dog-on

Once again, I know what Paul said. Maybe the better question would be, since Jesus of the Gospels seems to disagree, doesn't it appear that there is a conflict in theology between Paul and that of the Gospels?

Clouseau

There is no disagreement. 'All who sin under the law will be judged by the law.' Rom 2:12 NIV

Amaleq13

Yes, you already said that and I already responded to it: "They didn't always believe the Messiah could be crucified and resurrected, did they?"

Did you not understand the point or are you simply going to repeat yourself with your fingers in your ears?

Perhaps this will help you comprehend:

Virgin birth = helpful selling point to potential gentile converts

Helpful selling point to potential converts = fundamental belief of actual converts

Fundamental belief of actual converts = something one tends to mention when one mentions other fundamental beliefs and certainly when one offers a summary of one's beliefs

The notion that Paul believed in a virgin birth has absolutely no traction in his extant writings and we have every reason to think he would have mentioned this belief had he held it.

Paul wrote "born of a woman" instead of "born of a virgin", even though he believed Jesus was born of a virgin, because he wanted to establish that Jesus was perfect? That's absurd.

And that isn't something Paul would mention? Absurd. Not even when explicitly referring to his mother? Idiotic.

True regarding the first and arguably true regarding the second. No good reason for Paul to ignore Jesus' miraculous powers when discussing the powers of the apostles so one is justified in questioning whether Paul knew of any such claims. That he rejects "wisdom" offers a good reason why he might ignore any ministry so his silence there is not informative.

Why assume he knew of any?

This is just apologetic day-dreaming with no connection to actual evidence.

Clouseau

Paul did not write to potential converts.

Fortuna

Spin said ;

Spin, I thank for that. I grew up with the Rabbinic Judaism and few realize how the Tanakh was in fact hijacked by the christians. The main reason that modern Jews reject that Jesus was the messiah is that he completed none of the requirements that were from what were and still are understood to be the messianic oracles. The messiah was to lead Israel politically to a new age of prosperity (of some sort, that part I'm not certain). Jesus never lead Israel, and as best we can tell, had only a small group of followers. But just after Jesus, Judea was invaded amd destroyed by the Romans. In Flavius Josephus's War, there is not a single mention of any sort of Christian faction. The only viable conclusion we can draw is that either the Christian faction was so small as to be un-noteworthy, or that they didn;t exist at this time at all. And given that the Christianity that survived seems to be the Christianity of Paul, that of the gentile nations, I can only conclude that the Christian movement must have been from Greco-Roman origin.



Dog-on said ;

Dog-on, how about this one ? Near the end of the Olivet discourse we find;

Jesus was talking to his followers when he said this. So, either the Olivet is referring to the Roman-Jewish war and this prophecy has been fulfilled (however, it looks like it is ex eventu), or this prophecy has failed.


Closeau said ;

Paul is using a metaphor here. He is casting Jesus in the role of a temple offering of atonement.

But this is both part and parcel for the NT gospels as well. They cast Jesus in the role of the Tanakh prophets. The assign to him miracles that are reminiscent of the old Tanakh prophets.(i.e. the feeding miracle - Elisha, the casting out of Demons - Solomon). They cast him in the role of the Yom kippur scapegoat in the Jesus/Barrabas incident. The NT gospels looks like much of it is constructed either directly from Tanakh passages, or as equivalents to them. The NT gospels look to have been intentionally written in exactly that way. This litery approach is obvious to anyone familiar with tanakh. It is unmistakeable. But that should indeed give us pause, because it now starts to look as if the gospels are fables constructed from the Tanakh to explain (in a perverse way) the fall of Judea. This means that they are likely to be fictions.

It is interesting that Paul also picks up on this and we can see these same sorts of motifs in his epistles, albeit with some differences.

Just IMHO.

Clouseau

Paul wrote of an event well before there was any temple- the Passover in Egypt, when the blood of a perfect lamb was spread with hyssop branches on the door posts and lintels of the Israelites, who were to stay behind their doors to avoid the visit of the avenging angel. The year-old, male lamb, that had been kept as a pet for fourteen days, was slaughtered at twilight.

And there is no connexion with Jesus?

Amaleq13

You still don't understand or are you being willfully obtuse?

judge

This seems to not make much sense. So the early followers of Jesus saw the HB differently from most jews of 2000 years ago. So what?

Even the Hebrew Bible itself, describes time and time again the jews themselves as ignorant and willfully blind.

Why would it be strange that some jews 2000 years ago agreed with that?

You are just moralising, trying to induce guilt, imposing your morals on others.

These things are the common property of all humankind. Their is no need to perpetuate the us and them mentality. The world is too small these days.

Yes and as mentioned even the documents themselves describe the jews themselves as ignorant and blind.

It also describes how the gentiles would one day sing the praises of "their" god.

Fortuna

Well, No. Sure that was what was done for the first passover, and in that case the purpose of the blood of the lamb on the lintels was to cause the angel of death to pass-over. But this is not that to which Paul is referring. (not ot mention that makes no sense here, the angel of death was not at the door). Paul is in fact referring to the ritual as it was used in his time at the temple. At this time in the second temple period the ritual had developed into one of atonement for sin, similiar to the Hattath (but not).
The ritual had since developed that the sin of a person or persons would be forgiven by the offering of and the blood of an "unblemished" lamb (See Lev 4:32). We know from other sources (Jerusalem Talmud ) that at this time (1rst century temple Judaism) a personal sin offering could really be either a bull, goat, lamb or dove dpending on what the person could afford and bring to the temple. However specifically on passover, the male lamb was customary and on the eve of passover the male lamb ritual was offered at the temple for the land. The ritual was more similiar to a Hattath than a Kippur.(which suggests that it must have been interpreted as a sort of cleansing ritual).

And this was Paul's and has been the Christian symbology since, that the sacrifice of Jesus paid for the sins of the world.

I did not say that. Of course there was. That was Paul's whole point no ?

Another similiar element found in the gospel story (I do not think it occurs in Paul) is the Jesus/Barrabas incident. This is a lierary device that is setup by the author to cast Jesus and Barrabas in the role of the goats of the temple Yom Kippur ritual. One goat is sacrificed while the other is released into the wild. The mercy seat aspect or role seems to be Pontius Pilate in the washing of the hands. (though this is less clear).


It is exactly because of these Temple ritual parallels found in the gospels, plus the often times almost verbatum use of Tanakh passages (see the opening of Mark), events in the gospels that are inferences to Tanakh events (the lot casting for the possessions of Jesus), some of the miracle stories (the feeding miracle reminds us of a similiar miracle by Elisha, the healings by exorcism to the same written about Solomon, calming of the sea to Jonah), that makes me believe that the miracles are not real events but literary elements of the story that cast Jesus in the role of the Prophets.

So, for me the question of the possibility of miracles is not at issue. The miracle stories are used by the author as literary elements to show the parallels to Tanakh prophets and not intended to be taken as historical.

dog-on

Fortuna, I don't believe that the original Paulines had much to do with the HB in the first place. I believe that Paul's ideas were grafted onto Judaism by another group.

Paul is talking about a different God than Yahweh...

These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.


Now, I believe that Mount Sinai is the original home of Yahweh. His are the . The true God's children are those of the free woman. This god lives above the creator, in the third heaven, I suppose...