With what Sunesis established, it was what Paul announced, therein is what caused the turning away event; so we can say this, or that; or that god or that spirit; that person or this person; a announcement of someone out of their mind. Thanks Sunesis, trippe stuff.
What a trip; they turned away from Paul for announcing this body; and they turn away from me, for telling that same announcement of a body, to flee from that spirit teaching "The Martindale Effect"
While Paul may not spend a lot of time quoting the OT, he and Jesus both spent a lot of time discussing Jewish oral traditions that are not contained within the OT
I believe you'll find that Paul quotes the OT at length in both the epistles of Romans and Galatians. Jesus is reported as quoting the OT throughout the Gospels if I'm not mistaken.
How about if Paul and Jesus were "cunningly devised fables" created by visionary liberal Jews and Greek scribes of the first century to combat the racist Old Testament doctrines? Tarsus a very multicultural city of liberal strata. In other words, it was written for the radically orthodox of the faiths, yet, if you are/were already liberal to moderate you don't even need the Bible... (like the kind Samaritan)
Josephus doesn't even record Herod's slaughter of the innocents in the opening of the book of Matthew. Doesn't it seem odd that Josephus writes of Herod but never mentions the slaughter of perhaps many thousands of infants?
There is no credible evidence to support your argument and I'm a bit unclear as to where you're getting the idea that Paul was liberal. If anything he was quite the opposite. Perhaps you're referring to Paul's teaching that the Gentiles being fellow heirs?
I've never read Josephus, apparentally you have. Nevertheless, I wouldn't consider him not including the record you mentioned as damning evidence that the event never happened. But if you want to bring Josepus' writings into the discussion, I am aware that he did mention Jesus Christ. That refutes your argument that Jesus was a fable.
I think Josephus would be careful about writing some things, The Herods were still ruling when he wrote, and their family had married into the Caesar's bloodline and there was a lot of angst between the Jews and the Romans as it was.
erkjohn, you are correct, Paul does quote the OT in Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Galations, I & II Thessalonians, and Hebrews.
This is why, I believe:
I finally realized - for me - in order to understand the NT (not counting gospels), ask myself the question:
Were they believing and looking for Israel's hope when this book was written?
The books I mentioned above were written during the Acts time period. What were they looking for during Acts? The Gentiles by grace had been "grafted" in and were now partakers of Israel's hope and promises.
No one ever dreamed the Messiah would be rejected. They were looking for his return from heaven in glory - they were looking for Revelation to begin - that was the END for them - there was no other alternative. And, he was coming shortly. They fully expected to be alive when he returned.
That is the hope Paul taught and preached, so yes, in the books I mentioned, the OT was quoted extensively. He was preparing them, especially the gentiles who were born again, to enter into the earthly kingdome, partaking of Israel's hope.
Then, as I said, uh-oh... Israel did not repent... Now what???
God goes to the Gentiles. Paul now receives the "fullness" of the revelation - the cherry on top, kept secret from before the foundations of the world. It was inconceivable to that the Messiah would be rejected - but God knew.
The so-called "prison epistles" - Ephesians, Colossians, Phillipians, Philemon, I & II Timothy (I'm missing one - don't have my bible with me) - were written AFTER the Book of Acts closes, were written AFTER Israel was set aside. They were written after. They deal with the new revelation of the Mystery. Thus, you will find almost no OT quotes in these epistles as it was not written there. I and II Timothy to me are kind of like a transition books - how a leader conducts himself in this new administration of the mystery.
I believe that's why there, Paul tells Timothy to "rightly divide" the Word. Back then, everyone knew the OT and OT prohecies, and many were fullfilled by Christ when he was on earth, but now, you have this parenthesis, this age of grace and it was to be "rightly divided" - the difference between OT, and the sliver of time we're in now - the age of grace. It was important to keep the distinctions between the two and where they were after Israel was put aside in Acts 28.
When you read the "prison epistles" you're in a new, spiritual dimension. Paul explains the new creation and where its place (Glory) will be in the new creation and eternity. We will be dwellers in the light and will need new bodies to dwell in this place.
Plus, we are told our "blessings" are in heavenly places - not on earth, like Israel's.
So, anyway, to me, I ask when I read the epistles - which hope were they looking for?
I think TWI's mistake was putting Acts and all the NT together. But that's another topic.
So, yes, you will read OT verses in Galations and Romans - why? Because they were looking for Israel's hope, prophesied in the OT and eagerly awaited. The Mystery had not yet been revealed yet during the period those books were written.
Didn't you ever wonder, even in TWI (I did), how in Romans, we were basically lucky to be grafted into to the olive tree (Israel), but just as the natural branches were pruned - watch out - you, Mr. Gentile, could be too. Then contrast in Eph.: neither depth nor height, things in this world or the next can ever separate us from the love of Christ? What a contradiction.
So, once I figured out, which hope were they looking for - Israel's? (as they were in Romans) then it made sense.
The prison epistles move you into a new spiritual territory.
Even today many people don't get them and are totally flummoxed by Ephesians, which is considered the greatest "mystical" book of the NT. Maybe that's why its the only one written to the "faithful in Christ Jesus." :)
Sunesis, so could one think of that Olive tree, as a parable in a way, sometime to help us focus our walk, can we turn what Paul first taught, that hope, into parables?
Well, I don't know a whole lot about parables, except that the ones Christ spoke in the Gospels were regarding the coming Kingdom to earth (Israel's hope), and the things in the parable did symbolize other things.
All I know is, I was alway hoping I didn't do anything too bad to get cut off and lose my "grafted" status as discussed in Romans :).
I really think there is a difference, there was a transition from what I call the Acts period - or the time when the Savior and Kingdom were offered again to Israel after Christ's death, to the transition and a new period, where Israel was set aside and new period, the age of grace was ushered in, where all gentile nations could partake - i.e., the age of Grace and the one new creation, the one body with a home in Glory. This was not made known until the "prison" epistles written after the book of Acts closes.
The other epistles were written during Acts and correspond with the accounts in Acts as they were waiting for the immediate return of their Messiah.
That's why Paul in one epistle can say, if you aren't married, its best if you don't. Later, after he realized Israel was in abeyance, he had the revelation of Grace and the one body and realized we were in a new age, he said - go ahead, get married.
So Sunesis, I wrote this work, I start in Hebrews and then I cut it at Hebrews 11:40 and then I harmonized the four gospels and then I used the first two chapters of Acts and then went into Romans; my question is, I should not have done that with Romans?
A whole lot stems from this as well. At First everyone was so sure Christ was going to return to the Earth at the mount of Olives as prophesied, and during their lifetimes and fulfill all the promises of the Messiah. He still will, but God had something in mind that trumped those activities for the time being. He had always wanted Children just like him,... spiritual children, children that would occupy the heavenlies with Him, fill His house. A new body, A new creation.
God has always been a rather creative fellow. He did something NEW,.... and He had this plan from before he foundations of the earth, and no one else knew it, and it's not the old plan, it was a big surprise. In this plan, the slate is clean and the hope for those in it, is different than in the old plan.
There is a New Covenant now. All things have not continued as they have from the beginning. Although many want to believe that.
In John 5:26, For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the son to have life in himself Yeshua was to have that life, he did not have it when he was on the earth. We learn in Luke, when Yeshua showed up all of a sudden to his disciples who were behind closed doors for fear of the Israelites, Yeshua said to them, Does a spirit have a flesh and bone as you see me have touch my hands, Yeshua did not have a spirit body, Yeshua has a flesh and bone body with that life in himself.
In John 5:26, For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the son to have life in himself Yeshua was to have that life, he did not have it when he was on the earth. We learn in Luke, when Yeshua showed up all of a sudden to his disciples who were behind closed doors for fear of the Israelites, Yeshua said to them, Does a spirit have a flesh and bone as you see me have touch my hands, Yeshua did not have a spirit body, Yeshua has a flesh and bone body with that life in himself.
Now then. if an angel can wrestle with a man he must be flesh and bone too,... right?
An angel has a body that is made out of spirit-life source unknown-whatever that life is in them generates light-a body made of spirit cannot contain that light-light not as bright, can make contact with a man
Yahweh has a body that is composed of spirit-life within himself-the life that he has within himself generates light-a body composed of spirit cannot contain that light-light to bright, a man cannot look directly at Yahweh
Yeshua has some kind of flesh and bone body-life within himself-that life that he has within himself generates light-a body of some kind of flesh and bone can contain that light-light is contained, a man can look at Yeshua
I think you're missing the point, teachmevp. Here's the point. Jesus was raised from the dead. he now has a body that can trasvel theough the heavenlies to teach to imprisoned spirits in the deep, or be on the road to Emmaeus in one instant and somewhere else in the next. It can look like he did before or fool someone close to him into not being able to recognize him. And we're going to have one just like he has. Why overanalyze it? You'll haver one one day It'll be a body that can travel to the heavens and sit at God's right hand. It's not a body like anything you've ever had. It's part of your hope too.
This is what Martindale is going stand before Yahweh for, for not bring this truth to the body. Martindale was told to finish the job, but he chose to glory in the way; his glorying in the way is not what he is in hot water for with Yahweh, Martindale is going answer to Yahweh about not bring this truth to the body. I see your point, please dump that spirit stuff.
Had Martindale introduced this truth to the body, their would not had been no spiritual adventures in the back room; no my inner-spirit is bigger than your inner-spirit, it is that spirit teaching that hurt so many people, all that stuff should not have had happen; but Martindale turn his back on us, the body!
In I Timothy 1:15, the Apostle Paul writes that, "...all they which dwell in Asia be turned away from me...." KJV
We heard it taught in TWI that verse meant, well, that everyone turned away from Paul. Yet later in that same epistle Paul lists people for Timothy to greet that obviously did not abandon him. As a matter of fact, Timothy was allegedly in Asia at the time of this writing, and he hadn't abandoned Paul. So what did Paul mean by this? I honestly don't know. Anyone have any additional insight on this?
Back to the thread now: Did Early Christians Turn Away from Paul?
erkjohn,... I believe you answered your own question in the verse you quoted.
It seems we're all concentrating on the how and why of it. Paul wrote that they did. The reasons for it may or may not be what we think. We humans love to speculate beyond what's written and give our interpretations and cause our own divisions. We're all good for that, but yeah, they turned away from him.
How can we learn to use that hair stuff; Sunesis established the event of the announcement of Paul, how can we learn from that hair stuff, in accordance to the announcement of Paul about the body?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
6
7
35
Popular Days
Jun 28
30
Jun 26
14
Jun 29
12
Jun 27
10
Top Posters In This Topic
DrWearWord 5 posts
Broken Arrow 6 posts
Gen-2 7 posts
teachmevp 35 posts
Popular Days
Jun 28 2010
30 posts
Jun 26 2010
14 posts
Jun 29 2010
12 posts
Jun 27 2010
10 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Yes, they did. Remember, Isreal rejected its Messiah, and the "last call" so to speak of the Apostles, that if Israel repented, Christ was ready to come back in his glory and they would enter the boo
cman
So what? I don't think Paul's intent was to have anyone turn towards him. Only to hear him out, I would suppose, and not some sort of following as indicated. Furthering my questioning of the reliab
Sunesis
Teachme, I believe the "something better" in Hebrews 11:40 was the coming Kingdom on earth promised in the OT and the better city, the New Jerusalem that Abraham looked for. There will be the heavenl
teachmevp
With what Sunesis established, it was what Paul announced, therein is what caused the turning away event; so we can say this, or that; or that god or that spirit; that person or this person; a announcement of someone out of their mind. Thanks Sunesis, trippe stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
What a trip; they turned away from Paul for announcing this body; and they turn away from me, for telling that same announcement of a body, to flee from that spirit teaching "The Martindale Effect"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I believe you'll find that Paul quotes the OT at length in both the epistles of Romans and Galatians. Jesus is reported as quoting the OT throughout the Gospels if I'm not mistaken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
There is no credible evidence to support your argument and I'm a bit unclear as to where you're getting the idea that Paul was liberal. If anything he was quite the opposite. Perhaps you're referring to Paul's teaching that the Gentiles being fellow heirs?
I've never read Josephus, apparentally you have. Nevertheless, I wouldn't consider him not including the record you mentioned as damning evidence that the event never happened. But if you want to bring Josepus' writings into the discussion, I am aware that he did mention Jesus Christ. That refutes your argument that Jesus was a fable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
I think Josephus would be careful about writing some things, The Herods were still ruling when he wrote, and their family had married into the Caesar's bloodline and there was a lot of angst between the Jews and the Romans as it was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
erkjohn, you are correct, Paul does quote the OT in Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Galations, I & II Thessalonians, and Hebrews.
This is why, I believe:
I finally realized - for me - in order to understand the NT (not counting gospels), ask myself the question:
Were they believing and looking for Israel's hope when this book was written?
The books I mentioned above were written during the Acts time period. What were they looking for during Acts? The Gentiles by grace had been "grafted" in and were now partakers of Israel's hope and promises.
No one ever dreamed the Messiah would be rejected. They were looking for his return from heaven in glory - they were looking for Revelation to begin - that was the END for them - there was no other alternative. And, he was coming shortly. They fully expected to be alive when he returned.
That is the hope Paul taught and preached, so yes, in the books I mentioned, the OT was quoted extensively. He was preparing them, especially the gentiles who were born again, to enter into the earthly kingdome, partaking of Israel's hope.
Then, as I said, uh-oh... Israel did not repent... Now what???
God goes to the Gentiles. Paul now receives the "fullness" of the revelation - the cherry on top, kept secret from before the foundations of the world. It was inconceivable to that the Messiah would be rejected - but God knew.
The so-called "prison epistles" - Ephesians, Colossians, Phillipians, Philemon, I & II Timothy (I'm missing one - don't have my bible with me) - were written AFTER the Book of Acts closes, were written AFTER Israel was set aside. They were written after. They deal with the new revelation of the Mystery. Thus, you will find almost no OT quotes in these epistles as it was not written there. I and II Timothy to me are kind of like a transition books - how a leader conducts himself in this new administration of the mystery.
I believe that's why there, Paul tells Timothy to "rightly divide" the Word. Back then, everyone knew the OT and OT prohecies, and many were fullfilled by Christ when he was on earth, but now, you have this parenthesis, this age of grace and it was to be "rightly divided" - the difference between OT, and the sliver of time we're in now - the age of grace. It was important to keep the distinctions between the two and where they were after Israel was put aside in Acts 28.
When you read the "prison epistles" you're in a new, spiritual dimension. Paul explains the new creation and where its place (Glory) will be in the new creation and eternity. We will be dwellers in the light and will need new bodies to dwell in this place.
Plus, we are told our "blessings" are in heavenly places - not on earth, like Israel's.
So, anyway, to me, I ask when I read the epistles - which hope were they looking for?
I think TWI's mistake was putting Acts and all the NT together. But that's another topic.
So, yes, you will read OT verses in Galations and Romans - why? Because they were looking for Israel's hope, prophesied in the OT and eagerly awaited. The Mystery had not yet been revealed yet during the period those books were written.
Didn't you ever wonder, even in TWI (I did), how in Romans, we were basically lucky to be grafted into to the olive tree (Israel), but just as the natural branches were pruned - watch out - you, Mr. Gentile, could be too. Then contrast in Eph.: neither depth nor height, things in this world or the next can ever separate us from the love of Christ? What a contradiction.
So, once I figured out, which hope were they looking for - Israel's? (as they were in Romans) then it made sense.
The prison epistles move you into a new spiritual territory.
Even today many people don't get them and are totally flummoxed by Ephesians, which is considered the greatest "mystical" book of the NT. Maybe that's why its the only one written to the "faithful in Christ Jesus." :)
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Sunesis, so could one think of that Olive tree, as a parable in a way, sometime to help us focus our walk, can we turn what Paul first taught, that hope, into parables?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Or should it be taught like, Paul first taught us so and so; but after the announcement so and so?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Well, I don't know a whole lot about parables, except that the ones Christ spoke in the Gospels were regarding the coming Kingdom to earth (Israel's hope), and the things in the parable did symbolize other things.
All I know is, I was alway hoping I didn't do anything too bad to get cut off and lose my "grafted" status as discussed in Romans :).
I really think there is a difference, there was a transition from what I call the Acts period - or the time when the Savior and Kingdom were offered again to Israel after Christ's death, to the transition and a new period, where Israel was set aside and new period, the age of grace was ushered in, where all gentile nations could partake - i.e., the age of Grace and the one new creation, the one body with a home in Glory. This was not made known until the "prison" epistles written after the book of Acts closes.
The other epistles were written during Acts and correspond with the accounts in Acts as they were waiting for the immediate return of their Messiah.
That's why Paul in one epistle can say, if you aren't married, its best if you don't. Later, after he realized Israel was in abeyance, he had the revelation of Grace and the one body and realized we were in a new age, he said - go ahead, get married.
He knew it was a new administation so to speak.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
That is cool stuff, thanks for the learning. Kinda makes one stand back a bit, and take a look at this new truth I was taught, thanks man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
So Sunesis, I wrote this work, I start in Hebrews and then I cut it at Hebrews 11:40 and then I harmonized the four gospels and then I used the first two chapters of Acts and then went into Romans; my question is, I should not have done that with Romans?
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
If I could ask your thought on this matter in Hebrews 11:40? I think we as a body once in heaven, have a lot of work to do, to help bring this about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
A whole lot stems from this as well. At First everyone was so sure Christ was going to return to the Earth at the mount of Olives as prophesied, and during their lifetimes and fulfill all the promises of the Messiah. He still will, but God had something in mind that trumped those activities for the time being. He had always wanted Children just like him,... spiritual children, children that would occupy the heavenlies with Him, fill His house. A new body, A new creation.
God has always been a rather creative fellow. He did something NEW,.... and He had this plan from before he foundations of the earth, and no one else knew it, and it's not the old plan, it was a big surprise. In this plan, the slate is clean and the hope for those in it, is different than in the old plan.
There is a New Covenant now. All things have not continued as they have from the beginning. Although many want to believe that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
In John 5:26, For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the son to have life in himself Yeshua was to have that life, he did not have it when he was on the earth. We learn in Luke, when Yeshua showed up all of a sudden to his disciples who were behind closed doors for fear of the Israelites, Yeshua said to them, Does a spirit have a flesh and bone as you see me have touch my hands, Yeshua did not have a spirit body, Yeshua has a flesh and bone body with that life in himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Now then. if an angel can wrestle with a man he must be flesh and bone too,... right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
An angel has a body that is made out of spirit-life source unknown-whatever that life is in them generates light-a body made of spirit cannot contain that light-light not as bright, can make contact with a man
Yahweh has a body that is composed of spirit-life within himself-the life that he has within himself generates light-a body composed of spirit cannot contain that light-light to bright, a man cannot look directly at Yahweh
Yeshua has some kind of flesh and bone body-life within himself-that life that he has within himself generates light-a body of some kind of flesh and bone can contain that light-light is contained, a man can look at Yeshua
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
I think you're missing the point, teachmevp. Here's the point. Jesus was raised from the dead. he now has a body that can trasvel theough the heavenlies to teach to imprisoned spirits in the deep, or be on the road to Emmaeus in one instant and somewhere else in the next. It can look like he did before or fool someone close to him into not being able to recognize him. And we're going to have one just like he has. Why overanalyze it? You'll haver one one day It'll be a body that can travel to the heavens and sit at God's right hand. It's not a body like anything you've ever had. It's part of your hope too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
This is what Martindale is going stand before Yahweh for, for not bring this truth to the body. Martindale was told to finish the job, but he chose to glory in the way; his glorying in the way is not what he is in hot water for with Yahweh, Martindale is going answer to Yahweh about not bring this truth to the body. I see your point, please dump that spirit stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Had Martindale introduced this truth to the body, their would not had been no spiritual adventures in the back room; no my inner-spirit is bigger than your inner-spirit, it is that spirit teaching that hurt so many people, all that stuff should not have had happen; but Martindale turn his back on us, the body!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Back to the thread now: Did Early Christians Turn Away from Paul?
erkjohn,... I believe you answered your own question in the verse you quoted.
It seems we're all concentrating on the how and why of it. Paul wrote that they did. The reasons for it may or may not be what we think. We humans love to speculate beyond what's written and give our interpretations and cause our own divisions. We're all good for that, but yeah, they turned away from him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
1 Corinthians 11
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
That hair thing is trippe stuff?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
How can we learn to use that hair stuff; Sunesis established the event of the announcement of Paul, how can we learn from that hair stuff, in accordance to the announcement of Paul about the body?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
it's pretty obvious it's not about hair literally-you think?
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.