Paul vs Jesus, Christianity vs Judaism

a reply to: chr0naut
And still not a single response to Duet 32..it it really that scary?
Josiah read the Torah and tore his robes! Yes he was scared.

a reply to: thegimprider

not sure what that has to do with my reply...

In any case I have read the bible many times, cover to cover, and individual books in detail over the years...

the Law is very clear as you stated... I just don't believe the OT god understands those concepts

Though that might be his claim, he shows otherwise

a reply to: thegimprider

TextHow does history support Christianity as Bible based when it is so hostile to almost every aspect of Torah?

Actually it does not support the Roman organization of what they call Christianity.

The first Jesus based synagogue organized by the Apostles and presided over by James the brother of Jesus had no part in Paul except to welcome him as a brother after about five years from the death of Jesus. Saul/Paul was not a member of the first assembly or congregation and had nothing to do with the organizing or liturgy of the Jerusalem synagogue.

Paul was a evangelist and held no office in the first Jewish controlled synagogue. We have Peter and Luke along with other disciples who spoke well of Paul and embraced him as a disciple. He was accepted by the first congregation but you must remember that they did not have a new testament such as you have today. The word Apostle is used by some because a disciple who is sent out by his Lord is also called an Apostle. Other religions also had Apostles.

By bible based you must be referring to Torah based because there was no Greek bible in the first synagogue. All teachings of the first synagogue were primarily Torah with 1 Enoch and perhaps a few outside Hebrew books. All liturgy was Hebrew and Aramaic. Greek, Latin and other languages were not allowed in the synagogue of James. The Greek speaking Synagogues of Jesus were separated but still under the Nasi (James the Nazarene High Priest). Tradition tells us that Saul/Paul was taught by the Word of God and not of men.

originally posted by: thegimprider
a reply to: chr0naut
Try reading "The Kingdom of God is Within You" by Tolstoy
This is the first major assault on Church/Government propaganda that was not suppressed. Tolstoy was excommunicated and that backfired because he was Russia's greatest author and from a wealthy family.

Michael Servitus was burned at the stake by John Calvin for proving the trinity a false doctrine, he also established cardio vascular system in science yet this discovery was not proved until 150 years later because all of his own books were burned.

Try reading your Bible and try reading a little church history before diving into theological debates.
Google each of my claims if you have any interest other than personal attack. I am not thin skinned.

Firstly, let me I apologize for lumping you in together with some other recent ATS'ers. I can see from your response that you are not just trolling the topics here.

Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" is based upon strong Christ-centered ideals but it is anarchist and critical about the power structures and hierarchies within Churches and governments. It is pertinent to remember, however, that some of those structures and hierarchies were laid down by Christ Himself.

Of course, the Church represented in Russia at that time was the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.

Since book banning is not actually under the remit of the Church (in any denomination), the book espouses anarchist doctrine and was only banned in Russia, I would suspect that it was banned by the Russian government (although I cannot find any specific details of who instigated the ban).

I cannot deny that Michael Servetus was treated wrongly at the hands of the Protestant church and Calvin. Church history is full of people doing the wrong thing and specifically ignoring the truths of Christ's message.

Servetus actually redacted somewhat his disagreement with the Trinitarian concept in 'Dialogues', published in 1532, where he explained that "the Logos" and "Christ" were one (two persons but one individual) but he didn't go as far as saying that there were three persons in one God.

I do have some idea of the injustices (on all sides) of history surrounding the Church, although I must confess, mainly through 'Actes and Monuments' by John Foxe (also called 'Foxes Book of Martyrs').

originally posted by: thegimprider
How does history support Christianity as Bible based when it is so hostile to almost every aspect of Torah? Paul rejected Torah and established a religion based on faith claiming Jesus died to forgive sins. But Jesus died on Pesach, or pass over, not Yom Kippur, day of atonement. That the blood of Jesus forgives sin is not supported by Hebrew Bible as is the virgin birth. A son of god born of a virgin was foundational in almost every pagan religion in the Roman Empire and born on Dec 25 so this was an easy sell. Just get rid of all that pesky law Moses dreamed up while hanging out on some mountain. Where does Paul get the authority to do all this? You won't find it in scripture anywhere but don't worry, Paul declares "all scripture is God breathed" and the New testament says Paul's letters are scripture. When there is conflict the art of denial knows no boundary because the Bible is the "word of God" the Bible is "Infallible" the Bible is "Holy". Even though nobody can point out the verses that make this TRUTH clear to me. The Church has spent the last 2000 years destroying every Hebrew scroll they could find and killing or suppressing any voices that spoke out against them. What Bible verse allowed the murder on millions of America's natives so Europeans could over take their property? What Bible verse allowed negros bought at African slave markets to be abused in the new world violating Moses laws of the human rights all poor and slaves owned under the God of Israel. Paul hated Moses and like Korah I recommend all move away from his tents. Like Pharaoh who made Joseph into a false deity his brothers could no longer recognize, Paul makes rabbi Jesus into a god that no Jew could ever follow without ignoring Torah. Moses spoke of messiah as "a prophet like me" a human who bled, wept and died just like any other human.
The God of Israel has no limits, no boundaries, is not aided by human servants. Rabbi Jesus spoke a gospel of restoration, not a new religion.

I couldn't have said it any better or clearer meself. That which you wrote there, though a massive wall of text, is the plain and simple truth of the matter. Saulus destroyed, or rather-- sabotaged everything Jesus and his Nazarene movement stood for, which was a simple kind of Judaism that would have been seen as liberal, contrary to the school of Hillel and the others who formed all sorts of midrash regulations to add to the burden of Torah.

While I think strict Torah observance is rather silly these days, I find it far more sensible than let's say strict Catholicism or whatever those Southern Baptists are up to. That nonsense makes completely nonsense.

Great OP! S/F

a reply to: chr0naut
If I tell you the Pacific Ocean does not exist it will not produce fear or anger response. I live in Ft Bragg California less than one mile from said ocean yet I retain the right to swear it does not exist.

If I tell you the house you have been building for years is on top of a fault that will give way soon, fear and anger is often first response. Delusion is when I show you evidence and you explain it all away.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
A big wall of text yes but not as big as say Isaiah 58
If anyone pays close attention to this chapter they might notice it is written in contract form. If you---then I will!

America loves to shred contracts, over 400 treaties ignored. This hinges upon Paul's religion of forgiveness by blood ignoring David's Psalm 51 on what true repentance is like.

Our love of brief snippets is Paul's foundation as he took snippets of scripture out of context to build HIS church.

originally posted by: thegimprider
a reply to: chr0naut
And still not a single response to Duet 32..it it really that scary?
Josiah read the Torah and tore his robes! Yes he was scared.

Deuteronomy 32 is specifically a warning to Israel about their repeated idolatry and not observing the Law.

If you are talking about Deuteronomy 32:8, some older translations say "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God".

The text that I have italicized and emboldened in the quote above, in the LXX, the Masoretic and the DSS, all actually say "sons of Israel" (ben Ysrael) and so it identifies that the "sons of God" is a mistranslation in these older versions.

The meaning of that verse is therefore: that back at Creation, God already knew the future population of Israel and allocated the lands up among all nations, allowing sufficient for the whole population of Israel. It says nothing about any spiritual being except for God Himself.

In regard to Josiah tearing his robes, thank goodness Josiah was only a king and not high priest. High priests are explicitly forbidden to tear their robes in Leviticus 21:10 (Shame on the Caiaphas - high priest at the time - for doing so at the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus).

originally posted by: thegimprider
a reply to: chr0naut
If I tell you the Pacific Ocean does not exist it will not produce fear or anger response. I live in Ft Bragg California less than one mile from said ocean yet I retain the right to swear it does not exist.

If I tell you the house you have been building for years is on top of a fault that will give way soon, fear and anger is often first response. Delusion is when I show you evidence and you explain it all away.

If however, the fault is not going to give way, the delusion, or deception, would be your own.

However, since we are not actually discussing earthquake damage, your post is a straw man argument and beside the point.

a reply to: thegimprider

I'm not religious meself, but to me it's rather obvious «st. Paul» is the worst thing that could happen and did happen to the Nazarene movement and JC's reform Judaism leading up to or into the Diaspora. Jesus' movement was nearly completely destroyed by Saulus of Tarsus whom they call «st. Paul».

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: thegimprider
How does history support Christianity as Bible based when it is so hostile to almost every aspect of Torah? Paul rejected Torah and established a religion based on faith claiming Jesus died to forgive sins. But Jesus died on Pesach, or pass over, not Yom Kippur, day of atonement. That the blood of Jesus forgives sin is not supported by Hebrew Bible as is the virgin birth. A son of god born of a virgin was foundational in almost every pagan religion in the Roman Empire and born on Dec 25 so this was an easy sell. Just get rid of all that pesky law Moses dreamed up while hanging out on some mountain. Where does Paul get the authority to do all this? You won't find it in scripture anywhere but don't worry, Paul declares "all scripture is God breathed" and the New testament says Paul's letters are scripture. When there is conflict the art of denial knows no boundary because the Bible is the "word of God" the Bible is "Infallible" the Bible is "Holy". Even though nobody can point out the verses that make this TRUTH clear to me. The Church has spent the last 2000 years destroying every Hebrew scroll they could find and killing or suppressing any voices that spoke out against them. What Bible verse allowed the murder on millions of America's natives so Europeans could over take their property? What Bible verse allowed negros bought at African slave markets to be abused in the new world violating Moses laws of the human rights all poor and slaves owned under the God of Israel. Paul hated Moses and like Korah I recommend all move away from his tents. Like Pharaoh who made Joseph into a false deity his brothers could no longer recognize, Paul makes rabbi Jesus into a god that no Jew could ever follow without ignoring Torah. Moses spoke of messiah as "a prophet like me" a human who bled, wept and died just like any other human.
The God of Israel has no limits, no boundaries, is not aided by human servants. Rabbi Jesus spoke a gospel of restoration, not a new religion.

I couldn't have said it any better or clearer meself. That which you wrote there, though a massive wall of text, is the plain and simple truth of the matter. Saulus destroyed, or rather-- sabotaged everything Jesus and his Nazarene movement stood for, which was a simple kind of Judaism that would have been seen as liberal, contrary to the school of Hillel and the others who formed all sorts of midrash regulations to add to the burden of Torah.

While I think strict Torah observance is rather silly these days, I find it far more sensible than let's say strict Catholicism or whatever those Southern Baptists are up to. That nonsense makes completely nonsense.

Great OP! S/F

You seem to have forgotten that the the stakeholders of Judaism, represented in the Sanhedrin council, put Jesus to death on account of His 'liberal Judaism' (although the Essenes and Saducees seem to have been well tolerated for their "liberal Judaism").

If people adhere to the Jewish faith, and that faith is predicated upon adherence to articles of the Law as laid down in the Torah, then it is imperative that they 'strictly observe' the Torah, otherwise they are not actually following their faith!

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: thegimprider

I'm not religious meself, but to me it's rather obvious «st. Paul» is the worst thing that could happen and did happen to the Nazarene movement and JC's reform Judaism leading up to or into the Diaspora. Jesus' movement was nearly completely destroyed by Saulus of Tarsus whom they call «st. Paul».

I think you are overstating the influence of St Paul, considering that he was accepted into the existing group was only active for a few years, was executed by Nero and was survived by other apostles who were also active. James, Jude and John wrote letters which were probably written and disseminated after Paul's death.

a reply to: chr0naut
Your response to Duet 32 is snippets, I'm asking for a response to the whole song.
Speaking of songs here is one I wrote about evangelism and the need of religious proselytes to help weak gods rule over mankind

soundcloud.com...

a reply to: chr0naut
The fact that we have no complete theology of Paul from years in prison demonstrates two possibilities.

1...He did not write much while in prison
2...His writing conflicted with what he wrote before prison....different theology.

Paul did not have much influence during his life
Jesus had even less from what history records.

Christianity did not grow into anything of importance until the second century AD
Most new testament books did not gain current form until 4th century

Virgin birth, resurrection, after death sightings of Jesus are cut/pasted into one story from another
Herod died 2 years before Census and murder of Bethlehem boys never happened.
Synoptic gospels fail on many geographical points and John's gospel shows heavy Pauline edit after original is written.

Only the book of Revelation stands much of the prophetic tests of OT

a reply to: thegimprider

May be Paul "romanized" the image of Jesus Christ quite too much. May be good for his time when the Christianity spread mainly in the Roman empire under Greek cultural influence. But for the multicultural world we are living now, that sounds already naive.

If Jesus comes today, he would need a much bigger stick to clean the temple.
Wait, the manchild should come first with a rod of iron, before the antichrist.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

Yahweh means Behold the nail, behold the hand

www.youtube.com...

Jesus is God, you can argue till the moon turns fairy floss but Yahweh and Jesus are one.
In fact the whole Old Testament points to Jesus

Jesus and Paul both taught love, never violence.
Its a lie that some teach their is violence in the New Testament

Yahweh means "HE IS" I don't know who told you that nonsense. It ain't true.

Yahweh is a Jewish fairy tale, the only God is El Elyon or Most High God, or just El.

Deuteronomy, in properly translated bibles, even has Yahweh as a Son of God or El.

Yahweh gets translated as Lord, but if you back translate Lord you get Baal.

Yahweh is based on Baal.

a reply to: chr0naut


You lied. Dead Sea Scrolls say Sons of God, I know for a fact because my bible says so in the footnotes. DSS Were used in its translation.

Nice try.

a reply to: Othello420

I can live with your opinion, doesn't mean I accept it

a reply to: Othello420

What is your Bible?
Dead Sea Scrolls are published only 30% and the rest are kept by Israeli governmental or non governmental bodies. In those 30% there are parts of books, and other parts that are not included in the Christian Bibles. For example, one scroll speaks of Melchisedek to come before the Second Coming (we knew of Enoch and Elijah, or Moses and Elijah). That all I found online sometime ago.
So what exact Bible do you have based on the relatively newly discovered Dead Sea Scrolls?

a reply to: chr0naut

The text that I have italicized and emboldened in the quote above, in the LXX, the Masoretic and the DSS, all actually say "sons of Israel" (ben Ysrael) and so it identifies that the "sons of God" is a mistranslation in these older versions. The meaning of that verse is therefore: that back at Creation, God already knew the future population of Israel and allocated the lands up among all nations, allowing sufficient for the whole population of Israel. It says nothing about any spiritual being except for God Himself.Text

Have read this several times lately and seems to be still confusion among many. In reading the Oral Torah, which is still taught by some, it seems clear to me that both camps are correct in translation.

Yalkut ME'AM LO'EZ is one the the most favored in Oral Torah and his teaching cites that the divisions of authority were somewhat different than what most are taught.

Quote
At that time, He divided the people into separate nations, granting each one their own land as a national heritage. Seventy nations were created, equaling the number of Jacob's offspring who descended to Egypt (See Genesis 46:27.) (Zohar 1.177a) relates that each nation was nurtured by an archangel.

When the world was divided among the nations, the Jewish nation was set aside and distinguished as God's servants, Thus Zohar states that God divided the world into seventy portions and only revealed His Holy name to Israel, for they are His servants and His portion.
Unquote

Both oral and written Torah are said to have been given to Moses together. If this is correct then both must be considered together in teaching. Now I am also aware that some Jews do not accept Oral Torah so even among their own we will see differences but for those that accept Oral Torah it is clear how Deuteronomy 32:8 can be convoluted.

So "Sons of God" or "Sons of Man or Adam" can very well be interchangeably used. It could refer to the archangels and/or could reference the Adamic seed. What I am not aware of is whether the various translators of Torah used both Oral and Written in their understanding or some simply used the available written manuscripts. Some translators will not accept the Oral Torah as valid material. The dead sea scrolls uses "Son of God" in reference to Archangels who in turn had charge of each nation created.