Good stuff Jane...I've been meaning to organize Paul's letters by date...so in reading to follow the evolution of his line of thinking....have you ever done that?
Paul vs. Jesus...the grudge match...
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
Jane-Q
...pain...
Summer of 2002, wil. Yes.
Thessalonians to Romans . . .
1 Thessalonians (51 CE).
Philippians (52-54 CE).
Philemon (52-54 CE).
1 Corinthians (53-54 CE).
Galatians (55 CE).
2 Corinthians (55-56 CE).
Romans (55-58 CE).
Philippians (52-54 CE).
Philemon (52-54 CE).
1 Corinthians (53-54 CE).
Galatians (55 CE).
2 Corinthians (55-56 CE).
Romans (55-58 CE).
Reason I remember, is that it was a miserable summer, looking out at Chesapeake Bay. I was being reassigned, which required retraining. And the guys conducting the retraining (all men) were hopeless. Probably never had a student before. I remember it as being a cold summer. But that was probably because they had the air-conditioning cranked up too high.
Originally I was planning to take-on Plato's body of work, for my summer reading. Try to figure out how much was Socrates and how much was Plato.
When I train somebody, it is usually just one person or a very small group. I use a variation of the Socratic method. Ask questions, until they figure out for themselves how to get from Point A to Point B. It is a slower process of learning. But far surer, I've found. It helps develop independent minds.
But getting into Socrates head, that summer, would have just made me angrier at how inept my trainers were. So I chose Paul, instead.
A good choice.
This guy put up with so much BS. Yet he persevered.
That's real-world courage! It's exactly what I needed that summer.
Yet, in the end, I read Paul as literature. As a kind of spiritual autobiography.
I didn't know, then, nearly as much about the Eastern Mediterranean in the First Century as I do now. Nor as much about the history of Christian thought. So I should probably give Paul a thorough and rigorous reread once again.
Most theology (of any religious tradition) is as dry as sandpaper. And when it is not, it is laugh-out-loud roll-your-eyes ridiculous.
That comes by doing a straight reading, from the intellectual and moral perspective of the present day.
But to see theological writings in their historical and institutional context is to picture an individual struggling with a very prickly set of theoretical questions and real-world problems. Struggling. Struggling from an old and recognizable place . . . into a brave new picture of reality.
To me, this is Paul's ultimate legacy to humanity. He gave each of us a brave new picture of reality, the beginnings of a modern picture. He helped each of us pull our boots out of the mud of the ancient past and onto dry land. At a time when the classical world's picture of reality was just showing us more mud.
His picture was not perfect. But Paul's struggle perhaps was.
The struggle of a personal inner-life. A deeply emotional struggle. The modern struggle.
That is, it is not important what Paul tentatively "found," but it's what he specifically left behind. What he pushed back behind him. What he refused to look at, any longer.
And also, not his ostensible destination. But rather, the courageous new road that he was on. A road that he himself was building.
Paul may or may not be the "inventor" of Christianity as we know it today, wil. I'm still iffy on that question.
But, to my mind, Paul (like Socrates) put us on the correct road. The road to the modern world.
Jane.
Oh, absolutely!
The trick is, of course, that we can't put ourselves in their minds, we can only guess.
Actually, I would have said yes, but I'm not so sure. I think we in the affluent West are, to a greater extent, trying to live out our own whims and fancies, whereas if you look at contemporary non-industrialized cultures, there's neither the time nor the technologies to engage in the widescale self-deceptions that we enjoy.
I think also that the mindset, until quite recent times, was actually more 'in tune' with nature, not in the romantic 'new agey' sense, but in the reality of it. Life and death. Cycles. In tune with nature because you had to be if you were going to live. So people could not avoid the realities, and in many ways the religious impulse is a coming to terms with the real world.
Affluence is the enemy of the real.
But then, looking at Scripture, the problem was around even then.
So were they so different? Yes, their thinking was shaped by their world-view, and it was a different world, and one we can't really put ourselves into — but on the other hand, are we so different today? Not really. Nowhere near as much as we'd like to think, where the 'big things' are concerned — life, love, death — all the rest, as an old friend used to say, is toothpaste.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Different shackles indeed, it was the fact that we believe we are free that makes us different, in the way I tried to describe, from the early Christians whose bodies often belonged to others. Their faith seems, from my perspective as an outsider, more genuine and in touch. But I can't recall if I was trying to make a point with my previous comment...I might come back to that.
Yeshua precisely described Paul in Matthew 7:15:29, as a "false prophet" who dresses in sheep's clothing, and who will say "Lord, Lord", yet Yeshua will say "I never knew you. Yeshua preached that one must "heed" his words, whereas Paul preaches that one must call "Lord, Lord".
Zechariah describes Paul in Ze 11:7-17, as one of the two shepherds taken to "pasture the flock doomed to slaughter". Paul was the staff called "Favor", as favor, in this circumstance, means being in the "Grace" of God, such as in Paul's gospel of "Grace.
Paul's greatest supporter was Constantine, the "Great King of Rome", who was the beast with two horns like a lamb, who was to "deceive those who dwell on the earth". (Rev 13:14) This was the same king who established the Roman Church at the council of Nicene, with cohorts, such as the later bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, who canonized the present books of the bible in 367 A.D. , which included the writings of Paul and his disciples, which comprises approximately 2/3s of the "New Testament". Constantine built a basilica in Paul's honor. Keeping the laws and edicts of Constantine, is liken to having a mark on one's hand and forehead. (Dt 6:8)
As it is written in Isaiah 56:11, "all" the "shepherds" have turned to their own way, and have "no understanding".
Per Yeshua's Revelation through John, keeping the laws of the "beast", and having his mark, one shall "drink of the wine of the wrath of God" (Rev 14:10)
Zechariah describes Paul in Ze 11:7-17, as one of the two shepherds taken to "pasture the flock doomed to slaughter". Paul was the staff called "Favor", as favor, in this circumstance, means being in the "Grace" of God, such as in Paul's gospel of "Grace.
Paul's greatest supporter was Constantine, the "Great King of Rome", who was the beast with two horns like a lamb, who was to "deceive those who dwell on the earth". (Rev 13:14) This was the same king who established the Roman Church at the council of Nicene, with cohorts, such as the later bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, who canonized the present books of the bible in 367 A.D. , which included the writings of Paul and his disciples, which comprises approximately 2/3s of the "New Testament". Constantine built a basilica in Paul's honor. Keeping the laws and edicts of Constantine, is liken to having a mark on one's hand and forehead. (Dt 6:8)
As it is written in Isaiah 56:11, "all" the "shepherds" have turned to their own way, and have "no understanding".
Per Yeshua's Revelation through John, keeping the laws of the "beast", and having his mark, one shall "drink of the wine of the wrath of God" (Rev 14:10)
Your premise seems to be that you need a teacher of some kind, which kind of fits into "Paul's" writings. Now if you looked to the writings of the actual apostles, who walked with Yeshua, and heard his "Word", then you might pay attention to 1 John 2:27; "you do not need anyone to teach you", and John 15:26, whereas the "Helper", sent by the "Father", is always there to help those who keep Yeshua's Word.
As to worldly things, which you speak of, yes, Paul, a worldly kind of guy, would be the refuge of a worldly person. One is either of the world, or one is of the kingdom of God, which is within. The true church is not comprised of dogmas nor is it comprised of cathedrals, it is comprised of the children of God, who have the Spirit of God, and do not need dead people to be their teachers. Their source is the "Living" word of God, and the Spirit of God which opens up their minds.
As to worldly things, which you speak of, yes, Paul, a worldly kind of guy, would be the refuge of a worldly person. One is either of the world, or one is of the kingdom of God, which is within. The true church is not comprised of dogmas nor is it comprised of cathedrals, it is comprised of the children of God, who have the Spirit of God, and do not need dead people to be their teachers. Their source is the "Living" word of God, and the Spirit of God which opens up their minds.
Unfortunately we don't have their writings... John the one you mentioned is the most likely to actually be originated but not penned by him, and many passages have been added after the latest copies we have.
It is most likely that we don't have any eyewitness information.
It is most likely that we don't have any eyewitness information.
the kingdom of god is within you and all around you. Split a piece of wood-holy spirit that changes a person from separated from soul and spirit to one with that is love literally and brings it to its highest place-and I am there , move a stone-which is compassion where the body goes from the sealed condition to a big giant spirit and then sealed back down to human condtion, and there I will be. This tells you that we are at the source all beings that are love literally but that compassion comes from love as do all good things. As you stated the kingdom of god is within all of us so these miracles show that it is and that is manifested outside us as well with god himself.
What is your point? Is it that you need the dead witness of Paul, to be your teacher, or that what John said about not needing a teacher is false. And if it is false, what good is having the Spirit of God within, and not being able to access the revelations of God which that would entail? Or are you saying that the children of God do not of the Spirit of God within? Or are you saying that there are no children of God. What is the point you are trying to get across? Is it that we have no idea what Yeshua said? And even if we didn't have access to the "Word" of God, do you think the Spirit wouldn't have any power to work through his children?
You misquoted me. I did not say that the kingdom of god is within all of us. I said the kingdom of god is within. There are children of hell, as well as children of God. It depends on whether one does the will of God or the will of the devil. As for miracles, as stated by Yeshua in Matthew 7:22-23, many will do miracles and cast out demons, but Yeshua will tell them that he will declare to them that he "never knew you", and "DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS", such as Paul, who preaches the law has been done away, and we are under "Grace".
I have no point, we are having a discussion, a conversation, not a conversion.
Do you need the dead authors of the gospels as your teacher? What is it you are accusing me of exactly?
I believe that spark of divinity, that goodness to be in all.
Paul's teaches a lawlessness, in as much as he thinks he is not under the law. Whereas Yeshua teaches you must keep the commandment, and the summation of those commandments being to do to others as you would have them do to you. Paul teaches that he really isn't the one sinning but the evil within him is doing the sinning. Yeshua teaches that the Holy Spirit will not tolerate sin, and you can not sin and have the Holy Spirit.
Paul teaches a gospel of Grace, whereas you believe his replacement theology, and then your sins are forgiven.
Yeshua teaches that one must repent of their sins, sin no more, and seek the kingdom of God. These are two different gospels.
The gospel of Paul leads to politicians, like Paul, being all things to all people, and responsible to none.
The gospel of Yeshua leads to taking care of your neighbor.
The gospel of Paul leads to the lack of morality, and people and politicians believing if they lie long enough and hard enough, everyone will believe them. Like some politicians, they think their lies will save everyone.
The teachings of Yeshua lead to life, whereas the teachings of Paul lead to death. Believing in the name of "Jesus", a 16th century name, will not save anyone from death.
Followers of Paul's Faith versus Works scenario have a bogus arguement. Faith is when someone acts on their beliefs. Their is no faith without action.
The fact that the NT is approximately 70% Pauline, only gives support to the fact that while Yeshua gave credence to the Old Testament (John 10:35), it is the Roman church, through the canon of the bishop of Alexandria in 367 A.D. that gives credence to the present books of the bible. The problem with this is that Paul got standing in the Roman church from Constantine, when Constantine built him a basilica in his honor, and Athanasius got his standing by sitting with Constantine at the Council of Nicene, creating the dogmas and creeds of the Roman church. The problem with all of this is that Constantine is not holy, and if you ask his murdered son and wife, is probably considered evil in their eyes.
To me, Yeshua accurately described Paul in Mt 7:15-23, as a false prophet, whose fruit is rotten, and one "who practice lawlessness', and will be rejected in the end. As a horn of the beast with two horns like a lamb, Paul has, and will continue to help the beast deceive "those who dwell on the earth". Rev 13:14 The beast being Constantine, the king of Rome, and the founder of that state's church, with a legacy that continues to deceive.
Paul teaches a gospel of Grace, whereas you believe his replacement theology, and then your sins are forgiven.
Yeshua teaches that one must repent of their sins, sin no more, and seek the kingdom of God. These are two different gospels.
The gospel of Paul leads to politicians, like Paul, being all things to all people, and responsible to none.
The gospel of Yeshua leads to taking care of your neighbor.
The gospel of Paul leads to the lack of morality, and people and politicians believing if they lie long enough and hard enough, everyone will believe them. Like some politicians, they think their lies will save everyone.
The teachings of Yeshua lead to life, whereas the teachings of Paul lead to death. Believing in the name of "Jesus", a 16th century name, will not save anyone from death.
Followers of Paul's Faith versus Works scenario have a bogus arguement. Faith is when someone acts on their beliefs. Their is no faith without action.
The fact that the NT is approximately 70% Pauline, only gives support to the fact that while Yeshua gave credence to the Old Testament (John 10:35), it is the Roman church, through the canon of the bishop of Alexandria in 367 A.D. that gives credence to the present books of the bible. The problem with this is that Paul got standing in the Roman church from Constantine, when Constantine built him a basilica in his honor, and Athanasius got his standing by sitting with Constantine at the Council of Nicene, creating the dogmas and creeds of the Roman church. The problem with all of this is that Constantine is not holy, and if you ask his murdered son and wife, is probably considered evil in their eyes.
To me, Yeshua accurately described Paul in Mt 7:15-23, as a false prophet, whose fruit is rotten, and one "who practice lawlessness', and will be rejected in the end. As a horn of the beast with two horns like a lamb, Paul has, and will continue to help the beast deceive "those who dwell on the earth". Rev 13:14 The beast being Constantine, the king of Rome, and the founder of that state's church, with a legacy that continues to deceive.
Jesus is a name derived from the greek The proper name Jesus /ˈdʒiːzəs/ used in the English language originates from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua (ישוע), also having the variants Joshua or Jeshua. In Hebrew studies words also have numbers which have meaning. The name Jesus is 888 Each letter of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets has a numeric value. Click here to see a table listing these letter-number equivalents. The numeric sum of the letters spelling Jesus in Greek is 888.
Iesous = I (10) + e (8) + s (200) + o (70) + u (400) + s (200) = 888.
888 is the cubic number for the resurrected body. There are actually 10 seals total. Jesus (888) = Christ (1480): Necessary and Sufficient Glimpse
So saying your saved by the name jesus is correct. The body is resurrected and in perfect condtion which is what we all seek to attain . The man jesus was this prophecy so you are saved by his name
There was no letter "J" until the 1600s. Therefore there was no one named "Jesus", in the 1st century. The fact that you think that you can be "saved" by the name of "Jesus", can be derived from the traditions of the Roman church and her daughters, but then again, the traditions of men are considered an adomination to God. Per Yeshua's teachings, (Mt 24:13), "only he who endures to the end, it is he who shall be saved". And this in the Scriptural sense of Salvation.
The intent of this article is to investigate the origin of the Greek name Jesus and its erroneous transliteration of the Hebrew name of our Savior Yahshua. Our Saviour’s Name in Hebrew is
His teachings never contradicted the torah. Traditions are not an abomination to god but only the traditions that contradict what god is and what god does are an abomination. Traditions that show who god is and what he does glorifies him in the form of what we call worship.
To Donnan,
The Enlish version of Yeshua is Joshua. What ever English version you pick, it has existed for less than 500 years, and the people before that time didn't need the name "Jesus" to be saved or be perfected or to get to work on time. The name didn't exist, yet the true church of God did exist, along with Roman church and its attachment to traditions and rote. (Is 29:13) God doesn't like the tradition or the rote.
Yeshua's teachings did not contradict the Torah, but the teachings of Paul and his church contradict both Yeshua and the Torah. And in this we know Paul is a pretender. Is 8:20," To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." If you don't think the Church of Rome doesn't think the Torah and the Law is "obsolete", then you need to ask them.
The Enlish version of Yeshua is Joshua. What ever English version you pick, it has existed for less than 500 years, and the people before that time didn't need the name "Jesus" to be saved or be perfected or to get to work on time. The name didn't exist, yet the true church of God did exist, along with Roman church and its attachment to traditions and rote. (Is 29:13) God doesn't like the tradition or the rote.
Yeshua's teachings did not contradict the Torah, but the teachings of Paul and his church contradict both Yeshua and the Torah. And in this we know Paul is a pretender. Is 8:20," To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." If you don't think the Church of Rome doesn't think the Torah and the Law is "obsolete", then you need to ask them.
Wil,
You have to have a point you are trying to make. I just couldn't figure out what it was.
My point is that Yeshua's teaching was that he was the "bread of life", such as he was the Word made flesh, whereas you must consume that unleavened bread, such that it must be without double minded hypocrisy. One place you won't find that bread of life is from the Pharisee of Pharisees, Paul. You can find the Word in the Old Testament, and in the words of Yeshua, but you won't find it from Paul. Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death".
You have to have a point you are trying to make. I just couldn't figure out what it was.
My point is that Yeshua's teaching was that he was the "bread of life", such as he was the Word made flesh, whereas you must consume that unleavened bread, such that it must be without double minded hypocrisy. One place you won't find that bread of life is from the Pharisee of Pharisees, Paul. You can find the Word in the Old Testament, and in the words of Yeshua, but you won't find it from Paul. Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death".
My point was that it seemed to me that Paul's teachings were not all on the same page as Jesus's.
That Paul's agenda appeared different...it seems we agree.
That Paul's agenda appeared different...it seems we agree.
Joshua is from the Hebrew name Yehoshua יהושע , which often lacks a Hebrew letter Vav (ו) after the Shin (ש), allowing a misreading of the vocalization of the name, as if Yehoshea (יְהוֹשֵׁעַ).
The name Yehoshua` in Hebrew means "salvation" from the Hebrew root ישע, "to save".
Joshua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The name "Jesus" is an Anglicization of the Greek Iesous, itself believed to be a transliteration of the Hebrew Yehoshua or Aramaic Yeshua, meaning "YHWH is salvation".
The torah is based on the ten commandments and Rome does not consider it obsolete. The holy bible is a hard thing to translate if you do it with a carnal mind. You have to put on the divine mind and say to yourself god wouldn't do what I am reading so it must have another meaning. An example is the flood of water. In advanced teachings water is symbolic for the soul. So god sent a flood of the holy soul to cleanse the earth. The dove was the holy spirit. If you think with this mind you come out with correct interpretation of god and what he did and does. There is a saying that the holy bible is the devils best weapon. That makes sense since a lot of it is misinterpreted. This happens with a lot of holy books. Look at the quaran. They interpret it to mean to actually chop someone's head off and take their life. A beheading in the holy scriptures means a removal of the carnal mind with the replacement of the divine mind. So its not the writings that are the problem but rather the way we reason them. And one more note on the name jesus. The key in that name is the cubic number it represents. The whole point of salvation is for everyone to become one with the holy spirit and soul so that the body is resurrected and glorified. That name means the resurrected body.
I can see that, if you assume a priori that Jesus is 'just a man'.
Your thesis is that Jesus was just like you and I. All the 'whoo-hoo-hoo' of Scripture — the 'I am' sayings, the declarations of divinity, the miracles, etc., were all later interpolations in the service of some monumental conspiracy theory on the part of not-sure-who.
Assuming your thesis correct — what is left?
The repetition of Hebrew dogmas, with a pharisaic literal interpretation of the Law transposed to an even more severe interior asceticism; a frankly frightening apocalyptic vision which seems to promise more about hell than it does heaven, the promise that God's judgement and punishment will continue in the next life everlastingly, the absolute affirmation of man's total and utter dependence on God ...
... all in all, a very bleak prospect.
It's Paul's writings that open up the mystical and spiritual dimension of the teaching. It's from Paul that the language and lexicon derives.
It's Paul who insists that if we discard the very stuff you insist should be discarded, then we're left with nothing at all, but hope in vain ...
Without Paul I would have said your best bet was to buy "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a Kempis, but I know that certainly won't be to your taste.
And yet, without Paul, I cannot fathom what hope you find in the idea of Jesus at all.