Chili

Perhaps, but I object to your use of the word "Christianity" because that was the enemy Paul fought against under Jewish leadership. Catholicism is what Paul had in mind and Catholics are not Christian in the strict definition of the word Christian.

The fundamentalism of Paul was directed towards the tradition and stream of consciousness to be entrenched in the mind of the believer 'out of' and 'against which' the believer must be liberated as Catholic-now-become-Christian (salvation by faith only). This would be the same as Jesus was a Jew and became Christian when Judaism annihilated him.

Let me point out that the Jesus cult is still the enemy of the fullness of salvation.

johntheapostate

I am going to take a little time to respond to your post because I have some other business to take care of.


Please don't take this personally. But I have some experience when it comes to bipolar disorder and your posts seem to have the signature of someone on a manic high.

Chili

Fear not john. So now you are telling me that in a world of opposites manic highs do exist to counter manic lows? Interesting. Either way, I am not part of the argument and neither high or low.

johntheapostate

Who gave Paul the right to create a new religion, especially one that contrary to your opinion is little more than a perversion of Judaism created by the willfull highjacking of Hebrew scripture. I am a little confused by your reference to Peter. Is it not a little ironic that the Protostant tradition also insists they are only bring Christianity back to a pure form of belief, one they believe Catholisism has deviated from.


I believe these prophets were none other than representatives of the mother church in Jerusalem sent to correct belief and practice that had deviated under the direction of Paul. The Jerusalem church could claim eye witness testimony to the teachings of Jesus, while Paul had little more than a vision, which may have been a product of a psychological condition.


Again in my opinion they were representatives of the Jerusalem movement who represented the values they believed had been formulated by Jesus.



But the Hebrew scriptures to the greatest degree hold a positive view of the law and there is really no provision for them to be annulled. In fact they were said to be everlasting.

Here we have Gods promise to Abraham and his words regarding the circumcision that Paul so vehemently hated.

Genesis 17:7" I will establish my covenant as an EVERLASTING covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for ALL the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an EVERLASTING possession to you and your descendants after you, and I will be their God. Then God said to Abraham, As for you, you must keep my covenant you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep, Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with your money must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an EVERLASTING covenant. Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh will be cut off from his people, he has broken my covenant."

This is the one of the promises to Abraham that Paul is so fond of using in the defense of his doctrine. He asserts that these promises supersede any covenant that included the law. And yet Paul insists that circumcision is worse than useless when God in his promise to Abraham mentions it six times and in the strongest language insists it is to be an everlasting tradition.


So much for the integrity of Paul's interpretation.


I believe I have shown that Paul was deliberately perverting the meaning of seed in his letter to the Galatians and therefor any new religion whose justification lies in this false premise is also a perversion.

Therefor the perversion of your brand of Christianity is a perversion of the perversion of Judaism which in my opinion is also the product of a long history of perversion.

So much for religious belief.

Chili

But it is an improvement of Judaism and a New Testament came into force.

It wasn't Paul's idea but it was Christ's idea and he was a Jew or at least from the Jewish tradition. Paul just testified on behalf of the living God that Christ promised. In other words, Paul was another Christ and spoke from real life experience.

My reference to Peter is to show that inspiration is to be the rock of salvation and not second hand bible passages (Jn.5:39-40). This promise was first made by Jesus when Peter recognized Jesus as the messiah in Matthew 16:18. This same Peter was defrocked when all doubt was removed prior to the ascension of Jesus now fully Christ, and that left him stranded naked on their next fishing trip when they could catch nothing all night. The message here is that there was no rational faith left in Peter who was subsequently told to cast his nets on the other side of the boat (this is the right side of his mind) where the fish were large, plentiful, and easy to catch. Upon seeing this Peter put on his cloak of faith and dove headfirst into the celestial sea to built this new Church.

Paul comes next as the evidence of this truth. It happened to Paul also. Paul was another Christ or the first or second Christian, shall we say and thus Paul knew the archetype itself . . . which is much better than a third person perspective.

The whole point here is that the historic Jesus is like water under the bridge.

In those days psychology was shunned as bad science or good science by bad people. The name of their game was philosophy.For the Jews they were as long as they were Jew.The laws were for the conviction of sin and therefore the Laws are good as a instrument towards salvation. When salvation comes about the purpose of the Law will have been fulfilled and the Laws become redundant to the Christ(ian) who henceforth is censored by natural law (a broken reed he shall not crush).

One must see religion as a means to the end and not an end in itself . . . but only when salvation comes our way. A qualifier is needed here since there are two kinds of salvation. One is by God and the other is by carnal desire which is the false Gospel that brings the angel of light into our midst (read minds)instead of the true light that Paul preached about (see Jn.1:13 for this). But my brand is not Christianity but Catholicism and there is a difference since I hold that Catholics are not Christians. From there I claim that the condition of being called Christian is to have heaven on earth wherefore there are no churches in the New Jerusalem -- or there could not be freedom in Christ from the bondage of slavery and sin. In fact, it is absurd to even think that Christianity can be a religion at all.

johntheapostate

The Protestant tradition holds that it is an improvement on Catholicism, but you would deny the validity of that.

I suppose Jesus was authorized to alter the meaning and structure of Hebrew text because he was divine.

I would like to examine one of the passages that hint at Jesus's divinity.

John 10:31-38

"Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said I have shown you many miracles from the Father, For which of them do you stone me"

Not bad for someone who said no sign would be given.

"We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy ,because you a mere man claim to be god"

It is interesting to note that Jesus does not make an outright denial of their accusation. Instead he uses a pathetic appeal to scripture to support his claim that he has a special relationship with god

"Jesus answered them, is it not written in your Law "I have said you are gods"? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came and the Scripture can not be broken- what about the one whom the Father has set apart as his very own"

Here Jesus appeals to the scripture as a measure of absolute truth and he insists that because in Psalms (not the Law) there is a statement "I have said you are gods" We must not be so rigid in our concept of one god.

I would like to make the assertion that scriptures also say, and they cant be broken " there is no god"

Psalm 14:1 according to the technique employed by Jesus
" There is no God "

Psalm 14:1 according to a technique that employs context
" The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God" "

Here is some verses from Psalm 82

Psalm 82:1 " God presides in the great assembly, he gives judgment among the gods"

Without context one could come to the conclusion that according to there own scripture the Jews were being to ridged in there interpretation of monotheism, but the context is given in the rest of the Psalm.

After berating and demeaning the gods God utters this statement which includes the statement that Jesus used in his appeal to scripture"

Psalm 82:6-7 " I said, You are gods, you are all sons of the Most High. But you will die like mere men, you will fall like every other ruler"

If one is to view Jesus statement with even only the immediate context included one must come to the conclusion that he deliberately misquoted scripture to deceive people or he was such a dolt that he was unable to comprehend the plain meaning of passages and used them to inflate his concept of himself.

It is plain to see that this Psalm is one denouncing the kings and rulers of the world for there unjust behavior hence the statement "you will die like mere men"

It is probable that at the time of the writing of the Psalm it was not unusual to refer to a king as a son of god or son of the most high. In light of the preponderance of Hebrew scripture indicating the singular nature of god, to invalidate the claim by Jews that god is one, on the testimony of a few words taken out of context is preposterous.


It is most probable that Christianity has read much more into the title "son of god" than can be legitimized by the Hebrew scripture.

Perhaps if hell actually exists, they will suffer the fate of the worst sort of idolater.

At any rate I myself don't have a high regard for the scholarship of Jesus's interpretation of scripture and if one is to hang ones belief in his divinity on this and other equally weak proof-texts it indicates an ignorance of scripture rather than some profound understanding

The fact of the matter remains Jesus did not have any divine authority to mold Judaism into some new and fantastic form.

Atheos

I'm beginning to believe that Hell was a late addition to the tradition of the Judaeo-Christian god myth, borrowed from Babylonian and possibly Greek traditions.

-Atheos

Chili

I would even spell it with a small p To be honest about it, an improvement was needed because it doesn't sound right to spend 40 years in the desert and still die despite all the passages they got from Moses. Go to John 6 and read all about it but that is why an improvement was needed . . . which in turn was why Paul had to protect his followers from the Jewish wild-fires with their second hand gospel.

Next, go to Revelation 13 where the first beast came out of the [celestial] sea while the second beast came out of the [old] earth. These two beasts show the difference between rebirth from God and carnal desire as per Jn.1:13. Notice that the first beast spend 42 months in purgatory which is between rebirth and ascension to make heaven a place on earth for those who are chosen and have a special relationship with the father as in "my father" in John.

The second beast will be the Jesus worshiper that Paul was fighting against and who Jesus condemned as part of the great assembly of your Psalm 82:6-7 " I said, You are gods, you are all sons of the Most High. But you will die like mere men, you will fall like every other ruler."

Notice that both beasts spent, at least some time, in this assembly of the Most High but that not all were chosen after they were called, and thus those who were called but not chosen will spend the rest of their days wandering as if in the wilderness and will die nonetheless. This is where puragatory becomes hell on earth if those who were chosen only spend [about] 42 moths there and become resident of heaven after that (until they die their physical second death).

I actually see the gospels as the time where the son of man must provoke the religious leaders of the day to isolate the religious identity that gave birth to the son of man and 'eat it' like it was the placenta of the Jew that gave birth to the son of man. In other words, to be 'set free' from religion is not the same as 'walking away' from religion. Moreover, the tension must escalate because Jesus needs the Jews to convict him (the old ego identity) after it has been emptied from both his own world and his Jewish heritage.

Does that make his sholarship better?