Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-09-2013, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

There is a distinction between being a Jew, which normally is a fact of ones birth and is an unchangeable condition.
and the practice of the religion of 'Judaism' which is what one believes and does.

One can be Jewish (by birth) and not believe or engage in any of the religious practices of the Jewish religion. One is still Jewish.
The original Paul was Jewish through and through, and remained so his entire life.
(but the latter church inserted a LOT of pagan Greek derived theology into his writings, and fraudulently composed entire books in his name.)

'Paul' according to the NT was a practicing 'Pharisee', which was only one branch of a very diverse set of 'Jewish' beliefs and 'Jewish' practices.
When he adopted fundamentalist Jewish messianisim, or as is now commonly known as 'Christianity' (Antioch c 43 CE -thousands of these Messianic Jews would have lived out their lives without so much as even heard of the word 'Christian'. The word is nowhere to be found in the Gospels)
_Paul was still a Jew and a devout practitioner of a form of the Jewish religion, As he was for the remainder of his life.

All 'Paul' was practicing during his lifetime was a somewhat unconventional form of messianic Judaism, one that upset those Jews who clung to Judaisms more 'traditional' interpretations and practices.
There is no evidence that Paul ever set out with any intent to establish any new religion, only a new interpretation and extension of the existing Jewish faith, opening up acceptance and access to gentiles. Which many of his fellow Jews living among the gentiles also favored.

Latter ignorant and fanatical gentile dominated 'catholicism' is what severed the former connections, and ultimately criminalized the practices and beliefs of the Yahshua the Messiah/Jesus the Christ believing Jews.
They were no longer permitted to believe in Yahshua the Messiah, and live in accordance with their conscience regarding Jewish laws. (which 'Paul' permitted)
To do so was now in violation of gentile Catholic Christian issued edicts, decrees, and laws, and could bring on the spot execution for the crime of heresy.

A corrupt religion called 'Christianity' arose and murdered off all that would not knuckle under to its despotic decrees. That religion that John of Revelations termed as being BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH... drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus:

So it stands until the innocent blood of the saints that the religion of 'Christianity' and Rome murdered is avenged.

Your story about Paul is fundamentally an invention.

Once you deviate from the stories of Saul/Paul in the Canon then you MUST show the source with the deviation or else you are merely fabricating stories from your imagination.

You have no credible corroborative evidence whatsoever that the character called Saul/Paul wrote any Letters to Church and was an actual figure of history before c 70 CE.

May I remind that stories invented about Paul from your imagination are really fiction stories.

Sheshbazzar · 01-09-2013, 12:26 AM

Tough titty aa. Not everyone shares your myopia or opinions, and I wasn't addressing you.
That is the story of Paul that is presented in the NT canon. I didn't deviate from it. If you don't like it, or don't accept it, that is your problem.

aa5874 · 01-09-2013, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Tough titty aa. Not everyone shares your myopia or opinions, and I wasn't addressing you.
That is the story of Paul that is presented in the NT canon. I didn't deviate from it. If you don't like it, or don't accept it, that is your problem.

Again, Your story is NOT found anywhere in all antiquity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

... All 'Paul' was practicing during his lifetime was a somewhat unconventional form of messianic Judaism, one that upset those Jews who clung to Judaisms more 'traditional' interpretations and practices...

You cannot identify any source of antiquity that mentioned any Jew who practised "Paul's somewhat unconventional form of messianic Judaism".

In the NT, Paul practised an unconventional form of Christianity---NOT Judaism.

Ony Paul made this claim in the Canon.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

Quote:

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Duvduv · 01-09-2013, 07:53 AM

We are all probably familiar with the ideas of the book by Pamela Eisenbaum called Paul was not a Christian in which she postulates that Paul himself was a mainstream Jew who was simply arguing that gentiles did not have to observe the Mosaic Law.

However, this of course cannot be definitely proven one way or the other. Whoever put the epistles together was especially clever in creating such a sense of ambiguity about his creation, Paul, which is found in Acts as well.

Of course one could equally argue that the ambiguity concerning Paul was a result of confusion, multiple hands and internal contradictions as part of a process of cutting and pasting pre-existing letters with ideas of the emerging Chi-Rho/Christian sect.

It is compounded by the fact that the apologists, commentators, etc. never offer what they consider to be authentic "midrashic" or "hadith" sources to fill in the gaps about the background of the Paul figure. Presumably had the authors wanted to be definitive about him they would have conjured up some relevant and authentic "midrash" about him.

The sources say nothing about his parents, his hometown life, his upbringing, how he became such an important disciple of the leaders of the Sanhedrin, how he and his family became citizens, WHY he was chosen from the womb, how and why he joined the suppression of the so-called Christians all over Judea (of whom the canon only talks about poor Stephen), why he was chosen from the womb but then became a virulent opponent of the Christians in the employ not of the Pharisees but of the Saduccees, and why his revelation from the Christ never even mentioned his chosenness, etc. etc.

outhouse · 01-09-2013, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Are you saying Pauls Judaism isnt in question?

There is a distinction between being a Jew, which normally is a fact of ones birth and is an unchangeable condition.
and the practice of the religion of 'Judaism' which is what one believes and does.

One can be Jewish (by birth) and not believe or engage in any of the religious practices of the Jewish religion. One is still Jewish.
The original Paul was Jewish through and through, and remained so his entire life.
(but the latter church inserted a LOT of pagan Greek derived theology into his writings, and fraudulently composed entire books in his name.)

'Paul' according to the NT was a practicing 'Pharisee', which was only one branch of a very diverse set of 'Jewish' beliefs and 'Jewish' practices.
When he adopted fundamentalist Jewish messianisim, or as is now commonly known as 'Christianity' (Antioch c 43 CE -thousands of these Messianic Jews would have lived out their lives without so much as even heard of the word 'Christian'. The word is nowhere to be found in the Gospels)
_Paul was still a Jew and a devout practitioner of a form of the Jewish religion, As he was for the remainder of his life.

All 'Paul' was practicing during his lifetime was a somewhat unconventional form of messianic Judaism, one that upset those Jews who clung to Judaisms more 'traditional' interpretations and practices.
There is no evidence that Paul ever set out with any intent to establish any new religion, only a new interpretation and extension of the existing Jewish faith, opening up acceptance and access to gentiles. Which many of his fellow Jews living among the gentiles also favored.

Latter ignorant and fanatical gentile dominated 'catholicism' is what severed the former connections, and ultimately criminalized the practices and beliefs of the Yahshua the Messiah/Jesus the Christ believing Jews.
They were no longer permitted to believe in Yahshua the Messiah, and live in accordance with their own conscience regarding Jewish laws. (which thing Paul permitted)
To do so was now in violation of gentile Catholic Christian issued edicts, decrees, and laws, and could bring on the spot execution for the crime of heresy.
Countless thousands were executed without trial, those that were tried were executed anyway, unless they agreed to everything these religious murderers dictated.

A corrupt religion called 'Christianity' arose and murdered off all that would not knuckle under to its despotic decrees. That religion that John of Revelations termed as being BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH... drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus:

So it stands until the innocent blood of the saints that the religion of 'Christianity' and Rome murdered is avenged.

Your quoting Paul as a very Jewish person.

Im saying his Judaism has always been in question, with players on both sides of this fence.

Its my take he invented his Judaism, He was only circumsized later in life once he found the calling for a Jesus charactor. Had he been a practicing, or born Jewish, he would have been clipped from the get go.

Toto · 01-09-2013, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...He was only circumsized later in life once he found the calling for a Jesus charactor. ...

What is your source for this claim?

stephan huller · 01-09-2013, 10:24 AM

... and what is a 'charactor'?

outhouse · 01-09-2013, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

... and what is a 'charactor'?

Biblical Jesus is in places a fictional character

outhouse · 01-09-2013, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...He was only circumsized later in life once he found the calling for a Jesus charactor. ...

What is your source for this claim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_th...le_and_Judaism

Paul was circumcised when he was "called."

Toto · 01-09-2013, 10:53 AM

John Winford - please use spell check. It will make your posts more readable.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2013, 12:26 AM	#22
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Tough titty aa. Not everyone shares your myopia or opinions, and I wasn't addressing you. That is the story of Paul that is presented in the NT canon. I didn't deviate from it. If you don't like it, or don't accept it, that is your problem.

01-09-2013, 07:53 AM	#24
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	We are all probably familiar with the ideas of the book by Pamela Eisenbaum called Paul was not a Christian in which she postulates that Paul himself was a mainstream Jew who was simply arguing that gentiles did not have to observe the Mosaic Law. However, this of course cannot be definitely proven one way or the other. Whoever put the epistles together was especially clever in creating such a sense of ambiguity about his creation, Paul, which is found in Acts as well. Of course one could equally argue that the ambiguity concerning Paul was a result of confusion, multiple hands and internal contradictions as part of a process of cutting and pasting pre-existing letters with ideas of the emerging Chi-Rho/Christian sect. It is compounded by the fact that the apologists, commentators, etc. never offer what they consider to be authentic "midrashic" or "hadith" sources to fill in the gaps about the background of the Paul figure. Presumably had the authors wanted to be definitive about him they would have conjured up some relevant and authentic "midrash" about him. The sources say nothing about his parents, his hometown life, his upbringing, how he became such an important disciple of the leaders of the Sanhedrin, how he and his family became citizens, WHY he was chosen from the womb, how and why he joined the suppression of the so-called Christians all over Judea (of whom the canon only talks about poor Stephen), why he was chosen from the womb but then became a virulent opponent of the Christians in the employ not of the Pharisees but of the Saduccees, and why his revelation from the Christ never even mentioned his chosenness, etc. etc.

01-09-2013, 10:24 AM	#27
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	... and what is a 'charactor'?

01-09-2013, 10:53 AM	#30
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	John Winford - please use spell check. It will make your posts more readable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.