Reconciling Paul

[Ken Brown]

Wasn't Jesus innocent? Wasn't the purpose of his sacrifice to appease God?

Hi Pappillion001, yes, Yeshua was Innocent, and no, Elohim is not appeased with the shedding of Innocent blood. Please try to understand this reasoning...In the Torah it is commanded for the sinner to lay their hands upon the head of their offering, and kill it. In doing so, the sinner has righteousness, because the sinner has done what the Torah required, but what exactly was accomplished in the laying hands upon the head of the offering? Was it a transference to where the penalty due the sinner was transferred upon the innocent animal? More or less, was it a transference of their sin upon the innocent animal, and the animal pays the price for their sin?

The Sages of old have debated this very question and there were two lines of reasoning. Transference or identification. Was the sinner transferring, or identifying with the innocent animal that was dying because of their sin. I truly believe the laying on of hands to the head of the animal was a means where Elohim wants the sinner to identify with the animal, and when the animal dies, whatever caused the sinner to sacrifice, would be put to death with that animal.

The transference of sin upon the innocent animal was the bad logic that won out within Judaism, and that bad logic of making the animal a substitute (having the sinners sin transferred to the animal and the animal dying in the stead of the sinner) is the delusional gospel traditional christianity fell under.

The true purpose of sacrifice was for the sinner to identify with the animal and when that animal died, whatever sin the sinner had was to die with the animal and be removed from the sinner's life. If the sin is removed, there is no longer any need to continue with sacrificing. The problem is that the innocent blood of an animal will not and can not bring about the remission of sin in a sinner's life. There is no remorse or fear in shedding the blood of an animal.

On the contrary, when a sinner identifies with Yeshua as THEIR sacrifice, and realizes that their sin did shed His Innocent Blood, then whatever is in the sinner's life that caused them to lay their hands upon the Head (Yeshua) of their sacrifice, should be put to death (their old man). This is why Paul stated that he died with Messiah (was crucified), and that he no longer lived. This was the true purpose of sacrifice, to put sinners to death, and Paul taught that ALL died when Yeshua died, and he no longer looked at anyone from a living or human point of view. Everyone was dead in Messiah, and the message for sinners was to realize their death in Him and then BURY their dead body in baptism, and rise up to a new life IN Him. Yeshua is the ONLY one living, and if you have not buried you dead body and come to life in Him, then you remain part of the dead who does not believe.

Hopefully Pappillion001, you can recognize the difference between transference and identification, and find out what truly PLEASES Elohim (it's not the shedding of Innocent Blood). KB

 

[outhouse]

I appreciate the attempt to soften the blow.

I enjoy our conversations.

Jesus was against the Judaism that was being pushed onto the people.

This would be a mistake.

Jesus was a Jew teaching and healing Jews, and wanted to maintain Judaism. He did have a issue but that was with the Hellenistic governement working hand in hand with Romans

This governement wasnt pushing any specific Judaism on to people. Remember, Judaism was wide and diverse and multicultural. The temple just wanted attendance for the tithes and taxes it as a treasury collected, the temple was open to a very diverse Judaism.

Jesus was "for" Judaism. And no offical form of Judaism was being pushed by anyone.

Remember Paul's followers were also primarily the slaves, the poor and working class people.

While those would have been Jesus people, they were not Pauls.

What wee see with Paul, is Paul setting up Hellenistic houses. These houses were set up with a Roman hierarchy which was not what we have today for a houshold. You had the master or lord of the house "the man" and his wife who still belonged to her fathers house by law, but often ran the household for the man. Under him you would generally have children, grandparents, cousins, aunts uncles ect. Plus slaves, plus freedmen working for the master. It was quite the large household almost matching what we would call a small community. They were anything but poor.


Im sure when he was out healing and teaching on his journey's he would work with who he could, but he was not a teacher to the poor like Jesus.

I know Paul taught in cities, it is one of the reasons his teachings lasted and grew

I agree, but I almost disagree with the word taught, as much as corrected. We really dont know how much he started as much as we know he was correcting beliefs he thought were wrong.

Had he traveled and dealt with the only the poor, his movement would be forgotten.

When he started it is highly unlikely he was teaching anything radically different.

How could it be the same? Paul had no idea what Jesus really taught. He never knew Jesus, witnessed Jesus, nor heard a word pass his lips. he wasnt even from where Jesus grew up and taught, where his message would have remained more accurate.

All Paul knew was the mythology that was growing around the oral traditions that started in the Hellenistic communities long after his death.

Early on Paul was not involved with any teachings in real Jewish communities. He tells us he hunted Jews in Hellenistic communities, now Acts tells us about Stephan, but Acts is not all that historical, and we dont even know if Paul was there then.

"If" "if" he ever did meet the real apostles, his mind was already made up by then on exactly what he knew and would teach.

 

[Ken Brown]

I would explain it as the many scholars do that it is totally interpolated like I said in my quote. Acts 21:25 is not what clashes, it is argued, by the Tubingen school at least, and the argument was never really refuted, that it was added to coincide with the edited addition of the Council of Jerusalem episode.

I don't think you understand who FF Bruce is, or why the common consensus is that Galatians 2 clashes with Acts 15. Try researching these things first before calling the grand-daddy of Protestant Conservative Scholars "not very knowledgeable".

Galatians versus Acts: The Jerusalem Council & Apostolic Decree

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/17/17-4/17-4-pp239-242_JETS.pdf

Try reading Stein's paper here and explain why you think he's not very knowledgeable either, as he summarizes the same points that FF Bruce does. What they try to do is say that Galatians 2 is referring to a totally different episode, and this is far from the consensus view on the matter.

Hi Shermana, can you explain the above highlighted in red? I really would like to get that pinpointed from you. Are you saying that Bruce and Stein go against the traditional view of most scholars? That their view is Acts 9:26-28 = Galatians 1:18, Acts 11:30; 12:25 is omitted in Galatians, and Acts 15:1-35 = Galatians 2:1-10? KB P.S. Have you read Bruce's commentary on Romans 5? He's clueless in understanding Paul.

 

[sincerly]

Hi Pappillion001, yes, Yeshua was Innocent,.... Hopefully Pappillion001, you can recognize the difference between transference and identification, and find out what truly PLEASES Elohim (it's not the shedding of Innocent Blood). KB

Hi, KB, Yes Jesus Christ was innocent.
In those sacrifices, the sinner does "identify" with Jesus/or the animal in the OT Times. The sinner is acknowledging that it is the animal/Jesus who has become the recipient of one's sins (transferred) for the purpose of Atonement/remission of those sins.
What pleases GOD is the abhorring of Sin/being fully obedient---rather than the need to "sacrifice" from the succumbing to any "lusting".

 

[Pappillion001]

Hi Pappillion001, yes, Yeshua was Innocent, and no, Elohim is not appeased with the shedding of Innocent blood.

You make this statement and then roll right thru it. According to Paul God was appeased with the shedding of Jesus's blood. Even a step farther he required it.

Please try to understand this reasoning...In the Torah it is commanded for the sinner to lay their hands upon the head of their offering, and kill it. In doing so, the sinner has righteousness, because the sinner has done what the Torah required, but what exactly was accomplished in the laying hands upon the head of the offering? Was it a transference to where the penalty due the sinner was transferred upon the innocent animal? More or less, was it a transference of their sin upon the innocent animal, and the animal pays the price for their sin?

I do understand and I hope you can understand that it really doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter if it is purely symbolic. The reason being is it is what God commanded. That the person was made right with God is the purpose, but that does not mean that a person can sin then kill one of his animals without a care. The person must confess and he must repent as well. If he doesn't God will not accept his sacrifice.

The Sages of old have debated this very question and there were two lines of reasoning. Transference or identification. Was the sinner transferring, or identifying with the innocent animal that was dying because of their sin. I truly believe the laying on of hands to the head of the animal was a means where Elohim wants the sinner to identify with the animal, and when the animal dies, whatever caused the sinner to sacrifice, would be put to death with that animal.

I am familiar with the idea based on the origins of the term scapegoat, but it is extremely difficult to place Jesus in the role of the sacrificed animal.

The transference of sin upon the innocent animal was the bad logic that won out within Judaism, and that bad logic of making the animal a substitute (having the sinners sin transferred to the animal and the animal dying in the stead of the sinner) is the delusional gospel traditional christianity fell under.

The true purpose of sacrifice was for the sinner to identify with the animal and when that animal died, whatever sin the sinner had was to die with the animal and be removed from the sinner's life. If the sin is removed, there is no longer any need to continue with sacrificing. The problem is that the innocent blood of an animal will not and can not bring about the remission of sin in a sinner's life. There is no remorse or fear in shedding the blood of an animal.

This is another question I have that we keep coming back to. The innocent blood of an animal will if God says it will. I understand you are talking about an empathetic connection that would bring out an emotion that causes the person to not repeat what they have done. (remorse, guilt, shame) along with an understanding of why and consequences. Replacing the animal with a person with our standard of morality today as evidenced by actions of Christians has some success, to be honest the Jews without sacrifice or Jesus I think have a better track record.

Keep in mind also that back then human sacrifice was very real and enjoyed a fair amount of support. God was trying to end that practice.

On the contrary, when a sinner identifies with Yeshua as THEIR sacrifice, and realizes that their sin did shed His Innocent Blood, then whatever is in the sinner's life that caused them to lay their hands upon the Head (Yeshua) of their sacrifice, should be put to death (their old man). This is why Paul stated that he died with Messiah (was crucified), and that he no longer lived. This was the true purpose of sacrifice, to put sinners to death, and Paul taught that ALL died when Yeshua died, and he no longer looked at anyone from a living or human point of view. Everyone was dead in Messiah, and the message for sinners was to realize their death in Him and then BURY their dead body in baptism, and rise up to a new life IN Him. Yeshua is the ONLY one living, and if you have not buried you dead body and come to life in Him, then you remain part of the dead who does not believe.

I think I understand, I just can't get past the Biblical evidence that prevents it from being possible. One or the other is incorrect.

Hopefully Pappillion001, you can recognize the difference between transference and identification, and find out what truly PLEASES Elohim (it's not the shedding of Innocent Blood). KB[/quote]
The procedures for a sin offering you refer to is pretty clear at the end of each paragraph.

And the Lord said to Moses .....Through this process, the priest will purify the people from their sin, making them right with the Lord, and they will be forgiven. LV 4


Regarding the blood of Christ

. 26Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. 27Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. LV 7

How long were they to do this?

36Which the LORD commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout their generations. LV 7

This is why I am having a hard time with what you are saying. I see Paul's reasoning and how he got from A to B, but he has some problems with what he taught. Those problems are not from a lack of spiritual insight, nor are they trivial descrepancies. If these can be addressed without causing additional conflicts then please let me know because I am not able to.

 

[sincerly]

You make this statement and then roll right thru it. According to Paul God was appeased with the shedding of Jesus's blood. Even a step farther he required it.

I do understand and I hope you can understand that it really doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter if it is purely symbolic. The reason being is it is what God commanded. That the person was made right with God is the purpose, but that does not mean that a person can sin then kill one of his animals without a care. The person must confess and he must repent as well. If he doesn't God will not accept his sacrifice.

Hi Pappi, It does matter because what was symbolic ----those "shadows finally come to the reality of "Body"". Yes, one still Confesses and Repents.

I am familiar with the idea based on the origins of the term scapegoat, but it is extremely difficult to place Jesus in the role of the sacrificed animal.

From the very Beginning, GOD said, "Ye shall surely die"---for your transgression. Yet in clothing the guilty pair it was a sacrificed animal which provided the "clothing" which allowed the "sinners" to be in GOD'S presence. (Even for that brief time before being expelled from the Garden.)
AN Animal is not the "YE" shall die". However, one does see an unfolding of that Plan of redemption so that mankind could understand the process.
The "Scape goat" (Day of Atonement) is what that "festival" was portraying---the finally cleansing of all sins from heaven and earth.
AN earthly animal cannot cleanse the Heavenly Sanctuary... but symbolically, did the earthly sanctuary.(And the scriptures state that Jesus is/was the "Lamb slain from before the foundation" for the purpose of Redemption.)
Heb.10:4 states that the blood of bulls and goats can not take away any sins.

This is another question I have that we keep coming back to. The innocent blood of an animal will if God says it will. I understand you are talking about an empathetic connection that would bring out an emotion that causes the person to not repeat what they have done. (remorse, guilt, shame) along with an understanding of why and consequences. Replacing the animal with a person with our standard of morality today as evidenced by actions of Christians has some success, to be honest the Jews without sacrifice or Jesus I think have a better track record.

That was "only for the time then present". (Heb.9:1, 9+) GOD isn't humanity, but was willing, John3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. "

Keep in mind also that back then human sacrifice was very real and enjoyed a fair amount of support. God was trying to end that practice.

That was a corruption of the Animal sacrifices which GOD did at Eden and Noah upon exiting the ARK----by those who scattered from the Tower of Babel. Human sacrifices were never condoned.
But keep in mind that Jesus was Fathered by the Holy Spirit and "came into the world "for this purpose"-----to "seek and save that which was lost".

I think I understand, I just can't get past the Biblical evidence that prevents it from being possible. One or the other is incorrect.

The only thing which prevents it being possible is one's choice.

Regarding the blood of Christ

. 26Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. 27Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. LV 7

How long were they to do this?

36Which the LORD commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout their generations. LV 7

This is why I am having a hard time with what you are saying. I see Paul's reasoning and how he got from A to B, but he has some problems with what he taught. Those problems are not from a lack of spiritual insight, nor are they trivial descrepancies. If these can be addressed without causing additional conflicts then please let me know because I am not able to.

No One is required to eat or drink the Blood of Jesus Christ; that is symbolic in ingesting Jesus as spiritually the food and drink that sustains and vitalizes one's life. In HIM, one lives moves and has one's being.

 

[Ken Brown]

Hi, KB, Yes Jesus Christ was innocent.
In those sacrifices, the sinner does "identify" with Jesus/or the animal in the OT Times. The sinner is acknowledging that it is the animal/Jesus who has become the recipient of one's sins (transferred) for the purpose of Atonement/remission of those sins.
What pleases GOD is the abhorring of Sin/being fully obedient---rather than the need to "sacrifice" from the succumbing to any "lusting".

Hi sincerly, what do you think about this Scripture and how do you apply it to Yeshua:

(Ex 23:7) Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

Or this one:

(Prov 17:15) He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both [are] abomination to YHWH.

Or even this one:

(Prov 17:26) Also to punish the just [is] not good, [nor] to strike princes for equity.

Yeshua was a Prince, He was Just, He was Innocent and Righteous, yet traditional christianity views His slaying as something good, and that it satisfies Justice. That's a bunch of hogwash. What happened to Yeshua is the most abominable event in the history of mankind, and it causes devastating desolation. All sinners were put to death when He was lifted up on the stake/cross. It was total annihilation, and no one survived. So don't look at it from a position that He took anyone's place, when He died--ALL DIED.

Now, in His death, a free gift is given to all of mankind, and it is the free gift of righteousness and life. But a sinner has to acknowledge their sin and death IN Him to be a recipient of this Grace. A confession has to be made that a sinner, did with the help of wicked men, put Yeshua to death. and the confession (through faith) becomes a Spiritual DOING of what the Law required sinners to do (which is sacrifice). This is the Righteousness we receive by faith. Look at Deu 6:25 and Rom 2:13. Those who do or accomplish what the Law requires of them have righteousness, and if one fails in keeping any of the commands, they can sacrifice for that failure, and become righteous by killing or slaying their offering. All sinners did slay or kill their offering Yeshua, simply by sinning. This is why Paul would teach that IF you sought righteousness in Messiah, you HAD to be a sinner (Gal 2:17), and when you increase sin/transgression, you increase this Righteousness (the sacrificing of Yeshua). But this Grace or Gift of Righteousness has appeared to all men TEACHING them what they should do...flee from sin (Titus 2:11-14). This is what Yeshua said one must do when they SEE the Abomination which causes desolation (His being lifted up on the cross and made to stand where He ought not). Where do you flee to:

(Pss 36:6) Thy righteousness [is] like the great mountains; thy judgments [are] a great deep: O YHWH, thou preservest man and beast.

You flee to the mountains of righteousness. Has your flight started yet sincerly? KB

 

[Ken Brown]

This is why I am having a hard time with what you are saying. I see Paul's reasoning and how he got from A to B, but he has some problems with what he taught. Those problems are not from a lack of spiritual insight, nor are they trivial descrepancies. If these can be addressed without causing additional conflicts then please let me know because I am not able to.

HiPappillion001, I think it all boils down to whether or not Yeshua can fulfill the role of a Sacrifice. I have told you before about the Foundation of the Torah, that the Jews believe the Ritual of the Red Heifer is the Ordinance or Foundation of the Torah. It's no coincidence that happened. This Ordinance is for cleansing one from the defilement of death, and to separate a sinner from their sin. There are some difficulties in trying to understand this Ordinance. They say that Solomon in all his wisdom despaired over the secret meaning of this Ordinance, because this Ordinance made no sense. How can the Ashes of the Red Heifer BOTH defile and cleanse? You see, anyone who had anything to do with killing the Red Heifer and preparing those Ashes, became defiled, but then after placing those Ashes in a Vessel, and ADDING Living Water to them, they became the source for cleansing from death and separating sin from a sinner.

Now Pappillion001, what is Living Water? Please consider Jer 2:17, 17:13, John 4:10, 14, 7:38-39 in answering. KB

 

[sincerly]

Hi sincerly, what do you think about this Scripture and how do you apply it to Yeshua:

(Ex 23:7) Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

Hi Ken, It doesn't apply to Jesus Christ who was tried in like manner as mankind and remained free of wickedness. HE came to Redeem those who were condemned as "wicked/transgressors"-----all of the human family.

Or this one:
(Prov 17:15) He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both [are] abomination to YHWH.

Neither does it apply to Jesus Christ.----See above.

Or even this one:
(Prov 17:26) Also to punish the just [is] not good, [nor] to strike princes for equity.

Yeshua was a Prince, He was Just, He was Innocent and Righteous, yet traditional christianity views His slaying as something good, and that it satisfies Justice. That's a bunch of hogwash. What happened to Yeshua is the most abominable event in the history of mankind, and it causes devastating desolation. All sinners were put to death when He was lifted up on the stake/cross. It was total annihilation, and no one survived. So don't look at it from a position that He took anyone's place, when He died--ALL DIED.

KB, The Scriptures say the opposite. When HE died---"Life" was offered to ALL who are dead in "trespasses and sins". That is the message of the plan of salvation and John 3:16. ----to the "whosoever" Believeth and Repents from the life of rebellion to one of Obedience.

Now, in His death, a free gift is given to all of mankind, and it is the free gift of righteousness and life. But a sinner has to acknowledge their sin and death IN Him to be a recipient of this Grace. A confession has to be made that a sinner, did with the help of wicked men, put Yeshua to death. and the confession (through faith) becomes a Spiritual DOING of what the Law required sinners to do (which is sacrifice). This is the Righteousness we receive by faith. Look at Deu 6:25 and Rom 2:13. Those who do or accomplish what the Law requires of them have righteousness, and if one fails in keeping any of the commands, they can sacrifice for that failure, and become righteous by killing or slaying their offering. All sinners did slay or kill their offering Yeshua, simply by sinning. This is why Paul would teach that IF you sought righteousness in Messiah, you HAD to be a sinner (Gal 2:17), and when you increase sin/transgression, you increase this Righteousness (the sacrificing of Yeshua). But this Grace or Gift of Righteousness has appeared to all men TEACHING them what they should do...flee from sin (Titus 2:11-14). This is what Yeshua said one must do when they SEE the Abomination which causes desolation (His being lifted up on the cross and made to stand where He ought not). Where do you flee to:

(Pss 36:6) Thy righteousness [is] like the great mountains; thy judgments [are] a great deep: O YHWH, thou preservest man and beast.

You flee to the mountains of righteousness. Has your flight started yet sincerly? KB

KB, it appears that you are not understanding "the why one cannot sin and be one's payment for Sin."
The Sacrifice of Jesus is for "the payment of the death penalty" which mankind con not pay and live---Death is death. Sinning does not bring more "Grace" or "righteousness." It just compounds the death penalty of a arrogant and defiant sinner.
Yes, GOD is Loving, Merciful, Long-suffering, but GOD is, also, JUST. God will NOT allow the wicked to go free to continue to corrupt HIS New Earth.
You acknowledge that the wicked deserve to die.
Think about it. ALL of mankind has been deserving to Die. Therefore, as you stated above, ALL need an appropriate sacrifice to atone for one's sins(the remission of).
An Animal didn't sin and its death really doesn't meet the requirements to pay that death penalty.
Therefore, Your "sinning killed Jesus" is only half right---Because HE took one's death penalty and allowed the "Sinner" to be clothed in HIS "Righteousness" and live.
No one "killed"/forced/ etc. Christ to do this act, but HE willingly/Lovingly did it for those who truly Repent and Submit to the Will of the Father.

Therefore, Two choices---Believe or disbelieve.

 

[Ken Brown]

Hi Ken, It doesn't apply to Jesus Christ who was tried in like manner as mankind and remained free of wickedness. HE came to Redeem those who were condemned as "wicked/transgressors"-----all of the human family.

Neither does it apply to Jesus Christ.----See above.

KB, The Scriptures say the opposite. When HE died---"Life" was offered to ALL who are dead in "trespasses and sins". That is the message of the plan of salvation and John 3:16. ----to the "whosoever" Believeth and Repents from the life of rebellion to one of Obedience.

KB, it appears that you are not understanding "the why one cannot sin and be one's payment for Sin."
The Sacrifice of Jesus is for "the payment of the death penalty" which mankind con not pay and live---Death is death. Sinning does not bring more "Grace" or "righteousness." It just compounds the death penalty of a arrogant and defiant sinner.
Yes, GOD is Loving, Merciful, Long-suffering, but GOD is, also, JUST. God will NOT allow the wicked to go free to continue to corrupt HIS New Earth.
You acknowledge that the wicked deserve to die.
Think about it. ALL of mankind has been deserving to Die. Therefore, as you stated above, ALL need an appropriate sacrifice to atone for one's sins(the remission of).
An Animal didn't sin and its death really doesn't meet the requirements to pay that death penalty.
Therefore, Your "sinning killed Jesus" is only half right---Because HE took one's death penalty and allowed the "Sinner" to be clothed in HIS "Righteousness" and live.
No one "killed"/forced/ etc. Christ to do this act, but HE willingly/Lovingly did it for those who truly Repent and Submit to the Will of the Father.

Therefore, Two choices---Believe or disbelieve.

Hi sincerly, apparently you are not familiar with the following Scriptures:

(Rom 6:6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

(Rom 6:8) Now if we be dead with Messiah, we believe that we shall also live with him:

(Gal 2:20) I am crucified with Messiah: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Messiah liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of Elohim, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

(Gal 5:24) And they that are Messiah's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

(Gal 6:14) But Elohim forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Master Yeshua Messiah, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

(2Cor 5:14) For the love of Messiah constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

Sincerly, death resulted to all when Messiah died. He was the LIFE of this world, and when He died ALL died and this is why Elohim is reconciled...all sinners were crucified with Messiah:

(Jn 12:32 - 12:33) (32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. (33) This he said, signifying what death he should die. (crucifixion)

All were drawn INTO the crucifixion of Yeshua, and all died when He died. He did not die in anyone's stead/place. Why are these plain Scriptures so hard for some to grasp? KB

 

[Pappillion001]

I enjoy our conversations.

As do I.

This would be a mistake.

Jesus was a Jew teaching and healing Jews, and wanted to maintain Judaism. He did have a issue but that was with the Hellenistic governement working hand in hand with Romans

This governement wasnt pushing any specific Judaism on to people. Remember, Judaism was wide and diverse and multicultural. The temple just wanted attendance for the tithes and taxes it as a treasury collected, the temple was open to a very diverse Judaism.

Each of the confrontations Jesus has is over doctrine with the overall theme being the leadership are hypocrites who are leading the people astray. Religious observation goes top down, as those who are teaching initiate a particular practice or what will become a custom, their following learns to incorporate that into their worship and the same idea holds true for interpretation. In this sense it is being pushed onto the people who rely on the rabbis to teach the Law.

Jesus was "for" Judaism. And no offical form of Judaism was being pushed by anyone.

Jesus was for what he saw as correct observance and against what he saw self centered additions. His healing of people on the Sabbath as an example. Letting someone be sick is not what God intended by declaring the last day holy.

A strict interpretation is from someone who isn't connecting the obligation with reality via common sense causes their own sense of the purpose becomes mingled and over time if permitted to continue can be built upon by those who come later. Next thing you know you have variations spread over distance with no one knowing which way if any is the right way.

While those would have been Jesus people, they were not Pauls.

What wee see with Paul, is Paul setting up Hellenistic houses. These houses were set up with a Roman hierarchy which was not what we have today for a houshold. You had the master or lord of the house "the man" and his wife who still belonged to her fathers house by law, but often ran the household for the man. Under him you would generally have children, grandparents, cousins, aunts uncles ect. Plus slaves, plus freedmen working for the master. It was quite the large household almost matching what we would call a small community. They were anything but poor.

I would assume the slaves were poor, the freedmen would be poor to middle class, with their workers and apprentices ranging from poor to middle class. The relatives depends on their means, but if were wealthy would most likely have their own household. So as describe it the Master who supports all this may be anything but poor, but he isn't the only one involved.

Im sure when he was out healing and teaching on his journey's he would work with who he could, but he was not a teacher to the poor like Jesus.

I agree, but I almost disagree with the word taught, as much as corrected. We really dont know how much he started as much as we know he was correcting beliefs he thought were wrong.

I see your point. I guess I just see in this case no difference between the two. Simply because he is not just saying that is wrong, he then shows what he thinks is right.

How could it be the same? Paul had no idea what Jesus really taught. He never knew Jesus, witnessed Jesus, nor heard a word pass his lips. he wasnt even from where Jesus grew up and taught, where his message would have remained more accurate.

All Paul knew was the mythology that was growing around the oral traditions that started in the Hellenistic communities long after his death.

According to Acts he was healed by Ananias in Damascus. He stayed with him there and spoke of Jesus as the son of God. He was chased out of there and went to Jerusalem where Barnabas took him under his wing and vouched for him. He stayed there until he was chased out again going to Caesarea(The man leaves just as often under threat as he does of his own desires) and then Tarsus. He stays there for awhile and later is picked up by Barnabas again travels on his first missionary comes back to Antioch where he preaches faith in Jesus. He has 5 - 10 years ( ballpark) Plenty of time and opportunity to learn and then develop his interpretation.

Early on Paul was not involved with any teachings in real Jewish communities. He tells us he hunted Jews in Hellenistic communities, now Acts tells us about Stephan, but Acts is not all that historical, and we dont even know if Paul was there then.

After the trip to Damascus. Whether Acts is historically accurate is a different discussion, but assuming it is Paul has the time and and his circumstances (being far away from the Apostles and living surrounded by Gentiles) are conducive to forming a set of ideas that Gentiles would find appealing.

"If" "if" he ever did meet the real apostles, his mind was already made up by then on exactly what he knew and would teach.

I think the Jerusalem meeting happened and it being around that time that they heard what he was saying. I think he developed it early after his conversion and then it took some time to work out into something he could defend. Again according to Acts we are looking at roughly 5 years before he gives his first sermon

 

[outhouse]

Each of the confrontations Jesus has is over doctrine with the overall theme being the leadership are hypocrites who are leading the people astray.

You have to remember, the authors were writing anti Jewish propaganda for the Roman Empire.

All existing scripture will obviously have a anti Jewish spin. But that would not reflect Jesus true Jewish nature, nor his Jewish teachings.


The Hellenistic part of Judaism was leading people astray, but in no way does that account for "all" of Judaism as a whole.

 

[outhouse]

Whether Acts is historically accurate is a different discussion, but assuming it is Paul has the time and and his circumstances (being far away from the Apostles and living surrounded by Gentiles) are conducive to forming a set of ideas that Gentiles would find appealing.

You already know Act's is highly questionable I don't need to get into that.

The road to Damascus in my opinion is fiction, Paul himself tells us his inspiration. he states he had a feeling from within himself that changed him. He makes no mention of Acts version.


What's funny is people don't make to much fuss about Luke's version. We know he used Mark as a foundation and some Q, the L source in many parts however is questioned, and places like the birth legends, literary creations according to the majority of scholars.


Again, Paul was a Hellenist. There was no reason for Paul to form ideas about the Gentiles. Not only that Paul tells us he focused on the Hellenistic Jewish Proselytes.

His methodology already matched Hellenistic Judaism, he wouldn't have much to think about.


I learned something today that was quite interesting. I always placed the Pharisees as opposed to Zealots and the common man because of what has been attributed to them in a negative light. Apparently the Pharisees were split within themselves.

I look at Judaism as multicultural and being split anyway so it wasn't a surprise, but now I understand part of them in a more positive light. I always disliked all of them before.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus was for what he saw as correct observance and against what he saw self centered additions. His healing of people on the Sabbath as an example. Letting someone be sick is not what God intended by declaring the last day holy.

Hello! Just one tiny reply to your large post!

Healing on the Sabbath! Very interesting! I don't think Jesus broke a rule here!

I recently read that for a 'doctor' to treat a toothache by rubbing vinegar into it would be breaching the Sabbath 'rule'. However, serving food on the Sabbath was lawful, so that same doctor could give a small plate of vegetable, heavily laden with vinegar, and ask the patient to chew it well!!!

With that in mind, when I now read the reports of Jesus's (Sabbath) healings, I cannot actually see that he 'did' anything...... it just 'happened'.!!! No rule broken!

What do you think?

 

[Shermana]

Yes, Jesus did not break the Sabbath by healing on the Sabbath, what he broke was Pharisaical custom, not the law itself.

Even today, Rabbis allow life-saving healing on the Sabbath.

Plucking grain and eating it on the spot was also not likely breaking the Sabbath, but breaking Pharisaical interpretation of the Sabbath.

Many unfortunately cling to the idea that Jesus broke the Sabbath, having no problem with this blatant contradiction when he said that no part of the Law itself shall ever be void.

 

[sincerly]

Hi sincerly, apparently you are not familiar with the following Scriptures:

(Rom 6:6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

(Rom 6:8) Now if we be dead with Messiah, we believe that we shall also live with him:

(Gal 2:20) I am crucified with Messiah: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Messiah liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of Elohim, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

(Gal 5:24) And they that are Messiah's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

(Gal 6:14) But Elohim forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Master Yeshua Messiah, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

(2Cor 5:14) For the love of Messiah constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

Sincerly, death resulted to all when Messiah died. He was the LIFE of this world, and when He died ALL died and this is why Elohim is reconciled...all sinners were crucified with Messiah:

(Jn 12:32 - 12:33) (32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. (33) This he said, signifying what death he should die. (crucifixion)

All were drawn INTO the crucifixion of Yeshua, and all died when He died. He did not die in anyone's stead/place. Why are these plain Scriptures so hard for some to grasp? KB

Hi KB, I very well understand and believe those scriptures. What is confusing is YOUR interpretation. Your posts indicate that """"" He did not die in anyone's stead/place. """"" and that isn't the message of any of those verses.

How was the penalty of Death paid/satisfied/removed which was placed upon all of mankind???
What does it mean to "Die with" or be "Crucified with" Jesus Christ???
What is the significance of that act???
What was the purpose of all those animal sacrifices/those shadows???
Are you saying that Christ's death freed "ALL" sinners from death??
Didn't Jesus say that most of mankind was on the broad way to destruction???

 

[outhouse]

Hers a good link for Pappillion and Oldbadger

The Bible and Interpretation - Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?

This deals with placing the gospel authors different views of Jesus into a context that is understandable. And the one I've been following for years.

 

[Ken Brown]

Hi KB, I very well understand and believe those scriptures. What is confusing is YOUR interpretation. Your posts indicate that """"" He did not die in anyone's stead/place. """"" and that isn't the message of any of those verses.

How was the penalty of Death paid/satisfied/removed which was placed upon all of mankind???
What does it mean to "Die with" or be "Crucified with" Jesus Christ???
What is the significance of that act???
What was the purpose of all those animal sacrifices/those shadows???
Are you saying that Christ's death freed "ALL" sinners from death??
Didn't Jesus say that most of mankind was on the broad way to destruction???

Hi sincerly, the death penalty was paid by EVERYONE dying, but only those who are called to bury their dead bodies can see it. Paul says that when Yeshua died "for" us, ALL DIED. It appears your interpretation of that verse is that Yeshua died in the stead or place of everyone, when He died "for" them. I am not in agreement with that interpretation. Yeshua died "for" us to deliver us OUT from our sinful lives, so that we would be blessed in TURNING from our iniquity. The first stage in doing so is to realize that when Yeshua died, you also were put to death IN His crucifixion. All of mankind was DRAWN into His death, and everyone died.

This understanding of the Gospel and how Yeshua allowed us to JOIN Him in death, reconciles Elohim, because all sinners died, it wasn't a sinless One in the stead or place of sinners. What atones for sin? Isn't is doing what is right. In His death, we die, and Believers are brought to a conviction to where they now no longer want to be dead. So a burial takes place (baptism), and a raising up to a New Life IN Messiah atones for sin. You don't atone for sin by continuing in it, there is no atonement for those who give lip service to someone dying in their stead and then deliberately continue in sin. In the death of Yeshua, Elohim is reconciled, because all died, but what really saves us is Yeshua's LIFE, and our conforming to His LIFE, and this atones for the sin we were created under.

Sincerly, you need to consider the Harvests. Paul says that Yeshua IS the Firstfruits of those who have died, and then come back to life. He also says that Believers are a kind of "firstfruits." Please consider that Elohim is working in stages, like a farmer. An Elect was chosen to be the first to "chose" to bury their dead bodies, and rise up to a New Life. The majority of mankind will ALSO "chose" to bury their dead bodies also, but that will not occur until the Harvest on the 8th Great Day. Until a sinner is "chosen" to no longer be a "slave" to sin, they are surely on the road or path to destruction. It is only by Elohim's Spirit that a sinner can be freed from that slavery to sin, and IF someone is proving by their actions in life that they are contolled by the Spirit, then they have come INTO the Liberty found within Messiah, and they have been set free from being a sinner.

I know it's not easy to give up on the gospel of substitutionalism, but the One True Gospel is a Gospel based upon a sinner being TRANSFORMED into a Saint, through the suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection of Messiah, just as Moses wrote about. KB

 

[sincerly]

Hers a good link for Pappillion and Oldbadger

The Bible and Interpretation - Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?

This deals with placing the gospel authors different views of Jesus into a context that is understandable. And the one I've been following for years.

The best and only reliable link to understanding the Bible and the Gospel therein is THE BIBLE. It is the one that I have been following for years, also.
It was Adam's and Eve's listening to an outside source which got us into this place of separation from a right relationship with GOD.

 

[outhouse]

The best and only reliable link to understanding the Bible and the Gospel therein is THE BIBLE. It is the one that I have been following for years, also.
It was Adam's and Eve's listening to an outside source which got us into this place of separation from a right relationship with GOD.

false

Most people go to church and have someone educated in the bible [preacher/priest] to teach them the bible.


So what your really saying is a shallow understanding of scripture is the best?