The gospel of Luke was written by some unknown author who relied on unspecified second hand accounts, who is assumed a pal of the false prophet Paul. Mark, some unknown author, who was assumed a pal of the "worthless shepherd", Peter, who is suspect on those grounds alone. John's gospel was more weighted as a commentary of John than a witness to the testimony of Yeshua. All these "gospels" were edited by the Roman church, including Matthew. If you want to know what Yeshua brought to light, you might want to first look to the Scriptures, the Law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17). That is his source material.
Refutation of The Pauline Conspiracy, take two
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
The gospel of Luke was written by some unknown author who relied on unspecified second hand accounts, who is assumed a pal of the false prophet Paul. Mark, some unknown author, who was assumed a pal of the "worthless shepherd", Peter, who is suspect on those grounds alone. John's gospel was more weighted as a commentary of John than a witness to the testimony of Yeshua. All these "gospels" were edited by the Roman church, including Matthew. If you want to know what Yeshua brought to light, you might want to first look to the Scriptures, the Law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17). That is his source material.
I was talking about balanced homepage for the forums as a whole but never mind ...
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
How so? Proof please. Looks to me like another boogie man witch hunt.
Particularly if Revelations "was more weighted as a commentary of John than a witness to the testimony of Yeshua," because clearly if the author of one book (Gospel of John) is called into question, then surely his companion book (Revelations) is also to be called into question.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Yeshua also says not to call any earthly man your father in that passage. Do you have a father? I fully understand the drift of what Yeshua was teaching, it wasn't literal. He often taught in similes and parables and other linguistic devices. Further, to follow the verse back to the subject, Yeshua was admonishing the Scribes and Pharisees "which sit in the seat of Moses."
But that's Matthew anyway, and according to you it has been edited by the Roman church, so the argument is moot and meaningless.
Do you practice righteousness, inerrantly? Regardless, this is just "a commentary of John (not) a witness to the testimony of Yeshua."
Tell me, Interlinear or Peshitta?
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Not necessarily. Frankly, I don't want a prosecutor defending me in court while at the same time prosecuting me. That is the essence of debate, having two sides present their arguments for and against. One can't expect a presenter "against" shall we say, to provide equal air time to "for." In that sense, 2ndpillar is correct, the forum serves the purpose of the court, the reader serves as jury, G-d is the judge.
There is no denying Yeshua served the role of Rabbi. He argued with the Temple priests at the age of 10 or 12 - that religious arguments occurred is no wonder, Jewish religious scholars had done so long before and continue to this day. The old adage "ask 4 rabbis and get 5 answers" comes directly from this. What was astonishing is that a pre-teen young man was knowledgeable enough to go toe to toe with the Temple priest. So returning to Mohammed_Isa's comment of disbelief that Yeshua, let alone his followers, would be observant of the 613 (+/-, I forget) religious Laws, I think this incident from his youth demonstrates pretty conclusively he knew full well what to do and what not to do according to Jewish tradition.
Further, in the past Bananabrain brought the works of Geza Vermes to my attention, and which I have read one of them "Jesus the Jew." According to Vermes, Yeshua was an itinerant rabbi / healer, and he suggests there was a tradition of such men that wandered the countryside.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
The same question I have posed MANY times to detractors of Paul (including Mr Garaffa) and have yet to receive even just one single answer, what does Christianity look like without all of these key players? What benefit to believers? What edification purpose? Why not just be Jewish and be done with it all?
This is the point at which every one of them, to a man, tucked tail and ran away.
Last edited:
You're very confused. It was you who suggested that Jesus followed noahide laws. I think he followed Jewish laws.
What he IS reported to have done, is to point out hypocrisy and exaggeration in their interpretation.
Jesus did not nullify Jewish law .. that would be a Christian interpretation / belief.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
No I did not, ad hominem notwithstanding. Please reread what I wrote.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I'm confused here, you dismiss Matthew when convenient, then quote Matthew when convenient (literally, the very next sentence)? How are we to know, if what you say here is true, that the passage you quote was not, as you said, edited by the Roman church?
I don't know your motivation, but you can't have it both ways. If the books are worthless, quoting them to argue your point is disingenuous.
Last edited:
I don't mean that and I did not infer that. I seem to be expressing myself very badly. I meant that where there is a prosecuting article there should be a defending article alongside it. That's the essence of fair reporting. But I guess that's a principle lost in the 21st century internet age. I really don't care to argue that much about it ... but that was my training and I guess old habits run deep
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
This ain't nothin', you should see me on a tear with evolution...
I have no stakes in any of the sides here, just want to throw in that there were some Christian(-inspired) groups back then who had other scripture: Ebionites and some Gnostic sects, some of whom may not have relied on Pauline theology.
So we may have fragments of scripture of what could loosely be called non-Pauline Christian groups, as examples of what such a strain of Christianity could have looked like.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Agreed, both the Ebionites and the Nazareans were essentially Messianic Jews, and both were obliterated by the Romans and today constitute basically historical footnotes. What tiny remnant remained were steamrolled by other Christian factions, and disowned by Judaism proper. That puts them in a bit of a no-man's land, and why I say just convert to Judaism and be done with it.
I found this:
ref: Nazarene (sect) - Wikipediawiki said:
I've already documented Constantine's anti-Semitism, and while there are those among us here who downplayed it at the time, I did say that his anti-Semitism became institutionalized - and this passage vindicates and validates my statement back then.
Last edited:
I apologise .. I read it differently .. the last sentence was not specific.
Furthermore, if you are saying that Jesus and his disciples followed Jewish law [ which I believe ], that has no bearing on Jesus teaching non-Jews to follow noahide laws.
That would not be a commandment from God, would it, and I don't see where Jesus said it.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
It is true, the Noahide Laws are not spelled out in the Old Testament as such.
However:
Judaic traditions are not my strong suit, I usually deferred to Bananabrain or Dauer. My understanding, like Islam has Hadith, Judaism has oral traditions that Jesus would have been familiar with (I quoted Bananabrain saying exactly that). A minor portion of that oral tradition later written down includes this about the Noahide Laws.
While the New Testament does not explicitly state that Jesus did teach this, one must consider that his exposure to non-Jews was limited. There are recorded instances, but they were few, and among those the subject didn't appear to come up, or at least was not recorded. I would add that clearly Paul was familiar with this as well, as I've already pointed to Romans (2:14), specifically:
After further consideration, perhaps the closest that comes to mind is Jesus conveying the story of the Good Samaritan. While the subject of Noahide Law is not explicit, from his position it seems to me expressly implied.
However:
wiki said:
Judaic traditions are not my strong suit, I usually deferred to Bananabrain or Dauer. My understanding, like Islam has Hadith, Judaism has oral traditions that Jesus would have been familiar with (I quoted Bananabrain saying exactly that). A minor portion of that oral tradition later written down includes this about the Noahide Laws.
While the New Testament does not explicitly state that Jesus did teach this, one must consider that his exposure to non-Jews was limited. There are recorded instances, but they were few, and among those the subject didn't appear to come up, or at least was not recorded. I would add that clearly Paul was familiar with this as well, as I've already pointed to Romans (2:14), specifically:
emphasis mine, -jt3
After further consideration, perhaps the closest that comes to mind is Jesus conveying the story of the Good Samaritan. While the subject of Noahide Law is not explicit, from his position it seems to me expressly implied.
Last edited:
Sure .. but one has to be careful with assuming that the beliefs of the Pharisees are/were beyond question.
Jesus has the authority from God [ as the Messiah ], to differentiate between truth and falsehood . Why would they want to get rid of God's messengers, if all their laws and interpretations were true?
It is only a Jewish belief that they have "no duty to the gentiles" .. i.e. it is their religion, and they have no responsibility to educate others
Prophet Abraham establlshed a place of worship in the desert with Hagar's son Ishmael, but after a number of generations, the Arabs had returned to idolatry. This has been happening in human society throughout time.
I always find it fascinating perusing the comments of non-Jews “explaining” Judaism.
I think both would explained why describing, as you have, Jesus as a rabbi would be incorrect.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
----
jt3 said:
Bananbrain said:
In BB's own words. Further, he has pointed me to works by Geza Vermes and Prof. James Kugel, both of whom wrote extensively on Jesus' Jewishness and his being considered a Rabbi (albeit a rather unorthodox one).
Ask 4 Rabbis and get 5 answers...
So if in your view Jesus is not a Rabbi, what was he in your view?