cass256

That is only Pauls side of the story. Paul turned his back on the law and he was supposedly a Jew. James kept the law and said that it was by works of the law a person is justified, and not faith alone as Paul touted. Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away. Those who didn't keep the law, like paul, would say Lord Lord didn't I do miracles in your name, and Jesus would say I nver knew you, you who work lawlessness.
Peter supposedly said in acts that until the return all was not fulfilled.
James It is obvious from Paul complains about Jame's spys, and directly contradicts Peter, because Paul believed that some light in the sky gave him greater authority than those who Jesus left in Charge. Paul invented his own religion. They should have called it paulianity. in fact many are starting to.

Where is his lettter from james? Read Acts and see how Barnabus and Mark leave paul.

[quote]Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
[quote]
Guess Saul/Paul was no saint according to the Revelation.

cass256

This was what Luke, Paul's friend said james told them, but Paul ignored it. And Paul created the new religion for Rome, and Constantine saved only what fit against the law and for the Sun God, and the Holy Roman Empire took it away. You can still see evidence if you visit a catholic church. the law not to make a graven image of anything in heaven or on earth (IDOLS) is completely irgnore. They eat the bread wafers lifted up to the idol hanging on the wall directly behind the hewn stone altar, which was also taboo. Altars were to me made of uncut stones, according to law.

cass256

If the new covenant was in place, everyone would follow the law, because YHWH would write the law inside each person and it would be followed to the hilt. Again, gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the law in order to become Israel and the new Covenant, where no man would have to tell another because all would know that god.

cass256

have a little pork, say maybe a big fat ham, on Easter? This YHWh was saying to a people he called to that was not called by his name. He stretched his hand out to a rebelious people, who act as they please and think they are holier than everyone else.

CJD

Wrong. They do follow the Law (its sum and essence). That is the point of Romans 2 (the very passage Zeichman pointed us to). I suggest reading post #6 again.

Yes, but clearly the author intends to show a 'spritual' reality (that Gentiles are now to be brought into the kingdom) through the symbol of an earthly one (eating kosher has nothing to do with one's identity in the covenant).

Yes, but unfortunately this fact does not support your conclusion that …

What he turned his back on was the notion that Torah observance demarcated who the covenant people of YHWH were. He didn't have a problem with Torah per se; he had a problem with Israelites imposing it upon Gentiles as a means to keep themselves in covenant with YHWH (i.e., "justified" in the present).

Among other things, the "justification" the letter of James refers to is the justification to come, not the justification declared in the present. One needn't go to James to find an apparent contradiction. Just go to Romans 2:13–16. There, "the doers of Torah" are the ones who will be justified. This is completely nonsensical if we take the line of thought you have thus far (again, read post #6, esp. para. 4).

And it hasn't, in the deeper sense that the author of Matthew proposes (see Matt. 5:21–48). Context, cass256, context.

CJD

Zeichman

Find me a half-dozen scholars who believe that Jesus actually said that. If so, why don't his disciples use this quote against Paul in regards to the heated debates regarding the Law. Or did it just happen to slip ALL of their minds. I'm not convinced Jesus said anything about the Law at all. James was written probably as polemic against a gross misunderstanding of Paul's theology, and certainly not by Jesus' brother.
Matthew begs to differ - 7:20-22. And I'm a Lutheran. Of course I don't think much of the epistle of James. Regardless, can you demonstrate that this was intended to be to gentiles, as that is what the conversation is about?

You honestly believe that he said that? Laughable. Or does historical criticism only matter when its in your favor?

Wrong. If Paul was the apostle to the uncircumcized and Peter to the circumcized, how could he have viewed himself as being a greater authority than Peter? If one grants that the Superlative apostles are the pillars, then your statement is ever more worthless. Nonetheless, I'm not convinced that Peter was the center of the Jerusalem church, anyway. James seems to be a much greater authority according to Paul's epistles.

Matthew 5:19 - Nevermind that the whole sermon is a commentary/reinterpretation of the Torah.

1 John 5:2 - Given the high christology of the Johannine community, is there any reason to think that it couldn't be refering to Jesus' earthly teachings, or what the Johannine community retrojected into Jesus' mouth?

Revelation - see above.



Bull. Nevermind that there exists pre-Constantinian iconography. Nevermind there's no evidence to attach this Hellenization/ "paganization" to Constantine. Nevermind that... screw it. This last post was not worth my time.

cass256

And my point is that people blindly follow Paul who has turned his back on YHWH and the law, and deny deny deny..

Sorry CID, That means nothing to me. I consider the source. Also how you try to twist it.."sum and essence". Yeshua said you have to keep the law and teach it. As I stated before Paul has no proof that he saw "Jesus". His story is told 3 times in acts, and all 3 contradict each other. One time he is blinded and has to seek Ananais for what his mission is, and in another version the light in the sky tells him, without him being blinded and having to go to Damascus. The light sends him to the gentiles, there and not Ananais. In his own writings he contradicts Luke's fabrications. So why should anyone believe anything Paul or his friend Luke say? Which way did it happen?


The AUTHOR, is the same one mentioned above, that has 3 differing versions that contradict on Saul's conversion. The AUTHOR said Judas bought a field with his blood money and fell into it headlong and burst open in the middle and spilled his guts out. Acts 1:18 The Author never met Jesus and was Paul's physician, according Scholars. Not an eye witness to events he makes claims about. The Author's story about Judas COMPLETELY contradicts matthew's description of Judas going to the temple and giving the money back by throwing it at them in the Temple and then goes out and hangs himself. At least matthew had the name of an Apostle. So any story given by luke may have changed the very next day. if he can't get Saul's conversion story right, or judas death right, how do we assume he has Peter's dream meaning right? Especially when we have paul saying Peter seperated himselves from the gentile's eating ways when men from the leader of the church ( as told by Paul and Josephus and the gospel of timothy, and Eusibius etc.) who was "james".


Paul makes those claims himself! Who needs other support?


Israelites did not impose it on the gentiles as much as YHWH imposed it on Israelites to do so. Paul ignoring that requirement made it clear that Paul turned his back on YHWH's law. It was probably his ego, because Paul claims to be the one saving by whatever means necessary.

1 Corinthians 9 shows how devious Paul is. Like he thinks Jesus couldn't save any if Paul did not change like a chameleon.
He saw a light in the sky! no jesus! jesus said many would come in his name saying he was the Christ and decieve many. Take your blinders off! Jesus did not come back for Paul.

or "Christ was in the sky outside of Damascus, I saw him as a light in the sky"

Too bad paul didn't realize that BEFORE he saw the angel of light in the sky talking about kicking pricks.


What is nonsensical is wearing the paulian blinders. read the history of the New Testament, constantine did not want anything in it that owuld suggest following the jews traditions or festival days. Why not have Easter on the Passover, when it supposedly happened? Why change jesus birthdate to the winter solcstist? Read up on James, my friend. Then tell me Paul only had to keep an essence. They did not call him James the just for nothing. I see no first hand evidence whatsoever, that james backed paul's version in the least.
Instead james and the followers of Yeshua are suspiciously silent in backing Paul's new "Gospel". Unless Eisenman is right and James the just considered Paul the Spouter of Lies described in the DSS

sorry your quote had nothing to do with the text I mentioned. don't try to con me with your text. Your whole NT was hand picked by a pagan Roman Emperor. You have to trust as little as possible, when it comes to throwing out a law that YHWH said would stand forever. You are not Israel. You're Roman. Jesus said he would turn away those who were practicing lawlessness, as Christians do. None of the law would pass until heaven and earth do. Use any other of the text that you want to con people who can't see what adds up and what doesn't. Then say "context". It doesn't make you any more Israel than Constantine wanted you to be. If you read you will find that he did not want anyone to become Israel in the least.

CJD

Read what? The Da Vinci Code?!

cass256

How do you know that his desciples had anything to do with paul at all? There is not much evidence they backed him in the least, except for poor peter, who got straightened out by the followers of James the just..
If Jesus didn't say anything about the law then there is no point in following him at all.
am I supposed to laugh? matthew is the one who said that in the very next verse. How did he beg to differ?
I can't demonstrate it was meant for the gentiles because jesus said he didn't come for the gentiles. He came only for Israel according to what he said in matthew. Since None of the 4 Gospels tell the ressurection story the same in the least, other than missing body, i don't pay attention to anything added after he died. . If gentiles didn't want to become Israel, as the law tells how to do, and follow a pagan roman instead, that is their choice.
It is highly unlikely he showed up, when he said he wouldn't return that way, as a light in the sky to tell Saul to change his name and go to the gentiles as the Roman that he is. I'm not really big on following murderous persecuters myself, but to each his own.
Do you even consider that Jesus supposedly said many would come in his name,saying he was the Christ, and decieve many? ever wonder if Paul might have been one?

right after that he says false christs and prophets would rise..
how do you know Paul wasn't the false prophet??????
If you believe Luke,
Peter was apparently taken in, and Barnabus and mark, according to Luke's tall tail mark and barnabus left him. So maybe the elite caught on, if the story is not another luke fabrication written as a letter to thophilus, and not meant to be "scripture", yet canonized by Constantine..
Do you understand the word supposedly? and i completely understand why you find the Luke writings laughable. I've given enough of his supposed stories so far. You've already shown you don't believe a good portion of the New testament yourself. A selective christian calling the kettle black.

how 'bout

. i have been saying james/jacob was the head of the church all along. It is widely agreed upon by everyone from josephus, to Eusibius. Peter was called Satan by jesus, why would anyone follow him? are Lutherans as misguided as catholics? There is even less reason to follow Paul. But a false prophet was prophesied, so I guess they had to write one in. I'm just surprised the sheep were so quick to follow the blind one.

Jacob prophesied that in the last days benjamin would raven as a wolf. I think genesis 49. Jesus called Pharisees blind guides and ravening wolves. Paul was of Benjamin and a Pharisee. hmmmmm




Oh, thank GOD! I was tired of having to return the sarcasm.
Nevermind that Constantine canonized a bunch of letters that fit his agenda, and filled the pagan god void.

cass256

Does it discuss Constantine and his influence on the New testament?