That is interesting, Sunesis. I have never run across a hatred of Paul on the Jewish websites I have visited. In fact, there are no discussions of him at all.
I don't hate Paul. I see in his teachings many of the teachings of Kabbalah, as I do in what Jesus taught. I think much is lost in translation because so many do not have the foundation of kabbalah and therefore do not understand what Paul was saying.
I think much is also lost because people take things too literally, instead of viewing the time period within which the words were written, and/or because they somehow want to transform our society backwards into that time period.
Nevertheless, I think anytime we question what is taught and do our own research and study, we grow in leaps and bounds. For that reason, I strongly encourage Shifra to go with her theory and search it out. It matters not to me what conclusion she reaches in the end, it is the journey that is important, IMO.
I was doing some reading and came across something that I thought I would toss into the mix here. throughout the epistles, the writers talk about the return of Christ as if they expect it to happen any day now, yet it doesn't. This could make it appear as if they were mistaken, wrong about the immenent return.
In Judaism, it is taught that we are to live our lives as if today is the day the Messiah will come. Every day we are to believe all over again that today is the day. If you consider that the Apostles were Jewish before they were Christian, it makes their message clearer.
One reason that you don;t find Paul discussed on the "Jewish" web sites is explained in the book I mentioned earlier. The author takes the passage where Paul is explaining his lineage and background to the crowd assembled and, line by line, explains why, in his opinion, Paul cannot be who he claims to be in the Bible.
He simply does not accept Paul as being "Jewish". I have a feeling that he is not alone in his perceptions in the Jewish community.
Maybe. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that Jewish people do not embrace the NT as part of their bible and therefore have little interest in the writings of Paul.
The author takes the passage where Paul is explaining his lineage and background to the crowd assembled and, line by line, explains why, in his opinion, Paul cannot be who he claims to be in the Bible.
I agree. I thought in order to be a Jewish leader, one had to be married and have kids. Paul didn't do either, at least from what is written.
Anywhooooo...
Here's a little more:
Paul is said to have "confounded" the Jews (Acts 9:22), and when he tried to join up with the disciples, they were afraid of him, and didn't believe that he had been zapped into Christianity. I think this is comparable to bin Laden showing up at the Republican Convention, and asking them to assign him a place in Congress. This was not just some bubba trying to get into a bowling league. Think about it.
Paul apparently went to Arabia shortly after the episode of getting blinded, healed, converted, etc. (Gal 1:15-17), but what for? It doesn't say. Maybe it was to check in with some mysterious boss, like the girl-spies in "Charlie's Angels". Isn't it weird that we know he went to Arabia, but not why? And why THEN?
In my Bible, the book of Galatians has a zillion notes, because it was constantly being taught by TWI. In all the incredible teachings of Paul regarding the Gentiles and circumcision and all of its symbolism, did we ever hear about this one little phrase -
"I said unto Peter before them all ..." (Gal 2:14)
What this means is - that right in front of a crowd of Christians, Paul is contradicting, if not ridiculing, Peter. He goes on with the famous words, "Foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?" The context of that question, is a confrontation with Peter. Seems a little disrespectful to me. Seems a little divisive. He could have just talked to Peter privately. Yep, I think Paul was a trouble causer, who planted doubt in the minds of believers, and who turned one bunch of Christians against another. How about this comment: "The Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica". In psychology, this is called "splitting", turning one party against another by way of negative comparison. He was a jerk.
I'm with you, Shifra. Not that my company should give you any comfort. ;)
I started a similar thread not too long ago. Didn't get much traction, plus I got busy.
I think something isn't right with that Paul character. I don't know if I would say he was a spy, but something isn't right. You can't argue there are some good teachings in the writings attributed to Paul. Then again there is that subtle devisiveness, the subtle differences, and the unprecedented Jesus intervention/ conversion of Saul the Christian killer, with the unknown and illusive "certain disciple", Ananias. (Not unprecedented in that Jesus did it, trinitarian fans, but that it was with a mass murderer on his way to find more Christians to kill. Not exactly, the humble and meek seeker of the Messiah type conversion. A conversion by force. Doesn't jive with Peter's "save yourselves" or anything else I have ever read in there.)
Comparing Paul with the gospel's renditions of Jesus' words is somewhat problematic, mainly because Paul's writings are the first records of the man Jesus, as far as I know. They predate the gospels. So it is not like the gospels should be looked at as a more accuate or more pure version of the things Jesus said and did. This can go way off into what Larry brought up concerning the existence of the man Jesus.
Personally I find it odd that with a man like Jesus around performing miracles, healing people, walking on water, raising people from the dead, going before high priests and governmental officials etc. in a literate culture, the first we hear of him is from a guy who never actually met him in person. Only after his death does our first author meet him. A little off topic, I know, but the discussion of the legitamacy of Paul ultimately leads to the legitamacy of Jesus.
I mean to get my hand on that Mythmaker book. Sounds interesting.
I also agree with Abi's kabbalah comment. Paul doesn't seem to fit well with the Pharisees or Sadducee groups but he claims to have been a Pharisee while working for the high priest, rounding up Christians. The way I understand it that would make him working for the Sadducees. Correct me if I'm wrong.
As I said, there is still plenty of good stuff in there, so go with the good and scrap the rest and seek for the real truth.
I mean to get my hand on that Mythmaker book. Sounds interesting.
lindyhopper, I remember the book makes some interesting points (to consider) but, it's difficult to buy into his arguments when he obviously can't see the flaws in his own premises. But, I'm sure you'll not be wasting your time reading it.
I'm not a scholar, but here's what this thread has got me to thinking--
How would a man who never met or knew Jesus in life, who had the after death conversion that no one else has ever had--know more about the Christ than those who were with him day after day, saw how he lived, heard all his teaching...doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm not a scholar, but here's what this thread has got me to thinking--
How would a man who never met or knew Jesus in life, who had the after death conversion that no one else has ever had--know more about the Christ than those who were with him day after day, saw how he lived, heard all his teaching...doesn't make a lot of sense.
Bramble, the answer to that question requires one to believe that God is able to communicate (via revelation) with man. If He can then it's possible for a man like Paul to know Jesus even though he hadn't spent time with him day after day as did the Apostles.
Another possibility -- and this is something someone else alluded to -- is the passage where Paul didn't do anything for a few years after his conversion. It could be that during that time he was listening to someone who actually spent time with Jesus getting to know him better.
Since you seem to have already concluded that the Pauline epistles are something other than "God-breathed",
wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just accept what the Bible critics have said for eons? That is, that The Bible is simply a collection of man-made doctrines, mythology, and a smattering of history that - although "baptized" many years ago- is no more
holy or inspired than a few dozen other "holy" writs. That is - not at all.
Just what is it about The Bible that makes anyone think it - or any part of it - is "GOD"S WORD"? I mean, other than the fact that our parents and (western) ancestors generally seemed to think so?
The Bible makes so much more sense to me, now that I've given up on any idea of it being Godly, infallible, or some sort of guide to "THE TRUTH". No more contradictions or "difficult" verses, just the ramblings of fearful, ignorant, and superstitious people. Voila! All that hard to understand stuff becomes transparent.
I agree with you !!! If I didn't agree with you, would I be disassembling the Epistles like this?
What I have NOT concluded yet was whether Paul did all this stuff maliciously and intentionally, or if it was just his own personal religious quirk-y-ness. Whatever the driving force was behind his travels and teachings, it sure took its toll on Christianity.
Please note that these are the only two explanations I am considering, about Paul. I am not considering the standard Apostle-blinded-by-the-light version.
I am really on your side when it comes to literal interpretation, as well as the dumb notion that the Bible is the one and only truth. At the same time, I hang on to being a Christian myself, and find it a very sad thing that so many other Christians are divided among themselves, as well as being hateful towards other religions ... mostly because of Paul's writings.
And Lindyhopper,
Do I know you? You have added some fuel to my conspiracy theory with your remarks about the Epistles being written before the Gospels. I didn't know that. Makes ya wonder if maybe some of Jesus' buddies felt a need to clarify Paul's misconceptions, so they decided to write their own books.
I can't believe how far many of you have drifted from the truth. You have forgotten.
You have broken the word.
The Bible was written by holy men who saw "two" realities.
Where would the Christian church be without this:
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
When people are law conscious it does not matter how many times God (through Paul) tells them they are free they will gravitate to the few vague places where it seems "maybe" they are not free and use these places to persecute God and others (even themselves) without mercy.
Grace is the very first step of the Christian walk...
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Comment: The world has obtained grace. I consider Paul the apostle a genuine man of God that within his plight to settle his warring mind received the revelation that enabled him to reconcile the law that had been instilled within him in light of his love for the lord Jesus Christ. This reconciliation came in the spiritual understanding of the gift of God and the law of liberty and equality.
When people are law conscious it does not matter how many times God (through Paul) tells them they are free they will gravitate to the few vague places where it seems "maybe" they are not free and use these places to persecute God and others (even themselves) without mercy.
quote]
And yet Paul instituted his own laws in the process. Laws about whether or not to marry and why, whether or not to divorce and why, laws about when women could and could not speak, laws about marking and avoiding, laws about divorce, etc.
Does it make sense to try to convince me of Paul's holiness, by using the words of Paul to put me down? Beep beep beep beep warning warning incoming Waybrain alert !!!!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
23
45
50
Popular Days
Jul 25
48
Jul 27
32
Jul 22
22
Jul 24
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 34 posts
cman 23 posts
Larry N Moore 45 posts
DrWearWord 50 posts
Popular Days
Jul 25 2007
48 posts
Jul 27 2007
32 posts
Jul 22 2007
22 posts
Jul 24 2007
16 posts
Abigail
That is interesting, Sunesis. I have never run across a hatred of Paul on the Jewish websites I have visited. In fact, there are no discussions of him at all.
I don't hate Paul. I see in his teachings many of the teachings of Kabbalah, as I do in what Jesus taught. I think much is lost in translation because so many do not have the foundation of kabbalah and therefore do not understand what Paul was saying.
I think much is also lost because people take things too literally, instead of viewing the time period within which the words were written, and/or because they somehow want to transform our society backwards into that time period.
Nevertheless, I think anytime we question what is taught and do our own research and study, we grow in leaps and bounds. For that reason, I strongly encourage Shifra to go with her theory and search it out. It matters not to me what conclusion she reaches in the end, it is the journey that is important, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Thanks Jean. It was. Got some wonderful memories and some awesome pictures to help me remember.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Shifra,
I was doing some reading and came across something that I thought I would toss into the mix here. throughout the epistles, the writers talk about the return of Christ as if they expect it to happen any day now, yet it doesn't. This could make it appear as if they were mistaken, wrong about the immenent return.
In Judaism, it is taught that we are to live our lives as if today is the day the Messiah will come. Every day we are to believe all over again that today is the day. If you consider that the Apostles were Jewish before they were Christian, it makes their message clearer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Hi Shifra, and thanks for seeing and posting what you see.
It's no small task to do that and takes courage.
To look at these sections with life in mind rather then what we were told they mean,
can open up many perspectives in many areas of understanding.
Even all things can change in a few moments or just one.
The opening of even one thing can lead to many things being understood better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i really like this thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
One reason that you don;t find Paul discussed on the "Jewish" web sites is explained in the book I mentioned earlier. The author takes the passage where Paul is explaining his lineage and background to the crowd assembled and, line by line, explains why, in his opinion, Paul cannot be who he claims to be in the Bible.
He simply does not accept Paul as being "Jewish". I have a feeling that he is not alone in his perceptions in the Jewish community.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Maybe. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that Jewish people do not embrace the NT as part of their bible and therefore have little interest in the writings of Paul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
TL, is this -- http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm -- what you're referring to?
The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Temple Lady,
I agree. I thought in order to be a Jewish leader, one had to be married and have kids. Paul didn't do either, at least from what is written.
Anywhooooo...
Here's a little more:
Paul is said to have "confounded" the Jews (Acts 9:22), and when he tried to join up with the disciples, they were afraid of him, and didn't believe that he had been zapped into Christianity. I think this is comparable to bin Laden showing up at the Republican Convention, and asking them to assign him a place in Congress. This was not just some bubba trying to get into a bowling league. Think about it.
Paul apparently went to Arabia shortly after the episode of getting blinded, healed, converted, etc. (Gal 1:15-17), but what for? It doesn't say. Maybe it was to check in with some mysterious boss, like the girl-spies in "Charlie's Angels". Isn't it weird that we know he went to Arabia, but not why? And why THEN?
In my Bible, the book of Galatians has a zillion notes, because it was constantly being taught by TWI. In all the incredible teachings of Paul regarding the Gentiles and circumcision and all of its symbolism, did we ever hear about this one little phrase -
"I said unto Peter before them all ..." (Gal 2:14)
What this means is - that right in front of a crowd of Christians, Paul is contradicting, if not ridiculing, Peter. He goes on with the famous words, "Foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?" The context of that question, is a confrontation with Peter. Seems a little disrespectful to me. Seems a little divisive. He could have just talked to Peter privately. Yep, I think Paul was a trouble causer, who planted doubt in the minds of believers, and who turned one bunch of Christians against another. How about this comment: "The Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica". In psychology, this is called "splitting", turning one party against another by way of negative comparison. He was a jerk.
Or maybe not. Still checking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I'm with you, Shifra. Not that my company should give you any comfort. ;)
I started a similar thread not too long ago. Didn't get much traction, plus I got busy.
I think something isn't right with that Paul character. I don't know if I would say he was a spy, but something isn't right. You can't argue there are some good teachings in the writings attributed to Paul. Then again there is that subtle devisiveness, the subtle differences, and the unprecedented Jesus intervention/ conversion of Saul the Christian killer, with the unknown and illusive "certain disciple", Ananias. (Not unprecedented in that Jesus did it, trinitarian fans, but that it was with a mass murderer on his way to find more Christians to kill. Not exactly, the humble and meek seeker of the Messiah type conversion. A conversion by force. Doesn't jive with Peter's "save yourselves" or anything else I have ever read in there.)
Comparing Paul with the gospel's renditions of Jesus' words is somewhat problematic, mainly because Paul's writings are the first records of the man Jesus, as far as I know. They predate the gospels. So it is not like the gospels should be looked at as a more accuate or more pure version of the things Jesus said and did. This can go way off into what Larry brought up concerning the existence of the man Jesus.
Personally I find it odd that with a man like Jesus around performing miracles, healing people, walking on water, raising people from the dead, going before high priests and governmental officials etc. in a literate culture, the first we hear of him is from a guy who never actually met him in person. Only after his death does our first author meet him. A little off topic, I know, but the discussion of the legitamacy of Paul ultimately leads to the legitamacy of Jesus.
I mean to get my hand on that Mythmaker book. Sounds interesting.
I also agree with Abi's kabbalah comment. Paul doesn't seem to fit well with the Pharisees or Sadducee groups but he claims to have been a Pharisee while working for the high priest, rounding up Christians. The way I understand it that would make him working for the Sadducees. Correct me if I'm wrong.
As I said, there is still plenty of good stuff in there, so go with the good and scrap the rest and seek for the real truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
lindyhopper, I remember the book makes some interesting points (to consider) but, it's difficult to buy into his arguments when he obviously can't see the flaws in his own premises. But, I'm sure you'll not be wasting your time reading it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I'm not a scholar, but here's what this thread has got me to thinking--
How would a man who never met or knew Jesus in life, who had the after death conversion that no one else has ever had--know more about the Christ than those who were with him day after day, saw how he lived, heard all his teaching...doesn't make a lot of sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Bramble, the answer to that question requires one to believe that God is able to communicate (via revelation) with man. If He can then it's possible for a man like Paul to know Jesus even though he hadn't spent time with him day after day as did the Apostles.
Another possibility -- and this is something someone else alluded to -- is the passage where Paul didn't do anything for a few years after his conversion. It could be that during that time he was listening to someone who actually spent time with Jesus getting to know him better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Paul and Victor Paul hijack true Christianity, 2000 years apart!
I think I'll go smoke a nice tasty cigar and mull it over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It may not be an accident. :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You mean to tell me that it was God "ordained"? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Shifra,
Since you seem to have already concluded that the Pauline epistles are something other than "God-breathed",
wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just accept what the Bible critics have said for eons? That is, that The Bible is simply a collection of man-made doctrines, mythology, and a smattering of history that - although "baptized" many years ago- is no more
holy or inspired than a few dozen other "holy" writs. That is - not at all.
Just what is it about The Bible that makes anyone think it - or any part of it - is "GOD"S WORD"? I mean, other than the fact that our parents and (western) ancestors generally seemed to think so?
The Bible makes so much more sense to me, now that I've given up on any idea of it being Godly, infallible, or some sort of guide to "THE TRUTH". No more contradictions or "difficult" verses, just the ramblings of fearful, ignorant, and superstitious people. Voila! All that hard to understand stuff becomes transparent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
George,
I agree with you !!! If I didn't agree with you, would I be disassembling the Epistles like this?
What I have NOT concluded yet was whether Paul did all this stuff maliciously and intentionally, or if it was just his own personal religious quirk-y-ness. Whatever the driving force was behind his travels and teachings, it sure took its toll on Christianity.
Please note that these are the only two explanations I am considering, about Paul. I am not considering the standard Apostle-blinded-by-the-light version.
I am really on your side when it comes to literal interpretation, as well as the dumb notion that the Bible is the one and only truth. At the same time, I hang on to being a Christian myself, and find it a very sad thing that so many other Christians are divided among themselves, as well as being hateful towards other religions ... mostly because of Paul's writings.
And Lindyhopper,
Do I know you? You have added some fuel to my conspiracy theory with your remarks about the Epistles being written before the Gospels. I didn't know that. Makes ya wonder if maybe some of Jesus' buddies felt a need to clarify Paul's misconceptions, so they decided to write their own books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
In all love and respect...
I can't believe how far many of you have drifted from the truth. You have forgotten.
You have broken the word.
The Bible was written by holy men who saw "two" realities.
Where would the Christian church be without this:
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
When people are law conscious it does not matter how many times God (through Paul) tells them they are free they will gravitate to the few vague places where it seems "maybe" they are not free and use these places to persecute God and others (even themselves) without mercy.
Grace is the very first step of the Christian walk...
wearword
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Comment: The world has obtained grace. I consider Paul the apostle a genuine man of God that within his plight to settle his warring mind received the revelation that enabled him to reconcile the law that had been instilled within him in light of his love for the lord Jesus Christ. This reconciliation came in the spiritual understanding of the gift of God and the law of liberty and equality.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
DrWW ...
Does it make sense to try to convince me of Paul's holiness, by using the words of Paul to put me down? Beep beep beep beep warning warning incoming Waybrain alert !!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.