Tuesday, November 5, 2019

Speaking of Paul: Using the WCG Experience to Understand The Problem of Paul in the New Testament







In this “compulsively readable exploration of the tangled world of Christian origins” (Publishers Weekly), religious historian James Tabor illuminates the earliest years of Jesus’ teachings before Paul shaped them into the religion we know today.

This fascinating examination of the earliest years of Christianity reveals how the man we call St. Paul shaped Christianity as we know it today.


Historians know almost nothing about the two decades following the crucifixion of Jesus, when his followers regrouped and began to spread his message. During this time Paul joined the movement and began to preach to the gentiles. Using the oldest Christian documents that we have—the letters of Paul—as well as other early Chris­tian sources, historian and scholar James Tabor reconstructs the origins of Christianity. Tabor shows how Paul separated himself from Peter and James to introduce his own version of Christianity, which would continue to develop independently of the message that Jesus, James, and Peter preached.


Paul and Jesus illuminates the fascinating period of history when Christianity was born out of Judaism.

Tabor was born in Texas but lived all over the world as the son of an Air Force officer. He was raised in the Churches of Christ and attended Abilene Christian University, where he earned his B.A. degree in Koine Greek and Bible. While earning his M.A. from Pepperdine University he taught Greek and Hebrew part-time at Ambassador College, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, founder and president of the Worldwide Church of God.
Tabor earned his PhD at the University of Chicago in 1981 in New Testament and Early Christian literature, with an emphasis on the origins of Christianity and ancient Judaism, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, John the Baptist, Jesus, James the Just, and Paul the Apostle. The author of six books and over 50 articles, Tabor is frequently consulted by the media on these topics and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs.
During the Branch Davidian siege in Waco in 1993, Tabor and fellow religion scholar J. Phillip Arnold "realized that in order to deal with David Koresh, and to have any chance for a peaceful resolution of the Waco situation, one would have to understand and make use of these biblical texts.” After contacting the FBI, they sent Koresh an alternative interpretation of the Book of Revelation which persuaded Koresh to leave the compound, though it was stormed by Federal forces first. 
Major publications and research
His first book was a study of the mysticism of the apostle Paul titled Things Unutterable (1986), based on his University of Chicago dissertation. The Journal of Religion named it one of the ten best scholarly studies on Paul of the 1980s.

In 1992 Tabor turned to an analysis of attitudes toward religious suicide and martyrdom in the ancient world, the results of which appeared as A Noble Death, published by HarperSanFrancisco in 1992 (co-authored with Arthur Droge). Tabor's book has been used as a standard by ethicists, lawyers, and physicians who are participating in the current debate. Tabor has also published a wide variety of scholarly and more popular articles in books, journals, and magazines.
In 1995, he published Why Waco? Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America (University of California Press), which he co-authored with Eugene Gallagher, and which was one of the first books to explore what had actually happened during the Waco siege. In 1995 he testified before Congress as an expert witness on the siege.






39 comments:

Near_Earth_Object said...

"Tabor shows how Paul separated himself from Peter and James to introduce his own version of Christianity, which would continue to develop independently of the message that Jesus, James, and Peter preached."

I hope this is not Tabor's main thesis. It represents a different and odd slant but is it really worthy of a book? This statement seems to portray a schism (A different version of Christianity? Really?) rather than a progressive development. Nowhere that I know of did the other apostles descend on Paul and revoke his credentials because he became unhinged.

nck said...

Of course not because they were persecuted.

The Pauline "bewitched by Jesus Herod" was a ruthless Tyrant.
The jews (or judaizers on this blog) get ALL the blame for Jesus death.

Even the "Judas" persona who goes by the name of "Judah" symbolizes this scapegoating.


But really. Jesus died a political Roman execution on the cross not a religious Jewish Stoning for blasphemy.


The real Jesus, The Christ is totally ignored by Paul.
The real jesus a born jew who practiced the Law. A man who saw religion and politics as one.

James Jesus's brother must have known Jesus far better than Paul who never met him. But Paul gives him a bad press since Pauls mission was to present Jesus as God and the "heresies" of those who had known Jesus was the lesser in potency.

nck

DennisCDiehl said...

"I hope this is not Tabor's main thesis. It represents a different and odd slant but is it really worthy of a book? This statement seems to portray a schism (A different version of Christianity? Really?) rather than a progressive development. Nowhere that I know of did the other apostles descend on Paul and revoke his credentials because he became unhinged."

It is not an odd slant at all. Paul's vision of Christianity and his Cosmic Christ was far different from that of the Jerusalem Apostles. Paul knew no earthly Jesus which is why he never quotes any stories about Jesus or even teachings when it would have been to his advantage to do so. The Gospels were written well after he lived, preached and died. His Jesus was crucified in the heavens. His view was clearly more Gnostic than Jewish.

Paul makes it abundantly clear in Galatians 1 and 2 that his Gospel views were the only acceptable ones. He makes it clear that Peter, James and John, who were "reputed to be pillars" added nothing to his message and he learned nothing from them.

Gal 1:ll "11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

In other words, he hallucinated his Gospel and his Christ delivering it to him. He was taught nothing by the Jerusalem Apostles or at least refused to listen and counted them as of no value to HIS message.

2:6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[c] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.[d] 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[e] and John, those esteemed as pillars,"

Paul misrepresents his Acts 15 experience if he actually had it. Acts was written by "Luke" make Paul look more in tuned, when he wasn't, with Peter, James and John. It tells conflicting Damascus road tales which Paul never mentions in Galatians opting only to say that he was called from the womb. Only Jeremiah and Jesus could claim that before Paul. Gal 1:15. In some circles Paul was no doubt considered an arrogant and self centered mystical rogue to the original Jewish Christian faith. No doubt called the equivalent of a prick back in the day for his exaggerations and misuse of the OT scriptures to justify his teachings.

When Paul rebuked Peter during a meal, I suspect it was because Peter could see that Paul was eating meat offered to idols which is what he agreed to teach against in Acts 15. However, the Acts 15 story may be just Luke's invention as I noted because Paul does not go by it and he says all he agreed to was to take care of the poor , which he was eager to do etc. That was not the topic of Acts 15.

At any rate, Paul and the Jerusalem Apostles, Peter, James and John, were not on the same page and to miss that point is to miss why the opinions and letters each write are hard not only to understand but to reconcile as one teaching.

It is remarkable that Paul never quotes Jesus of the Gospels, as noted. The reason is he never heard of him or his teachings. Paul even had to go through some long convoluted answer to "sometimes we don't know how to pray" with:

Romans 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans."

This, of course, is mindless nonsense and the best he could do. If he had known Jesus teaching on "when you pray.... say" He could have easily answered the question. But he never knew Jesus said anything about it and the stories of Jesus did not appear until he was long dead. So he made shit up.

DennisCDiehl said...

We should also be suspicious that while Paul promoted himself as "a Pharisee of the Pharisees", "Concerning the Law, Blameless" (ala Rod Meredith) and the smartest pencil in the box persecuting the Christians, there is NO mention of this great Pharisee in the Gospels. He is supposed to have been there at the time but no one writing the Gospels ever heard of him. He is not a part of any interrogations of Jesus or tricky question and answer sessions against him. He simply does not exist.

Personally, I see Paul as more of a liar and upstart much in the mode of a Dave Pack who listened to no one, make up his own gospel, made false predictions about Jesus coming and how people ought to live and do as he said and basically screw up their lives for him until he realized he was mistaken and died getting his crown at least.

All very nuts really. Once you take the filters off, Paul can be seen for who he probably was. A false Apostle that won the day as the Jerusalem Apostles and Jewish Christianity sunk into oblivion as Paul's Gentile version took over.

This a man who said he did lots of things he should not but couldn't help and failed to mention what they were. This a man who said he got to see amazing things in the 3rd Heaven but could not share any of it. This is a man who hallucinated his calling. Even Bob Thiel at least got a double blessiong for a cold and ran with that to give himself far more of a calling than ever intended.

No one knows who ordained Paul. If they did, he went from a murderous persecutor to Apostle skipping any and all steps in between. He went from a novice in the faith to the head of it. Paul was the Joe Tkach of WCG lol. Don't mistake my reference to Joe T or Dave Pack being like Paul. I don't mean it as a compliment or something that gives them credibility.

There is much material on the problem of Paul available to those who seek it out.

Anonymous said...

Saying that there is a problem with Paul is equivalent to saying that there is a problem with scripture, and what Dennis is really saying is that not only is there a problem with scripture, there is a problem with the Creator, whom he claims does not exist, much like he believes that Paul never existed.

Sorry- I'll stick with Paul, scripture, and the Creator.

What About The Truth said...

This book looks to be an interesting read to see what conclusion he came up with.

In hindsight and this present age, transitions have truly been burdensome for so many. The examples of the Exodus, the wilderness, the land that flows with milk and honey is flush with examples of the populace not handling transition well.

The transition from a sacrificial system unto a holy advocate brought more divide for the infancy of the Christian religion. The transition from a wholly Jewish religion unto a gentile is welcome brought more change and consternation.

Fast forward to the late 1920's and another transition took place with HWA redifining for the COG7 what they didn't what defined.

1993 began another transition and the fruits of that are ongoing today as are exemplified on this blog daily.

The art to see through the confusion is inherit for the most part, learned for another part and miraculous for some. A closed mind or myopic view is not going to get any acceptable conclusion except for the conclusion that a person always desired in the first place.

There is a reason why there are very good mechanics just as there is reason why there are very good theologians. There is also a reason why there are awful mechanics and awful theological minds.

2020 and beyond is shaping up to be wide open ground for new transitions, which for the COGS, if they could possibly split off anymore, would only be just the transference of a lot of the mess which is out there right now into the new. And that seems to have been the problem all along as it is exemplified for us and recorded for us for all time.

New religion, old religion or self-religion; it is a game that people play and sometimes die for.

Anonymous said...

Fast forward to the late 1920's and another transition took place with HWA redifining for the COG7 what they didn't what defined.

Rubbish. There was no "transition." COG7 rejected HWA's nonsense, and 100 years later COG7 has grown, with its hundreds of thousands of members dwarfing the number of those who hold to HWA's heresies. In retrospect, we can see that COG7 made the right decision and that HWA was merely the Bob Thiel of his day, a butt-hurt autodidact taking his marbles and starting his own new personality cult after the mothership decided not to put up with him any longer.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fast forward to the late 1920's and another transition took place with HWA redifining for the COG7 what they didn't what defined.

Rubbish. There was no "transition." COG7 rejected HWA's nonsense, and 100 years later COG7 has grown, with its hundreds of thousands of members dwarfing the number of those who hold to HWA's heresies. In retrospect, we can see that COG7 made the right decision and that HWA was merely the Bob Thiel of his day, a butt-hurt autodidact taking his marbles and starting his own new personality cult after the mothership decided not to put up with him any longer.

November 5, 2019 at 12:58 PM


HWA was the Bob Theil of his day. PRICELESS.

The only problem is, is that ole butt-hurt Bob would take that as a compliment.

well done anon.

DennisCDiehl said...

"Sorry- I'll stick with Paul, scripture, and the Creator."

Which is perfectly fine for you to do. James Tabor, as a qualified scholar with a WCG background as well is making the point about the problem with Paul as do many Biblical scholars and historians once they remove the denominational blinders and simply look at the story and the texts. I believe James leans back towards Jewish Christianity in his faith and practice.

Here is Dr. Tabor's more personal site and topics of interests discussed.
https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/james-tabor/profile

DennisCDiehl said...

James is a contributor to Closer to the Truth headed by Dr Robert Kuhn, also formerly of WCG and a close confidant of HWA back in the day. HIs interviews with world intellectuals, philosophers, scientists and religionists are well known and received.

Anonymous said...

So according to Dennis, Paul was a "liar and upstart" like Dave Pack. Talk about smearing Paul and the bible. I knew Dennis's 'I'm outta here' wouldn't last, but I expected at least several months, with a gradual sliding into his old ways. Looks like I was wrong.

Near_Earth_Object said...

DD:

You make lots of unsubstantiated claims about Paul. I don't know if you cooked these claims up or if you got them from Tabor. "I believe James leans back towards Jewish Christianity in his faith and practice" sounds a little dubious - like maybe Tabor is an undercover Armstrongist.

"It is remarkable that Paul never quotes Jesus of the Gospels, as noted. The reason is he never heard of him or his teachings."

Not only is the statement above a fatuous claim but it is illogical. One cannot directly deduce your "reason" in the second sentence from the foregoing sentence. And you seem to offer no support for the second sentence. So how about the following written by Paul:

"1 Corinthians 11: 23-26: For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes."

The understanding of the Christian Movement is that Paul communicated with Christ in vision. This means that much of what Paul wrote could, in fact, be directly quoted from Christ - nobody knows. The only way you can prove that this understanding is an impossibility is by proving that there is no God and you can't do that.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous said...
So according to Dennis, Paul was a "liar and upstart" like Dave Pack. Talk about smearing Paul and the bible. I knew Dennis's 'I'm outta here' wouldn't last, but I expected at least several months, with a gradual sliding into his old ways. Looks like I was wrong.

No, my view of Paul is not made up out of whole cloth personally. I read and have well considered credible and trained theologians and Biblical historians who hold such views and can see the problem with Paul in the texts we have. Most Jewish scholars will read Paul's way of interpreting the Old Testament as turning the text upside down and on their heads. I realize how difficult it is to criticize the Bible in a culture that will criticize everything else but the Bible. But it is not difficult to see the problems with the texts, stories and reasonings if one is inclined to even consider they exist. I grew up to where the physical Bible was sacred and not to be put in the wrong places, handled roughly or , God forbid, written in. I have soaked in the Bible since the Second Grade memorizing whole chapters at a time through the 8th grade. But, and I agree now, I was told towards the end of my WCG time by a regional type that "We think you know an awful lot about Jesus Dennis, but we don't think you know Jesus" While never having an evaluation like that from my peers and superiors (reputed to be pillars :) I agreed. The difference is that they thought it was a liability for me and I felt it to be a liberation. I didn't want to know any Jesus that they knew. You can't trust that one.

As for coming and going at times, that's my choice and rises and falls on my recognition at times that there is probably not much more for me to say about my own experiences in WCG as a pastor. I have shared a hell of a lot more than the vast majority of people here and done it openly with no one having doubt who I am and what I said. Most of you are just words on a page with no context as to who you actually are, what your affiliations are or which splinter or sliver you might adhere to if you do. Because of that, there is more of a freedom on your part to be insulting or go on the attack personally and admittedly that does get to me at times as a reminder of being in the most minority of splinters in the WCG experience, that of atheist. My personal WCG experience and deep interests in the actual origins and history of the Bible and not just the Sunday school version still holds interest to me. I guess I want to know what I go so badly wrong. Now I do.

I find it interesting that some can give long winded sermons here, complete with all the proof texting of the past, on how it all is, who and what God is and how we all must be and think. Claiming to know what no one can actually know. Few question or criticize that. John does take a few hits for this and admittedly "time will tell" is annoying cop out to me because by the time does tell just about anything, none of us will be around to know what it told us.

Anyway, just like you, I'll comment when I wish and refrain from comment when I choose not to. I figure that by the time some few vent with personal attacks, name calling and deciding they know me better than I know myself, they have run out of intelligent contributions to Banned or perhaps have never made one.

What About The Truth said...


Fast forward to the late 1920's and another transition took place with HWA redifining for the COG7 what they didn't what defined.

Rubbish. There was no "transition." COG7 rejected HWA's nonsense, and 100 years later COG7 has grown, with its hundreds of thousands of members dwarfing the number of those who hold to HWA's heresies. In retrospect, we can see that COG7 made the right decision and that HWA was merely the Bob Thiel of his day, a butt-hurt autodidact taking his marbles and starting his own new personality cult after the mothership decided not to put up with him any longer.

November 5, 2019 at 12:58 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Armstrong looked at the COG 7 as only surviving on leaks and onions. He decided the COG 7 needed supercharged and he was determined to take as many people as he could to the promised land.

That you and or your parents ate of HWA's manna in the wilderness means at one time your family thought that was a far more appetizing food choice than leaks and onions or tomatoes and carrots.

Why you would want to bring such indignity to yourself and your family by comparing HWA to Bob Thiel is beyond me. Bob Thiel at best and I mean at best, would have at most ascended to assistant librarian in Pasadena.

HWA took COG7 members in the greater Oregon area with him who certainly entered into a transition. HWA some 30 years later was able to shut down a thriving COG7 church which was located 3000 miles away from his residence using only a microphone. This COG7 church had a church meeting hall, a parsonage and a school with many members. Where do you think they all ended up save 6 people?

HWA was a movement which induced a transition for the many COG7 congregants who came with him from far and wide. That you gave a testimony for the state of the COG7 in this present age is wonderful. I actually looked into maybe joining up with them as a safe haven from the idiocy the prevails in the COGs. Unfortunately the closet COG7 from me who lives in a highly populated metropolitan area is 250 miles. Herbert W. Armstrong must have done a darn good job in this region, for it is barren of COG 7 day.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence in his "Letter to William Short":

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."



Will Durant, in his Caesar and Christ:

"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ. . . . Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known. . . . Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change."



Robert Frost, winner of the Pulitzer prize for poetry in 1924,1931,1937 and 1943, in his "A Masque of Mercy":

"Paul he's in the Bible too. He is the fellow who theologized Christ almost out of Christianity. Look out for him."



Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist, in his essay "A Psychological Approach to Dogma":

"Saul's [Paul's name before his conversion] fanatical resistance to Christianity. . . . was never entirely overcome. It is frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."



George Bernard Shaw, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925; in his Androcles and the Lion:

"There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus. . . . There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus. . . . It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus. . . . was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith."



Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, called "one of the greatest Christians of his time," philosopher, physician, musician, clergyman, missionary, and theologian in his The Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of Paul:

"Paul. . . . did not desire to know Christ. . . . Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded. . . . What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?. . . . The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority. . . . The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."

Anonymous said...

Dennis
As far as I'm concerned, you talked past my 3.33 PM points.
And no, calling a spade a spade is not being insulting or verbally abusive. In fact it's the ACOGs church culture that immature and evil behavior be regarded as normal and acceptable. A holiday from reality so to speak. It's disappointing that you are trying to recreate this environment in Banned.

Anonymous said...

So many obvious errors... Paul was a roman soldier?

Christianity was not born out of Judiasim. Judiasim is a cult of Jewish rabbis. Christianity was Gods try religion from Abraham on through his descendents. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob... Not the Jews.

People who hate God will try any desperate attempt to convince others to become as perverse and desperate as they are. Don't fall for it.

Follow Jesus. Repwnt of your sins and do good. Ignore the ravings of the lawless.

Anonymous said...

6.17 PM
You've convinced me. I'II throw out my Bibles because of what Carl Jung, Robert Frost, Bill Durant etc, and some Nobel/Pulitzer prize winners said. Thank you for enlightening me.

DennisCDiehl said...

November 5, 2019 at 6:17 PM

Anonymous said...
Dennis
As far as I'm concerned, you talked past my 3.33 PM points.
And no, calling a spade a spade is not being insulting or verbally abusive. In fact it's the ACOGs church culture that immature and evil behavior be regarded as normal and acceptable. A holiday from reality so to speak. It's disappointing that you are trying to recreate this environment in Banned."

Well, I"m sorry you feel that way about myself and have those perceptions of my motives. I have explained, for years now, where my journey through WCG from my youth to the present have taken me in practice, lack of it, belief and lack of that. Others here explain theirs and have completely different personal experiences, perceptions and outcomes in their thinking. I have no interest in "recreating this environment in Banned", as you say and that is simply your perception based on simply disagreeing with me. If and when you ever write your personal views and experiences, one could say the same of you could they not?

Admittedly I probably write and share my views and perspectives on the Bible that I always kept as questions about the book through the years because it was what I did and what I was supposed to know all about. It is said that many come to disbelieve the Bible stories and inconsistencies precisely because they know the Book so well. With this I agree and has been my experience.

At first, years ago, I wrote to process my anxiety and the tension the experience was causing me in messy transitions out of it all. Now I seem to have a naïve belief that if you explain or bring up the problems with the story, which are real, it can be helpful to those who also recognize them but never had an outlet to discuss them safely or with like minded folk who understood their own background. I don't see a big difference between talking about the problems and inaccuracies in a belief in British Israelism, commanded tithing or Holydays vs Holidays etc and problems in the Book itself that are commonly understood and openly spoken of in genuine theological institutions and taught by men and women who have spent a lifetime taking the time to get credible backgrounds in the topics they teach.

I don't see why declaring my absolute faith in the process of evolution as being how it actually is no matter our emotional needs to believe otherwise, as opposed to the simply faith in "God did it" is such a problem and unrelated to the WCG experience.

Anyway, if you can ever find a reason to stop out from behind you anonymity and openly share your own experiences, lessons learned, perspectives and current affiliations, write a blog posting and let's have a look at it.

Apologies if this is talking past your comment. I simply don't agree with it which is also not an uncommon point of view between commenters on all sorts of topics common to our experiences here on Banned.

DennisCDiehl said...

I have an idea Anon 745. Give me a call and let's chat. Drop me an email for the number. Home today and most evenings.

Anonymous said...

Much of what has been shared regarding Pauline Christianity here represents a legitimate if somewhat dated scholarly perspective on his communities and their interaction with other early Christian communities led by figures like James and Peter.

More recent Pauline scholarship has done much in reconciling Paul's unique take on Christianity with its antecedents in the work of the other apostles and first century Judaism. I recommend reading some of the seminal works in the New Perspective on Paul movement, such as E.P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which kicked off the movement, and N.T. Wright's extensive Pauline corpus.

Anonymous said...

I was about to write exactly the same comment. Judaisim is the result of the spiritually corrupt rabbis.
Well written Anon 7:49.

Anonymous said...

View with suspicion any who claim to be channeling divine enlightenment (Paul, HWA..)
Thus:
Armstrong-Theology,Pauline-Theology,PaulLynde-Theology"aah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!"

Anonymous said...

"Judaism is a cult of Jewish Rabbis" 7:49

"Judaism is the result of spiritually corrupt Rabbis" 6:10

Therefore:

Christianity is a cult of Spiritually corrupt Jewish Apostles? Yes?

Anonymous said...

"Christianity is a cult of Spiritually corrupt Jewish Apostles?"

None of the apostles were part of Judaism, they followed Christ. Judasism denies Christ.

Attempting to link the two is an incredible deceit.

Miller Jones said...

Some thoughts on Paul and his writings:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2019/11/do-writings-of-paul-present-problem-for.html

Anonymous said...

Anon Nov 6 @11:09PM

It is NOT true that Judaism denies Christ. It denies Jesus as the Messiah.

In the previous post, NCK mentions the 'big elephant in the room' of 3 or 4 messiahs. In every generation, the Jews have always been anticipating the appearing of The Messiah. There were times that one Jew may stand out and his generation suspects him to be the one. But when that person dies or fails to bring about the messianic age, they no longer consider him The Messiah. In Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, Law of Judges 11, when referring to the person suspected of being The Messiah, "But if he does not meet with full success, or is slain, it is obvious that he is not the Messiah promised in the Torah".

Characteristics of the messianic age:
1. Ingathering of the Jewish exiles - Deu 30:3; Isa 11:11-12, 43:5-6; Jer 3:18, 30:3, 32:37; Eze 11:17, 34:13, 36:24, 37:21
2. Rebuilding of the Holy Temple - Isa 2:2-3, 60:7, 66:20, 56:6-7; Mal 3:4; Zech 14:20-21. Ezekiel chapters 40-44 describe how the 3rd Temple will be built and inaugurated.
3. Observance of Torah - Deu 30:8, 10; Jer 31:32; Eze 11:19-20
4. Reign of Peace - Mic 4:1-4; Hos 2:18; Isa 32:16-18, 60:18; Zech 14:11; Jer 33:9
5. Universal Knowledge of God - Zech 8:23, 14:9,16; Isa 45:23, 66:23; Zeph 3:9; Jer 31:33; Eze 38:23; Ps 86:9

None of the above happened during Jesus life aside from the fact he met a tragic death. The Jews are still awaiting the appearing of The Messiah and the start of the messianic age.

Anonymous said...

"Anon Nov 6 @11:09PM

It is NOT true that Judaism denies Christ. It denies Jesus as the Messiah."


LOL, Christ means Messiah!

Anonymous said...

"The Jews are still awaiting the appearing of The Messiah and the start of the messianic age."

And wait and wait and wait they will.

Anonymous said...

Dennis
You have some mental problem that I struggle to fully understand. You think that you have some Harry Potter type of clock of invisibility. You're convinced that others cannot possibly discern your moral state or motives. Perhaps it's because you were treated by members as "Gawds minister" rather than what you were morally. I've also noticed that it's more difficult to morally assess a authority figure than a ordinary person. Maybe you're refusing to let go of this past. For instance, I've experienced former managers who frequently tell those they meet of their former position, expecting them to still treat them as a bossman.
I'm speculating, but it's your problem to untangle. I hope my Ziggy Freud pondering helps.

Dennis said...

Thank you 956 for your input and diagnosis

Anonymous said...

Dennis, you now owe 9:56 a free massage. He diagnosed you (apparently he's a psychologist), now you as a professional massage therapist must repay the favor. ☺

Dennis said...

721 that would be a quid pro quo and since I feel rubbed the wrong way shall not offer the favor of rubbing someone the right way for a free diagnosis even­čśé

Anonymous said...

There is only one Christ. And messiah and Christ are the same word from different languages. Jews state clearly that the Rabbis are the highest power and that even God obeys the Rabbis.

So yes, the Jews deny Jesus the Christ/messiah/anointed one of God. Judaism is a cult of men worshipping themselves and denying both God and his anointed son.

Their teachings are no different than the blasphemies from the Quran.

Since I know this crowd will likely gafah rather than research here's the proof.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2154-authority-rabbinical

"Even when they decide that left should be right, or right left, when they are mistaken or misled in their judgment, they must be obeyed (R. H. 25a). Heaven itself yields to the authority of the earthly court of justice..."

The Jews are so brash about their authority we don't even have argue whether its true or not. They make no bones about it.

Christianity did not come from the Jews. It came from Jesus and his disciples.

nck said...

So. If Jesus was not a rabbi, it means he was not required to be a married man. After all, what do non married persons have to teach us, real men able to command a household and a wife?

Answers to replies to my posting will be belated since I'm doing some chores for my wife.

Nck

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:16PM

Yes, you are right about the (Orthodox) rabbis' authority. But I do not agree with your generalization. Not all Jews are Orthodox Jews. It's like making a statement about the Pope's authority and saying the Christians are "so brash about their authority we don't even have to argue whether it's true or not."

At least one Jewish group, the Karaites, do not submit to the authority of the Orthodox rabbis (I'm not sure if the Karaites use the term rabbi for their spiritual leader). They do not accept the oral law - mishnah, talmuds and midrash. The Karaites eat cheeseburger but the Orthodox do not. The Orthodox eat shawarma but the Karaites do not. The prohibition against eating meat and dairy together is because of the misinterpretation of Ex 23:19b. The most common type of fat used to flavor shawarma is the fat of a sheep's tail which is a forbidden fat (Lev 3:9-10, 17; 7:23).

I'm not sure Jesus would agree with your statement that 'Christianity did not come from the Jews'. (Mt 23:1-3) 'Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.'

Messiah is the english rendering of the Hebrew mashiach. It simply means anointed. It is the application of, usually, oil (Ex 30:22-25) on someone or something to inaugurate into the service of God or for God's purpose.

Who or what was anointed:
1. EXODUS 30:25-29 … tent of meeting, ark of the covenant, table and all its utensils, lampstand and its utensils, altar of incense, altar of burnt offering with all its utensils, and the basin with its stand
2. EXODUS 30:30-33 … Aaron and his sons (Aaronic priesthood).
3. 1 SAMUEL 10:1, 16:13 … kings of Israel. David was already anointed when he spared Saul’s life and addressed him as the Lord’s anointed (1 SAMUEL 24:6).
4. 1 KINGS 19:16; PSALM 105:1 …prophets. Multiple messiahs.
5. ISAIAH 45:1; 1 KINGS 19:15 … foreign kings can also be messiahs!

A messiah is anyone who was anointed for God’s purposes - usually a king, priest or prophet. There were many messiahs or anointed ones in the Jewish bible. When speaking of the end-time messiah that will usher in the messianic age, the Jews refer to him as HaMashiach or The Messiah.

Judaism does not accept Jesus as the messiah. For the Jews, Jesus was not the messiah. He died and did not bring about the messianic age. He also did not qualify to be a messiah. According to Matthew and Luke, he did not have a human father. The tribal affiliation is through the father (Num 1:18). Both Matthew and Luke present the genealogies of Joseph (though both contradict each other), not of Mary. Even if, for the sake of discussion, Mary is from David and Solomon (Luke has Nathan instead of Solomon, further invalidating the claim), she cannot pass tribal affiliation nor crown. In 2 Kings 11, Jehosheba, daughter of King Joram, was spared by Athaliah because even if she had a son the child would not have been eligible to be king. Just an fyi, her father King Joram was king of Judah, not the king Joram of Israel (see 2 Kings 8:16-24, Joram is a shortened version of Jehoram much like Joshua is of Jehoshua).

The Davidic and Aaronic lines are patrilineal (Jer 33:17-18). Much like the yDNA which is only passed from father to son.

Anonymous said...

In regards to the idea that Jesus didn't have a human father, if God can impregnate a female's egg why do we assume he couldn't have taken a spermatozoon from Joseph to do so?

TLA said...

The Messianic Jews believe Paul was inspired and his arguments re-applying (twisting) the scriptures is legitimate.
Here are a couple of interesting links supporting the not-inspired viewpoint:
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/


More middle of the road:
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/the-quest-for-the-historical-paul/

We should keep in mind that our Supreme court in the USA is divided over how our constitution should be applied - an it is less than 250 years old.
The OT "constitution" is 2500 to 3500 years old (depending on who you think wrote it) and the NT "constitution" is about 2,00 years old.
Realistically, we really do not have an intimate knowledge of society at those times, and things that were obvious to people at the time of writing are not obvious to us today.
Google had not been invented, and no one was on FaceBook or Twitter.

Anonymous said...

TLA,

Some do not consider Messianic Judaism as a Jewish sect but a Christian sect. (I think Messianics do not call themselves Christians but followers of Yeshua.) Their beliefs vary as to the divinity of Yeshua. If one uses the NT and believe in Jesus/Yeshua/Yoshua, it is still a Christian sect regardless whether its name and outside forms are Jewish. The problem with such sect, particularly the Jews for Jesus movement, is they are targeting the Jews. Some even call their churches messianic synagogues in order to lure them.

Tanakh is scriptures. As canon, it is used as a reed or measuring rod by which to 'measure' other books including those that came in later such as Talmuds, Mishnah, Midrash, NT, etc. Books that either quote or use its teachings.

Let us examine a few of Paul's words:
1. Gal 3:22-25 VS Eze 37:24 … Paul claims that the law is our tutor and when faith, referring to Jesus, comes we are no longer under the tutor/law. In Eze 37:24 God said, “David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them."
2. Rom 11:26-27 VS Isa 59:20-21 … Paul misquoting/twisting scriptures, “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;". What Isaiah wrote - “The Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” says the Lord. In Paul's misquote, he said the messiah will turn away ungodliness. Isaiah said the messiah will come to those who turn from transgression.
3. Gal 3:16 VS Gen 13:15-16 … Paul's infamous 'seed' teaching.
4. Rom 9:24-26 VS Hos 2:23 … Paul erroneously attributes Hosea's prophecy to the gentiles. Did Paul read the 1st chapter of Hosea? In Hos 1:2-9, Hosea was commanded to take a harlot wife because the land committed great harlotry. His first child, named Jezreel, was a prophecy of the breaking of the House of Israel in the Valley of Jezreel (v4-5). His second child, named Lo-Ruhamah (literally no mercy), was a prophecy of Israel loosing God's mercy and being taken away (v6-7). His third child, named Lo-Ammi (literally not my people), "For you are not my people, and I will not be your God" (v8-9). Now read Hos 2:23, "Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, and I will have mercy (Heb ruhamah) on her who had not obtained mercy (cf Hos 1:6-7); Then I will say to those who were not My people (cf Hos 1:8-9), ‘You are My people (Heb ammi)!’ and they shall say, ‘You are my God!’”. To be sure, please read the entire first two chapters of Hosea so you will understand who is spoken of. It's the House of Israel who is prophesied to be restored in the messianic age.
5. 2 Cor 5:21 VS Eze chap 18 … Ezekiel condemns the doctrine of vicarious atonement, “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (v19-20). Read the entire chapter of Ezekiel 18.

Is there one law for the Jews and another for non-Jews? Read Num 15:16.

There are books about biblical Hebrew, Hebraism (Hebrew idioms), Hebrew Parallelism, biblical culture and others that help one to understand the culture and language of Tanakh. Yes, there are areas in Tanakh that's difficult to understand. But what Paul is twisting are the clear portions of Tanakh and the very words of God! We are warned in Deu 4:2 and Deu 12:32 not to add or take away from God's commandments. In Deu 13:1-5, God further warns us about false prophets who will deceive us.