Clivedurdle

What if xianity until Constantine was a series of sects of Judaism and other sources mainly for gentiles and then got a makeover into the empire's religion?

We think in terms of these monolythic blocs - xianity, paganism, judaism, hinduism, maybe the reality is amazingly eclectic until someone (Darius?) got the idea of true religion (tm).

Welcome btw! (You're not related to Lord Plant are you!?)

http://www.psa.ac.uk/awards2003/plant.htm

DavidfromTexas

Can you cite any scripture (Old and New Testament) that supports your false assertion?


Yes.


Can you cite any scripture (Old and New Testament) that supports your false assertion?



Can you cite any scripture (Old and New Testament) that supports your false assertion?


Can you cite any scripture (Old and New Testament) that supports your false assertion?


Creating a so-called "massive rift" is a typical technique of misrepresentation employed by infidels to give the false impression that the writings of Paul are not "true Chistianity".


Can you cite any scripture (Old and New Testament) that supports your false assertion?


Neither is there any mention of the apostle Peter in the OT, nor any of the other apostles or disciples, and no mention of the mother of Jesus (Mary), and no mention of James, the half brother of Jesus. Since most of the OT was written more than 500 years before Paul and the other contemporaries of Christ were born, then should it be a surprise that Paul is not mentioned in the OT?


Can you cite any scripture (Old and New Testament) that supports your false assertion


And what do the above verses have to do with Paul? What is your point?



Did Paul say that obeying the law is an impossible hardship? Or that it cannot be obeyed?



And what do the above verses have to do with Paul?


And what does the above have to do with Paul?


Can you cite any scripture (Old and New Testament) that supports your false assertion?


FALSE.

You are taking advantage of the weakness of the translation to make a FALSE assertion that Paul supposedly changed the text to suit his own purpose. <edit>

Your argument hinges upon the word "that", which is in the ENGLISH translation (it is not in the Hebrew, nor in the Greek). The phrase you put in parenthesis was NOT part of Paul's quote of Deuteronomy 30:14. Paul is simply explaining that the portion of Deuteronomy 30:14 that he quoted means that the word "near you, in your mouth and in your heart" is the "same word of faith" that was being preached. Paul did not quote the entire verse of Deuteronomy 30:14.

The next word "that" (in the English translation) is the first word of the next phrase of BOTH verses (Deuteronomy 30:14 and Romans 10:8), and this gives the false impression that the next phrase is the quoting of the remainder of Deuteronomy 30:14. Such is not the case.

Your assertion is a typical attack on Paul using the weaknesses of TRANSLATIONS.


Absolutely false.


Absolutely false.

This is a typical attack of elevating the messenger to the status of the message, and then vilifying the messenger in the hopes that the message is vilified as well.


Just as predicted.

The purpose of your attack appears to be to drive a wedge into Christianity, thereby creating doubt as to what Christianity really represents.

If you really believe the above (following Christ as opposed to supposedly following Paul), then why are YOU not doing what Christ has said? Before you can tell others what they should do based upon what Christ has said, then you need to show evidence that you are doing the same. Otherwise, you have done nothing but reveal your anti-Christian bias.

FatherMithras

I have to agree DfT that we can't attribute that motivation to Jesus. Since all our writings are way after the fact, attributing anything at all to him is hardly definitive.

Several sections of the Bible show God asking questions and then finding out answers, and having to "shift" odds and such. If he were omniscient, this wouldn't be the case. The evolution of the Hebrew God as shown by the Documentary hypothesis pretty clearly shows why.

The more parsimonious answer supported by the evidence is that he didn't know everything, and had to go fix it. The MOST parsimonious answer though, is that a new religious cult evolved from Judaism and simply made the "New covenent of God" supercede to old one to give themselves legitimacy.

Untrue. He's showing a perceived logical inconsistency in a belief. I disagree, but your conclusions in no way logically follow from his post.

openlyatheist

Dear Robert_Plant,

My answer to your question is over here. Don't spend my 2 cents all in one place. :blush:

No Robots

The emergence of Christianity and of the sense of being a Christian has to be understood in relation to the separation between Judaism and Christianity.... This does not mean that the separation had been effected before the middle of the second century as once supposed; indeed, one result of the intensive work in the field has been to make it more rather than less difficult to assign a date to, or to speak unambiguously about, the separation.


Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Judith M. Lieu, p. 2-3.

noah

Just so you know DFT, calling someones assertions false doesn't make them false. You have to say why my argument is false Sure I can and you can too. All you have to do is look at the verses I quoted. All the JC quotes point to a god/man who believed that the commandments, his commandments, his Father's commandments were the key to salvation. In fact it's quite clear that JC had no idea, no inkling at all about Paul's doctrine of faith in a human blood sacrifice in any of his key quotes. Consider the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount. This is where JC lays down his manifesto. Nowhere in the SotM does JC mention faith in him as a human blood sacrifice:
Let's start with Mathew 5:17-19 which I believe is definitive in this regard.

Please note, in this unequivocal declaration JC preached obeying the Law. Nowhere does he mention faith in him as a human blood sacrifice.

Let's take a look at the Sermon on the Mount a little more closely, specifically the Beatitudes. As with Mathew 5:17-19, these lovely little platitudes are what can only be described as a blueprint for salvation. In the Beatitudes JC makes clear that you are saved based on your conduct and your spiritual disposition. Nowhere in the Beatitudes does JC stray from his theme and declare himself a human blood sacrifice-a human blood sacrifice required for salvation. The Beatitudes are JC's prescription for salvation. But what do we find in the Beatitudes? You guessed it. No mention of Paul or Paul's doctrine of faith in a human blood sacrifice. Instead we are told that salvation requires meekness, hunger for righteousness (sounds like a desire to follow the Law to me) and sorrow to name a few. Again no mention by JC that you need to believe in Paul's doctrine of faith in a human blood sacrifice.

JC also repeats several OT commandments in the Sermon on the Mount which again proves his desire that the commandments be followed and not that people believe in him as a human blood sacrifice, for example Thou shalt not kill (Ex 20:13)
Thou shalt not commit adultery (Ex 20:14)
The prohibition against taking revenge (Lev 19:18)

Take a look at these verses. You obviously didn't so I am going to quote them here again:
Rev.22:14 and

Rev:14:12, Any mention of Paul or faith in JC as a human blood sacrifice?

If "yes", then why don't you follow the commandments? JC is your god is he not? Do what your god says DFT.

Sure. Look at all the verses I cited in my first post in this thread.

Look at these verses sometime:

Ezek 18:20-22
Psa 119:1-4
Deut 6:25
Deuteronomy 30:16
Ezekiel 33:14-16
Psalm 37:27
Ezekiel 18:Psa 119:142-147
And since you ignored them the first time Rev.22:14 and Rev.14:Sure. Man you must really not know your bible.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Deuteronomy 12:32
Mathew 5:18 Psa 19:7
Psa 119:142-147

Psa 111:7-9
Is Paul a member of the Trinity? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

Identifying or categorizing my argument doesn't do a thing to defeat it. You have been given ample opportunity to prove me wrong and you have been silent. Why?

For the first part of my statement, it's not a question of scripture. It's a question of practice. Do you obey the Law? A simple yes or no will suffice.
As for the second part "Paul is contradicted by the rest of the bible" I refer you to this post and my previous post in this thread. Also see this post and this post

Oh please. The issue here is the Law. Paul and the Law. Did Peter or Mary or James write Galatians or Romans. Do you cite Mary when you explain why you ignore the Law? Do you cite JC/Yahweh?

For the first part of my statement, cite me one verse where Paul is declared a member of the Trinity. For the second part, state honestly that you obey the Law.

Each one of those verses show that Paul contradicted JC/Yahweh when he rescinded the Law. In fact, he violated God's Law.

Did I say Paul said that? But while we're on the subject how about Romans 7:14? Sounds like a cop out to me. Some Christians think he did.

See above. I wasn't talking about Paul. I was talking about a common Christian refrain when asked why they don't obey the Law.
Please respond to Luke 1:5. Or do you believe it is possible to keep the Law and that it is not an impossible burden?

I'm not sure I know what you're trying to accomplish here. I didn't say Paul said whatever you think I said that Paul said that has to do with this.
More importantly why don't you answer the question yourself?

See above.

[QUOTE][Quote:
In order to push his new doctrine of faith, Paul changed the words in Deuteronomy 30:14.

Paul says in Romans 10:8:


Here we go with the typical Christian dodge that it is the flaws in the translation that present the problem and not the actual text itself. I got news for you DFT; it's god's word. Remember? And, as it is god's word, I can use any translation I want because as you and I know, any loving god who had the plan of salvation in mind for his children would never allow his word to to his children be incorrectly translated.; not with the stakes involved.
Also that's just your interpretation. How do we know you're right? You're working from a translation of a translation of non-existent originals. Repeat; there are no originals.
Why should I take your word for it when scholars disagree on the correct translation. Scholars can't even agree on which texts are the best reproductions of original manuscripts that don't even exist and consequently can't agree on which manuscripts the translations should be based.
Scholars don't even agree half the time on who the authors of the books are. Another problem you have is that the translators of the various bibles disagree with you and agree with me.
The New International Version records Romans 10:8 thusly:The Holman Christian Standard Bible disagrees with you. They say it is exactly as I say it is and without parentheses This is pure BS. Deuteronomy says no such thing.
The Wycliffe New Testament also agrees with me and disagrees with you:
What do you know that they don't? What makes you the last word on translation of bible texts?
The New Living Translation has Paul in the most bald-faced of lies grossly misquoting Deuteronomy:See above. You would be well advised to actually present some real arguments in support of your opposition to mine. Endless repetitions and blanket denials prove nothing.


Why don't you answer my points rather than trying to identify and categorize my arguments?
If you worship JC then tell me why you do not do what his Father and He say?

Nonsense. Christianity does that for me

Easy. I'm not a Christian.

So what if I reveal an anti-christian bias? I've got the facts to back me up and you have presented nothing to disprove a single argument I have put forth.

Joan of Bark

I don't have a problem with your argument, David. Just don't tell me God is all-loving and all-merciful. For that I need proof.

Robert_Plant

I haven't had a chance to get on a computer until now (spring break and the JC was closed). I'm tickled that my question produced some long ass responses. :grin: It did clear up some biblical questions as to how the new testament responds to the query. And the answers from the viewpoint of nonchristians on why christianity "won out" over judaism in a cultural and historical sense was great too. Be it from both sides, its better than just the "Its God, thats why" or "Please, grow a brain religious freak" (although after reading thru this site a lot I can understand the exasperation ).

And no to whoever asked if I'm related to "Lord Plant", I'm just a huge fan of 'ol Percy and that little band he had with Pagey, Jonsey and Bonzo!

Chili

I really don't want to get into an argument here but it troubles me not to present my opinion on this.

Christianity does not replace Judaism but is the end of Judaism. Christian-ity is the 'condition of being' that is the end of Judaism and Catholicism alike. It is where these religions end without any if's, but's or maybe's; like a sudden stop and that is why Jesus never entered the temple except in the confrontation from the precinct.

So no, Jesus never was a practicing Jew. Joseph was but not Jesus.

Jesus was the fulfillment of Judaism just as he was the fulfilment of the Law. When the Law ends, Judaism ends for the Christian . . . and this will be true for both the Jew and the Catholic (you may want to call him Paulinian as Noah does above).If there was a need for a new religion it is because the Jews in those days failed to make the transition from the desert to Israel. The difference can be reduced to the difference between mana that was second hand to them and the bread of life being the body of Christ that is directly from heaven (but these are metaphors).

From the above it may be concluded that if Christianity is the end of religion it cannot be a religion and thus whoever claims to be a Christian 'and' has faith in Jesus he/she completely misses the point and will have fallen from Gods favor -- that he/she may have known or just claims to have known.

RED DAVE

From Robert_Plant:
From DavidfromTexas:
According to who? xtians? Remember that Romans and the other xtian propaganda works are specifically written to slander Judaism by an apostate. They cannot be cosidered valid works of religious history.

From Robert_Plant:
From DavidfromTexas:
Oh really?

Are you saying that Jews back then were obsessed with money and lack of faith and had a set of "ridiculous" laws (handed down, by their faith, from God)?

Sounds pretty antisemitic to me.

RED DAVE