mee said:
In other words, Paul was a disciple, and slated for great things for God's glory. But he was never an apostle. More like a staunch advocate, or charismatic lawyer/arbiter for the cause of God before the people.
v/r
Q
Paul was the first Humanist
- Thread starter WolfgangvonUSA
- Start date
In other words, Paul was a disciple, and slated for great things for God's glory. But he was never an apostle. More like a staunch advocate, or charismatic lawyer/arbiter for the cause of God before the people.
v/r
Q
Excaliburton
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
mee said:
Didn't Peter say he was the one who would take the gospel to the gentiles?
Excaliburton
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Quahom1 said:
I agree he was not an apostle, but he claimed to be an apostle of no less value than the "Super-apostles" of Jerusalem, and he had the hubris to correct Peter!
As a liar, he could not be a legitimate oracle of God.
Dr Mallard
Member
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I don't see Paul as the first humanist, I feel that he hyjacked the faith and put in place many principles that would have appeared alien to many of the apostles. He persecuted them and then went on to be the most ardent propagandist.
Excaliburton
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Dr Mallard said:
Alright, now you're quackin', Doc !!!
To be sure, Paul was not a humanist in any positive sense of the word.
M
mee
Guest
yes he certainly was a former persecuter, he was very zealous for the ways of his former religion, what a big change happened to him.Dr Mallard said:
Paul approved of the murder of Stephen and, because of misdirected zeal for tradition, began a campaign of vicious persecution against Christ’s followers. yes Jehovah can use whomever he wants to accomplish his purpose . and i think that today many are now doing the will of God that were former persecuters of christians. and they have left the traditions of men , and the misdirected zeal of persecution.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
There really is something to that "turning the other cheek" stuff, isn't there?mee said:
Excaliburton
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
mee said:
But Paul pretended to convert to Christianity in order to subvert it from within. Paul pretends to be a Benjamite but most of the evidence suggests he was actually an Herodian Edomite. Recall his greeting to kinsman, Herodion, the "littlest Herod" in Rom 16:11 as just one example of his Herodian connections after his so-called conversion.
M
mee
Guest
i think his relatives would still have been in his former religion , and just because he became a christian does not mean that he would not greet his relatives.Excaliburton said:
Excaliburton
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
mee said:
The point I was making was that Paul's claim to be a Benjamite was false.
The Herodians were not a religion, and they were not Jews; they were the ruling family of the Herodian clan that ruled Judaea, named after King Herod.
The Herodians were not Benjamites but Edomites, descendants of Esau, the person whom God said He hated in the book of Malachi.
For a full discussion of Paul's family links to the Herodians, please read "Paul as Herodian" at http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html
Excaliburton said:
Paul's claim to be a Benjamite are true. That is his ancestry. Paul's claim to be a Jew is true. That was his religious belief.
Paul's claim to be Herodian is also true. That was his familial link through his mother. (a Herodian jewess).
Paul's nationality was of the Kingdom of Judah (which consisted of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and part of Levi). The religion of the kingdom of Judah was Jewish.
v/r
Q
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Why not? Stephen was chosen specifically to fill that specific purpose, to fill the place of Judas. The same Stephen that Paul "watched approvingly" as he was stoned to death.
What I find intriguing is the correlation of "the 12" with a Pagan coven.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Excaliburton.
Madonna can only marry Big Foot just so many times...
Given the choice between Eisenman and Paul, I'll stick with Paul, thanks.
Even *if* Paul could be associated with the ruling party, it does not make him a criminal, and it does not lessen his ability to carry the Good News forward to the Gentiles. In fact, I can see practical reasons as to how this relationship could actually be beneficial.
Besides, there is another lineage being overlooked here. One to which Paul, I feel certain, has no relationship with. There are descendents of Cain, Kennites, who were "adopted" so to speak into the house of Judah, during the second building of the Temple in the Ezra / Nehemiah period. Initially they were brought in as grunt labor, but over time they worked their way into the Temple service, and by the time of Jesus held considerable rank within the Temple body politic.
Herodians as scapegoat??? Politically maybe, but spiritually that's a red herring, intended to throw the unsuspecting off the trail...It has absolutely nothing to do with Paul's abilities or place with G-d through Jesus' ministry.
Wasn't Eisenman one of those pseudo-scholars that wrote Holy Blood, Holy Grail? I don't think I would take his brand of sensationalist "scholarship" too seriously. It's kinda like taking articles in the National Enquirer paper to heart.
Madonna can only marry Big Foot just so many times...
Given the choice between Eisenman and Paul, I'll stick with Paul, thanks.
Traditionally and Biblically, Benjamin was one of the surviving tribes that composed Israel circa 1 AD.
So what is the issue?
Even *if* Paul could be associated with the ruling party, it does not make him a criminal, and it does not lessen his ability to carry the Good News forward to the Gentiles. In fact, I can see practical reasons as to how this relationship could actually be beneficial.
Ah yes...Good ol' Esau...the twin brother of Jacob. Considering the promises G-d made to Abraham and to Israel, I think I would be a bit cautious with the term "hated." Perhaps it would do well to consider the Strong's. I'll leave that for another, just going on faith at this moment.
Besides, there is another lineage being overlooked here. One to which Paul, I feel certain, has no relationship with. There are descendents of Cain, Kennites, who were "adopted" so to speak into the house of Judah, during the second building of the Temple in the Ezra / Nehemiah period. Initially they were brought in as grunt labor, but over time they worked their way into the Temple service, and by the time of Jesus held considerable rank within the Temple body politic.
Herodians as scapegoat??? Politically maybe, but spiritually that's a red herring, intended to throw the unsuspecting off the trail...It has absolutely nothing to do with Paul's abilities or place with G-d through Jesus' ministry.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Um, wasn't Matthias the one chosen to take Judas Iscariot's place? (Acts 1) Stephen was one of seven appointed to oversee the distribution of food. (Acts 6)juantoo3 said:
Excaliburton
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Quahom1 said:
A Herodian Jewess!? That's a contradiction in terms. The Herodians were not Jewish but were Idumeans.
I am very pleased to hear you admit Paul's mother was Herodian. But please tell me the name and/or lineage of Paul's Herodian mother and who she was. You may know more details than I do on this subject, so I am all ears!
Excaliburton said:
Converts to Judeasm out of convenience for most, sincerity for some...you really aught to read your history...
Why should I make it easy for you? read Shelley. Look up Paul's lineage, its right there on the internet. If I did it FOR YOU, you wouldn't believe me anyway...so my logic is intact.
v/r
Q
Excaliburton
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
juantoo3 said:
No, Eisenman was NOT the author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"? Michael Baigent was the author of that silly book.
Eisenman was the scholar who campaigned successfully for the public release of the Dead Sea Scrolls and is a professor of Antiquities at Cal State Long Beach. He wrote "James, Brother of Jesus" and a number of books relating to the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I am pleased to hear you are aware of the Canaanite 'strangers' (Nokriy') in the period of Nehemiah and Ezra. Actually the first of these 'strangers' infiltrated the camp of Israel during the time of Joshua. See Joshua 9 for the story of the Hivites who tricked Joshua into accepting them as wood choppers and water carriers!
But you should then also realize the Herodians were Edomites and were therefore comprised of many Canaanite tribes, most notably the Hittites and the Hivites, the tribes into whom Esau had married.
Isn't it ironic that the House of Judah was ruled by the Hittites and Hivites that YHWH had previously ordered the Israelites to destroy? No wonder Jesus had problems with the Herodians and no wonder the Herodians wanted Him dead!
Excaliburton
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Quahom1 said:
Herodians were Edomites and King Herod himself was not allowed to enter the Temple, and Edomites were only allowed into the congregation after 3 generations as per Deu 23:7. (and actually this verse may actually refer to Arameans rather than Edomites, but that is a topic for another thread. Since Edomites were actually comprised of Hittites and Hivites, they were prohibited from even joining the congregation as per Deu 7).
At least tell me the full name of this "Shelley" person so I can search for the document.
Excaliburton said:
Wrong again Einstein. Herod was not allowed, but other members of his "family" were. And Paul's mother was one of them that was...not only that!, but she and her husband (a Roman) insisted that Saul be schooled and taught by the best, and learn Judeasm on all fronts...they spared nothing for Saul. Truly grand parents. And that, is how he became a Pharasee. Oh, there is something wrong with that picture, now isn't there...not if he was allowed to be one by birth right...and he was in fact one, so your arguements about his birth right are flawed.
Oh, sorry. Bruce L. Shelley. Title of book "Church History in plain language" is one.
Yeah, you gather correctly. I take particular issue with people coming here claiming to be so smart that the rest of us are like some ant colony.
I may sound stupid to the likes of you...until I'm not.
And I assure you, I am not stupid...neither are the rest of us.
Look at it this way (if you can). Let's say you are fifty years old, with oh 45 years of bible training under your belt. That is quite a lot. But considering there are over 500 Bible believing Christians here with say an average of 10 years of bible training under their belts, or even 2 years...that puts you in a position of overwhelming minority (if you wished to pit your knowledge against all of theirs)...because each one of them has learned something the others haven't, but combined, why that is almost 2000 years to your 45!
I believe that is something worth considering. See, I learn something new everyday (even from you). You should consider trying to learn something new as well, from us.
Is CR a hostile place? Hostile is as hostile does. We dialogue here. We don't 'disembowel'.
Hat in hand goes much farther than chip on shoulder...
See you around.
v/r
Q