Am I a Christian?

[usernamed]

I'm not a scholar or believer, but I think the divided iron and clay kingdom from the kings dream is often interpreted as referring to the Greeks?

It about the disunity between the two major factions on earth. It also carries the biblical concept of enmity that I find so difficult to "harmonize" into modern "scholarly" biblical concepts like "universalism", not for having tried but when different muultiple angles all easily point in the same direction I tend to accept the obvious conclusion. Rather than over complicate something as simple as observing no real evidence of a societal "emulsifier" (only the spoken concepts of such) I am left pushed away from debating certain elements, knowing full well they will NEVER mix or yield (even in aid for the greater good because both ideals are polar opposites)....but on a more positive note, it wont stop a highly paid sophist from trying to appease the politically (and unrepentant) ambitions of a national leadership into guiding a nation where it wants. I do get some comfort from justice and from the knowledge that ultimately punishments will fit the crimes.

 

[Thomas]

It refers to THE very last kingdom of this age ...

Actually, if you think about it, everyone in every age says that, precisely because the symbolism can refer to any structure within any age. A thousand, five hundred, a hundred years ago, someone was making the same claim as you, insisting it means this moment in history. Someone else will be making the same claim in a hundred years, five hundred years hence (if we're still here).

so Im not quite sure how you could settle for ...

Because I understand how it works.

the book of revelation mirrors Daniel in prophetic structure as does other books in the original testement (which I believe you know this).

Yes, as I say, there's a rich seam of apocalyptic literature. Today the language has shifted to politics.

... but it is no match for inspired prophecy, God speaks to his faithful in the future in their own times (and languages)...

Yes, but God speaks to all people in all time, so His utterances are timeless and transcendent. He sees the heart of things, and so hits the nail on the head, to coin a phrase. But for that very reason His words are timeless, and for all time, and apply throughout all time. God does not say things that are true today but were not true yesterday, or will not be true tomorrow. His words are not age or locatiopn specific, they apply to all people, in all places in all times ...

But we have no Christian prophecy. If your Eisenman / Pauline thesis is true, then the NT is largely a Pauline and Gentile fiction. The Book of Revelations certainly would be, none of it is God inspired, it's all there to boost the Pauline/Gentile faction.

... many scholars just seem to misunderstand the biblical precepts of praying for understanding to discern content (available to man and child or basically all levels of comprehension alike)

Which biblical precepts are you referring to?

Pope Benedict XVI said, when speaking of theologians, we need more saints and fewer scholars, and I certainly agree with him there. But in every field of human endeavour we look to the scholars in their field to light the way. Why Scripture should be any different escapes me.

 

[Thomas]

This is incorrect. I apologise. The Gospel of Mark is regarded as the first synoptic and is supposed to be dictated by Peter

That's how I know it.

I think the general consensus is that the Matthew we have was produced by a well educated Syrian Jew, probably a rabbi convert to Christianity. It incorporates Mark in such a way to form a framework, but then adds its own materials, possibly from the original Hebrew Matthew, which was a sayings gospel, possibly from another source (such as the infamous Q), possibly from oral traditions within his own community ... or any permutation thereof.

The author is a Jew, addressing Jews, tackling questions facing Christian Jews regarding their faith, and emphasising Jesus' 'Jewishness' and Christ as the Messiah spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[usernamed]

Actually, if you think about it, everyone in every age says that, precisely because the symbolism can refer to any structure within any age. A thousand, five hundred, a hundred years ago, someone was making the same claim as you, insisting it means this moment in history. Someone else will be making the same claim in a hundred years, five hundred years hence (if we're still here).


Because I understand how it works.


Yes, as I say, there's a rich seam of apocalyptic literature. Today the language has shifted to politics.


Yes, but God speaks to all people in all time, so His utterances are timeless and transcendent. He sees the heart of things, and so hits the nail on the head, to coin a phrase. But for that very reason His words are timeless, and for all time, and apply throughout all time. God does not say things that are true today but were not true yesterday, or will not be true tomorrow. His words are not age or locatiopn specific, they apply to all people, in all places in all times ...

But we have no Christian prophecy. If your Eisenman / Pauline thesis is true, then the NT is largely a Pauline and Gentile fiction. The Book of Revelations certainly would be, none of it is God inspired, it's all there to boost the Pauline/Gentile faction.


Which biblical precepts are you referring to?

Pope Benedict XVI said, when speaking of theologians, we need more saints and fewer scholars, and I certainly agree with him there. But in every field of human endeavour we look to the scholars in their field to light the way. Why Scripture should be any different escapes me.

I agree with some of what your saying, everyone can feel to a lesser or higher degree that "their" time is the "now" but since you accept (for yourself) that Christianity has no prophecy I would argue that prophecy is either "fulfilled" or we are still waiting, unless you think the flood, the Exodus etc are all to be fulfilled then you get a much more accurate grasp that everything will be fulfilled in it's given time, only these are one off events, once fullfilled points towards what is left unfulfilled. The early Christians identified Christ, the people who call themselves Jews still believe he is coming soon, infact they are already preparing for him (even to the point of restarting animal sacrifices and having gathered their Sanhedrin)...both early Christians and Jews cannot both be right. So it requires a form of harmonization hence we have the term "Judeo-Christianity" (which is a bizarre oxymoronic concept offering no true appellate to Christianity on the premise of Jesus as the Messiah). The Pauline thesis is clearly observable when you factor in both the political and financial dependence of Paul' doctrine and weigh it up against what Jesus meant by "offering life more abundantly", Paul clearly replaces Jesus with earthly government as the head of Jesus church, but again we cannot debate the obvious contradictions when 99% of Christian theology in todays terms is about defining Jesus by using Paul (who tells you he uses guile and lied).

 

[Thomas]

It about the disunity between the two major factions on earth.

Quite.

It also carries the biblical concept of enmity that I find so difficult to "harmonize" into modern "scholarly" biblical concepts like "universalism"...

But emnity isn't a Biblical virtue, its a vice. It starts between Adam and God, Adam and Eve, cain and Abel ... and the whole edifice is shattered by the stone that will grow to be a great mountain and fill the whole earth (v34-35). There's your universalism.

Of course, that's how Christianity sees itself, Christ the cornerstone, Peter the rock, the mustard seed, the parallels are many. That's how Islam sees itself. That's how Bahai' sees itself, and so it goes ...

We've just had an election.The iron and clay feet, the two major factions, are of course Conservative and Labour. Then all you have to do is pick the head, shoulders and body from other players — America, Russia, China, India, or pharma, petrochem, etc., etc. maybe its Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn ...

 

[usernamed]

That's how I know it.

I think the general consensus is that the Matthew we have was produced by a well educated Syrian Jew, probably a rabbi convert to Christianity. It incorporates Mark in such a way to form a framework, but then adds its own materials, possibly from the original Hebrew Matthew, which was a sayings gospel, possibly from another source (such as the infamous Q), possibly from oral traditions within his own community ... or any permutation thereof.

The author is a Jew, addressing Jews, tackling questions facing Christian Jews regarding their faith, and emphasising Jesus' 'Jewishness' and Christ as the Messiah spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures.

What evidence do you have to support your claim that Matthew was"probably" written by a Syrian Jew? Circumstantial probability or something else?
I would be interested to know more about the penning of Matthew. Do you think all the books could not of been copied from one single source (open to variation based upon time, language etc) but the person who had both the ability to document a master (scribe) would of had to of been present during Jesus' whole ministry, to compile all the events, much rather like a diary (or much the same way as Josephus but taking out much of the political propaganda)? Could one of the 12 have been chosen or selected by Jesus (or after the death of Judas) to complete this single task?

 

[Thomas]

I agree with some of what your saying, everyone can feel to a lesser or higher degree that "their" time is the "now" ...

Yes, they do. It's the saint and the sage who has farsight who sees otherwise.

but since you accept (for yourself) that Christianity has no prophecy ...

Oh, Good Lord no! Heavens, no! I don't accept that for a moment. I know you do, or rather your Eisenman thesis does, but there are prophecies, and a Pauline one is absolutely bloomin' central: "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12). The other, no less spiritually luminous: "Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2). And, of course, everything about the Holy Spirit.

I would argue that prophecy is either "fulfilled" or we are still waiting ...

History, as the saying goes, repeats itself. Prophecies have been, are being, and will be ... consider: when Daniel spoke to Nabuchodonosor, the four empires had to make sense to him, so to be a 'real' prophecy it has to fit his own times, as any other.

unless you think the flood, the Exodus etc are all to be fulfilled ...

Well your mixing your metaphors here. The Fall, the Flood, Exodus ... these are not prophecies. They are events in the tribal histories of Israel. But yes, like the Greek myths, they have their psychological counterparts.

The early Christians identified Christ, the people who call themselves Jews still believe he is coming ... both early Christians and Jews cannot both be right.

OK.

So it requires a form of harmonization hence we have the term "Judeo-Christianity"

No we don't, though, do we? The Christians still believe it is He. The Jews still await the Messiah. So who are you talking about?

The Pauline thesis is clearly observable when you factor in both the political and financial dependence of Paul' doctrine

Dependence on what?

Paul clearly replaces Jesus with earthly government as the head of Jesus church,

Nonsense. Where?

we cannot debate the obvious contradictions when 99% of Christian theology in todays terms is about defining Jesus using Paul.

You see, this is where you fall down. That's simply not the case. And don't try and tell me it is, because I've been schooled by those very 'scholars' you dismiss so casually, and I can assure you they are in no way as dependent on Paul as you think. You're read and absorbed too much propaganda without checking the claims.

If we were serious, I'd suggest you purchase "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr Ludwig Ott. It's a handbook of Church doctrine. There you'll find the development and defence of the Christian faith and the sources of Scripture used in their explanation and defence. Paul is less than half the text citations.

 

[usernamed]

Quite.


But emnity isn't a Biblical virtue, its a vice. It starts between Adam and God, Adam and Eve, cain and Abel ... and the whole edifice is shattered by the stone that will grow to be a great mountain and fill the whole earth (v34-35). There's your universalism.
..

No.
God expresses love and hate, agreed, but your confusing God hating sin as opposed to hating the sinner. The sinner pays for his sins.
The biblical enmity is clearly a genetic/geneological concept (which is why we have to have words in our dictionary regarding race but cannot "legally" debate the concept when applying scripture).
If Isaac and Rebekkah were alive today listening to Esau and Jacob squabling over their cultural differences over some far distant time in the future, they might hear Esau saying he will only have to call the decendants of his brother Jacob "racist" if they disagreed with him? Does that effect the prophecy God gave regarding both of them?
If your answer would be no, then why would a website side with Esau if it was just an irrelevant social construct that can be easily laughed off as petty stupidness?
It's not about picking and choosing what prophecies to fit into any modern day politically correct narrative, otherwise a show of disobedience against God is all your left with. God does not fear man.

 

[usernamed]

Yes, they do. It's the saint and the sage who has farsight who sees otherwise.


Oh, Good Lord no! Heavens, no! I don't accept that for a moment. I know you do, or rather your Eisenman thesis does, but there are prophecies, and a Pauline one is absolutely bloomin' central: "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12). The other, no less spiritually luminous: "Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2). And, of course, everything about the Holy Spirit.


History, as the saying goes, repeats itself. Prophecies have been, are being, and will be ... consider: when Daniel spoke to Nabuchodonosor, the four empires had to make sense to him, so to be a 'real' prophecy it has to fit his own times, as any other.


Well your mixing your metaphors here. The Fall, the Flood, Exodus ... these are not prophecies. They are events in the tribal histories of Israel. But yes, like the Greek myths, they have their psychological counterparts.


OK.


No we don't, though, do we? The Christians still believe it is He. The Jews still await the Messiah. So who are you talking about?


Dependence on what?


Nonsense. Where?


You see, this is where you fall down. That's simply not the case. And don't try and tell me it is, because I've been schooled by those very 'scholars' you dismiss so casually, and I can assure you they are in no way as dependent on Paul as you think. You're read and absorbed too much propaganda without checking the claims.

If we were serious, I'd suggest you purchase "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr Ludwig Ott. It's a handbook of Church doctrine. There you'll find the development and defence of the Christian faith and the sources of Scripture used in their explanation and defence. Paul is less than half the text citations.

I dont see Paul as an inspired writer. He lied and tells the reader quite plainly. I don't trust liars. I trust God and his Son.
Judeo-Christianity is a concept that utilises Pauls pro government propaganda (romans), it relies on finance (multi ethnic judaic talmudic usury) and is worth billions to Israel ONLY (the nation landmass not Jacobs decendents).
Read Pauls pay the government verses in Romans! Thats right...get your priorities right first eh Paul....after we will move onto that secondary thought...yes...salvation of the soul, but make sure you pay your taxes first lol.
Jesus didnt even "touch" their coins...they were and still are blasphemous.
Jesus will call his own.....so all you need to do is explain who the billion church goers are...and what they believe. Seems like a very wide (and easy) path Pauls invites the Christian to tread....just utter with your lips, pay your government...gates of heaven over there...oh and grace be with you....next!!
They seem confident. But how can they leap frog judgement so easily? Must be nice to know your already "saved" ...Fancy a beer?
To many wooly Pastors with cannine teeth in Pauls government endorsed charity choir halls to not notice something amiss here.

Are you sure?

 

[Thomas]

What evidence do you have to support your claim that Matthew was"probably" written by a Syrian Jew? Circumstantial probability or something else?

The text evidence. The language used is sophisticated Semitic style called 'Synagogue Greek'. So we know he was educated and erudite. Also steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures, Check out the 'chiastic structure of Matthew' (definition here):

In the Gospel of Matthew, chapters 8–9 and 21–2 each contain three structural triads. The former narrative passage contains three sets of three miracles; in the latter passage, another narrative section, we again find three structural triads: three symbolic actions, three parables, and three questions posed to Jesus. According to the structure of the gospel proposed by C. H. Lohr, these two narrative sections lie in chiastic correspondence. This parallel, of three structural triads between two sections which are arguably in chiastic correspondence, lends considerable weight to the argument for the presence of a chiastic structure in the Gospel of Matthew. (Journal of Theological Studies)

Do you think all the books could not of been copied from one single source

Well Mark underpins the synoptics, both Matthew and Luke use him, but Matthew and Luke also fold in their own materials. Mark's Greek is not too hot. Matthew's is the Greek of an educated Jew, Luke's more an educated Hellenic Jew, or even a Gentile. Matthew, as said above, uses a complex internal structure. Luke is based on a popular journey motif: half the Gospel takes place on the final trip to Jerusalem.

John, of course, is completely distinct.

... but the person who had both the ability to document a master (scribe) would of had to of been present during Jesus' whole ministry, to compile all the events, much rather like a diary ...

Well this is where the dialogues begin. We know Luke wasn't an eye-witness, by his own account. We doubt Matthew was, because he's so dependent on Mark. And we know Mark wasn't, but we think Mark is basically telling Peter's story, and of course he was an eye witness.

John, I would argue, was an eye witness. Too many details, his chronology differs from the synoptics, and makes more sense – John was there, Mark was constructing a timeline from what he heard Peter say ...

Could one of the 12 have been chosen or selected by Jesus (or after the death of Judas) to complete this single task?

Highly unlikely. There's definitely a different author of each gospel. Luke makes the point he sought out sources, and he's writing around 80-110AD, and he makes no reference to an authorised version, which is what you're talking about. It's pretty certain Matthew, Mark and Luke weren't eye witnesses. John writes comparatively late, so Matthew and Luke didn't have access to John. If you were going to say one author, then that author is lost to us, and we have no idea what he wrote. There is the 'Hebrew Gospel of Matthew' which has been lost, but which is guessed at as a sayings gospel, but really, who knows?

 

[Thomas]

but your confusing God hating sin as opposed to hating the sinner.

LOL, I am most definitely not.

The sinner pays for his sins.

Unless he seeks forgiveness.

The biblical enmity is clearly a genetic/geneological concept

Well it's clearly the human condition. The Bible is not alone in recognising that.

It's not about picking and choosing what prophecies to fit into any modern day politically correct narrative ...

I rather thought you were the one constructing a contemporary narrative around prophecy. I don't, other than to say prophecy enables us to reflect upon the human condition. That's why they're so universal, so general and so elusive, if they were conditional, they'd have a 'sell by' date and expire, but they don't.

 

[Thomas]

I dont see Paul as an inspired writer.

LOL, really? You're on your own there, then. Have you read 1 Corinthians 13?

Maybe you don't see it. But the spiritually aware of every religious tradition do (not just Christianity) — I would have thought that would give you something to think about.

He lied and tells the reader quite plainly.

Where?

Judeo-Christianity is a concept that utilises Pauls pro government propaganda (romans), it relies on finance (multi ethnic judaic talmudic usury) and is worth billions to Israel ONLY (the nation landmass not Jacobs decendents).

Lord, this is just fantasy...

Read Pauls pay the government verses in Romans!

Show me where.

Jesus didnt even "touch" their coins...

How did Jesus fund his travels, d'you think?

Seems like a very wide (and easy) path Pauls invites the Christian to tread....

I am absolutely gobsmacked! Find me someone else who says Paul's road is the easy way to salvation!

just utter with your lips, pay your government...gates of heaven over there...oh and grace be with you....next!!

Do you not see Paul's anger with the communities when he writes to them, for their hypocrisy? You've misunderstood Paul by miles!

 

[Thomas]

Hi usernamed —

Two things, I am never absolutely sure about my faith, but I am absolutely sure that you have miscomprehended Paul and turned a spiritual commentary into a political diatribe.

Secondly, I have consistently asked for evidence to support your claims, and you have supplied none, but just continue to repeat your message.

So I choose to politely withdraw. When you offer some actual evidence, other than your opinion, for your claims, then we can talk, but until then I get the impression I'm wasting my time in pursuing a pointless entertainment.

I'll repeat my three questions. can you supply chapter-and-verse the scripture references upon which you base your claims:

You: So it requires a form of harmonization hence we have the term "Judeo-Christianity"
Can you supply an example of this? As far as I can see, Jews and Christians have always been at odds, and as far as I can see, after Constantine it was more often than not us who are the persecutor and the Jew the victim.

You: 'The Pauline thesis is clearly observable when you factor in both the political and financial dependence of Paul' doctrine'
Where is the evidence of Paul's political and financial dependence, and on what, precisely?

He is a roman citizen, and uses that to protect himself when about to be lynched by the Jews, but that does not mean he's in league with the Roman authorities. He was appointed by the Jewish authorities to hunt down Christians, but he's no longer working for them, either ... Where does Paul say put Caesar before Christ?
(He collected monies from the churches he founded and made contributions to the Mother Church in Jerusalem, not to Rome. James, by the way, was happy enough to take Paul's money.)

You: Paul clearly replaces Jesus with earthly government as the head of Jesus church.
If clearly, where, precisely?

 

[usernamed]

Thomas,

I would ask you stick with the thread a bit longer please. Im grateful you have brought a good counter arguement to my issues defending Paul, I suspect you know far more about Paul than I do so no need to withdraw.

Ive supplied links further back that explain quite a few compelling contradictions between Jesus and Paul, I suspect you haven't given them much of your time, and felt your silence and hastily moving on with Paul meant you over looked others saying the same as me, qualified time-served opinions from people who can explain similar doubts I have only far better written, they HAVE also had an education...certainly more scholarly which I thought you might of appreciated more, a more concise, more to the point well written account and ALL backed up using biblical quotations, more importantly... to your preferred standard of debate, or at least that was my intention and also to give more weight to the appraisal of scholars/academia (to balance things out with yourself in mind)....so if its a diatribe so be it, Im just a everyday bloke with no education whatsoever ( I only attended school because if I didnt I was going to be taken into care) and perhaps being held back for 20 years has caused a bit of a chip on my shoulder but I dont hide it, but since your asking me to simply copy and paste verses from the bible I will. And I will answer all your questions in the above 3 replies. Just give me chance....Im using an old (by todays technological expansions) mobile phone so it not the retrieval I find difficult its the quoting specific sentences of your posts to relay my answer next to it. I will do my best to reply as quick as I can, is that ok?

 

[Cino]

(multi ethnic judaic talmudic usury)

Come on, you have better arguments than resorting to this kind of crap. What next, blood libel?

 

[RJM]

I trust God and his Son.

Who is God's son? How does anyone know anything about him, if the gospels were made up by Paul?

Can someone extract the Jesus he wants from the gospels, while rejecting the Jesus he doesnt want? The Christ?

 

[RJM]

It really is necessary to start backing up statements about what 'could' have happened with reasonable evidence, imo?

It rests upon assumption the Dead Sea Scrolls are of post Jesus origin. All the evidence and scientific dating goes against. Where's the evidence? Oh wait -- it's an international conspiracy amongst scholars and scientists and other experts in the field?

Sorry, its hokum. Ochams Razor rules: the simple straightforward explanation is usually the true one.

 

[usernamed]

Where does Paul expose himself as a liar or use guile (decietfullness) to gain converts?

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" (Rom. 3.7)

In a spirit of good-humored naiveté he winks at the flock of Corinthians whom he has hooked into the fold, and admits that he had tricked them:

"Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved. But be it so: ... nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile." (2 Cor. 12.15-16)

As a "man that striveth for the mastery" (1 Cor. 9.25), Paul expounds to the church leaders the modus operandi of the successful propagandist:

"I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, that I might gain them that are without law. ... I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake" (1 Cor. 9.19-23).

And he admits to the church of Corinth: "I robbed other churches ... to do you service" (2 Cor. 11.8).

The clear sobering contradiction to this is found at Revelations 21:8

Second question, you ask about Pauls pro government stance:
Where does Paul say put Caesar before Christ?

Romans 13:1
"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."
Ive actually covered this where Jesus is tempted by Satan and provided the verse, also the book of Job alludes to exactly the same thing...showing you that Governments are a test from God using Satan to see who keeps the Commandment: Love God with ALL your heart and ALL your spirit.

Paul contradicts: Jesus. Who said his KINGDOM was NOT of this world, because most people can accept it is ruled by self appointed highly ambitious tyrants calling themselves our "representitives" who profit from and fund both sides of any given war and whom you have no idea WHAT OR WHO THEY BELIEVE. The governments require your trust in them and your faith and your time and your physical efforts.....

How did Jesus fund his travels?

Well if you are to assume he used money, then the onus is on you to provide such scriptual evidence, I wasn't claiming he used money. Jesus said he did not even have a place of his own to lay his head! (which costs....money!)
He also "whipped" the money changers out of the Temple, he also took Matthew away from his tax collecting duties! As for James accepting money from Paul, do you have any evidence to prove he did or had Paul simply taken the money from "the poor"/Ebyoneem/Ebion-ites that might of been used for the temple tax and left them without the ability to buy food themselves, unless you have biblical verses to show otherwise? The Temple tax and the tithe was not really for Romans to extort and plunder which is probably why it was mentioned at all...no proof though, just filling in the gaps using high probability so you can have that one, however Jesus did NOT handle money (as far as I am aware) unless you can prove me wrong.

"Find me someone else who says Paul's road is the easy way to salvation!"

Ok. Assuming you will read the whole page.
https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/725-gospel-of-paul-versus-the-gospel-of-jesus.html

You (usernamed): So it requires a form of harmonization hence we have the term "Judeo-Christianity"
Can you supply an example of this?

"
The rise of antisemitism in the 1930s led concerned Protestants, Catholics, and Jews to take steps to increase mutual understanding and lessen the high levels of antisemetism in the united states. In this effort, precursors of the National Conference of Christians and Jews created teams consisting of a priest, a rabbi, and a minister, to run programs across the country, and fashion a more pluralistic America, no longer defined as a Christian land, but "one nurtured by three ennobling traditions: Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism...The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' entered the contemporary lexicon as the standard liberal term for the idea that Western values rest on a religious consensus that included Jews."

Sarna, Jonathan. American Judaism, A History (Yale University Press, 2004. Page 267.

....which developed and funded early Zionism, however I suspect you already knew that as well?

 

[usernamed]

Who is God's son? How does anyone know anything about him, if the gospels were made up by Paul?

Can someone extract the Jesus he wants from the gospels, while rejecting the Jesus he doesnt want? The Christ?

No.
But if you insist the Gospels are Paul or you only define Jesus using Paul...you will never know Jesus, deny him and he will deny you!

 

[RJM]

No.
But if you insist the Gospels are Paul or you only define Jesus using Paul...you will never know Jesus, deny him and he will deny you!

But how can you say at the same time that Paul essentially WROTE the gospels? Can't you see the problem? Also your NT quotes in your above response to @Thomas are so out of context that it's irresponsible.

I'm on a bus and will repost them later in context when I get home.