Refutation of The Pauline Conspiracy, take two

[muhammad_isa]

In the end, I believe we are not going to be asked *what* we believe, we will be asked *what did we do* with what we believe?

I think what we believe is very important .. and more to the point WHY we profess to believe what we believe.
That in turn has an effect on what we do.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's rather the point here discussing Paul. Jesus opened the door for non-Jews, Paul took that information and ran with it.

The Jews were "non-Jews" before they were led out of Israel by Moses .. and even then some had little faith.
You should not assume that Adam or Abraham was "a Jew", but they worshipped the One God and had guidance from God, naturally.
Yes, 1000's of messengers from God were sent to their people throughout human history. That does not mean that Divine guidance is only intended for specific people. Does not God guide all of His creation? Indeed He does!
If He didn't, it would be negligent, wouldn't it.

Nowadays, we have civilizations with the majority who read & write .. not so in the times of old when only a few people were in the driving seat and were scribes etc.
That is why many messengers were sent to the Jews .. to address corruption of God's guidance.

Then you have the (613?) Biblical Laws an observant Jew must follow (there's a LOT more than just the 10 Commandments), but non-Jews are only obligated to the Noachide Laws

Is that what Jesus, peace be with him, taught???

This also refutes your contention that there are those born into whole cultures condemned to rot in Hell.

You must be confusing me with someone else..

 

[RJM]

That would be why I would encourage keeping it. I've heard attacks on Paul's character a number of times over the years, but they are usually shoot and scoot. Blah blah blah like they know something, and then disappear...I'm sure you know the type. Mr Garaffa was the *only* proponent of this line of thought to stick around and discuss the matter, at least up to a point.

I appreciate your point. It is published as a prosecution thesis though, not as a balanced essay. It's the balance which is lacking?

And all the other articles in that 'Interfaith Library' are also slanted quite unashamedly and even mockingly against theism -- definitely against Judeo/Christian theism -- which is quite strange for an interfaith website Homepage? They are more the sort of articles expected from the front page of an anti-theist website?

And also is it just not very well written and is very difficult if not impossible to really get through?

 

[Thomas]

How so? Paul studied at the feet of Gamaliel, as I'm certain you are aware. Paul was a Pharisee, the guys that were in bed with the occupying Romans.

As I understand it, to get one over on the Hasmonean dynasty.

That is why the Jerusalem clique were wary of him and disbelieving his conversion.

The Jewish clique, the Judeo-Christian clique, or the Gentile-Christian clique? I think they all had a beef with him.

He even had Roman citizenship, something I highly doubt would have been extended to a (potential) renegade.

Generally believed citizenship by inheritance. It was first thought by scholars that he had citizenship because he came from Tarsus, a 'freed city', but more recent scholarship reckons he had it from his father, for 'services rendered'.

Paul twice refers to his 'zeal', (Philippians 3:6) and as "being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers." (Galatians 1:14). A scant clue, but some scholars suggest that 'the Zealots' never really constituted a cohesive 'party' until unified against the Romans before the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather, a religious 'zeal' motivated individuals to take the Law in their own hands when they perceived transgression, and that was a characteristic of Palestinian Judaism.

 

[juantoo3]

I think what we believe is very important .. and more to the point WHY we profess to believe what we believe.
That in turn has an effect on what we do.

I used to think that way, once upon a time. Certain events opened my eyes.

 

[Cino]

used to think that way, once upon a time. Certain events opened my eyes.

Tell more? Maybe in a separate thread?

 

[juantoo3]

The Jews were "non-Jews" before they were led out of Israel by Moses .. and even then some had little faith.
You should not assume that Adam or Abraham was "a Jew", but they worshipped the One God and had guidance from God, naturally.

I will grant that Adam and Abraham were not technically Jews, the specific tribe of Judah comes through Isaac, and then only one of the 12 tribes. Those we know today as the Jews constitute the tribe of Judah (king) and Levi (priest) and the remnant of Benjamin, collectively called "the Jews." Dan had been disbursed previously and is thought by some to have migrated over the Caucasus mountains. Benjamin got into a tussle with his brothers and was decimated. The remaining missing tribes were disbursed when Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple the first time.

None of this negates my point, the Old Testament is the story of one family.

Yes, 1000's of messengers from God were sent to their people throughout human history. That does not mean that Divine guidance is only intended for specific people. Does not God guide all of His creation? Indeed He does!
If He didn't, it would be negligent, wouldn't it.

G-d does, as I have been saying. With all due respect, it is you who choose to judge some as "dirty dogs." You are not the only person, speaking "in the name of" G-d to do so.

Nowadays, we have civilizations with the majority who read & write .. not so in the times of old when only a few people were in the driving seat and were scribes etc.
That is why many messengers were sent to the Jews .. to address corruption of God's guidance.

Proof please? There is scholarship that suggests literacy was much more common during this time, at least through to Constantine and probably for a good bit after. It wasn't until the "Dark Ages" and the ascension of the Church to total power that literacy dropped off dramatically, I would posit in a bid to better control the masses.

Look at the Library at Alexandria...ooops, sorry, the books were destroyed.

-In 642 AD, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of 'Amr ibn al-'As. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar. Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the thirteenth century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them." -per Wiki

-Besides leading a life of prayer and self-denial, the monks on this remote island sought to preserve culture at a time when Europe was in chaos. The barbarian tribes had won the day and the glories of Rome ceased to exist. These new leaders were not fond of Roman ways and sought to destroy anything associated the classical world.

The classical way of education in particular was almost obliterated and those in Western Europe were more concerned about survival than enriching a flourishing culture.

Except in Ireland.

The Irish monks were masters of Latin and Greek culture and maintained it through the copying of manuscripts and the passing on of knowledge in various monastic schools throughout Ireland.

It is in this context that the monastery at Skellig Michael was born, a “Golden Age” of Irish monasticism, where faith and culture was preserved for generations to come.
ref: How Irish Monks Saved the World (From the Dark Side) | The Catholic Gentleman

This is to show how much of the higher learning in the Roman Empire disappeared, and it was the Muslims of places like Toledo Spain (the Alhambra) and the likes of the Catholic Monks of Skellig Michael that saved and preserved documents from such thinkers as Socrates, Plato, and others. All of our modern copies of these ancient European writers come from these sources, either the Alhambra or Skellig Michael specifically.

Is that (613 Laws) what Jesus, peace be with him, taught???

That is what Jesus LIVED. So did ALL of his immediate followers. So if he taught by example, as a teacher of his caliber must, then your answer is yes.

 

[juantoo3]

Tell more? Maybe in a separate thread?

I tell the story in the aforementioned thread: I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul | Interfaith forums

 

[juantoo3]

As I understand it, to get one over on the Hasmonean dynasty.

That seems to me rather difficult to prove.

The Jewish clique, the Judeo-Christian clique, or the Gentile-Christian clique? I think they all had a beef with him.

I was referencing the Judeo-Christian clique, James and the Apostles. But you are correct that by the end he managed to infuriate many from each clique.

Generally believed citizenship by inheritance. It was first thought by scholars that he had citizenship because he came from Tarsus, a 'freed city', but more recent scholarship reckons he had it from his father, for 'services rendered'.

I don't know enough of Paul's heritage to say, surely this is extra-Biblical, but not in any of the sources I'm familiar with.

Paul twice refers to his 'zeal', (Philippians 3:6) and as "being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers." (Galatians 1:14). A scant clue, but some scholars suggest that 'the Zealots' never really constituted a cohesive 'party' until unified against the Romans before the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather, a religious 'zeal' motivated individuals to take the Law in their own hands when they perceived transgression, and that was a characteristic of Palestinian Judaism.

Zeal, and zealous, are not the same as Zealot. Agreed they likely were not well organized at this time, probably weren't much more than rabble rousers at the sack of Jerusalem and destruction of the Second Temple. I vaguely recall reference to at least one, possibly two prior "Messiah" attempts before Bar Kochba, and all of these including Bar Kochba were military leaders, not religious leaders. That of course is one of the arguments Christianity attempts to use, that the Jews didn't understand their Messiah when he came, and instead created their own - to their detriment. After Bar Kochba, whoever wasn't killed or put into slavery were banished from their homeland for about 1870 years. Bar Kochba also marked the divorce between the Jewish Christians and other Jews, as the Christians did not support the uprising. Even so, they suffered the same fate at the hands of the Romans, who made no distinction between them.

Just for the clarification, the phrase "traditions of my fathers" is a figure of speech that references his birthright religion of Judaism. Note the plural ending. This isn't reference to his sire, it is reference to his culture.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That is what Jesus LIVED. So did ALL of his immediate followers. So if he taught by example, as a teacher of his caliber must, then your answer is yes.

No .. this is pure assumption.
We know what Jesus specifically taught. There are 4 gospels in the Bible [ for some reason ] .. we can specifically see what Jesus taught from these. That's all.

 

[juantoo3]

No .. this is pure assumption.
We know what Jesus specifically taught. There are 4 gospels in the Bible [ for some reason ] .. we can specifically see what Jesus taught from these. That's all.

None of which were written by him, all of which were written decades after he was executed. The only instance recorded of Jesus writing was in the dirt, and some scholarship deems that portion a spurious late addition. What Jesus is recorded as teaching comes primarily from the Jewish Old Testament Bible.

Jesus was born into an observant Jewish household. He would have been circumsized. His mother and father would have offered sacrifice on the 8th day as appropriate. No pork. No milk products with beef. No linsey/woolsey. Etc, etc, etc. He was a Rabbi. Explain to me how he could NOT be observant and still be a Rabbi???

Some quotes from Bananabrain:

it's also been sanitised away so as to create an [arguably false] dichotomy between "jesus-ism" and the judaism of the "scribes, pharisees and doctors of the law" - but if you know something about the jewish context you'd find jesus as far more of a jewish figure than you'd probably expect. you need to look at what the contemporary jewish texts say about heretics and sectarians, also about the jewish groups the rabbis disliked, such as "'amei ha-aretz" (vulgarians, hoi-polloi) the sadducees, the romans and the greeks. the real change comes with the pauline break with the mosaic Law and that is when the "de-judaisation" of jesus probably starts.

Jesus was a Jew. He was born to observant Jewish parents, in a Jewish household, raised in the Jewish Temple religion through the Jewish Bible (Old Testament *only*), in turn he taught his followers from the Jewish Bible (Old Testament *only*).

not *only*. he would have been taught the Oral Law and aggadic material and he is clearly familiar with techniques such as "derash" (homiletical exposition) and "mashal" (parable).

it didn't take an awful lot to get crucified back then - you just had to have a lot of followers and be on the news a lot saying controversial things. a lot of people got crucified or executed by other means for precisely this reason - potentially being an inconvenience to the roman occupation.

It's like there are two distinct individuals; Yeshua the renegade rabbi (meant as a compliment), and Jesus the mythological analogue to G-d.

that's certainly how it seems to me. clearly the guy had some questionable teaching methods (violating the sabbath for of dubious reasons if you ask me) but equally clearly he had a genius for getting to the moral heart of a situation.

As an Orthodox, practicing Jew, I hold Bananabrain in high esteem. He has long been my Jewish scholar of choice explaining Judaism, and has taught me and many others very well. His presence is sorely missed. I trust he, missus Bananabrain, and the assorted little Bananabrains are all well.

 

[RabbiO]

Jesus was born into an observant Jewish household. He would have been circumsized. His mother and father would have offered sacrifice on the 8th day as appropriate. No pork. No milk products with beef. No linsey/woolsey. Etc, etc, etc. He was a Rabbi. Explain to me how he could NOT be observant and still be a Rabbi???

I would not describe Jesus as a rabbi, but maybe you’re using the term in a way I’m not understanding.

 

[juantoo3]

I would not describe Jesus as a rabbi, but maybe you’re using the term in a way I’m not understanding.

Teacher

 

[RJM]

I used to think that way, once upon a time. Certain events opened my eyes.

I tell the story in the aforementioned thread: I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul | Interfaith forums

Thank you!

“I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.”
- by William Henley,
excerpt from “INVICTUS”,​

As I open with these infamous words, let me say I am well aware of the implications and still vivid connections. In fact, I drew upon these very words precisely because of their raw implications and notorious connections. To so many, these words can seem almost heretical, almost blasphemous. And yet, in their proper context, these words ring true even for those who would hold Henley in contempt. Even if we choose to guide our lives by following the moral example of a great religious teacher or Higher Spiritual Power, it is still our choice that leads us to do so. So, we are a master of our fate, even if in our minds we believe there is a higher Master. We choose how we will direct our lives, for good or bad, for morality or immorality, for skillful or unskillful actions, for righteousness or evil. And the God’s honest truth is; all of us do a little of both depending on our inclinations at any given time. We have a tendency to be naughty from time to time, and enjoy ourselves immensely while doing so.

On the grand scale, what seems evil to one culture may be perfectly acceptable in another. A society would of necessity have to be homogenous in order become anything close to resembling a genuinely moral society. Simply put, everyone would have to believe and agree on everything. Of course, the global reality is so much different. Given the subjective nature of morality across cultures, it really is no wonder the conflict that arises when different cultures meet, which is by definition “culture clash.” Politics further compounds the issue by providing a spectrum across which to divide people further within any given culture. In ancient times it might be said that the prevailing politics was that of the strong man who led that society, and the opposite end of the spectrum could only come from a challenge to the “throne.” The modern societies which define the world in which we live now are complicated in that, at least in democratic countries and increasingly in non-democratic countries, the whole spectrum of politics is made available to the masses. From radical liberals to reactionary conservatives, some form of voice is allowed a degree of expression throughout, even if considered illegal. Admittedly, that expression is allowed in greater and lesser degrees depending on which society is being considered, but moderation is not a predisposition humans are naturally inclined to. It suggests compromise, a challenge to authority paternal societies in general are not well equipped to handle mentally; and in the overt extreme compromise can dilute a culture, leading to the demise of maternal societies (Native American and European Celtic tribes, for example). In the world we have before us, with huge societies made of so many cultures and sub-cultures, and compounded by the spectrum of politics, it is no wonder morality becomes an issue that divides rather than unites. I think we all agree that we all need a morality to live by; we each individually disagree over just what that morality should be.

On a lesser scale, it is not only likely but highly probable that we ourselves participate from time to time in actions we otherwise deem sinful, bad, immoral, unskilled or wrong. Some, in Christian terms, have a tendency towards being quick to point out that all humans are created in sin, to sin; but when it comes down to it, these same people overlook these tendencies in themselves. While the statement was made in Christian terms, the concept is not foreign to other religions, faiths and philosophies. If humanity were wholly without guilt and shame, there would be no need for morality teachings, philosophy or religion. The psychological implications are enormous, likely having some basis in self-preservation, but the end result is that we often believe ourselves to be infallible, especially when we are not. In effect: we are always right, even when we are not. Even those who uphold the very best of intent in conducting their daily lives are still subject to errors in judgment. We all make mistakes; we just have a hard time admitting this to ourselves in any more than the most philosophical, remote and distant manner. So, Henley is again correct, we are the captain of our souls, even if we answer to a Superior Officer. We direct how we conduct our lives, guiding ourselves along the path lit before us.

Some of us seek additional guidance, choosing to light our path with the experience and wisdom of tradition and spirit. Some of us choose to light our path with our own means and intellect. A lot of us do a bit of both in an attempt to balance our innate desire for outside guidance against our doubting nature that is painfully aware not only of our own intellectual shortcomings, but those of the collective world around us. Add in the deliberate confusion brought about from mass communications and marketing, designed to instill and encourage an either/or attitude, and we remain pitted against each other in an “us or them” frame of mind. “How can they possibly be moral and righteous and good, when it is we who really are!” Such a false dichotomy entrenches intolerance, making it more and more difficult to live peaceably with our neighbors. Yet the greatest likelihood is that both sides are equally moral, at least in their own eyes if not the eyes of God, for whom none of us are worthy to presume. And where that morality differs, in the long run, is meaningless and insignificant.

Here is the natural overlap of the grand and lesser scales: for many of us, what we believe works for us must work for any and all others. Not as an invitation, but a demand. Since “my” morality and tradition and religion is obviously superior to yours, -we think-, then “you” should adopt my ways, methods and culture. Of course, the person on the “other” side of the equation thinks the same thing. In the best of circumstances this leads to disagreements. In the worst it leads to all of the horrors of war. While this continuum is a natural extension of our inherent tendencies, if we are to “get along” together in anything that even resembles peace, we must find a way to agree to disagree in a respectful manner. This requires effort, it is not a natural tendency, but it can be done.

So much for the implications of Henley’s Invictus. Now for the connections. Perhaps less well remembered is the person who issued these very words in his final written statement before his execution: Timothy McVeigh. In the grand scheme of world terrorism, McVeigh is probably a footnote; an afterthought, if a thought at all. So much has happened since then that his heinous act pales in comparison. That, and that he willingly allowed himself to be executed for his crime with minimal legal interference, allowed for a form of closure. At least for those of us who did not lose a loved one in that disaster, a sense of justice has been achieved. For an individual who was duly tried and found guilty of the pre-meditated murder of 168 innocent civilians, a great many of whom were pre-school age children, even the death penalty opponents were hard pressed to find support. I was not in attendance, but I doubt McVeigh had many mourners at his funeral. I doubt that there are many that genuinely lament his passing.

Yet, McVeigh also serves as a metaphor for our inherent tendency towards intolerance. His actions show just what can happen when we carry our prejudices to extreme. McVeigh’s disagreements with society, whether spiritual or philosophical or corporeal, led to the very real act of war declared by an individual upon society. There is no discussion, there is no compromise, and there is no common ground. There is no peace. What McVeigh’s ulterior motives may have been at the time he committed his crime now can only be guessed at, but the very real fact is that 169 people died for his rigid and narrow-minded view, including McVeigh.

The Biblical scriptures tell us a number of times that God tries His gold in the fire, and separates His silver from the dross. Timothy McVeigh, and others like him, have caused me to re-define, (or refine), my point of view. At some deep level, I can sympathize with these men, in a way I am only too hesitant to admit. I too, was certain I knew the truth at one time, at least as much as I needed to. I knew God has a sacred name and how it is pronounced, I knew Jesus’ Hebrew name, I knew the sacred texts had been corrupted by the Romish church and politics, I knew pagan traditions had been merged with the original faith, I knew the system was as corrupt as the system it replaced. I knew it all! And by God, if you didn’t know it too, you were damned. And I wasn’t far from helping you along to your damnation!

According to the book of Revelation, there was going to be a time of tribulation, I knew the rapture was a hoax. I was preparing myself for the inevitable conflagration; be it nuclear, biological, chemical or natural. I learned about wild edibles and wilderness food preparation and storage, so I could eat. I was learning about herbalism, native healing arts and combat medicine so I could doctor myself. I had military survival, ordinance and demolition manuals, for obvious reasons. I was convinced I was one of the chosen, I wasn’t going to let God down, and I was going to survive. I was making damn sure I was prepared.

Then the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City occurred. Around the same time I was reading in Revelation, a verse dealing specifically with the time of Jacob’s troubles, and it said, “He who leads away into captivity must be led into captivity, He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword, Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” These verses could not have cut me any deeper, reaching into the marrow of my soul. As the story of Timothy McVeigh unfolded, I realized the path I had set myself upon. As that realization gelled and set, I began to consider what path I should take to correct my view.

When I looked at the matter with fresh eyes, I came to the realization that my zeal for my faith had led me to a place of intolerance, and that intolerance held the potential for my undoing. I was, and still am, zealous for my faith. I trust my eternal soul to no one else but my Heavenly Father. I also realized that my intolerance was not the direction to follow.

Tolerance too, seemed to have its difficulties. I mean, there are all kinds of people doing all kinds of crazy things that I completely disagree with, and I have to be accepting of all of that? Some thongs people do are just so against what I believe, there is just no way I can justify to myself acceptance and still keep my sanity. Yet, the path of intolerance is even worse.

Then it occurred to me, tolerance is not acceptance. I have to allow others to make their choices, to learn their own lessons, to deal with God on their own terms. Just like myself. Now, I also realize this is a philosophical ideal, and real world application is not always so straightforward, not always so “easy.” There are all kinds of people, and we are commanded to love them, even if we are not commanded to like what they do.

Sometimes we must deal with people who wish to force their views upon us. What do we do with them? My answer lay in the realization that we all must answer to God for ourselves, we cannot answer for any other, and no other can answer for us. I am not held accountable for the sins of my fathers, any more than my fathers are held accountable for my sins. If one wishes to force his views upon me, he will meet with stiff resistance. So it is, that tolerance is not acceptance. I must tolerate, I am not required to accept. Likewise, all of this works in reverse as well, I cannot force my views on anybody. Yet Christians are called to evangelize, to witness, to spread the Word. Yes, we are, but we are to do so in a loving, gentle manner, convincing and persuading, not forcing. When we find our words falling on deaf ears, there is no sense in further wasting our breath. Once we have planted a seed, we cannot make it grow, that is up to God and the individual. The greatest witness a Christian could possibly present to anybody, is the example of his life. People do watch, looking for the first little slip up, to justify to themselves how frivolous and senseless Christianity can sometimes be. Christianity is a way of life, 24 / 7 / 365. Most Christians I have ever known, are only Christian when it is convenient. At other times, they do as they damn well please, figuring they can say a prayer of repentance and stick a couple of bucks in an offering plate and are absolved of the matter, at least until the next time. Non-Christians watch in disbelieving amazement, and shake their heads in dismay. And Christians wonder why there is such animosity against their faith…

Now, I am not one for giving testimony. Personally, I think it is a racket of one-upmanship among churchies, to see just how bad they can act and get away with. “I did drugs before I became a Christian.” “Oh yeah, I bet I did more drugs than you did.” “Well, I did drugs and sold my body into prostitution.” GASP! HORROR! OH MY! “But Je-sus brought me out of my bondage…” That may be, but in my experience that is seldom the reality. My point is, I don’t get any thrill out of “testimony.” I’m not telling my story here for the first time for any point of one-upmanship. We don’t need to see who can build a bigger bomb out of common kitchen ingredients. That is why I haven’t told my story before now. After some of the recent events that have taken place, maybe this will provide a little background as to where I am coming from, why I believe the way I do, and why I am SOOO insistent on respect and tolerance. I am thankful to God and for Brian providing this place. It allows me to put my faith and philosophy into action.

Very relevant to recent events, imo.

 

[RJM]

Just found this old thread:
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/16285/
You guys have been at it for a long time, lol ...
(Where angels fear to tread ... I do apologise )

But I still think a formal essay of rebuttal should be posted alongside Mr Garaffa's thesis

 

[RJM]

I would not describe Jesus as a rabbi, but maybe you’re using the term in a way I’m not understanding.

Teacher

New Testament references to Jesus as 'Rabbi'

John 3:26 John 1:38 John 4:3 John 6:25 John 9:2 John 11:8 John 1:49 John 3:2 John 20:16
Mark 9:5 Mark 11:21 Mark 14:45 Mark 10:51
Matthew 26:25 Matthew 26:49 Matthew 23:7-8

 

[2ndpillar]

I appreciate your point. It is published as a prosecution thesis though, not as a balanced essay. It's the balance which is lacking?

Prosecutor are not required to present a case for the defense. They are simply required to provide the evidence. As for Paul's defenders, they appeared to be a cohort of Roman soldiers, when Paul called on his lord Caesar for protection (Romans 10:13). His defenders of today, appear to be a church made official by the Roman empire in 380 AD, based on the conclusions of the Nicene Council of 325, convened by the Roman emperor Constantine, the 7th head of the beast, another beast, of Revelation 13 & 17. In general, those church followers carry the mark of the beast. Not good for them (Revelation 19:20).

 

[2ndpillar]

New Testament references to Jesus as 'Rabbi'

John 3:26 John 1:38 John 4:3 John 6:25 John 9:2 John 11:8 John 1:49 John 3:2 John 20:16
Mark 9:5 Mark 11:21 Mark 14:45 Mark 10:51
Matthew 26:25 Matthew 26:49 Matthew 23:7-8

Do you even read what you reference from? Matthew 26:25 is how Judas Iscariot addressed Yeshua prior to Judas giving him the kiss of death. Matthew 23:7-8 is where Yeshua said there is only one Rabbi/teacher, and that would be the Spirit of God, and he told his disciples to not be called Rabbi. John 3:26 is a reference to John the Baptist.

John's message was that one does not need a teacher/Rabbi if they have the anointing of the Spirit of God (1 John 2:27) which manifest itself in the Word of God, the law and the prophets. It is the one who practices "righteousness" who is born of God, not someone who professes to be saved, and then relies on Caesar for their protection. (1 John 2:29)

 

[RJM]

Prosecutor are not required to present a case for the defence.

But proper courts and decent publications are expected to present both sides of the story?

Do you even read what you reference from? Matthew 26:25 is how Judas Iscariot addressed Yeshua prior to Judas giving him the kiss of death. Matthew 23:7-8 is where Yeshua said there is only one Rabbi/teacher, and that would be the Spirit of God, and he told his disciples to not be called Rabbi. John 3:26 is a reference to John the Baptist.

Fair enough -- no I just googled up some examples so you can have three out of sixteen. It doesn't change the fact I was just showing that there are multiple New Testament instances of where Jesus was referred to as 'Rabbi'

 

[2ndpillar]

No .. this is pure assumption.
We know what Jesus specifically taught. There are 4 gospels in the Bible [ for some reason ] .. we can specifically see what Jesus taught from these. That's all.

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.