The Pauline Paradox

[Ben Avraham]

He was much more than a Christian. He is the source of Christianity.

Wow, you are really gifted. First you can look into the hearts of men and tell if they are a Chrisians and now you can look into the heart of Jesus and tell us what he never dreamed. Remarkable.

I read the O.T. more than I do the NT. Again you show you lack understanding of the passage you quoted,. Of course we should listen to Moses, but he never preached the gospel. He told us about God's law and the law does not save anyone, it tells us what sin is so we can try to avoid sinning.

Now go read how Abram became righteous and make that the standard of the gospel.

As I can see, now, you are implying that Jesus was a liar when you say that he told you about the Law and that obedience of the Law never saves anyone. Read again Luke 16:29-31, it was to escape hell-fire that Jesus warned us to listen to "Moses" aka the Law. Are you trying to say that he did not know that obedience of the Law did not save any one? That's amazing! Let's test the evidence. Between living by the Law according to Jesus himself in Mat. 5:17-19 and released from the Law according to Paul in Romans 7:6, who will be saved from a murdering transgression of the Law, the one who lives by the Law or the one who has been released of the Law? Think it through!

 

[omega2xx]

Do you mean to imply that the Popes had nothing to do with the Inquisition? Read about the history of the Inquisition. They were the sole organizers of their murderous atrocities to force Jews to become Christians. The Jews who fought back their attempts would end up in the public squares of the Inquisition to be burn to death for all to watch.

I have not questioned the popes were responsible. I question if they were Christians and unless you can look into their heart, you don't know.

The Bible gives us some clues:

--By their fruits you shall know them.
--a good tree can't produce bad fruit.
--Many will say in that day, Lord, Lord,...I will declare to them "I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness,
--They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.

Keep in mind at that time, the RCC had become corrupt.

 

[omega2xx]

As I can see, now, you are implying that Jesus was a liar when you say that he told you about the Law and that obedience of the Law never saves anyone. Read again Luke 16:29-31, it was to escape hell-fire that Jesus warned us to listen to "Moses" aka the Law. Are you trying to say that he did not know that obedience of the Law did not save any one? That's amazing! Let's test the evidence. Between living by the Law according to Jesus himself in Mat. 5:17-19 and released from the Law according to Paul in Romans 7:6, who will be saved from a murdering transgression of the Law, the one who lives by the Law or the one who has been released of the Law? Think it through!

What I know is that I don't know what Moses knew and neither do you. Another think I know is that Moses spoke of more than the 10 commandments. I also know he only mentions salvation twice, and it is not in connection with the 10 commandments.

If they believed God enough to cross the Red Sea when God parted it, they would see the salvation of the Lord and that was before God gave Moses the law. When they were safe on the other side, they sang the song of Moses which includes the verse that says "the Lord has become my salvation."

This truth is also seen in how Abram became righteous---he believed what God said, and that was also before the law was given to Moses.

Now if you want to quote Paul, that is a good idea but lets not limit it to one verse. One that you do not understand.

Gal 3:21 - Is the law then contrary to the promises of God" May it never be! For IF a law had been given that could impart life, THEN righteousness would indeed have been based on law. Gal 2:16 says the same thing 3 times.

Gal 3:24 - Therefore the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. The law shows us that we are sinners. It also shows us that the sacrifice had to b without spot or blemish and that we can't qualify, we need a substitute that can.

...if righteousness come through the law, tehn Christ died needlessly and we have nullified teh grace of God.---Gal 2:21.

Now lets look at Rom 7:6. We haved not been released from the moral law. The 10 commandment and other moral law are still in effect, and as that verse says we serve in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the law. WE have been released from the law as the means of salvation.

There is nothing good in me(Rom 7:18) because I don't do what I want to, but do the very things I hate because (Rom 7:15). If I can't keep the law, how can it save me? It can't.

Our only solution is what I am willing to do. The willing is present, but the doing is not(Rom7:18). I am willing to do good, but I am unable. However if we JOYFULLY concur with the law of God in the inner man, where the heart is, that is all that is necessary, because that is where God looks for our compliance. I serve the law of God with my mind, also an inner part(Rom 7:25).

 

[Ben Avraham]

What I know is that I don't know what Moses knew and neither do you. Another think I know is that Moses spoke of more than the 10 commandments. I also know he only mentions salvation twice, and it is not in connection with the 10 commandments.

Well, I think I have a pretty better hint to know about what Moses said than you. Since, like Jesus, I listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

If they believed God enough to cross the Red Sea when God parted it, they would see the salvation of the Lord and that was before God gave Moses the law. When they were safe on the other side, they sang the song of Moses which includes the verse that says "the Lord has become my salvation." This truth is also seen in how Abram became righteous---he believed what God said, and that was also before the law was given to Moses.

How did Abram believe what God had said? By obeying God's commands. There is no righteousness in faith without obedience to God's commands. James said that faith without the works of the Law is akin to a body without the breath of life. In another word, dead. (James 2:26)

Gal 3:21 - Is the law then contrary to the promises of God" May it never be! For IF a law had been given that could impart life, THEN righteousness would indeed have been based on law. Gal 2:16 says the same thing 3 times.

Indeed, righteousness is based on the obedience of the Law. HaShem did not select a People from among the nations of the world to deal with robots. The will of HaShem is that His People obey His Law and not expect that someone else do that for them.

Gal 3:24 - Therefore the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. The law shows us that we are sinners. It also shows us that the sacrifice had to b without spot or blemish and that we can't qualify, we need a substitute that can.

Sacrifices had nothing to do with building righteousness. They were still being offered when Prophet Isaiah said that, "To set things rights with HaShem so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow, we must repent and return to the obedience of God's Law." (Isaiah 1:18,19)

...if righteousness come through the law, tehn Christ died needlessly and we have nullified teh grace of God.---Gal 2:21.

The grace of HaShem was to give us His Law so that we could live in society. Jesus did not die for any one else but on a charge of insurrection. Hence his verdict on the top of his cross: INRI for all to see the truth.

Now lets look at Rom 7:6. We haved not been released from the moral law. The 10 commandment and other moral law are still in effect, and as that verse says we serve in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the law. WE have been released from the law as the means of salvation.

Too bad that you don't read the context. Paul meant the moral Law aka the Decalogue if you read Romans 7:7. Where is it written "Thou shall not covet" if not in the Decalogue? That's what Paul meant and you can't see the trouble you are at by putting so much faith in him.

There is nothing good in me(Rom 7:18) because I don't do what I want to, but do the very things I hate because (Rom 7:15). If I can't keep the law, how can it save me? It can't.

Paul couldn't keep the Law because he was addicted to a sinful condition which he could not get rid of. That's why he had to serve sin in his flesh. (Romans 7:25)

Our only solution is what I am willing to do. The willing is present, but the doing is not(Rom7:18). I am willing to do good, but I am unable. However if we JOYFULLY concur with the law of God in the inner man, where the heart is, that is all that is necessary, because that is where God looks for our compliance. I serve the law of God with my mind, also an inner part(Rom 7:25).

That's when James comes in with his little gospel about faith versus Law. For Paul to concur with the Law of God while serving sin in his flesh was as useless as a body without the breath of life: DEAD, if you know what James meant. (James 2:26)

 

[Ben Avraham]

I have not questioned the popes were responsible. I question if they were Christians and unless you can look into their heart, you don't know.

The Bible gives us some clues: --By their fruits you shall know them. --a good tree can't produce bad fruit.
--Many will say in that day, Lord, Lord,...I will declare to them "I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness, --They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.

Keep in mind at that time, the RCC had become corrupt.

Not only the RCC but also the Protestants at the time who added a special prayer into their liturgy for the success of the Third Reich. For the success of the Third Reich! What was he doing that he needed the signature of Pope Pius XI and the prayers of the Protestants as a compromise not to interfere with? The Final Solution of the Jews in Europe. I wonder what words they would use in their prayers asking God to grant success to the Third Reich in their extermination of God's own People. And this after their claim that the Jewish man Jesus had died for their salvation. God have mercy on us all!

 

[fallingblood]

Once again. "There were no Jewish-Christians or Christian-Jews." The Jews who followed Jesus were not Christians because Christianity did not exist during Jesus' lifetime. Jesus never even dreamed that Christianity would ever rise. He never saw Paul or a single Christian in his short life. The Jews who followed Jesus were either members of the Sect of the Nazarenes or associated to it as some of the Pharisees. (Acts 15:5-7)

To use a Jew as Jesus was and turn him into a Greek demigod in order to promote a Hellenistic religion, that's an anti-Jewish gospel with the intent on Replacement Theology. Read Mat. 1:18. A demigod was a Greek concept of the son of a god with an earthly woman. In the case of Jesus, God with Mary.

Jesus did speak to Jews all his life but never with a single Christian as they did not exist at his time. Besides, Jesus never spoke to Paul.

It seems that the confusion here is one based on a misunderstanding of a term. We both agree that Christianity didn't exist during the lifetime of Jesus. Christianity is something that evolved later on. We don't disagree there.

The term Christian arose in Antioch, at some point before the book of Acts was written. It literally meant Christ follower. A follower of Christ, or a follower of Jesus. When I use the term Jewish-Christian, which is an accepted term in the scholarship, I'm referring to Jews who followed the message of Jesus. Jews who saw Jesus as the Messiah.

Throughout history, different groups of Jews have acknowledged various messiahs. Jesus just happened to be one of them. Generally, when the so-called messiah dies, people realize that that wasn't the messiah, they were wrong, and the movement dies out. For whatever reason, that didn't happen when Jesus died. Some of those who saw him as the messiah continued to do so after his death, and continued to follow his teachings. They were Jews who followed Jesus as the Messiah, as Christ.

The first followers of Jesus were labeled Christians, probably by Roman authorities, in order to differentiate them from other groups of Jews. In essence, Christianity just became another sect within Judaism. It was just a sect that saw Jesus as the Messiah, which fit within Judaism at that time.

It wasn't until after the Jewish revolt, and the destruction of the Temple, that a split really happened. On one side, there was the Pharisees, who became Rabbinical Judaism. On the other side, there were the Jews who saw Jesus as the messiah. Eventually, the movement itself became more Gentiles than Jews. However, we do have evidence that until at least the fourth century, there were groups of Jews, what are referred to as Jewish-Christians, who continued to see Jesus as the Messiah.

So yes, there were Jewish-Christians, as in Jews who considered Jesus to be the Messiah.

You keep speaking of the sect of the Nazarenes; however, what you fail to mention is that Acts tells us that Paul was the leader of that sect. In fact, that is basically the only thing we are told about the Nazarenes. Why don't you address that? Because as it stands, everything else you say about the Nazarenes is simply made up, or unfounded. Acts only mentions the term Nazarenes once, and in doing so, says that Paul was a leader of that sect.

As for the talk about Jesus being a demigod, not according to Christian teaching. First, Paul never states that Jesus was born of a virgin and of G-d. So he wasn't spreading that message.

In Christian thought, Jesus was considered G-d. So not a demigod.

With Matthew, and Luke for that matter, the stories weren't meant to be taken literally. That's why everything in the birth narratives never are mentioned elsewhere. They seem to exist in bubbles. Looking at ancient traditions, including Hebrew tradition, birth narratives were generally crafted after the person became important, as the idea was that if one was important as an adult, their birth would have also been of importance. Because of that, births were wrapped in mythology that more contained theology than what was meant to be taken as fact.

We can look at the birth narrative in Matthew, and see that it largely resembles the birth of Moses. Why? Because the author of Matthew was arguing that Jesus was the new Moses. But seeing Jesus as more important, his birth had to be more spectacular. Thus, a virgin birth was created. It wasn't meant to be taken literally though, and by far, it wouldn't be until much later that Jesus was thought to be the literal son of G-d.

Context is everything here.

 

[fallingblood]

Do you mean to imply that the Popes had nothing to do with the Inquisition? Read about the history of the Inquisition. They were the sole organizers of their murderous atrocities to force Jews to become Christians. The Jews who fought back their attempts would end up in the public squares of the Inquisition to be burn to death for all to watch.

That was only one part of the Inquisition, and one that was late, and really wasn't all that much supported by the Popes. The Inquisition began as an in house ordeal. It looked at Catholics, and only Catholics.

Later on, much later on, it was expanded, but largely, it was expanded against what the Pope and central Catholic Church wanted. Much of it was taken up by local leaders.

As for being burnt to death, very seldom. In all, few people died from the Inquisition. Exact numbers are hard to find, but maybe 1% of those tried were murdered.

Also, at least in the beginning, the Pope, nor the Catholic authorities killed anyone. In fact, if someone was found of heresy, they were turned over to the local authorities to be dealt with. The Inquisition was just church trials, they didn't enforce punishments. Now, granted, Catholic authorities generally were aware of how the local authorities would punish those found guilty.

So it is more complicated.

 

[Ben Avraham]

That was only one part of the Inquisition, and one that was late, and really wasn't all that much supported by the Popes. The Inquisition began as an in house ordeal. It looked at Catholics, and only Catholics.

Later on, much later on, it was expanded, but largely, it was expanded against what the Pope and central Catholic Church wanted. Much of it was taken up by local leaders.

As for being burnt to death, very seldom. In all, few people died from the Inquisition. Exact numbers are hard to find, but maybe 1% of those tried were murdered.

Also, at least in the beginning, the Pope, nor the Catholic authorities killed anyone. In fact, if someone was found of heresy, they were turned over to the local authorities to be dealt with. The Inquisition was just church trials, they didn't enforce punishments. Now, granted, Catholic authorities generally were aware of how the local authorities would punish those found guilty.

So it is more complicated.

If you are not a Catholic, you haven't read much about the Inquisition because you are speaking too defensive of the Church.

 

[fallingblood]

If you are not a Catholic, you haven't read much about the Inquisition because you are speaking too defensive of the Church.

I'm not speaking defensive of the church. The Inquisition is horrible either way one looks at it. What I'm concerned with is historical accuracy. I'm not Catholic, I simply have a background in history, specifically religious history, as that was a massive part of my course work in college.

That, and I love researching history. So please don't try to discredit me based on your ignorance of how I am, but instead address the material.

 

[metis]

What I'm concerned with is historical accuracy. I'm not Catholic, I simply have a background in history, specifically religious history, as that was a massive part of my course work in college.
.

No wonder I enjoy reading your posts as I have gone through a very similar process, ending up with the same overall conclusion.

Speaking of which, which books on early church history impressed you? My hands-down favorite is "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican), but I've read many others in that specialization.

 

[omega2xx]

Thinking you know something does not mean you do..

What do you know about Moses you think I don't know?

 

[fallingblood]

No wonder I enjoy reading your posts as I have gone through a very similar process, ending up with the same overall conclusion.

Speaking of which, which books on early church history impressed you? My hands-down favorite is "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican), but I've read many others in that specialization.

Good question. My main focus has largely been early church history, so Michael White's book, From Jesus to Christianity was amazing. It was also one of the first that I read. I also liked Christianity, the First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloh, mainly because it condensed the entire history into one book, where I could then follow up on more specific time periods.

 

[omega2xx]

Not only the RCC but also the Protestants at the time who added a special prayer into their liturgy for the success of the Third Reich.

Pass the mustard, it might make that bologna tastt better.

For the success of the Third Reich! What was he doing that he needed the signature of Pope Pius XI and the prayers of the Protestants as a compromise not to interfere with? The Final Solution of the Jews in Europe. I wonder what words they would use in their prayers asking God to grant success to the Third Reich in their extermination of God's own People.

Once upon a time.....and they lived happily ever after

And this after their claim that the Jewish man Jesus had died for their salvation. God have mercy on us all!

If that Jewish man did not die for our sins, God would not have mercy on any of us.

 

[metis]

Good question. My main focus has largely been early church history, so Michael White's book, From Jesus to Christianity was amazing. It was also one of the first that I read. I also liked Christianity, the First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloh, mainly because it condensed the entire history into one book, where I could then follow up on more specific time periods.

I read "From Jesus To Christianity" and thought it was good but I haven't read the MacCulloh book.

What prompted my interest in early church history was two things: 1.how and why did Christianity morph from Judaism, and 2.which general approach to Christianity was more the original paradigm, the Catholic/Orthodox approach or the Protestant approach. What motivated you?

 

[metis]

Not only the RCC but also the Protestants at the time who added a special prayer into their liturgy for the success of the Third Reich. For the success of the Third Reich!

Where did you read that? I studied the Holocaust in Poland and Israel in 1991, being sponsored by the Holocaust Memorial Center, and I've never run across such prayers. Generally speaking, the Vatican almost never mentioned the Third Reich and Germany by name, which drew much criticism because many during WWII and afterward thought they should have.

So, could you link me to your source?

 

[fallingblood]

I read "From Jesus To Christianity" and thought it was good but I haven't read the MacCulloh book.

What prompted my interest in early church history was two things: 1.how and why did Christianity morph from Judaism, and 2.which general approach to Christianity was more the original paradigm, the Catholic/Orthodox approach or the Protestant approach. What motivated you?

I was ordained in an evangelical church when I was 18, after 8 years of study. I was also kicked out of that church later because I started having questions, because I got really invested in the studies I undertook from a young age, and started looking at other religions. I think at the heart of it, I just love learning, and religion is what I was thrown into at a very young age, and I stuck with it. And when I do start researching something, I tend to want to know all that I can, so I always delve into the history just to see how the current ideas were formed.

 

[metis]

I was ordained in an evangelical church when I was 18, after 8 years of study. I was also kicked out of that church later because I started having questions, because I got really invested in the studies I undertook from a young age, and started looking at other religions. I think at the heart of it, I just love learning, and religion is what I was thrown into at a very young age, and I stuck with it. And when I do start researching something, I tend to want to know all that I can, so I always delve into the history just to see how the current ideas were formed.

Sounds like we're kindred spirits as I left my fundamentalist Protestant church when I was 22, primarily because of their anti-evolution position and also the rampant racism that even was in the church board itself. However, my stronger theological interest didn't get sparked until I was 30 (I'm 71 years young , btw).

We'll have to talk some more as I have to leave very shortly. Take care.