Chili

. . . and then, let's not forget that this John probe-ably were a Hebrew coat to match the current manger that also was missing in Matthew. This would validate Nazareth so that Elizabeth and Mary could be kin, to make it 're-emergent,' yes indeed, and thus blood and water is required to impute also holiness of Baptism now a sacred Sacrament (tm). So then, contrary to sensational dunking, it is the holiness of the water alone that counts (tm).

As a tribute to Judasim (as my very special friends) let me add that in the Aristotalian sense (probably second hand from Homer), the genus is the 'home base' of the dynamism within the clan and 'the energy at issue' to be brought to a dead stop in the actualization of the Man beneath the Jew in the same way as the horseness of a horse now specific to the breed is what makes the horse, . . . and hence the different mansions later on.

Chili

Mark was a dud with nothing to be had from him. In Luke Jesus was conceived by God via Gabriel of God [formally first cause] and so was John, filled with the HS 'first hand' via the woman who was never banned from Eden, and so Eden was already 'home base' for both of them and thus not part of Jewish-ness (without sin) in the lineage of David, and that is why the lineage of Jesus goes right past his Jewish clan, past Adam and back to God.

outhouse

Steps 1-3 I agree with. Mythology added after his death.


But Paul was to far removed from a historical jesus to make any comments on. he knew people who knew him were still alive and could call him on any mistakes made, so he dealt with mythology jesus only creating more of a deity then previously written. It was common for romans to deify mortals as a "son of god".

Tenorikuma

Surely the ridiculously long and unusual salutation in Paul's epistle was not part of the original letter written by Paul.

aa5874

You mean you don't have evidence for your certainty. It is most amazing what people say when they have ZERO evidence.

Please show us the original short salutation of Paul or any references to the short salutations of Paul by other Apologetic writers.

The Pauline writer claimed that he consulted entities without Flesh and without blood when Jesus was revealed to him. See Galatians 1

The Pauline Jesus was a Revelation from non-humans.

The Pauline writer Specifically claimed Jesus was God's own Son.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that the Pauline writer was an Heretic or was claimed to be an Heretic by Apologetic sources. If Paul was a Separationist he would have been an Heretic.

The Pauline writer is merely claiming to be a witness of the resurrected Jesus.

All the Epistles whether Pauline or NOT contain almost nothing about the Life and Miracles of Jesus.

In fact, the Pauline letters contain more information about the supposed life of Jesus than all the non-Pauline Epistles.

It is clear that the Pauline writer was Not a Separationist--It was revealed to Paul that Jesus was the Son of God and that he was sent to die for our sins.

Only Jesus is specifically identified as God's Own Son by the Pauline writer.

The Pauline writer did NOT ever claim Jesus had a human father.

Sheshbazzar

I agree it reads like a stew that to many cooks have been at. Leave out the Jeebus Krispies parts and the screwed with name, you get a Jew writing to a Jewish synagogue;
And so on, throughout that text, I have long been convinced that all of the elaborate Jeebus Krispies parts were stuffed by a latter lying pen into the mouth and writings of a devout Jew.

The thing most clear about 'Paul's' writings' is that the church screwed with them, and forged writings in his name that no real Paul ever heard of.

aa5874

Paul was NOT a Separationist but a literary invention and was placed in the 1st century as a witness of the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus was the Revealed Son of God who was sent to die for our sins.

Romans 8:3 KJV---For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV---And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Chili

Very true.Very true. "Likeness of sinfull flesh" is not equal to sinfull flesh and so is not sinfull flesh or 'like god' in Gen.3:5 would be equal to God of Gen.1.The 'first Adam' was not a man, but is the name given to the ego awareness of man wherein only he is human so he can live beside himself and see what is good and what is bad. He so is not part of his soul as outsider to himself as man, so he can gather and scatter inside the mind of 'the man.'

The 'last Adam' is not, and is never the last Adam as there is an Adam in each one of us to lead us astray inside our own mind.

The 'second Adam' is proper translation to reverse the direction the first Adam took with his eyes wide open as if with a mind of his own. Metanoia is the proper word for this and the engagement is by way converting our shepherds into disciples to confirm that the second Adam was not human and so never a sinner as such . . . except maybe in the eyes of a KJV man, a good Russian would say.

Step 1: Jesus was not human and in fact carried the sin nature of Joseph as the very cross that he died upon.

Step 2: Each and every report made is the Gospels were lived by Paul in the fullness of their meaning as he recalled from his own by experience that so was 'prior by nature' to him.

Step 3: Jesus as second Adam was filled with the spirit when the dove first descend upon him and was there to stay. Paul's urgency to write was that in Matthew and Mark the dove 'flew the coop' again and so a different gospel was preached.

Iskander

What do you think that Paul meant by “according to the flesh”?

aa5874

There is no reason to read between the lines when we have the Pauline writings.

The Pauline Jesus was the Sent Son of God who manifested himself in the Flesh.

The Pauline writer will Specifically state that Jesus was God's Son, that he was NOT the Apostle of an human being and that he did NOT get his Gospel from a man.

Galatians 4:4 KJV---But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

Galatians 1--- Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Galatians 1 ------11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1 ------15But when it pleased God...... To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood

In almost all the Pauline letters the writer specifically identified his Jesus as the Son of God. There is NO reason to be read between the lines.

Romans 8:3----For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh...

2 Corinthians 1:19 KJV---For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us....

Galatians 2:20 KJV---- I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Ephesians 4:13 KJV---Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God.....

Colossians 1:13 KJV---Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son

1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV---And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come .

There is NO time at all that Paul claimed Jesus was the son of a man before he was identified as the Son of God.

Paul was NOT a Separationists.

The Pauline Jesus was the Son of God that was sent to die for our sins and MANIFESTED himself in the Flesh.

The Pauline Jesus was God Incarnate.