Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 12-27-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Acts of the Apostles does not appear to be credible.

But rhutchin does not believe that and it was to r and likeminded biblical inerrantists that my comments were directed. I know of no reason to take the Acts narratives of Paul and Peter as serious history.

aa5874 is entitled to his opinions regardless what I choose to believe.

Iskander · 12-27-2009, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

But rhutchin does not believe that and it was to r and likeminded biblical inerrantists that my comments were directed. I know of no reason to take the Acts narratives of Paul and Peter as serious history.

aa5874 is entitled to his opinions regardless what I choose to believe.

Quote:

Our Rabbis taught: I kill, and I make alive. I might interpret, I kill one person and give life to another, as the world goes on:22 therefore the Writ states, I wound, and I heal. Just as the wounding and healing [obviously] refer to the same person, so putting to death and bringing to life refer to the same person. This refutes those who maintain that resurrection is not intimated in the Torah.
It has been taught: R. Meir said, Whence do we know resurrection from the Torah? From the verse, Then shall Moses and the children of Israel sing this song unto the Lord:23 not sang but shall sing24 is written: thus resurrection is taught in the Torah.25

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedr..._91.html#PARTb

Judaism believes in the resurrection of the dead. The quote above is only one of several I could post.

What did Pharisees believe? They were the defenders of the oral torah and therefore their beliefs were never fixed, unlike that of their opponents the Seduces that accepted only the written torah.

rhutchin · 12-27-2009, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...

The Pharisees, it would appear, did not believe in a bodily resurrection like the assumed bodily resurrection of Jesus. It would seem that the Pharisees believed the body was corruptible only the Spirit was immortal.

This is Josephus on the immortality of souls in Wars of the Jews 2.8.14

Quote:

14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect.

These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action.

They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.

So even a Pharisee would not accept that Jesus bodily resurrected after three days.

The Pharisees appear to believe that the Spirit of a good man may enter some other person but the spirit of a bad man is punished eternally.

Acts of the Apostles does not appear to be credible.

The Pharisees believed in the resurrection (that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies) and eternal punishment (that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment).

If a Pharisee would not accept that Jesus bodily resurrected after three days, it would be because they considered Him a bad man who would not be resurrected but condemned to eternal punishment.

storytime · 12-27-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

What then was Paul?

Paul claimed himself as being in the sect called Pharisees, being educated in that doctrine which Jesus declared "ye teach for doctrine the commandments of men".

Prior to that experience he had on the road to Damascus, Paul had been educated in the Jewish system, had studied to become a Pharisee, and had taught the things that he had learned. Why should we expect any different of him prior to his Damascus road experience?

As Satan is the father of lies, so his children are liars.

Of the Pharisees, Jesus said, "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Paul took his gospel to the Gentiles. Did Paul lie? I think he did, according to contradictions he made concerning how the Jewish people were to uphold their religious commandments of excluding uncircumcised and lawless people who were never given anything.

What is your analysis between what Jesus said and what Paul preached?

After his experience on the road to Damascus, Paul's thinking was changed. He was no longer a Pharisee but began to teach against the Pharisees and their doctrines.

According to Paul's testimony he was and remained a "Pharisee of the Pharisee's" and taught the same thing they did, resurrection of the dead, both of angel and spirit. His doctrine then did not change and he did not speak against them.

After Paul's "experience" on the road to Damacus, he was taken in by a man who opened his eyes to another doctrine (scales fell from his eyes), and that doctrine doesn't seem to be of the Jewish Pharisee persuasion, for it included Gentiles as heirs to the kingdom of God[Judaism]. The way I read it, this happened before Paul went back to Jerusalem and received permission to take a letter to the Gentiles from James telling them that they need not be circumcised in order to live in the land of the Jews but they were to observe those things that would not offend the Jewish customs of belief. (Do not murder, keep from things strangled, fornication, et.)

Iskander · 12-27-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...

The Pharisees, it would appear, did not believe in a bodily resurrection like the assumed bodily resurrection of Jesus. It would seem that the Pharisees believed the body was corruptible only the Spirit was immortal.

This is Josephus on the immortality of souls in Wars of the Jews 2.8.14

So even a Pharisee would not accept that Jesus bodily resurrected after three days.

The Pharisees appear to believe that the Spirit of a good man may enter some other person but the spirit of a bad man is punished eternally.

Acts of the Apostles does not appear to be credible.

The Pharisees believed in the resurrection (that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies) and eternal punishment (that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment).

If a Pharisee would not accept that Jesus bodily resurrected after three days, it would be because they considered Him a bad man who would not be resurrected but condemned to eternal punishment.

Quote:

RESURRECTION (Heb. תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים), the belief that ultimately the dead will be revived in their bodies and live again on earth. Resurrection is to be distinguished from the belief in some sort of personal existence in another realm after death (see *Afterlife) or in the immortality of the *soul. A major tenet of Jewish eschatology alongside the *Messiah, belief in resurrection is firmly attested from Maccabean times, enjoined as an article of faith in the Mishnah (Sanh. 10:1), and included as the second benediction of the Amidah and as the last of Maimonides' 13 principles of faith.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...7_0_16664.html

Quote:

In Talmud and Midrash
When a man dies his soul leaves his body, but for the first 12 months it retains a temporary relationship to it, coming and going until the body has disintegrated. Thus the prophet Samuel was able to be raised from the dead within the first year of his demise
In the days of the messianic redemption the soul returns to the dust, which is subsequently reconstituted as this body when the individual is resurrected. It is somewhat unclear whether the resurrection is for the righteous alone,

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...1_0_00512.html

Elijah · 12-27-2009, 06:32 PM

I take this kind of talk as being part of the hellenization movement within Judaism. Like Marcion, Jesus may have seen the Old Testament understanding of God like the devil/demiurge, compared to the new understanding of God that was coming in from the ancient Greece via the Romans.

The “traditions of men” I think is just saying their following of the Torah isn’t actually following the Torah but following what they were taught by other men who came before them.

The temptation also to me looks like a rejection of the old covenant with the old understanding of God that you could communicate with via your mind that Jesus calls Satan.

Paul is a little more inconclusive because he wasn’t trying to create divides between the followers but was instead trying to unite them around the idea of faith so pushing a particular understanding of God would be counterproductive. He did point out the unknown god in Acts and makes a comment in Gal 4:9 about that sounds like it may not be possible or expected to know God. It’s part of the Hellenization of Judaism, OT understanding of God was being replaced as not the true God due to the influence of the philosophy into their religion.

A complete analysis would be a little long but the lawlessness aspect of Paul is expected when the movement moves to different cultures that aren’t going to give up their ways that someone else may consider immoral. The goal is to establish Christ as the messiah not turn the gentiles into Jews.

spin · 12-27-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Guess Paul had not been excommunicated yet. Once a Pharisee; always a Pharisee. Nonetheless, Paul was teaching a theology that he did not learn in Pharisee school nor which, I suspect, the Pharisees had yet to incorporate into their official teachings. The Pharisees must have been quite liberal and tolerant of many religious views.

All but one sentence in this response was fabricated, ie they have no basis in an ancient source. Probably you made them up. You mightn't look at it that way, but that's how traditions develop. Paul excommunicated? Naa, but it sounds reasonable to a committed christian. Once a Pharisee; always a Pharisee? Being a Pharisee was not a hereditary matter, but it has apologetic appeal to you. The Pharisees being liberal and tolerant of many religious views? Stop bullshitting.

Despite being inventive, that was a pathetic response. It's the sort of thing that urges me to push to make it a policy that people cite sources for such views of the ancient world.

spin

aa5874 · 12-27-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

aa5874 is entitled to his opinions regardless what I choose to believe.

Quote:

Our Rabbis taught: I kill, and I make alive. I might interpret, I kill one person and give life to another, as the world goes on:22 therefore the Writ states, I wound, and I heal. Just as the wounding and healing [obviously] refer to the same person, so putting to death and bringing to life refer to the same person. This refutes those who maintain that resurrection is not intimated in the Torah.
It has been taught: R. Meir said, Whence do we know resurrection from the Torah? From the verse, Then shall Moses and the children of Israel sing this song unto the Lord:23 not sang but shall sing24 is written: thus resurrection is taught in the Torah.25

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedr..._91.html#PARTb

Judaism believes in the resurrection of the dead. The quote above is only one of several I could post.

What did Pharisees believe? They were the defenders of the oral torah and therefore their beliefs were never fixed, unlike that of their opponents the Seduces that accepted only the written torah.

But, Josephus who claimed he was a Jew and a Pharisee did not write that Pharisees believe that bodies are immortal or incorruptible, he wrote that souls are incorruptible and can be moved to other bodies.

And Josephus the Pharisee maintained the same position in Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.3

Quote:

They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again.

In the 1st century, Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the SOUL not a 72 hour bodily resurrection where a man comes back to life with his body intact completely free of injury.

ApostateAbe · 12-27-2009, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Paul was a Pharisee sort of in the sense that Paul, Peter, James, John and Jesus were all Jews. They are identities, but Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their beliefs and behaviors. Paul apparently did not have the beliefs and behaviors relevant of a Pharisee.

Does this mean that Paul was only being "technically honest" when he said he was a Pharisee, like when Abraham said Sarah was his sister, or when God sent the message to Pharaoh that he only wanted the Israelites for 3 days?

From the passages to which I referred, it seems there were a lot of Pharisees who were just like Paul in the early church. Why did they continue to identify themselves as Pharisees if Jesus had really made it clear to all Jews that being a Pharisee was something to be ashamed of? Presumably they did so identify themselves since the author and other actors in the narrative could all talk about them as Pharisees. Or is the argument more of a case of special pleading to excuse Paul and get around author of Acts quoting him as saying he is a Pharisee?

Paul identified himself as a Pharisee seemingly as a diplomatic gesture. I would say it was stretching the truth, at least.

steve_bnk · 12-27-2009, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

What then was Paul?

Paul claimed himself as being in the sect called Pharisees, being educated in that doctrine which Jesus declared "ye teach for doctrine the commandments of men".

"Of the devil" means liars, according to Jesus.

Paul took his gospel to the Gentiles. Did Paul lie? I think he did, according to contradictions he made concerning how the Jewish people were to uphold their religious commandments of excluding uncircumcised and lawless people who were never given anything.

What is your analysis between what Jesus said and what Paul preached?

Paul made concessions for or to get converts. In Romans I believe he says to the effect regarding issues like circmcision, what makes a Jew is what is in his heart.

As time passed Paul was on the run from Jewish leadership and at the end took refuge in his Roman citizenship for protection.

IMO modern Chrtianity is more aptly called Paulism.

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

12-27-2009, 06:32 PM	#16
Elijah Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MidWest Posts: 1,894	I take this kind of talk as being part of the hellenization movement within Judaism. Like Marcion, Jesus may have seen the Old Testament understanding of God like the devil/demiurge, compared to the new understanding of God that was coming in from the ancient Greece via the Romans. The “traditions of men” I think is just saying their following of the Torah isn’t actually following the Torah but following what they were taught by other men who came before them. The temptation also to me looks like a rejection of the old covenant with the old understanding of God that you could communicate with via your mind that Jesus calls Satan. Paul is a little more inconclusive because he wasn’t trying to create divides between the followers but was instead trying to unite them around the idea of faith so pushing a particular understanding of God would be counterproductive. He did point out the unknown god in Acts and makes a comment in Gal 4:9 about that sounds like it may not be possible or expected to know God. It’s part of the Hellenization of Judaism, OT understanding of God was being replaced as not the true God due to the influence of the philosophy into their religion. A complete analysis would be a little long but the lawlessness aspect of Paul is expected when the movement moves to different cultures that aren’t going to give up their ways that someone else may consider immoral. The goal is to establish Christ as the messiah not turn the gentiles into Jews.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.