Did Jesus preach the "bad news" or the "good news"?

[Hope]

who do you think gave paul the authority to hunt down the would be christian sect?


is that more like a Saducee or a Pharisee like Gamaliel who shows no harm at all to this early sect.??

I don't quite follow....are you saying Paul decided to hunt down Christians on his own and that other Jews did not persecute Christians??

 

[-Peacemaker-]

This is not about hard feelings, this is about you assuming things about me and making this debate personal.

Address my arguement not me personally OK?

Fair enough. My bad

 

[roberto]

I don't quite follow....are you saying Paul decided to hunt down Christians on his own and that other Jews did not persecute Christians??

Shammai and his ilk perhaps ?

 

[outhouse]

I don't quite follow....are you saying Paul decided to hunt down Christians on his own and that other Jews did not persecute Christians??

first you need to understand there were 4 very differnt groups of judaism


your throwing the term "jews" aound way to loosely


Zeaolts
Pharisees
Saducees
Essenes

and sub-sects

The Saducees were hated by most, but always had been enemies of Zealots and im sure Essenes, the Pharisees didnt like them either.

its doubtful the Essenes or Pharisees persecuted jesus.


the Saducees definatly would as he was in defiance to their corruption in the temple, and after his death, probably hired paul to quiet this jewish sect down.


there were no christians in pauls time, when he persecuted them. Only a jewish sect.

 

[outhouse]

Shammai and his ilk perhaps ?

what basis would you have to even think that

 

[roberto]

what basis would you have to even think that

The Shammaites since the Messianic Days of Yahshua
When the temple of Herod was destroyed in 70 CE, the “voice of the Lord” was heard proclaiming that the “words of Hillel” would become the respected and ascendant teaching of Judaism. The teachings of Hillel would become the Jewish halakhah, the practical way of living a life of Torah. The “spirit” nor the “teachings” of Shammai were not to remain a part of Judaism. The influence of Shammai disappeared. The question we must ask, did remnants of the “spirit” of Shammai remain?

Throughout the ages the anti-Goyim (anti-Gentile) voice of Judaism continued to be heard even to its harshest extent in the words of some of the rabbanim that the gentiles must be killed and destroyed to advance the kingdom of God. It was the Hillel inspired mission of Yahshua HaNotzri (Jesus the Nazarene) that led to the first Jewish attempt to bring the concept of the Universal God of Creation to the entire gentile world. This was done predominately by the “Apostle to the Gentiles” the Pharisee called Shaul. This same Shammaite Pharisee Shaul later became the Apostle Paul, after he converted and became a disciple of Hillel the Great and Menahem the Essene. He became part of the Hebrew Nazarene Ecclesia in Damascus, it is believed that were also Essene disciples of Hillel and Menahem.
http://www.biblesearchers.com/yahshua/beithillel/beitshammai.shtml

 

[outhouse]

your dreaming about paul.

we dont even know how jewish he was


pauls movement was not jesus movement, the two movements were completely different



shamm has nothing to do with jesus movement at all.

 

[roberto]

Act 21:39 But Paul said, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city. I beg you, allow me to speak to the people."

Act 21:40 When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, beckoned with his hand to the people. When there was a great silence, he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, saying........

Act 22:3 "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict tradition of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as you all are this day.

 

[Azazelthedazzle]

I don't think people are so much concerned about what Jesus's message was per se as much as they are concerned about the message of the "messengers". What Jesus taught and what "Christians" are teaching are radically different things, and this seems to be the point of contention I've noticed among most. I've rarely met anyone who truly has a problem with what Jesus said itself outside of Jews and "Christians" themseleves who try their best to figure out ways to negate and defy what Jesus actually taught.

You'll notice that most "Christians" nearly exclusively get their teachings from Paul and rarely if ever quote from Jesus unless it pertains to a particular doctrinal issue.

well put. As John Lennon once said..." Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me"

 

[Me Myself]

Both I think.

 

[Azazelthedazzle]

Jesus preached and cursed. It just depends on how much offends you.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Paul didn't send himself forth. Jesus did. Have you really read Acts?

No, your reasoning makes no sense. Because it's based on a false premise.

A lot, with all due respect. I don't think you've really read Acts, or if you have, you didn't really understand it.

So Pauls scribe Luke wrote Acts and that supports what Paul claimed to happen? Where is the logic in that?

You take the word of Paul over what Jesus said.

Just for a moment consider Paul might have lied and hijacked Christianity.

Why on earth would Jesus return and appear to a complete stranger to conflict with his own teachings and what Matthew, John, and James where saying, what Jesus actually taught?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Fair enough. My bad

So are you going to address anything that is presented?

You ask all these questions and we take the time to answer them and you make no comment on the answers just ask more questions or quit posting.

You question the scholarship of others and then present nothing of your own.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So Pauls scribe Luke wrote Acts and that supports what Paul claimed to happen? Where is the logic in that?

You take the word of Paul over what Jesus said.

Just for a moment consider Paul might have lied and hijacked Christianity.

Why on earth would Jesus return and appear to a complete stranger to conflict with his own teachings and what Matthew, John, and James where saying, what Jesus actually taught?

This suggests that Paul's writings were a response to the Gospels and not the other way around. Aren't some of the Epistles dated to before the Gospels? I think it's entirely plausible that the four Gospels were responses to Paul.

... and whether we take the Gospels as a new heresy to challenge Paul's established truth, or as setting the record straight to correct Paul's errors depends on one's point of view, I guess.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This suggests that Paul's writings were a response to the Gospels and not the other way around. Aren't some of the Epistles dated to before the Gospels? I think it's entirely plausible that the four Gospels were responses to Paul.

... and whether we take the Gospels as a new heresy to challenge Paul's established truth, or as setting the record straight to correct Paul's errors depends on one's point of view, I guess.

Some of the gospels where written in the first century. Where not most of Lukes writings done after that?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Think about it, why teach your apostles one thing and then appear to a complete stranger and send a different message?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

So are you going to address anything that is presented?

You ask all these questions and we take the time to answer them and you make no comment on the answers just ask more questions or quit posting.

You question the scholarship of others and then present nothing of your own.

My understanding of current scholarship is that the gospel of John is arguably the book with the most unanswered questions regarding authorship. To my knowledge, scholars are pretty confident that Matthew the tax collector/disciple, Peter's scribe Mark, and Paul's doctor Luke were the writers of the other Gospels.That means we have a direct eyewitness of Jesus' life in Matt, an indirect witness in Mark, and Luke who claimed to have based his writing off eyewitness accounts

Luke 1:1-4
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Furthermore, I fail to see the connection between John being the most "beloved" disciple and his Gospel's accuracy relative to the other three. Are you implying that his status as Jesus' "favorite" meant that he had more incentive to write accurately or that he would've been privy to more aspects of Jesus' life?

 

[outhouse]

Think about it, why teach your apostles one thing and then appear to a complete stranger and send a different message?

and I agree whole hearted.

I do have biases towards paul, but its still what it is.


So much information was lost, in the wars and when they burned non roman scruptire, were left guessing

 

[outhouse]

This suggests that Paul's writings were a response to the Gospels and not the other way around. Aren't some of the Epistles dated to before the Gospels? I think it's entirely plausible that the four Gospels were responses to Paul.

... and whether we take the Gospels as a new heresy to challenge Paul's established truth, or as setting the record straight to correct Paul's errors depends on one's point of view, I guess.

some of the same oral tradition that the gospel authors used had to be in place when paul was writing, its how paul learned of the movement he was hunting down.

but paul speaks of mythical jesus and theology, the gospels are in a different light in a 3rd or 4th gen sort of movement long away from the original jewish movement.

So far there is no real direct tie to paul and the gospels.

 

[Reverend Rick]

My understanding of current scholarship is that the gospel of John is arguably the book with the most unanswered questions regarding authorship. To my knowledge, scholars are pretty confident that Matthew the tax collector/disciple, Peter's scribe Mark, and Paul's doctor Luke were the writers of the other Gospels.That means we have a direct eyewitness of Jesus' life in Matt, an indirect witness in Mark, and Luke who claimed to have based his writing off eyewitness accounts

Thank you, now we are getting somewhere.

Luke 1:1-4
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Furthermore, I fail to see the connection between John

being the most "beloved" disciple and his Gospel's accuracy relative to the other three. Are you implying that his status
as Jesus' "favorite" meant that he had more incentive to write accurately or that he would've been privy to more aspects of Jesus' life?

John did receive Revelations.

Matthew is the original gospel however, I have no disputes with it whT so ever.