• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Were There Two Different Jesus?

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
It's very likely the authors of Jewish scripture had used allegory and symbolism is convey there message,and poetry too. If everything in Jewish scripture is meant to be taken literally then God showed Moses his rear-end at Mount Sinai. Balaam had a talking donkey. Jonah actually spent three days and nights in the belly of a great fish. There are many other examples. Jewish scripture also attributes human characteristics to God. God sees, hears, talks, walks, etc. The writers of the Gospels had used these same technics. In all known Gospels including the non canonical Gospels Jesus is portrayed as not revealing the divine but the divine revealed. Each of the Gospels does this somewhat differently, but the message is always the same. Matthew's Gospel draws from the Book of Exodus to portray Jesus as the new and greater Moses, where is Luke's Gospel does not. It is not necessary to use the same symbols in order to have the same message.

Allegories and parables are used everywhere to teach about Theology which we as humans would not be able to understand if spoken of literally. Most teachings in the Jewish Scripture aka the Tanach is effected allegorically to convey its messages through its prophets and through their dreams and visions. Every thing is possible in a dream or vision even for God o exhibit rear-end, for a mule to talk and for a fish to swallow a man. Now, to understand the point those allegories point to, we must exercise our knowledge of metaphorical language. Now, to draw from the book in the Tanach as the authors of the NT did to enhance Biblical credibility for the church of Paul is vandalism of a religion by another based on Christian preconceived notions.
 

ukok102nak

Active Member
:praying: as you were pointing unto paul then perhaps you should make a proper understanding from what your saying and kindly point out some verses that will prove your accusation about the apostle of the gentiles

as what we meant is dont just talk nonsense show proof that is written in the bible itself about your false testimony if there is such a thing as
the church of Paul
is vandalism of a religion by another based on Christian preconceived notions
becaused if you cannot your just inventing something for your own agenda as you also speakin out of ignorance
for you are really not well capable of handling what is the truth behind the written words of god
if we may say so


:ty:




godbless
unto all always


Allegories and parables are used everywhere to teach about Theology which we as humans would not be able to understand if spoken of literally. Most teachings in the Jewish Scripture aka the Tanach is effected allegorically to convey its messages through its prophets and through their dreams and visions. Every thing is possible in a dream or vision even for God o exhibit rear-end, for a mule to talk and for a fish to swallow a man. Now, to understand the point those allegories point to, we must exercise our knowledge of metaphorical language. Now, to draw from the book in the Tanach as the authors of the NT did to enhance Biblical credibility for the church of Paul is vandalism of a religion by another based on Christian preconceived notions.
 
Last edited:

meghanwaterlillies

Well-Known Member
Allegories and parables are used everywhere to teach about Theology which we as humans would not be able to understand if spoken of literally. Most teachings in the Jewish Scripture aka the Tanach is effected allegorically to convey its messages through its prophets and through their dreams and visions. Every thing is possible in a dream or vision even for God o exhibit rear-end, for a mule to talk and for a fish to swallow a man. Now, to understand the point those allegories point to, we must exercise our knowledge of metaphorical language. Now, to draw from the book in the Tanach as the authors of the NT did to enhance Biblical credibility for the church of Paul is vandalism of a religion by another based on Christian preconceived notions.
2For I decided to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3
Here we have Paul stating that he decided to know nothing.. except..
may be Paul knew a lot of philosophies (as for myself I don't think it was Paul that caused my belief, maybe not, something to do with it) But he preached forgiveness. And he often used his starting point was himself and testimony.
This drew people, Well in a group setting it was simplistic and faith.
But I wanted to point something out. At this time the outside world worships various things. He tells them that Christ was crucified for our sins, and e. I. He doesnt tell them much of the other doctrines/doctors that have been overcome.That in includes other doctrines you may call them ritualistic or a faith so to speak.
How philosophies that we have that float around on occasion and sometimes hurt others, people can use it to feed an cult like mind. There's various kinds of wolves. I might even assume that paul knew this and draw them under that one gospel he preached. However it does appear that it can be morphed or used to deceive people. Paul may not have been in it for those proposes just possible enough to say yeah ye convicted people of sin and that Jesus Christ is lord.
Anaximander
Human Sacrifice
Pythagoras Cult
& Certain "powers" themselves..
possible through God : More an angle of approach.
 
Last edited:

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
:praying: as you were pointing unto paul then perhaps you should make a proper understanding from what your saying and kindly point out some verses that will prove your accusation about the apostle of the gentiles

as what we meant is dont just talk nonsense show proof that is written in the bible itself about your false testimony if there is such a thing as
the church of Paul
is vandalism of a religion by another based on Christian preconceived notions
becaused if you cannot your just inventing something for your own agenda as you also speakin out of ignorance
for you are really not well capable of handling what is the truth behind the written words of god
if we may say so

godbless
unto all always

Paul never did enough to achieve the title of "apostle to the Gentiles." Rather Peter was the one assigned to be the apostle to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) Regarding Paul, all his life since first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome, he never
left the Jews in peace as if Gentiles were to be found in the synagogues of the Jews. (Acts 9:1,2, and 28:17) BTW he was a self-appointed apostle. According to the tradition, the apostles were to be 12; neither 11 nor 13. When Judas got lost, to fill up his vacancy, the other apostles elected Mathias, not Paul. (Acts 1:26) Paul was rather rejected when he applied to join the Sect of the Nazarenes as an apostle. James and the Elders of the Sect in Jerusalem said he couldn't even be a disciple let alone an apostle. (Acts 9:26)
 

meghanwaterlillies

Well-Known Member
Paul never did enough to achieve the title of "apostle to the Gentiles." Rather Peter was the one assigned to be the apostle to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) Regarding Paul, all his life since first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome, he never
left the Jews in peace as if Gentiles were to be found in the synagogues of the Jews. (Acts 9:1,2, and 28:17) BTW he was a self-appointed apostle. According to the tradition, the apostles were to be 12; neither 11 nor 13. When Judas got lost, to fill up his vacancy, the other apostles elected Mathias, not Paul. (Acts 1:26) Paul was rather rejected when he applied to join the Sect of the Nazarenes as an apostle. James and the Elders of the Sect in Jerusalem said he couldn't even be a disciple let alone an apostle. (Acts 9:26)
What happens if someone 6's your 13 I mean 613.
The Talmud notes that the Hebrew numerical value (gematria) of the word "Torah" is 611, and combining Moses's 611 commandments with the first two of the Ten Commandments which were the only ones heard directly from God, adds up to 613.


Honestly I do agree that possibly he would have rather argued in Judaism with various sectors.
I know that guy cant leave you alone; he loves you to annoyance. Lover of debate.
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
2For I decided to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3
Here we have Paul stating that he decided to know nothing.. except..
may be Paul knew a lot of philosophies (as for myself I don't think it was Paul that caused my belief, maybe not, something to do with it) But he preached forgiveness. And he often used his starting point was himself and testimony.
This drew people, Well in a group setting it was simplistic and faith.
But I wanted to point something out. At this time the outside world worships various things. He tells them that Christ was crucified for our sins, and e. I. He doesnt tell them much of the other doctrines/doctors that have been overcome.That in includes other doctrines you may call them ritualistic or a faith so to speak.
How philosophies that we have that float around on occasion and sometimes hurt others, people can use it to feed an cult like mind. There's various kinds of wolves. I might even assume that paul knew this and draw them under that one gospel he preached. However it does appear that it can be morphed or used to deceive people. Paul may not have been in it for those proposes just possible enough to say yeah ye convicted people of sin and that Jesus Christ is lord.
Anaximander
Human Sacrifice
Pythagoras Cult
& Certain "powers" themselves..
possible through God : More an angle of approach.

Yes, Paul had decided to know nothing even the Law but his gospel only. Yes, Paul knew a lot of Greek Philosophy as he was a Hellenist from birth, the son of a well-to-do Hellenist couple from Tarsus in the Cilicia. Yes, he used to teach that
Jesus was crucified for our sins in spite of the words of the Prophets that no one can die for the sins of another. (Ezekiel 18:4)
 

meghanwaterlillies

Well-Known Member
Yes, Paul had decided to know nothing even the Law but his gospel only. Yes, Paul knew a lot of Greek Philosophy as he was a Hellenist from birth, the son of a well-to-do Hellenist couple from Tarsus in the Cilicia. Yes, he used to teach that
Jesus was crucified for our sins in spite of the words of the Prophets that no one can die for the sins of another. (Ezekiel 18:4)

What happens if someone 6's your 13?
the numbers do add up him as being one.
13 letters
judas drop to 11 mattias and then paul.
It has to do with your law too. That's why he knew it.
 
Last edited:

roger1440

I do stuff
Allegories and parables are used everywhere to teach about Theology which we as humans would not be able to understand if spoken of literally. Most teachings in the Jewish Scripture aka the Tanach is effected allegorically to convey its messages through its prophets and through their dreams and visions. Every thing is possible in a dream or vision even for God o exhibit rear-end, for a mule to talk and for a fish to swallow a man. Now, to understand the point those allegories point to, we must exercise our knowledge of metaphorical language. Now, to draw from the book in the Tanach as the authors of the NT did to enhance Biblical credibility for the church of Paul is vandalism of a religion by another based on Christian preconceived notions.
I don't see what Paul has to do with this thread. More then likely the Gospels were not written during Paul's life time. If they were written, Paul didn't know about it. He never quotes Jesus except in one very small story about the Last Supper.
 
Last edited:

roger1440

I do stuff
Allegories and parables are used everywhere to teach about Theology which we as humans would not be able to understand if spoken of literally. Most teachings in the Jewish Scripture aka the Tanach is effected allegorically to convey its messages through its prophets and through their dreams and visions. Every thing is possible in a dream or vision even for God o exhibit rear-end, for a mule to talk and for a fish to swallow a man. Now, to understand the point those allegories point to, we must exercise our knowledge of metaphorical language. Now, to draw from the book in the Tanach as the authors of the NT did to enhance Biblical credibility for the church of Paul is vandalism of a religion by another based on Christian preconceived notions.
Although there are differances between the birth naratives of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke there is a major simaliarity. Both have the virgin birth story. Is the virgin birth story meant to be taken literal? The authors of Matthew and Luke used Jewish scripture and possibly other Jewish writtings as a foundation for there Gospels. But there are no virgin birth stories in any Jewish writtings. Some may argue that Isaiah 7:14 mentions a virgin birth. These same people would argue that Jews do not understand there own scripture, therfore Jews do not see a virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14. Justin Martyr had argrued with a Jew by the name Trypo in the literal interpretation of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm

The whole premise of this debate acording to Justin Martyr is that Jews do not understand there own scripture and it takes a Christian to explain it to them. My polemic againest the literal interpretation of the virgin birth is that its not Jews that don't understand the virgin birth, its non Jews. The Gospels were written by Jews, for Jews using much of the same symbolism used in Jewish scripture. Therfore to understand the Gospels they must be viewed threw a Jewish lens.

Jesus is not the offspring of God and the virgin Mary. Jesus represents the union between Isreal and God. The Gospels refer to Jesus as the son of God. In the Book of Exodus we find: "Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son." (Exodus 4:22). If Jesus is God's first born son how can Israel be God's first born son? Simple, they are one in the same.
 

ukok102nak

Active Member
~;> between your comments and what is written in the bible
i respectfully choose
the written words of god
instead of your spiritual discerned thoughts

and this are the written facts of
the apostle of the gentiles
as it is written
:read:
by which, when you read, you can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Messiah;
which in other generations was not made known to the children of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of thea promise in Messiah Yeshua through the Good News,

of which I was made a servant, according to the gift of that grace of God which was given me according to the working of his power.
To me, the very least of all saints, was this grace given, to proclaim to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Messiah,

and again
during that time
there were no such people who were not a gentile spoke
unto the gentiles as the apostle of the gentiles did

also
as what we've seen you dont have any idea what the word apostle really means
according to the bible itself
if we may say so


:ty:




godbless
unto all always



Paul never did enough to achieve the title of "apostle to the Gentiles." Rather Peter was the one assigned to be the apostle to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) Regarding Paul, all his life since first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome, he never
left the Jews in peace as if Gentiles were to be found in the synagogues of the Jews. (Acts 9:1,2, and 28:17) BTW he was a self-appointed apostle. According to the tradition, the apostles were to be 12; neither 11 nor 13. When Judas got lost, to fill up his vacancy, the other apostles elected Mathias, not Paul. (Acts 1:26) Paul was rather rejected when he applied to join the Sect of the Nazarenes as an apostle. James and the Elders of the Sect in Jerusalem said he couldn't even be a disciple let alone an apostle. (Acts 9:26)
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
~;> between your comments and what is written in the bible
i respectfully choose
the written words of god
instead of your spiritual discerned thoughts

and this are the written facts of
the apostle of the gentiles
as it is written
:read:
by which, when you read, you can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Messiah;
which in other generations was not made known to the children of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of thea promise in Messiah Yeshua through the Good News,

of which I was made a servant, according to the gift of that grace of God which was given me according to the working of his power.
To me, the very least of all saints, was this grace given, to proclaim to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Messiah,

and again
during that time
there were no such people who were not a gentile spoke
unto the gentiles as the apostle of the gentiles did

also
as what we've seen you dont have any idea what the word apostle really means
according to the bible itself
if we may say so


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

We share almost the same opinion. Between the words of Paul in his gospel the NT and the Word of HaShem in the gospel of Jesus aka the Tanach, I prefer the Word of God. BTW, every time Jesus referred to the Word of God, he had the Tanach in mind. The NT he never even dreamed it would ever be written.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I don't see what Paul has to do with this thread. More then likely the Gospels were not written during Paul's life time. If they were written, Paul didn't know about it. He never quotes Jesus except in one very small story about the Last Supper.
I don't think that Paul knew very much about Jesus.
Nor was he interested in John the Baptist.

I see Paul as the Prophet for Christianity, only using Jesus' name enhanced into Lord, Christ, Saviour.
I would like to find out how many of the Christian denominations focus upon just (only) Jesus of Nazareth, Son of man.,
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
1 - Although there are differances between the birth naratives of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke there is a major simaliarity.

2 - Both have the virgin birth story. Is the virgin birth story meant to be taken literal?

3 - The authors of Matthew and Luke used Jewish scripture and possibly other Jewish writtings as a foundation for there Gospels.

4 - But there are no virgin birth stories in any Jewish writtings. Some may argue that Isaiah 7:14 mentions a virgin birth. These same people would argue that Jews do not understand there own scripture, therfore Jews do not see a virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14. Justin Martyr had argrued with a Jew by the name Trypo in the literal interpretation of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14.

5 - The whole premise of this debate acording to Justin Martyr is that Jews do not understand there own scripture and it takes a Christian to explain it to them. My polemic againest the literal interpretation of the virgin birth is that its not Jews that don't understand the virgin birth, its non Jews. The Gospels were written by Jews, for Jews using much of the same symbolism used in Jewish scripture. Therfore to understand the Gospels they must be viewed threw a Jewish lens.

6 - Jesus is not the offspring of God and the virgin Mary. Jesus represents the union between Isreal and God. The Gospels refer to Jesus as the son of God. In the Book of Exodus we find: "Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son." (Exodus 4:22). If Jesus is God's first born son how can Israel be God's first born son? Simple, they are one in the same.

1 - The similarity between Luke and the Hellenist who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew is based on the fact that both of Hellenistic origin.

2 - No, the virgin birth story according to Isaiah 7:14 is not supposed to be literal. The virgin is meant to be Israel according to Amos 5:2 and the child born of the virgin was Judah according to Isaiah 7:14,15,22; 8:8.

3 - They lied because there is nothing in the Jewish Scriptures about the the gospels of Luke and the one attributed to Matthew.

4 - I do understand the Jewish Scriptures and I challenge you to test me.

5 - Not a single Jew wrote a single page of the NT. Jews would not write against their own Faith.

6 - Now, imagine if the writer of the book of Exodus had not mentioned the name Israel! Now, you are replacing Israel with Jesus. That's what I mean by the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology which by definition is translated into vandalism of a Judaism by Christianity.
 
Last edited:

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
I don't see what Paul has to do with this thread. More then likely the Gospels were not written during Paul's life time. If they were written, Paul didn't know about it. He never quotes Jesus except in one very small story about the Last Supper.

Of course, the gospels were not written during Paul's life time but many years later by Hellenists former disciples of Paul.
 

ukok102nak

Active Member
Of course, the gospels were not written during Paul's life time but many years later by Hellenists former disciples of Paul.


~;> that is some mistakes unto the one who brought that news
for they cant even provided a proof regarding unto that accusation

as the apostle of the gentiles
simply wrote this
as it is written
:read:
Galatians 6:2
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the Law of Messiah.
3 For if a man thinks himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
4 But let each man test his own work, and then he will take pride in himself and not in his neighbor.
5 For each man will bear his own burden.
6 But let him who is taught in the word share all good things with him who teaches.
7 Do not be deceived. God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption. But he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9 Let us not be weary in doing good, for we will reap in due season, if we do not give up.
10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do what is good toward all men, and especially toward those who are of the household of the faith.
11 See with what large letters I write to you with my own hand.

also
there are people like titus who corroborates upon his writtings
so as it is written
:read:
Titus 1:10
For there are also many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,
11 whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for dishonest gain's sake.
12 One of them, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, and idle gluttons."


as they say
Hellenist. 1 : a person living in Hellenistic times who was Greek in language, outlook, and way of life but was not Greek in ancestry; especially : a hellenized Jew.
2 : a specialist in the language or culture of ancient Greece.


:ty:




godbless
unto all always
 
Last edited:

roger1440

I do stuff
I don't think that Paul knew very much about Jesus.
Nor was he interested in John the Baptist.
Judging from the Pauline letters Paul didn't know anything about Jesus. Oddly, according to his own words he had met some of the other apostles. You would think he would have asked them for a quote or two from Jesus, but nothing. You bring up an interesting point about John the Baptist. Its possible Paul didn't know anything about him.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Judging from the Pauline letters Paul didn't know anything about Jesus. Oddly, according to his own words he had met some of the other apostles. You would think he would have asked them for a quote or two from Jesus, but nothing. You bring up an interesting point about John the Baptist. Its possible Paul didn't know anything about him.

My pet theory (much pampered! :) ) is that Cephas did object to Paul's actions and opinions but that he just did not have the umphh to control him in any way. I also guess that it was Cephas's memoirs that were used for the Gospel of Mark 'to put the story straight' after Paul's death. It made little difference.

Question:- You are a Christian. Nearly all the Christians that I know or read are 'Pauline Christians' and most of their faith is based upon Paul's and John's writings. I don't think that you are a Pauline-Christian; if you are then that's fine, but if you are not, how is your faith affected by your opinion of Paul?
 
Top