Because in order to make the correct choice towards good(which is wisdom) the person must first have the understanding needed in order to do that. Otherwise, what may seem like the right choice may not actually be the right choice. Thus, the only way to remedy this is by getting rid of the ignorance, giving people understanding and that is exactly what Jesus tried to do.

Understanding is gained, not just something you can accept or believe. Thus, you are to learn good and evil from this experience, gain understanding, knowledge and then make the correct choice(wisdom).




Don't put to much into it, as it's just conjecture. I do not want to derail the conversation. This is why I spoke of inter-linkage, as types are plastered all over the Bible. To me, these idioms, and types, etc, used are the same throughout 66 books, written by over 40 authors, over a period of thousands of years. It shows finger prints of design, not by men, but the Holy Spirit.


I honestly do not get into the literal that much, and don't even consider things like these. I am concerned only with what is of the way, and what is not of the way. There may be some deeper meaning to some things, but this is nothing you can ever be sure on, and is not something I consider to be important.

Knowledge of the holy is understanding, and understanding is to see and hear truth.



From Genesis to Revelation -- one book, by one author.


Just isn't the reality of it. The reality is it's 66 different books, that men decided to collect together and claim was the word of god. It contridicts itself at times under different authors, it's been manipulated and changed in cases, things have been lost in translation and over time sometimes a common phrase of then is completely out of touch in today.

Jesus says the people are the authority, not the scribes.



The Serpent, actually could be considered not a literal serpent, but the Nachash (נחש) or more appropriately the "Shining One" in Genesis 3. If you do a word study on "serpent", throughout the Old Testament, the nachash, is never spoken of as wisdom, but cursed, sin, fiery, poison, and the like. Thus "serpent" is a "type" of sin.

As Christ said in John 3:14 that he would be lifted up, he's referring to an odd event in Numbers 21. In short, fiery serpents came, and started attacking the camp. Moses was asked to pray to God. He was commanded to create a brass serpent, and lift it up on a pole. If bitten, the people were to look at the pole and be healed, if not, they died. Here we have a "type" of sin and Christ. Brazen (Brass) is signification of the judgment of sin (Ex. 26:19; Num. 21:9; Rev. 1:15; Is. 48:4). The serpent of brass being on a "pole" was a future signification of Christ on the cross.

The message? Look to the cross for the judgment of sin and be saved. This is why Paul alludes to this in 2 Cor 5:21.


Sounds like idolization to me, I'm pretty sure that doesn't have anything to do with Jesus.



If serpents are Wisdom in the scripture, we have a problem here by the typological model that Christ was pointing out. Does that make sense?


But take a peak at when Moses turns his staff into a serpent, which then eats all the serpents of the sorcerers. A sorcerer is a politician. Able to cast spells over the people with words, false promises and so forth. They have symbols that give them power, and that power comes from the people who believe in the symbolism. Knowing both good and evil means they are capable of both, it is which one they choose that is the difference. Thus, the wisdom of Moses ate the wisdom of the sorcerers. Meaning, when they began to debate and such, Moses put them in their place so hard there was no denying he was right or his understanding.

I do not always think the serpent represents wisdom, sometimes it represents lots of other things, and is meant in a low, slimy, snake in the grass kind of way. Both apply some.


Wisdom is not place there, but knowledge. I focus on the other part the Shining One said. "Ye shall be as gods". Ironically, that same lie is perpetuated throughout history, even today. How many think they are God, or can be God? Satan doesn't change his tricks. Being God, knowing Good and Evil is still tempting today, as it was at the beginning.


I don't think, I know "I am god". But the father is much greater than I am. Have you never read Psalm 82?



Psalm 82

1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.



But this is not what the serpent means when he says to become like god. What he is talking about, being like god in knowing both good and evil.

This was still not the lie, because god repeats this as true.



22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


[edit on 1/31/2010 by badmedia]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized
Solomon asked for Wisdom, and he got it. Yet David, was a man after God's own heart. There is a difference between the two. David is never spoken ill of, yet Solomon is never spoken of in a positive light. Thats because David wanted fellowship with God -- not wisdom.




Proverbs 8

1Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

2She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.

3She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

4Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.

5O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.

6Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.

7For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.

11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

12I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

13The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

14Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.

15By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.

16By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

17I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

18Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.

19My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.

20I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:

21That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.

22The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

32Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.

33Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

34Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.

35For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.

36But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.


Wisdom and understanding are the original light that guides people down the path and correct way, Jesus is this in the flesh because this is what he does. Look at proverbs 9 and you will see the last supper, only instead of Jesus and such it's wisdom.

David had understanding, I'm not sure where you are going with that. He was after god's heart as you say because he would always repent for his sins when he screwed up etc. He was very righteous.



What choice? Sorry, i'm confused here. Are you talking about Predestination? I don't want to assume what you mean here.


I mean, the choice to learn good and evil has already been made. That is the reason we are hear. All the evil in the world is evidence of this.

Sorry for the late reply, I've been short on time.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized
To limit ourselves as to what Christ said, and ONLY things that Christ quoted in the OT is very narrow. Indeed, if we followed this route, we couldn't go over the 100 or so prophecies regarding his first coming as he quotes very little of them as the Apostles wrote or inferred much of them.


What I mean is that I do not generally accept or give weight to things Paul says, or many things in the OT. Thus, if only Paul says something then I will not give it much weight. I figured with Jesus, perhaps we could find common ground.

Also, it is fine to mention OT things that Jesus quotes or references. This would of course never be Paul as Paul came after Jesus.

Unless you would like to discuss the contradictions between Paul and Jesus and the reason why I mention this. I have very good reasons why I distrust what Paul says.



1.) Christ said that not one Jot or Tittle would pass until the law be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18-20 In this like, I should be able to quote the Old Testament as he's referring to the "law". Indeed he wrote it. As such he validated prophets, such as Isaiah, Jonah, etc.


Right, but look at what 19 and 20 says. It's not just about Jesus keeping the law for you, but is instead about you keeping the commandments. In no case it says, no exceptions. But Paul teaches otherwise.

When the books of Paul and the doctrine of the church comes into play, then suddenly instead of in no case of these things, it's only in case they believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins. Yet this is not what Jesus says on the manner.

Paul says that such is impossible for people to do, and so because of that to even try is to somehow error. So instead, just take this free gift.

Now, if Jesus is right, which is what the father taught me, then it means that Paul is actually misleading people and teaching them otherwise.



19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.




2.) In the case of translational errors (Yes, there are some KJV supporters), I should be allowed to revert to the Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew in these cases to extrapolate the meaning. Namely, the NT will primarily be in the Greek. Primary example below.


I quote KJV just because nobody ever complains about it. It's actually harder for me to make my points using the KJV, the other versions are much more clear on their contridictions. But I quote the KJV so someone can't come along and say "You didn't use the KJV".



3.) Background and context of the situation, namely the Pharisee's and Sadducee's. Ie, what they believed in, how it was applied, as a matter of historical record.


The movement of the Pharisees became Christianity. They simply did to the words of Jesus what they did to Judaism.



4.) In the cause of Paul, as that is our focus, if there is a "contradiction", then I should be allowed to quote other verses that Jesus, Paul, James, Jude, Matthew or the like also clarified to show not a contradiction, but agreement.


The reason why I am saying show me where Jesus is saying it is because they are things which contradict what Jesus is saying.



There is a saying by Rabbi's. When the Messiah comes, not only will he explain the Jot and Tittle's, but the very spaces between words.


How so? And how will you know he is telling the truth?



I believe they are all one book, not different. The only partial EXCEPTION is Revelation, which has the audacity to promise a blessing to those that read it. I think I know this blessing, and it's because Revelation is in code. But that code is explained in every book of the bible (minus Ruth). That's including the NT. There's over 700 illusions to the NT and OT, and searching each of them one will gain knowledge.

If there's a contradiction, then we simply have not done our homework in the OT, and NT. Put Christ in the center of it, and see what happens.

Any contradictions I've ran across can be resolved by those rules above.


Ok, so here's an easy one then. Matthew 23. It's already been mentioned, but what about Jesus says only 1 teacher, but Paul says 10000 teachers? Or when Jesus says there is only 1 master, but Paul says there are all kinds of other authorities? Or when Jesus says call no man your father, but then Paul directly tells people to call him father, that he had begotten them?



First, the statement by Yeshua (John 10:35) comes to light. The scripture CANNOT be broken. Christ is clearly referring to what we call the Old Testament. In such, Christ's words validated the law and the prophets. As Daniel stated it as "the scripture of Truth". (Dan 10:21).


But here you are just using the bible as a way of validating the bible. At any rate, Paul does break the scripture when he says Jesus is the end of the law. So how can you say it can't be broken, when it's broken within what you call the same book?



If I don't believe what Yeshua says, I got bigger problems as to the in errancy of the text, don't I?


Not really. Those who accept will not understand. Need the understanding in order to keep the commandments, which regardless of what Paul says still apply. The new convent of Jesus is based on understanding rather than the written law, but the written law is still 100% valid. It's just a matter of do you follow them because "I said so", or is it a matter of following them because you understand.

Because when you apply the 2 rules Jesus gives, by those things you will logically come to the commandments as being things you do/keep. Jesus is showing you the reason and understanding behind the commandments.

See, I didn't learn from the bible, I didn't learn from any man. And when I learned, I was given the understanding of what Jesus says in those 2 things. And based on that understanding I seen the commandments almost immediately, do not kill, steal, lie, etc. These simply became logical/understanding. I had no clue at the time Jesus said these things etc. The reason I like Jesus so much is not because I just up and believe him, but is instead because I recognize the father in him. When I read his words, I see the same understanding the father taught me. And so it is by that understanding that I know what he says is true etc.

But what you are talking about is really the same manner in which the people did under the Pharisees. All based on the scripture instead of understanding.



Second, the "Word of the LORD" shows up a bunch of times in the Old Testament. As such, it is NOT surprising that John took the "logos", or "word" as a Title of Jesus Christ. "The word of the LORD came to Isaiah", "The word of the LORD came to Ezekiel", etc. Additionally all throughout scripture, the prophets were commanded to write down things in a book, etc. A word study on either of those is fascinating.

In fact, I'll toss you a gold nugget. Did you know God writes it down in a book or remembrance every time you think of him? (Mal 3:16).



The true word of god is not anything you can speak. Meaning, it's not a language in the same manner as men communicate. The bible and such are just single expressions of it. The best anything can be is a true expression of it, and Jesus was a true expression of it.

Because Jesus was such a true expression of it, he is called the word in the flesh.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized
So, if Christ is indeed the Word of God, or the Logos, he promises that his words, will not pass away (Matthew 24:35), and not one letter will disappear (Mat 5:18), then is that not a validation of the scriptures before him?

Indeed the Word will not either. Christ was the living embodiment of the Word. The Word was made flesh, and he dwelt (real translation is tabernacled) among us. (John 1)


Is Jesus the word of god because he follows and does what the word of god is, or is the word of god Jesus because Jesus said it?

Do you know the difference? While they are one in the same, Jesus is those things simply because he follows them. If Jesus had followed some other way, then Jesus would have no longer been those things.



Other promises, his word is settled forever (Psa 119:89), shall stand forever (1 Peter 1:25), and again Word stands forever (Isaiah 40:8)

Those same promises are also made of the New Testament by Peter (2 Peter 1:21), Paul (2 Tim 3:16,17, Hebrews 4:12). In them we learn that men, who were moved by the Holy Spirit, wrote those same scriptures and as an echo to this, 1 Kings 8:56 and Ezekiel 12:25.

That's where God has promised me, and to those that read his book.


The only problem is - the bible isn't the word of god being talked about. Again, you are just putting in the bible as a replacement for the true word of god, of which you have yet to hear.

Also, since you quoted that as a promise, what about what's at the start of that chapter? Is that also a promise?



Psalm 119

1Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.

2Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.

3They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.

4Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.


Or will you tell me that is no longer valid because according to Paul, Jesus is the end of the law? That Jesus is the only one who could possibly do this, and it's dumb/wrong for anyone to try?



Which brings up a philosophical issue. I think that IF you are writing something the Holy Spirit wants you to write (OT/NT), and you intentionally try to change it, God whom created heaven and earth, can just as easily reorganize that Ink on the parchment to exactly what he wants.


My question is why don't you just get it from the holy spirit itself? Do you think the bible is the replacement for that? Doesn't Jesus say this is exactly who will teach you? But you tell me we must learn from scripture, as the Pharisees did.



Here I stand on his promise, that the scripture cannot be broken, his words will not fade away, etc. Indeed they haven't in the OT, nor the NT.


But yes they have. Again, Paul says it's a free gift to be saved, and that you must believe Jesus died on the cross. This is completely different than people having to actually keep the commandments as Jesus and the OT says.

You can't have it both ways and just claim it is true. If the scripture can not be broken, then you must keep the commandments. The only thing Jesus does is show you the proper way and understanding on how to do so, but this is replaced with ritual sacrifice and idolization.




I'm assuming you mean the apparently contradiction between Matthew 5:17-20, and Romans 10:4?

One MUST be right, and if one is right, it MUST be Yeshua. I have a feeling this is where you are coming from, and in a way, we are a lot a like.


I see why you could see that. Indeed, you would be correct because I also agree that if Paul meant that he's dead wrong and must be set aside. The Spirit HAS pointed out this to you as "something is wrong" just as it did me when I read it.

But you didn't go far enough, you stopped there and blamed Paul for being against the law but did not check what the text says -- in the Greek. Your only error here is you depended on the translators.

If the translators had done Romans 10:4 properly, you would not be saying this. In fact, Paul is alluding to Christ as the fulfillment of the law -- not the end. In the English, it gives the impression of "finality". Ie, the law ENDED, which clearly IS a contradiction to what Christ said. I'll explain by rule #2.

The Greek word τέλος (telos) in Romans 10:4 translated "end", can convey variations in meaning, including "the last in succession of a series", "it's close", "the purpose of, aim, or end which all things relate"

With that in mind, lets look at Romans 10:4 again and instead of using the English word "end", use one of the variations of the meaning of the Greek word.

"Christ is the [purpose and the end to which all things relate] of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. " -- ie all things in the law, point to Christ. Nothing about the END of the law.

All things in the law point to Christ, which is exactly the view I hold and exactly what Christ said he was doing in Matthew 5:17.


But then this contradicts Paul and his free gift. This also contradicts that you only need to believe Jesus died for your sins. While the quote itself is part of it, it goes beyond that. It is in his meaning of many things that he does and implies that Jesus is the end of the law, that to believe Jesus died for your sins is the same thing as keeping the law and so forth.



You can even flip this around. If you are righteous and believe, then you must accept that Christ was a fulfillment the and the purpose of law. Again, exactly what Matthew 5:17 said and implied.


No. If you are righteous and you have understanding, then you will be able to see the truth and father in Jesus. As Jesus says - I came not for the righteous, but to bring sinners to repentance. To show those who sin how to do keep the commandments properly. That is why he fulfills them.

When people quote John 14:6, they fail to realize that Jesus defines himself as those things for a reason, and he is saying that is only by those things can one find the father. Proof of this is found in John 14:24-26. Jesus represents more than just a human etc.



Paul is not saying the law is ended, he is saying everything in the scripture points to Christ! Yes, even the way the tabernacle was setup, every part used in there speaks of Christ. Yes, even in the physical temple you can find his attributes. EVERYTHING in the Old Testament speaks of him. It's exciting and will lead you on a treasure searching trip the rest of your life in scripture!



This is not exactly true I suspect. Since you gave no specific references, I can not say for sure. However, it is quite often that people overstate "Jesus" as being linked to the OT, when in reality it is not the case. Again, "Jesus" represents more than just a human, or the flesh. Just because he is the "word in the flesh" does not mean or imply that he is the only word in the flesh. All people are supposed to be the word in the flesh, and as the OT states time and time again.

See, this is the problem I have with Christians. Rather than using Jesus and the example of Jesus to find meaning in the OT(but really much more than the OT), they would rather use the OT as a way of linking and giving more meaning to Jesus the idol. This is idolism, you've got it in reverse.



He's calling them ignorant, going about to fulfill the law in their own way to their own righteousness-- oblivious to the fact that Christ was the purpose and fulfillment of the law and only thru Christ can they be righteous.


Again this is only to go towards the "only Jesus" part. And is to take John 14:6 without the correct meaning as I showed you above. It is to also forget that Jesus says he came not for the righteous, but only to bring sinners to repentance.

I'm not defending the Pharisees or saying they were righteous. They may have been right or wrong, don't know. But Paul's only through Jesus idolism is at work here. Again, it is the understanding and way that Jesus shows that is what is to be followed and is righteous, rather than what if they say with their mouths "Jesus is truth".

One is either following and living by the way of the tree of life, or they aren't. If they are, then they are righteous. If they aren't, then they are not righteous. Jesus only shows the person how to do it, so if a person is doing it, then they should be like Jesus.

The importance is moved from keeping the commandments, to worshiping and believing Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and their sins are washed away in blood.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized
It's not just there either. Luke 24:25-27 says the same thing. "Then said He unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself"



The keywords is he showed them things concerning himself. And all the prophets before then had said to keep the commandments and such.

The significance of Jesus being risen is that it means he kept the commandments properly, and was thus a true example. It means he didn't die the 2nd death(the penalty for sins) because he was sin free etc.

In genesis, it talks about the way of the tree of life, and that to eat of the tree of life brings eternal life. So, what do we see with Jesus? He says he is the way. So, as he is risen he then eats from the tree of life to have eternal life. As people are removed to protect the tree of life, and to keep the way of the tree of life. The fall. So, Jesus shows people how to keep the commandments by example, so that those "who believe in him" will follow in his example and walk the path as well. Those who truly believe in him will, and it will be those who also get eternal life. That is what it's all about as far as Jesus goes. The fall, and then the risen by keep the way of the tree of life, and the proof what he said and did was true.

But again, this is all replaced with ritual human sacrifice, the sacrifice of the truth, the sacrifice of the way, and the sacrifice of the life over understanding.




As such there is no contradiction. Paul is accurate to state that the purpose or "end" if you want to use the English of the law was to point to Christ. Indeed it's was. Truth is when the Word and the Deed become one, and Christ is truth. If the Torah/law is truth, then by default, he had to fulfill.

Paul expounds this in Gal 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Ie, sort of like the the saying. The ends justify the means.



No, the entire reason of it all was not to point to Christ. That is absurd. Rather, Christ points to it and the correct understanding of it. It was not all done just so people could recognize 1 certain person in the flesh from 1 point in time. The commandments must be kept by all, no exceptions.

Jesus says those who truly believe will do greater things than he did(John 14). But according to Paul and the church this is not possible, and should any even suggest anything of the sort they are anti-christ.



I believe every page of the Bible, even in the Torah, points to Jesus Christ. Every place name, word, etc speaks of Christ. He himself said it, and Paul said it here as well.


Other way around.



For further backup, this translation issue is very clear in the New King James Version's rendering of 1 Timothy 1:5, where τέλος (telos) is properly translated as purpose in the clause "the purpose of the commandment is love." instead of "end" in the KJV. In this same verse the NRSV translates telos as "aim" and the NIV renders it as "goal."


Well, I wasn't really thinking of that verse at all, but that is one I can actually agree with.

Basically, anytime you infringe on someone's god given free will, then you are not loving that person as you love yourself. If you look at the commandments, you will see that they are all things that follow this. To kill, steal, lie and such to someone is to infringe on their free will or do them wrong.

If you love something, you will set it free. If it loves you, then it will come back. And so the 2nd part is to love god, and those who love the father will find him early. It is what brings you back, causes you to seek and so forth.



I hope that resolved your apparent contradiction. I just ask that you limit inquires of contradictions to just a few per day. I can't keep taking 7 hours out of my work day to respond and my 9 month old daughter doesn't let me type for more than 5 minutes when at home. 8)


Not really, but I appreciate the attempt. I think the contradiction goes much deeper than just a few words. I find the entire blood sacrifice ritual over knowledge and understanding of the holy and keeping the commandments to be satanic and anti-christ. To me, it turns Jesus/God into peoples whipping boy and says Jesus did it so we don't have too. Where as earlier you mentioned Jesus said we cling to our darkness, well this manner of such is darkness. This manner that we can never be like Jesus, that all will fall short and so forth is that darkness talking. Rather than raising people up, it pushes them down because the darkness is easy.



"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light , not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?

Actually, who are you not to be?

You are a child of god. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.

We were born to make and manifest the glory of god that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

-Marianne Williamson


Take your time on responses, no worries. I also will be/do wait for enough time to respond.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
In some strange way that's God being fair, so no one has a super advantage. The Gentiles too have to go through a long progression. It's been long and bloody and nasty.


Is that really true, or is it merely an excuse? Which is more common - someone who understands and keeps the commandments, or someone who doesn't?

I would say more true is that everyone in a lifetime needs to experience such things before they can come to understand the faults and so forth. But see, now we are starting to justify/excuse these things on the same level in which evil itself is justified/excused.

I can see the purpose/reason for these things. But that in itself doesn't mean it is to be followed, or that it is right, or that it is the correct way etc.

I don't wanna get on a long post about how the universe works, but lets just say it automatically adjusts to give exactly what is needed when it is needed. That their is a reason why these things exist. Yet, they will continue to exist and so will that darkness until the people as long as the issue itself is unresolved.

Aren't we just really repeating and saying Psalm 82 here? How long will people judge unjustly and accept the wicked? How long until we stop making excuses for them, and just stop supporting them? Would these things not be destroyed when nobody supports them and instead walk the path/follow the way?

Understanding the reason why and the purpose is not hard. It's agreeing with it and saying it's true that I can't do.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join