• 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!

The Pauline Paradox

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
Ben,

1st - You say above that the Messiah is supposed to come from the Tribe of Judah (which would imply an individual). I think other places you say the Messiah is plural and is Israel. How could the Messiah come from the Tribe of Judah, and yet be Israel?

2nd - Is it not possible for Mary's father to have been from the Tribe of Judah, and his sister(Tribe of Judah also) to have married a Levite? Then Mary(Tribe of Judah) would have been related to Elizabeth (Tribe of Levi). (It seems to me you are just making an assumption that Mary was from the tribe of Levi.)

3rd - I asked you twice in another post to explain who the son in Isaiah 9:6 was, and how he is also the everlasting Father.

4th - When the promise was made to David that of his seed, one would sit on his throne and the kingdom would be established forever, who was this talking about? (2 Samiel 7:12-13) If you believe it was speaking of Solomon, please explain who is on the throne now.

1st - The Messiahship is supposed to come from the Tribe of Judah; and this was foretold by Jacob in Genesis 46:10. It was called the Scepter of Judah. Then, if you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel the Son of God. (Exodus 4:22,23) The Messiah cannot be an individual because, the individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not! The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37)

2n - It would not help in the case of Jesus even if Mary was from the lineage of David. Tribal inheritance goes down generations only through the father. So, the only solution for Jesus to be from the Tribe of Judah is to have been a biological son of Joseph who was the one from the Tribe of Judah. Even adoption would not break that tradition.

3rd - The prophecy of Isaiah in 9:6 was about the homage paid by the pagans of Galilee to the Jews returning from exile in Babylon after the 70 years of captivity. Those pagans had formed the district of the Gentiles in Galilee whom the king of Assyria had used to replace the Ten Tribes taken to Assyria for good. So, "Everlasting Father" of Isaiah 9:5 was not attributed to the Jews by Isaiah but by the Pagans in their way to welcome the Jews.

4th - Regarding the promise made to David, it would be immediately Solomon and, the generations afterwards was that someone from the Tribe of Judah would always sit on the throne in Jerusalem. (I Kings 11:36)
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
Is John 8:58 a fabrication?

If you don't mind, I would appreciate if you mentioned the text because I don't have a volume of the NT here with me. But probably yes because the gospel was written by a Hellenist former disciple of Paul and attributed to John for apostolic credibility. John was illiterate according to Luke in Acts 4:13 and illiterate people cannot write books.
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
Just click on the verse, and it takes it to one of the NT versions, on the site. There are a couple other versions to choose from, once you are at the verse.

Thanks! I got it. As I presumed, "Before Abraham was, I am" is indeed a Hellenist fabrication. Jesus was a Jew and this claim is akin to idolatry. (Deut. 4:15-20) Whoever set Jesus in that situation, got him in trouble with the Jews who had believed in him (John 8:31 and 8:41)
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
One of the reasons why I am asking you that, is because, if one basically presumes that all or most of the NT is fiction anyways, then speculation as to who /in this instance Paul, started this fabrication, becomes sort of moot, and pointless.
At some point, simply stating that one thinks the entire NT to be false, is a more apt argument, and less jumbled with arbitrary arguments

Not really fiction but, so terribly written as to contradict itself almost from a gospel to another.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
As I can see, you did not understand my previous post. When I mention the Tanach aka the Jewish Scriptures as being the gospel of Jesus, it is because Jesus was a Jew and his gospel was the Jewish Scriptures. The NT he never even dreamed it would ever rise.
But from which source(s) do you then get your information about Jesus?
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Metis got a point there. I mean, maybe you feel its convenient to claim the NT is illegitimate, but from what sources are you describing Jesus without the NT?

I reiterate my post #15 since we're on page 10. Paul plainly states Christians, living people standing on Earth reading his letter, are *present tense* 'Seated in heavenly places' and that they have been raised from the dead *past tense*, that they were previously dead *past tense* in their sins, that by living in Jesus death their own lives became part of Christ. This is how he envisions Christianity. "Eternal life" to Paul means investing your life in doing good works in the name of Jesus Christ. Bottom line Paul doesn't give a fart about literally interpreting the gospels.

This is what he wants people everywhere in the known world to do: work for the betterment of each other in the name of Jesus Christ. That people standing on Earth clearly aren't flying in the sky doesn't dissuade me from accepting his sincerity. He likes figurative speech! Therefore to Paul the resurrection is not about personalities and walking on golden streets with physical feet. Who cares what streets are paved with? Gold is cold and hurts your knees. Paul wants a different kind of gold and a different kind of resurrection, not a resurrection "Unto corruption" as the phony ministers always claim as they collect your money which they title "God's tithe." If you leave the faith and refuse to work, then you are denying the resurrection. Believing in the Resurrection has nothing to do with believing in an afterlife. It contradicts the Tanach in no way.

There are many outsiders however, who are the slaves of the goombas, the pimp preachers. They have no foundation upon which to understand anything. They don't want to know anything except that they are going to have pleasures for eternity. Their NT is not Paul's NT.

Note I am getting this information from the NT, not from daydreams. This is why the NT remains important, because otherwise we would have zero clue about past Christians. Paul uses figurative speech about the resurrection, ergo the resurrection while very important is figurative. Ergo the NT does not contradict the Tanach. It shouldn't be left by itself in hotel rooms with bits painted in red ink. It should be considered and referred to when debunking what passes for faith these days.
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Can you provide us with a quote of when he decided to go to the Gentiles? What I have is that all his life as a missionary, he never left the Jews in peace; and this from his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome.
(Acts 9:1,2; 28:17) And you say above that Jesus would talk ONLY to the Jews. Do you happen to know why? Because... no, I don't know why. Probably, if you read Mat. 10:5,6 he did not like Gentiles, especially if they were Samaritans. Every time Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he would warn them not to go the way of the Gentiles, specially Samaritans. I never understood why, especially because he himself, in his Sermon of the Mount, said that the Jews were the light of the world. (Mat. 5:14)
Galatians 2:8. Paul states that Peter is the apostle to the Jews, and that he, Paul, is the apostle to the Gentiles.

More so, if we look at his actual letters, they are written to Greeks, to Gentiles. He's talking to Gentile Churches. Only in Romans, a church he hasn't gone to, a church he didn't set up, a church he was seeking to visit and use as a launching pad elsewhere, does he address Jews. And even then, its not to convert them, but to convince the church as a whole that he is worthy of their help.

Also, Paul didn't write Acts. Acts often disagrees with Pauline letters, and generally, scholars agree that if Paul didn't write about it, Acts can't be trusted.

1st - The Messiahship is supposed to come from the Tribe of Judah; and this was foretold by Jacob in Genesis 46:10. It was called the Scepter of Judah. Then, if you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel the Son of God. (Exodus 4:22,23) The Messiah cannot be an individual because, the individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not! The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37)
If you look at the first century, and the ideas about the Messiah, one realizes that there was no hard and fast idea of who the Messiah should be.

One can cherry pick from the Old Testament with verses that supposedly say something about the Messiah, when often they don't. That's why there has been a debate about the Messiah for thousands of years.
2n - It would not help in the case of Jesus even if Mary was from the lineage of David. Tribal inheritance goes down generations only through the father. So, the only solution for Jesus to be from the Tribe of Judah is to have been a biological son of Joseph who was the one from the Tribe of Judah. Even adoption would not break that tradition.
Who says Joseph was even from the Tribe of Judah? And really, if Jesus was truly the Son of G-d, that lineage means nothing, because G-d could just change the terms.

More so, it is no problem for Jesus to be born from a man. Not a problem for Paul at least.

3rd - The prophecy of Isaiah in 9:6 was about the homage paid by the pagans of Galilee to the Jews returning from exile in Babylon after the 70 years of captivity. Those pagans had formed the district of the Gentiles in Galilee whom the king of Assyria had used to replace the Ten Tribes taken to Assyria for good. So, "Everlasting Father" of Isaiah 9:5 was not attributed to the Jews by Isaiah but by the Pagans in their way to welcome the Jews.
Isaiah 9:6 has nothing to do with Jesus. It had to do with a new king that was born then. It was never interpreted to be about Jesus until hundreds of years later.
4th - Regarding the promise made to David, it would be immediately Solomon and, the generations afterwards was that someone from the Tribe of Judah would always sit on the throne in Jerusalem. (I Kings 11:36)
But they didn't. So the promise didn't really live out. Or at least not how you tell it. It doesn't say that David will also have someone sitting on the throne. It says that his line won't die out, that there will always be a lamp at the table.

Metis got a point there. I mean, maybe you feel its convenient to claim the NT is illegitimate, but from what sources are you describing Jesus without the NT?
One could do Josephus.

I reiterate my post #15 since we're on page 10. Paul plainly states Christians, living people standing on Earth reading his letter, are *present tense* 'Seated in heavenly places' and that they have been raised from the dead *past tense*, that they were previously dead *past tense* in their sins, that by living in Jesus death their own lives became part of Christ. This is how he envisions Christianity. "Eternal life" to Paul means investing your life in doing good works in the name of Jesus Christ. Bottom line Paul doesn't give a fart about literally interpreting the gospels.
Where does he say this? In his letters to the Corinthians, he argues against a present day resurrection of the masses.
This is what he wants people everywhere in the known world to do: work for the betterment of each other in the name of Jesus Christ. That people standing on Earth clearly aren't flying in the sky doesn't dissuade me from accepting his sincerity. He likes figurative speech! He's just trying to communicate some heavy stuff using beautiful language. Therefore to Paul the resurrection is not about personalities and walking on golden streets with physical feet. Who cares what streets are paved with? Gold is cold and hurts your knees. Paul wants a different kind of gold and a different kind of resurrection, not a resurrection "Unto corruption" as the phony ministers always claim as they collect your money which they title "God's tithe." If you leave the faith and refuse to work, then you are denying the resurrection. This has nothing to do with believing in an afterlife.
Paul believed in a general resurrection. That one day, soon, all would be justified. That is why he was so adamant about bringing gentiles into the mix. Paul was working within a first century Jewish understanding, which incorporated an idea of a general resurrection, in which Jesus was just the first fruits.

Note I am getting this information from the NT, not from daydreams. This is why the NT remains important, because otherwise we would have zero clue about past Christians. Paul uses figurative speech about the resurrection, ergo the resurrection while very important is figurative. Ergo the NT does not contradict the Tanach. It shouldn't be left by itself in hotel rooms with bits painted in red ink. It should be considered and referred to when debunking what passes for faith these days.
For it to be used effectively though, one must not cherry pick ideas. One must also realize that yes, it does contradict Hebrew writings as well as itself.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
1st - The Messiahship is supposed to come from the Tribe of Judah; and this was foretold by Jacob in Genesis 46:10. It was called the Scepter of Judah. Then, if you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel the Son of God. (Exodus 4:22,23) The Messiah cannot be an individual because, the individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not! The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37)

2n - It would not help in the case of Jesus even if Mary was from the lineage of David. Tribal inheritance goes down generations only through the father. So, the only solution for Jesus to be from the Tribe of Judah is to have been a biological son of Joseph who was the one from the Tribe of Judah. Even adoption would not break that tradition.

3rd - The prophecy of Isaiah in 9:6 was about the homage paid by the pagans of Galilee to the Jews returning from exile in Babylon after the 70 years of captivity. Those pagans had formed the district of the Gentiles in Galilee whom the king of Assyria had used to replace the Ten Tribes taken to Assyria for good. So, "Everlasting Father" of Isaiah 9:5 was not attributed to the Jews by Isaiah but by the Pagans in their way to welcome the Jews.

4th - Regarding the promise made to David, it would be immediately Solomon and, the generations afterwards was that someone from the Tribe of Judah would always sit on the throne in Jerusalem. (I Kings 11:36)



These seem like really poor canned responses to my questions. Are these truly Jewish beliefs?

1st you still did not answer - How can the Messiah come from the Tribe of Judah and yet be all the people of Israel as you say? How would your answer make the Messiah come from the Tribe of Judah?

2nd - So you acknowledge it is possible Mary could be from the lineage of David? Yes or No?

3rd - So am I supposed to believe your answer is, that the pagans called the Jews the everlasting Father?

4th - As I asked before, then who is on the throne now?
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Where does he say this? In his letters to the Corinthians, he argues against a present day resurrection of the masses.
Ephesians 2:1-5 "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[fn] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8"

Here's Paul talking about the resurrection *past tense* and stating we were dead in our sins and we were *past tense* resurrected. He says God seated us *past tense* with Christ in heavenly realms. All of this he speaks to mortals who are standing on the ground and who literally are not dead. In addition there's a very important parable in the gospels about Lazarus, in which Jesus points out that even if someone is resurrected it won't change any minds about obeying God. It literally accomplishes nothing for a person to rise from their grave, but what does matter is obedience. That is a matter of substance to Jesus, to the prophets and to Paul. The prophets discuss resurrection as a process of repentence. Consider the bones in Zechariah which become coverred with flesh, and this is the repentence of Israel in parable form. The hope of Israel is resurrected from death, and the two things are the same to the prophets.

Paul believed in a general resurrection. That one day, soon, all would be justified. That is why he was so adamant about bringing gentiles into the mix. Paul was working within a first century Jewish understanding, which incorporated an idea of a general resurrection, in which Jesus was just the first fruits.
The hope that gentiles will receive an inheritance of righteousness is richly woven into the prophets. Its not new or invented by Jesus and Christians. Consider the gospels which are transmitted along with Paul's letters which also refer heavily to this deep ache the prophets have for the world to become moral. Paul's towing the line there, nodding his head. He's not suddenly more fervent or well meaning than everyone else; but he is changing the game of how its to be accomplished. While other Jews are waiting for people to start adopting good living, Paul is opening up Judaism to everyone. He is taking students under his wing with no circumcision and many exceptions to the usual rules.

For it to be used effectively though, one must not cherry pick ideas. One must also realize that yes, it does contradict Hebrew writings as well as itself.
You could just say that you disagree. The context is provided by the gospels, by James, by various prophetic and apocalyptic writings in the canon, by the book Revelation with its talk of streets of gold, by Jesus saying he is the life, by 1 John saying that the life is in God's Son. All of this thick usage about repentence equalling resurrection resonates with the prophets on the subject. When a personal resurrection occurs, what is its value? Its not a denial of self but an embrace of self. In what way could it ever be considered a 'Sacrifice', but the NT writers say that we are sacrifices.
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
Galatians 2:8. Paul states that Peter is the apostle to the Jews, and that he, Paul, is the apostle to the Gentiles.

And Peter said that he, Peter, had been assigned to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) Paul happened to be present when Peter said that and kept his mouth shut. Why? Because he was a self-claimed apostle who never proved his claim by going to the Gentiles.

More so, if we look at his actual letters, they are written to Greeks, to Gentiles. He's talking to Gentile Churches. Only in Romans, a church he hasn't gone to, a church he didn't set up, a church he was seeking to visit and use as a launching pad elsewhere, does he address Jews. And even then, its not to convert them, but to convince the church as a whole that he is worthy of their help.

Paul never set up a church with Gentiles from scratch. He acted like the cuckoo birds that would overturn the nests of other smaller birds and to lay their eggs into their nests; thus Paul used to do; he overturned the synagogues of the Nazarenes and turned them into Christian churches.

Also, Paul didn't write Acts. Acts often disagrees with Pauline letters, and generally, scholars agree that if Paul didn't write about it, Acts can't be trusted.

I know. The book of Acts was written by Luke a daily companion of Paul's, as well as his medical Doctor. Now, I am not aware that the book of Acts "often" disagreed with Pauline letters. It even reports about Paul to have preached about Jesus as son of God. (Acts 9:20)

If you look at the first century, and the ideas about the Messiah, one realizes that there was no hard and fast idea of who the Messiah should be.

I am glad to read this from you because it strengthens my view that Paul was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. (II Timothy 2:8)

One can cherry pick from the Old Testament with verses that supposedly say something about the Messiah, when often they don't. That's why there has been a debate about the Messiah for thousands of years.
Who says Joseph was even from the Tribe of Judah? And really, if Jesus was truly the Son of G-d, that lineage means nothing, because G-d could just change the terms.

If you read the reports about the genealogy of Jesus according to Matthew and Luke, Joseph is reported as being from the Tribe of Judah.

More so, it is no problem for Jesus to be born from a man. Not a problem for Paul at least.

But the same gospel that reports about Joseph being from the Tribe of Judah, says that he was born of God with Mary. (Mat. 1:18) That's the reason for the paradox according to this thread.

Isaiah 9:6 has nothing to do with Jesus. It had to do with a new king that was born then. It was never interpreted to be about Jesus until hundreds of years later. But they didn't. So the promise didn't really live out. Or at least not how you tell it. It doesn't say that David will also have someone sitting on the throne. It says that his line won't die out, that there will always be a lamp at the table.

Isaiah 9:6 has every thing to do with the welcome the Assyrian pagans of the Galilee rendered to the Jews returning from exile in Babylon.

One could do Josephus.

What Josephus is claimed to have spoken about Jesus was a pious forgery interpolated into the text by the Fathers of the Church in the 4th Century. In fact, some Jewish Theologians claim that this happened in 312 ACE when the Canon of the NT was organized.

Where does he say this? In his letters to the Corinthians, he argues against a present day resurrection of the masses. Paul believed in a general resurrection. That one day, soon, all would be justified. That is why he was so adamant about bringing gentiles into the mix. Paul was working within a first century Jewish understanding, which incorporated an idea of a general resurrection, in which Jesus was just the first fruits.

There was no such a Jewish understanding in the First Century about bodily resurrection. The idea of resurrection was fabricated by Paul. (II Timothy 2:8) The Jewish thought about bodily resurrection was according to II Samuel 12:23; Psalm 49:12,20; Isaiah 26:14; Job 7:9; etc.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
And Peter said that he, Peter, had been assigned to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) Paul happened to be present when Peter said that and kept his mouth shut. Why? Because he was a self-claimed apostle who never proved his claim by going to the Gentiles.
The problem with Acts is that it was written long after the fact, by an individual who contradicts our primary source (Paul), and tries to smooth out any problems with the various groups within the Christian movement. That is exactly what is happening here. The question about circumcision has arisen, and the writer is trying to smooth it out. We know from Paul that the issue of circumcision was hotly debated.

It should also be noted that Peter is only talking about the early days of the movement. That is before Paul was even involved. Paul came at a later date. That, and we don't see Peter ever witnessing to Gentiles. When it comes to Gentiles, we see Paul, not Peter.

So taken as a whole, there is little reason to think that Peter really witnessed to Gentiles, or even that the situation in Acts 15 ever happened. Paul never speaks about it, and from Paul (and Acts agrees), the Jerusalem sect did accept him, and that he was told to witness to Gentiles (such as in Acts 22:21)
Paul never set up a church with Gentiles from scratch. He acted like the cuckoo birds that would overturn the nests of other smaller birds and to lay their eggs into their nests; thus Paul used to do; he overturned the synagogues of the Nazarenes and turned them into Christian churches.
That is nothing more than a guess. The Nazarenes are hardly mentioned, and we know virtually nothing about them. To claim that Paul was overturning those synagogues is not something that you can support with any evidence.

Instead, we do have letters from Paul, and Acts, which both state that he established churches.
I know. The book of Acts was written by Luke a daily companion of Paul's, as well as his medical Doctor. Now, I am not aware that the book of Acts "often" disagreed with Pauline letters. It even reports about Paul to have preached about Jesus as son of God. (Acts 9:20)
That is a later tradition that can't be supported. The author of Luke seems to be unfamiliar with much of what Paul did, or said. The author of Acts also tells us that instead, he was commissioned to write a work, and that he used a variety of sources to put that work together. There is no reason to think that it was actually "Luke" who wrote it, or that he knew Paul in anyway.
I am glad to read this from you because it strengthens my view that Paul was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. (II Timothy 2:8)
II Timothy wasn't written by Paul. It was written in the name of Paul by someone wanting to use the authority of Paul. Scholars largely acknowledge that it isn't Pauline language, for a variety of reasons, including that the vocabulary doesn't really match.
If you read the reports about the genealogy of Jesus according to Matthew and Luke, Joseph is reported as being from the Tribe of Judah.
But the two genealogies contradict each other, so really, they are nearly useless.
But the same gospel that reports about Joseph being from the Tribe of Judah, says that he was born of God with Mary. (Mat. 1:18) That's the reason for the paradox according to this thread.
Paul was unaware of those Gospels though. They weren't written until after he was dead. And looking at what Paul has to say about the birth, there is no suggestion of a virgin birth. Instead, Paul simply states that Jesus was a descendant of King David. No paradox there.
Isaiah 9:6 has every thing to do with the welcome the Assyrian pagans of the Galilee rendered to the Jews returning from exile in Babylon.
And nothing to do with Jesus.
What Josephus is claimed to have spoken about Jesus was a pious forgery interpolated into the text by the Fathers of the Church in the 4th Century. In fact, some Jewish Theologians claim that this happened in 312 ACE when the Canon of the NT was organized.
Not really. Most scholars, as in nearly every single one, accepts that the shorter passage in Josephus is authentic, and the larger passage, which you talk about, has an authentic core, but later included interpolations from a later writer. That writer probably was not Eusebius, as you suggest, but someone else, as the interpolations don't coincide with his writings.
There was no such a Jewish understanding in the First Century about bodily resurrection. The idea of resurrection was fabricated by Paul. (II Timothy 2:8) The Jewish thought about bodily resurrection was according to II Samuel 12:23; Psalm 49:12,20; Isaiah 26:14; Job 7:9; etc.
First, Paul didn't write II Timothy. Second, the OT writers you mention are not first century. We can look at later Jewish writers, such as in 2 Maccabees, and the Mishnah. For instance, the Mishnah 10.1 states, “All Israelites have a share in the world to come; … and these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law.”
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Ephesians 2:1-5
I think we largely agree here. However, Paul, being Jewish, would have seen the resurrection in a different manner. When Paul talks about the resurrection, he is talking about a literal bodily resurrection, as was the idea within Judaism at that time. For some, such in 1 Corinthians, the belief was that they had been bodily resurrected, as Jesus had been.

Here, the author isn't talking about a resurrection, but a contrast, largely spiritually, between their lives before Christ, and their lives now. The resurrection is different. For Paul, it is a literal bodily resurrection, which really became popular (among some Jews) around the first century, and it stands in contrast to earlier Jewish thought. Paul speaks of Jesus as the first fruit, or the like, which, for Paul, meant that soon all others would also be resurrected.

That is why in Matthew, there is talk about the saints being resurrected as well, when Jesus died. Jesus's resurrection, for many, implied that soon, a general resurrection would occur.
The hope that gentiles will receive an inheritance of righteousness is richly woven into the prophets. Its not new or invented by Jesus and Christians. Consider the gospels which are transmitted along with Paul's letters which also refer heavily to this deep ache the prophets have for the world to become moral. Paul's towing the line there, nodding his head. He's not suddenly more fervent or well meaning than everyone else; but he is changing the game of how its to be accomplished. While other Jews are waiting for people to start adopting good living, Paul is opening up Judaism to everyone. He is taking students under his wing with no circumcision and many exceptions to the usual rules.
I would agree with you. However, I would argue that the reason Paul was pushing for everyone was based on a Jewish idea. The OT states that in the end, all nations will bow down to G-d. I think for Paul, he took that seriously, and for him, it meant that with the end being near, it was time to open up to Gentiles as well.
You could just say that you disagree. The context is provided by the gospels, by James, by various prophetic and apocalyptic writings in the canon, by the book Revelation with its talk of streets of gold, by Jesus saying he is the life, by 1 John saying that the life is in God's Son. All of this thick usage about repentence equalling resurrection resonates with the prophets on the subject. When a personal resurrection occurs, what is its value? Its not a denial of self but an embrace of self. In what way could it ever be considered a 'Sacrifice', but the NT writers say that we are sacrifices.
True. And if it came off as rude, I do apologize. I tend to be a bit blunt when writing, and I know that can come off as abrasive. It is something I need to work on. But my main reason for stating what I did is to hopefully open the discussion. It may not have been the best way to do such.

The problem though that I see is that the view of the afterlife greatly evolves from the time of the prophets until the time of Jesus, and after. I think even from just Jesus to Paul, the view changes.

By the first century, one idea that was really beginning to formulate was that of a general resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus, for Paul, is seen as a beginning of that general resurrection. It was part of G-d setting up the heavenly kingdom here on Earth. The two largely went hand in hand.

It was becoming so popular during the first century that there were dozens of so called Messiahs who tried to usher in this new kingdom. It never happened, as the the kingdom of G-d would have to have replaced the kingdom of Earth, which was Rome.

This was an idea that evolved from the prophets, but is distinctly different.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think we largely agree here. However, Paul, being Jewish, would have seen the resurrection in a different manner. When Paul talks about the resurrection, he is talking about a literal bodily resurrection, as was the idea within Judaism at that time. For some, such in 1 Corinthians, the belief was that they had been bodily resurrected, as Jesus had been.
I don't think being Jewish should have caused Paul to believe in physical resurrections. He would have believed in the future generations though and would have felt a responsibility toward both them and past generations. That's just what I think though. I know at least one prophet promised long life for the lucky generation that found itself in a future golden age. What we have are statements by Jesus and our NT authors to deal with, and Jews aren't backing Christian claims of any kind. We should stop discussing what Jews think before one of them shows up and asks how many ephas in a cup of sugar.
Here, the author isn't talking about a resurrection, but a contrast, largely spiritually, between their lives before Christ, and their lives now. The resurrection is different. For Paul, it is a literal bodily resurrection, which really became popular (among some Jews) around the first century, and it stands in contrast to earlier Jewish thought. Paul speaks of Jesus as the first fruit, or the like, which, for Paul, meant that soon all others would also be resurrected.

That is why in Matthew, there is talk about the saints being resurrected as well, when Jesus died. Jesus's resurrection, for many, implied that soon, a general resurrection would occur.
This is where we disagree, so while I respect and appreciate your very worthwhile efforts and studious nature I still can't see your point of view. Having read Matthew and checked all of its fulfillments one by one, I can tell you that absolutely none of his 'Fulfillments' have anything to do with any prediction written anywhere in the Bible. Instead they are allusions to topics. The language cannot be taken literally whatsoever. Let me refer you to a scholar on this point (since I'm not one): Richard B. Hays has a book out titled Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. He discusses the gospel Mark first and then Matthew. Of Mark he says (1st chapter 2nd paragraph) "...Our discussion will be anchored in the passages that Mark explicitly cites, yet these explicit citations repeatedly gesture toward wider contexts and implications that remain not quite overtly stated--just as the risen Lord remains absent in the Gospel's final scene (Mark 16:1-8)...." (Italic and bold are mine to emphasize.) Just as in Mark, Matthew also guestures toward wider contexts and implications. His 'Fulfillments' are allusions. In fact substituting 'Allusion' for 'Fulfillment' would have made a lot more sense if the translators would have been so kind. Hayes says that Matthew is even more aggressive than Mark in making intertextual allusions but stops short of pointing out what is pretty plain to this layperson. There aren't any fulfillments in Matthew, and Matthew's 'Resurrection' is also not to be taken without a grain of salt.
I would agree with you. However, I would argue that the reason Paul was pushing for everyone was based on a Jewish idea. The OT states that in the end, all nations will bow down to G-d. I think for Paul, he took that seriously, and for him, it meant that with the end being near, it was time to open up to Gentiles as well.
Rome is a factor and the destruction of the temple. Paul's reasoning could have been that with doom impending that they had reached a real Hezekiah moment. It doesn't mean that he believed in afterlife of people coming out of their graves to receive awards.
True. And if it came off as rude, I do apologize. I tend to be a bit blunt when writing, and I know that can come off as abrasive. It is something I need to work on. But my main reason for stating what I did is to hopefully open the discussion. It may not have been the best way to do such.

The problem though that I see is that the view of the afterlife greatly evolves from the time of the prophets until the time of Jesus, and after. I think even from just Jesus to Paul, the view changes.

By the first century, one idea that was really beginning to formulate was that of a general resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus, for Paul, is seen as a beginning of that general resurrection. It was part of G-d setting up the heavenly kingdom here on Earth. The two largely went hand in hand.

It was becoming so popular during the first century that there were dozens of so called Messiahs who tried to usher in this new kingdom. It never happened, as the the kingdom of G-d would have to have replaced the kingdom of Earth, which was Rome.

This was an idea that evolved from the prophets, but is distinctly different.
I am passionate about this. I am quite angry about millions of people living for the afterlife when Jesus would only have wanted us to seize this day and make this day worthwhile and at great personal cost. If I seemed to imply that you were rude it was only to manipulate you. I am the one who should apologize, but on the other had you did leave yourself wide open by claiming that I was just cherrypicking. Of course there are posters who do cherry-pick, and they are quite annoying. Let us not get so galvanized that we cannot discern disagreement from cherrypicking.

First century? That is one of the more difficult times to find out about.
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
The problem with Acts is that it was written long after the fact, by an individual who contradicts our primary source (Paul), and tries to smooth out any problems with the various groups within the Christian movement. That is exactly what is happening here. The question about circumcision has arisen, and the writer is trying to smooth it out. We know from Paul that the issue of circumcision was hotly debated.

It should also be noted that Peter is only talking about the early days of the movement. That is before Paul was even involved. Paul came at a later date. That, and we don't see Peter ever witnessing to Gentiles. When it comes to Gentiles, we see Paul, not Peter.

So taken as a whole, there is little reason to think that Peter really witnessed to Gentiles, or even that the situation in Acts 15 ever happened. Paul never speaks about it, and from Paul (and Acts agrees), the Jerusalem sect did accept him, and that he was told to witness to Gentiles (such as in Acts 22:21)
That is nothing more than a guess. The Nazarenes are hardly mentioned, and we know virtually nothing about them. To claim that Paul was overturning those synagogues is not something that you can support with any evidence.

Instead, we do have letters from Paul, and Acts, which both state that he established churches.
That is a later tradition that can't be supported. The author of Luke seems to be unfamiliar with much of what Paul did, or said. The author of Acts also tells us that instead, he was commissioned to write a work, and that he used a variety of sources to put that work together. There is no reason to think that it was actually "Luke" who wrote it, or that he knew Paul in anyway.
II Timothy wasn't written by Paul. It was written in the name of Paul by someone wanting to use the authority of Paul. Scholars largely acknowledge that it isn't Pauline language, for a variety of reasons, including that the vocabulary doesn't really match.
But the two genealogies contradict each other, so really, they are nearly useless.
Paul was unaware of those Gospels though. They weren't written until after he was dead. And looking at what Paul has to say about the birth, there is no suggestion of a virgin birth. Instead, Paul simply states that Jesus was a descendant of King David. No paradox there.
And nothing to do with Jesus.
Not really. Most scholars, as in nearly every single one, accepts that the shorter passage in Josephus is authentic, and the larger passage, which you talk about, has an authentic core, but later included interpolations from a later writer. That writer probably was not Eusebius, as you suggest, but someone else, as the interpolations don't coincide with his writings.
First, Paul didn't write II Timothy. Second, the OT writers you mention are not first century. We can look at later Jewish writers, such as in 2 Maccabees, and the Mishnah. For instance, the Mishnah 10.1 states, “All Israelites have a share in the world to come; … and these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law.”

As I can see, you deny every thing in the NT that I have brought up for discussion which makes of the discussion an exercise on futility. But that's okay. We are quite similar as that is concerned. I also discard any thing in the NT which contradicts the gospel of Jesus aka the Tanach. It was as a result of that attitude which I came to the conclusion that, at least about 20% of the NT is worthy learning something from and about Jesus. The other 80% is about anti-Jewish interpolations with the intent to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
As I can see, you deny every thing in the NT that I have brought up for discussion which makes of the discussion an exercise on futility. But that's okay. We are quite similar as that is concerned. I also discard any thing in the NT which contradicts the gospel of Jesus aka the Tanach. It was as a result of that attitude which I came to the conclusion that, at least about 20% of the NT is worthy learning something from and about Jesus. The other 80% is about anti-Jewish interpolations with the intent to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.
You see wrong then. I do not deny everything in the NT. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I deny all the NT. I deny that Acts is historically accurate, but that's largely because we are faced with a challenge. Either Acts or Paul can't be write, as they sources often disagree. I choose Paul, because he is a primary source, one that is actually stating his views, views that the author of Acts often states aren't the views of Paul.

Paul was a Jew. He wasn't preaching anything that was anti-Jewish, or that was meant to replace Judaism. He was taking Jewish ideas, and taking them to Gentiles. Paul was also taking from the Tanach. So I'm not sure where the problem is.

It seems to me that more or less, you have no valid argument, and thus must dismiss.
 
Top