St Paul was a liar

>>2936077
Fuck off Ahmed.

>>2936077
>Christians lying to trick people into worshipping their absurd religion
This shouldn't need to be pointed out.

>>2936082

Typical Christcuck non-answer. You "people" are beyond satire.

>>2936077

Prove it

>>2936131

Prove that he claimed to be a Pharisee? Prove that he relied on Greek translations of the Torah? Prove that the High Priest at the time was a Sadducee? None of this is disputed.

>>2936161

Prove it

Jews at the time used greek too.

>>2936169

Yeah, a Jewish priest relied on Greek translations of the Torah! Get fucked Christcuk.

>>2936131
>>2936161
Paul's entire history, by his own words are supposed to be these events. But the facts do not check out. In short Paul knew that he had no basis for any of his claims so he constructed a fake history which is why all origenal followers of Jesus rejected him.

It gets even worst. Every single book of the new Testament, every single one of them, which is not directly written by Paul was written by a Greek guy (not by the apostles that the books are named after). And since every Greek guy that was a Christian got their idea of the religion either from Paul directly or by someone that was taught by Paul...it means that 100% of the new testament is Pauline theology.

In other words Paul is the founder of Christianity.

>>2936172

>What is the Septuagint
>He doesn't know Jesus and the Apostles primarily used the Septuagint

>>2936176
>>What is the Septuagint

A translation made for non-Jews

>He doesn't know Jesus and the Apostles primarily used the Septuagint

Absolute nonsense.

>>2936176
There is no evidence Jesus even spoke greek, and even if he did it wouldn't mean Paul's story makes sense because that is only one inconstancy among many

>>2936186

>He doesn't knoe most jews used the septuagint when they no longer spoke hebrew.

American education

>>2936190
>>He doesn't knoe most jews used the septuagint when they no longer spoke hebrew.

I don't know this because it's simply a lie. Even after Hebrew stopped being a native language, the Torah was always and only preserved in Hebrew.

I never see anybody bitch about st. paul except on 4chan. what is this about? is it a protestant thing?

>>2936077
>High Priest had no authority outside Israel, why would he send anyone to Syria?

Do you have even the slightest clue how spectacularly autistic Jews are about the temple?! The High Priest, the only one who could enter the Holy of Holies, was a big deal to Jews no matter where they were.

>>2936200

>it's simply a lie

Just because it proves you wrong doesn't make it a lie. Welcome to reality, sport.

>>2936207
It is because there are a lot of Jews and Muslims. Jews hate Paul because he out-Jewed them and Muslims hate him because they want to relegate Jesus to prophet status and Paul gets in the way of that.

>>2936210

It doesn't prove me wrong because it's a lie. How typical of a christcuck to lie and simply claim "my lie proves me right".

Even IF you weren't a liar, Hebrew was still the majority spoken language at the time of Jesus. So you're proven a liar twice over.

>>2936217

You insisting it is a lie doesn't make it so.

The arrogance of fedora tippers I swear...this is why God made pride a sin.

>>2936223

Go on then, prove your lie to me. I won't wait, because you can't prove it.

File: laughing.jpg (45KB, 682x600px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 682x600px

>>2936242

It's the truth, do your research instead of letting your American shit system teach you bullshit like Hebrew being the native language when Jesus spoke Aramaic and Greek.

>>2936242
cuck

>>2936253

Right?

The ignorant are always the most arrogant.

>>2936265
Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things - Philippians 3:19

>>2936282
>>2936282
>>2936282
>>2936282

>>2936217

Your argument lacks absolutely any evidence to support these wildly absurb Hebrew-centric power fantasies. You don't have any idea what the world was like in the time of the New testament but level of hostilty and aggression is entirely on par with the typical atheist virgin who uses historical falsehoods to validate your broken and lost existence. You are a cuck and have done a wonderful job making those who share your ignorant deletrius and nihilstic worldview.

>>2936169
>>2936176
>>2936190
>most Jews
The fucking Pharisees were not most Jews, but "most Jews" in the diaspora would have been Hellenized, and it would have certainly been true in Tarsus.
This entire debate is retarded although OP was right to call Paul's bullshit.

>>2936207
Oh no it's perfectly fashionable to hate "Pauline Christianity" outside of 4chan too.

>>2936190
>most jews used the septuagint when they no longer spoke hebrew
yes, hellenistic jews outside of palestine, not the ones that spoke aramaic primarily

>>2936288

*Look ignorant and angry for no reason

>>2936207
you dont really here about it at church but the idea that "Pauline" Christianity was significantly different from the "original" Christianity is somewhat popular in academic circles

File: ?.png (3KB, 310x253px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 310x253px

>>2936781
>academic circles

aka SCRIBES

>>2936797
If by Scribes you mean people who know how to write yes. If you mean to imply some connection the the Jewish scribes talked about in the bible not really. But I suppose labeling them as evil rather than addressing their arguments might help you sleep at night.

itt: butthurt Pharisees

I only follow /pol/ine Christianity.

>>2936082
more like murray

I actually study old forms of theology and I am constantly amazed at how early Christianity got so much wrong about Judaism.

To give you an idea let's take the idea of Atonement Theology: the idea that Jesus died to save people from sin. Paul and the Gospel of John say that this is the center of the entire religion and they try to say that it's related to Jewish sacrifices (Jesus is the lamb and his blood redeems). Well there's several things wrong with that. First of all sacrifices cannot be used to forgive the sins of others only the sins of one's self, second you can't use a lamb, third the animal has to be female, and fifth the blood of the unaimal is actually creates impurity, so does the animal dying.

File: poindexter-felix-the-cat-saves-christmas-8.01.jpg (19KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 210x240px

>>2936886
t. scribe

>>2936077
Pharisees were a sectarian division, they had people wherever jews were in the empire, which was somewhat extensive.
Talmudic lore tells us the Sadducees and and Pharisees cooperated in the temple.
High Priests are always concerned with rooting out heresy wherever it is, that's true in any religion.
If you're so convinced Paul's depiction in the New Testament is falsified why are you so confident in Gamaliel's?

>>2940393
Not him but let me try and contexualize this for you. Imagine it is the height of the Protestant reformation. Now imagine a guy claiming to be a devote Protestant says he is taking orders from the local Bishop in order to hunt down heretics. Also imagine that you said that the local Odin worshipping Pagans have given the legal power to punish these heretics against Jesus.

That's essentially what Paul sounds like. In the analogy the Saudecee would be Catholics, the Pharisee the Protestants, and the Odin worshippers would be the Romans.

His story was so ridiculous he couldn't convience a single Jew that he knew a thing about their religion. The disciples that knew Jesus accused saw right through his lies. That's why he went to the Gentiles because they would actually buy his fake history.

>>2940393
Where exactly does the Talmud claim such cooperation?

>>2940275
Anything else?

>>2941137
The whole thing really. I think that Judaism has more in common with Islam than Christianity.

One of the big fuck ups is that Christianity has no concept of ritual impurity and confuses it with sin. In Judaism certain things make you impure. Being around dead things or blood makes you impure. Having children makes you impure. But these are not 'bad things', in fact God demands the Jews do these things all the time (eg give birth). Impurity is cured with certain rituals, usually involving washing. If you are impure you shouldn't go near temples or priests because you might drive God away from them. Impurity is cured with certain ceramonies.

Think of it like body odor, it's not evil, but you have to get rid of it if you want to be respected.

Paul can't tell the difference between a sinful act and an impure act when attacking Judaism.


---minor other things
Let's take the concept of sin. In Christianity sin is like a piece of your body, you are born with it and you die with it, it's always there. While in Judaism sin is like mud. Sometimes you have it, sometimes you don't and it washes off pretty easily (sin can be forgiven just by having enough time pass, or your ancestors can do something cool and it makes up for your sin). While in Christianity sin is only forgiven by God himself it's on your permanent record for infinity otherwise.

Than there is God's view of his subjects. In Judaism God really only cares about the Jews, he has no problem with them pillaging and conquering Gentile's lands. While in Christianity he loves them all equally. I really can't see how these can be the same God.

>>2941239
Interesting stuff, is there a good book/video or website that deals with this area specifically?

>>2940275
Christ's sacrifice was unique because He is perfect and therefore able to atone for humanity's collective sins. It's misguided to compare Christ's perfect sacrifice with the animal sacrifices that preceded beyond the fact that they both are ritual atonement.

>>2941239
The point is that humans have a sinful nature so the Jews had to constantly make sacrifices because no matter how hard they tried they would inevitably sin again. Furthermore, God is ultimately the one who forgives sin in both Christianity and Judaism, the difference is that the Jews have a much more transactional conception of this in the sense that they do their cleansing/sacrificial rituals in exchange for forgiveness of each sin whereas Christians are redeemed once and all their future sins are already forgiven Christianity really streamlined things because you no longer have to do some ritual every time you mess up.

Also your understanding of God's relationship with the nations in the Old Testament is impoverished. Yes, Israel occupies a privileged position among the nations but the prophets foretold that it is God's desire for all people to worship Him and God even uses pagan leaders to enact His plans. The prophets praised Cyrus the Great and explained that he was chosen by God even though he was not a Jew.

>>2940419
>Now imagine a guy claiming to be a devote Protestant says he is taking orders from the local Bishop in order to hunt down heretics.
psssst.
Protestants have bishops too buddy....

>>2941365
With the theological difference between Judaism and Christianity? No. The differences are obvious to anyone who seriously looks at both religions. Just understand that Christians will treat the Old Testament completly differently from a Jewish or secular scholar.

To understand Judaism there are some great lectures from Yale on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-YL-lv3RY

To get a general feel watch the lectures up to the first 5 books, which where like 80% of theology comes from anyway.

New Testament study. Take your pick, that field is massive.

>>2941424
Any accessible texts you would personally
recommend NT wise?

>>2940275
Jesus is God therefore Jesus is us. Thanks for playing, though, fuckin wannabe intellectual. Back to 101 with you.

>>2941451
Cursing does not help your credibility as a Christian. Different anon btw.

>>2941239
You literally don't know shit and should demAnd a fucking refund on whatever bullshit you studied. Jesus H. Christ.

>>2941443
Erhman is kind of the go to guy for New Testament history. He deals mostly with historical factsrather than theology. I will say I disagree with his interpretation of what the historical Jesus's ministry was about. Erhman thinks he was just an apocalyptic prophet and doesn't bother contemplating why Jesus's theology endured while the countless other doomsayers aren't remembered.

If you want theology I'd just recommend you get it from the source. There's plenty of resources online about what Augustine, Luther, Aquinas, or all the other big guys taught. Just keep in mind theology actually has nothing to do with the historical truth. It's basically doing philosophy but you also need to mangle the bible's text.

I also like Nietzche's Anti-Christ for analyzing the 2 halves of the bible.

>>2941457
Neither does not knowing shit. But hey, it's 11pm on a Sunday night on 4chan and I'm not a pedantic faggot so go fuck yourself.

>>2941479
>doesn't bother contemplating why Jesus's theology endured while the countless other doomsayers aren't remembered.
That's because to him (and most other academics), there's no indication that Jesus's theology was notably different than his contemporaries. The usual position is that his followers and Paul were the ones who later introduced a distinct theology related to Jesus, and especially his divinity.

>>2941501
>no indication that Jesus's theology was notably different than his contemporaries.

Except for the Gospels of course because they are full of lies right?

"Let God Be True, But Every Man A Liar"

for the word of God will not be tainted nor perished, For the law will stand against time

>>2941578
The gospels reflect Pauline theology, so they're not usually regarded as an accurate reflection of what Jesus taught. You're going to meme and deny that, but it's pretty accepted, and there are plenty of books addressing the issue.

File: 1496960570338.jpg (34KB, 374x288px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 374x288px

>>2936077
I am of the opinion that it is pretty obvious that both Paul and James cannot be right at once.

>>2941660
The Gospels are the most reliable sources we have about Jesus' life, of course they agree with Paul because Paul met the same Jesus. As for the apocrypha which is what I assume you're relying on, they were neither as commonly reproduced nor widespread as the Gospels. Furthermore the earliest Christian writings we have are from Paul so the proximity of his epistles to Christ's lifetime makes them more credible than any of the later documents.

File: 5700826+_21f6faf63491f26529ec447c24381777.jpg (16KB, 351x329px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 351x329px

>>2941647
So men are lying even when they are delivering a sermon?

>>2941712
>delivering a sermon of the word of God

fixed that for you...

>>2941717
For that matter that too but my point was basically everyone is lying as long as they aren't saying something inside the bible? But ESPECIALLY if they are speaking praise of God but in their own words?

>>2941704

the reason why the Apocrypha is not included on the Bible is because they conflict what the original OT/NT stands for,

unlike OT/NT they both fit on the same puzzle
while the apocrypha does not,

but back in the times of King james, they still Included it on the original king james version,
because in my own opinion, some of it's text may still hold some extra information, but still

they can't fit the same way ot/nt fits

>>2941727
>apocrypha is not included on the Bible is because they conflict what the original OT/NT stands for,

How so?

>>2941724

Out of context. but that passage means was that
All men can't be 100% foolproof, someway or another, we will fall down on our flesh.


As long as the man never defile or twist the word of God, the truth will still abide on his/her mouth.

that's why you can see Jesus refuting satan on his temptation

"It is written"


>But ESPECIALLY if they are speaking praise of God

As I am like one of you, I can't answer that but
rest assured that God Only knows What's inside a man's heart,

We can all praise in our ways, But ONLY GOD can tell a man be a liar or not, for we can't be above what we can't reach,

Even the most evil person can praise God, but we can judge him if he is a liar or not, for Only God can judge both the evil and good, the liar and the truth,

>>2941729


Long story,, lazy to talk about it, but it's true, you just have to search it on your own.

One conflict is in the maccabees,

>>2941754

>Even the most evil person can praise God, but we can judge him

"we can't"

>>2941727
None of that has anything to do with the fact that the Gospels were more widely produced and are in greater harmony with the earliest Christian writings (Paul's epistles). To claim that Christ teachings weren't a radical departure from Jewish orthodoxy and that he was just a dime-a-dozen rabbi ignores the most reliable documents we have about his life. If Jesus was such a traditionalist, why was He crucified?

>>2941501
From what I know about Greek and Roman religions Paul's stuff is just his take on the mystery cults and Platonism. Dying and rising Gods were a fad that was popular. I think Paul even mentions the word "pleroma" in the origenal Greek text which is a distinctly Platonic metaphysics.

Christians are generally uncomfortable with the idea that their religion's theology would actuall have a historical root. It kind of contradicts the idea of "revealed truth" if their theology is just an evolution of a previous thought.

I side with Nietzsche that Jesus's theology was that when he says "the kingdom of heaven is within you" he actually meant it literally. The historical Jesus was not afraid to die nor did he ressent any suffering because for him the real world was a daydream and he was perfectly content to live in his head without any material cares. Essentially the "kingdom of heaven" is comparable to the idea of Nirvana. The idea of a literal kingdom and a revenge fantasy of the "last judgement" was a later development.

Figuring out exactly what Jesus actually taught is a nightmare, there's the New Testament and several 'noncannonical' works like Thomas to shift through. Since every account of Jesus's words are not written by real eye wittnesses it's not as simple as just pulling up quotes as there is no way to easily tell what was recorded accuratly and what was simply shoved into his mouth.

>>2941704
A major part of Pauline theology is that the Jesus that met James and Peter was not the Jesus that Paul met. The reason Paul had to invent this theology was that James actually knew what Jesus really taught and could call out Paul's bullshit. So it goes "no you don't understand James. I met the spirit that lived the physical body of your brother. He told me the secret Gnosis that you guys never learned. So I actually know the real theology!"

This little bit eventually got ret-conned in the later centuaries.

>>2941786
>None of that has anything to do with the fact that the Gospels were more widely produced and are in greater harmony with the earliest Christian writings (Paul's epistles)

But it does, because if it not, and if the apocrypha was established as canonical,
then Christianity would be divided more than we have today because One unknown puzzle can't fit to the whole picture, one of that unknown puzzle that the catholics have is one of the many reason reformation was born,

>To claim that Christ teachings weren't a radical departure from Jewish orthodoxy and that he was just a dime-a-dozen rabbi ignores the most reliable documents we have about his life.

But I didn't say it weren't, And He didn't change anything to the Old law, He just fulfills it, He define it even more for the New Law to be establish, He Use the Old as he prepares the New for the gentiles, Us.


>If Jesus was such a traditionalist, why was He crucified?

But He wasn't, the reason Why He was crucified, Because He make every Argument of Jews fall down on them,

>>2941869
Paul met the resurrected Jesus who is the same Jesus James and Peter knew. James didn't even become a disciple until after the resurrection anyway so it's not like he has more authority than Paul.

>>2941918
Although it has many members, there has been and always will be only one body of Christ anon.

>>2941869
Wouldn't it mean that Gentiles are fucked if Paul was a fake? I don't think you actually believe this.

>>2941929

That is true, though there will be branches that He can only pluck out, Because we're told to cut it out once it go out of the truth, that we all stand in.

>>2941962

"for Every tree that brought put evil fruits will be cast out and thrown in the lake of fire",

File: The Vine.png (452KB, 452x706px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 452x706px

>>2941962
He prunes the vine so that it bears fruit.

>>2941942
Let me put it in the most extreme context. Because the the Gospels were written by Greeks, not the disciples. Well the Greeks all got their theology from followers of Paul. So the New Testament is 100% Paul. He really is the founder of the religion. The very idea that there is an afterlife and that you need to be saved is Pauline theology. Hell Jesus isn't even divine without Paul he's just the brother of James.

So Paul being wrong effectively destroys the religion at it's core.

>>2941923
Yeah. That's Paul's plan to discredit the James ministry. If James knew the "real" Jesus than that means that when James said Jesus never preached an afterlife or that Gentiles could john the religion he was probably right.

>>2942058
James didn't follow Jesus during His earthly ministry; the only reason he became a Christian was that he witnessed proof of life after death.

>>2942058
>Because the the Gospels were written by Greeks, not the disciples

The disciples Wrote the Gospels in Greek because it was the prevalent language used at that time, not the other way around

but if you're against Christianity then I can't argue it enough, it's your own decision not to anyway

>>2936077
Perhaps all religions past and present are a manifestation of mankind's desire to know the creator.

Perhaps none of us really know the creator as well as we think.

Perhaps the whole point, from the creator's perspective, is that he is recognized as such and revered and sought out by the creation.

>>2942058
You can have faith in Jesus in spite of any historical incongruity or compromising of doctrine and dogma. Gnostics prove that.

>>2942063
Don't think it's odd that James, the guy who spent his entire life with Jesus as the guy's brother is suddenly told he "never knew Jesus" is something you are supposed to accept without question? You are just supposed to ignore that everyone seemed to think James was the leader and that he went around warning people about Paul being a usurper.

Than Paul comes in, some random guy that was never part of Jesus's guy's life. You are supposed to think everything Paul said is right. Despite the fact that he is lying about his past and the entire basis for this is that he had a vision on some road (the only wittness to this is his friend Luke). Oh and the only source that says James ever sided with Paul is some books written by cronies of Paul!

File: Icon.jpg (494KB, 640x469px)

494KB, 640x469px

>>2942080
>“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Without Paul, christianity is gnostic.

Who is Paul?

Let's see: Yes goy, I saw god and he said that I was right.

>>2942088
Don't be stupid. I'm not saying gnostics are saved you stupid fucker. I'm saying obviously the new testament has an inspirational quality that has moved many to find Jesus a compelling spiritual figure. That wouldn't change if some revelation came out about Paul.

>>2942086
Before the resurrection, James only knew Jesus as a brother not a teacher and Christ Himself said a prophet is without honor among his relatives. Jesus traveled all over Israel during his ministry without James accompanying him so to say that James had some special insight into Jesus' teachings is facetious at best. Furthermore the fact that James couldn't even recognize his own brother as the messiah until He literally rose from the dead is an illuminating lesson for Jews to this day.

>>2942078
Back than if you were a poor person you would be not know how to read and you certainly wouldn't know how to write. So not only are we supposed to beleive that all these starving fishermen can write fluently but that they did it in a language they wouldn't have even been exposed to.

From what I have read of bible scholars they say the Gospels use poetic and writing techniques. So not only did these fishermen learn a foreign language, learn to write, but they also taught themself poetry. Also the scholars I've read say that half Gospel texts are literally the same words letter for letter, which indicates they were copying it off another text. Why would an eye wittness do that? You'd only copy another text if you didn't know the events yourself!

Oh and to top it off they all wrote it pretty late in their life. Some of the estimated dates for John put it AFTER the guy is supposed to be dead.

Like really the list of reasons is HUGE.

File: ORANGES-facebook.jpg (832KB, 2000x1000px)

832KB, 2000x1000px

>>2942096
>>2941457

>>2942100
Do you have a brother? Imagine if some random guy said that you never actually knew your brother and he did because he say him in a dream. Now imagine he tells that everything he is saying is the real opinions of your brother. Also the guy talking about you has an elaborate backstory which is completly made up.

This is essentially what you are being asked to believe.

James thought Paul was a fraud. He dragged the guy out into a public place and made Paul tell all his students that his lessons were lies. Than he killed Paul out and told him to fuck off. That's why Paul had to go to the Gentiles because the entire Jewish community had been warned about him.

>>2942096
>I'm not saying gnostics are saved

I do say it, gnostics are saved by their gnosis

>ah yes, I believe this religion
>ah so you believe in jesus
>how come you know from jesus because of a guy that was never an apostle nor a disciple
>silence infidel

>>2942110
Peter who both followed Jesus during His life and lead the church after His ascension considered Paul's writings authoritative and James acknowledged Peter's authority which means he ultimately accepted Paul. I don't understand how you can claim James and Paul were enemies when both their writings are New Testament canon. Regardless, I'm going to bed now so I'll be praying for you anon. Goodnight.

>>2942101
are we supposed to beleive that all these starving fishermen can write fluently but that they did it in a language they wouldn't have even been exposed to

that was answered on the last pages of the book of John before Acts,

"have you heard of tongues and Holy spirit dwelling in them"

the disciples we're just vessels of Him who resides in them, They are the physical manifestation of Him, they're the instrument of the one who creates. they are not just on their own, but in Him who resides in them.

it's only faith and Holy spirit can make anyone believe all of this, that's the line boundary between Him and Us.

>>2942126

I have this theology where these books were written by other people and changed capriciously for lies.

>>2942126
>are we supposed to beleive that all these starving fishermen can write fluently but that they did it in a language they wouldn't have even been exposed to

that was answered on the last pages of the book of John before Acts,

>"have you heard of tongues and Holy spirit dwelling in them"

the disciples we're just vessels of Him who resides in them, They are the physical manifestation of Him, they're the instrument of the one who creates. they are not just on their own, but in Him who resides in them.
it's only faith and Holy spirit can make anyone believe all of this, that's the line boundary between Him and Us.

>>2942129
that is also true, I've read that there were defiled version that still exist today, But I've forgot what it was,as the lies exist so is the truth.

One thing is their motive and that is to make money out of it.

>>2942137

I've also read this theology where most of makind are sons of hell and thus pretend they are suprised at the sight of a proposal that the bible may not be very true and be a book of darkness.

>>2941786
>. If Jesus was such a traditionalist,
there was a Jewish civil war
the violence between Jews existed way before Yoshi, even to the 1st temple times

He is by no means a single casualty in this civil war
>The Zealots
>Another group, likely related, were the Sicarii, who raided Jewish habitations and killed Jews they considered apostate and collaborators

>>2940393
The Pharisees and the Sadducees are the antitheses of one another.

the Sadducees saw the Pharisees as heretics, the temple was ruled and maintained by the Sadducees, who were the high priests, but the Pharisees demanded presence in judiciary affairs ( Sanhedrin, the high Jewish court).

why? because Pharisees were the majority of the criminals and demanded their own interpretations in the court

>>2941918
>Randomly capitalizes certain words.

I've noticed this a lot, is Christianity linked to autism?

>>2942290
the opposite actually

>>2936217
I thought they spoke Aramaic.

>>2941239
Psalm 51, read it.

Also biblically, God had a covenant with Noah, from which the Noahide laws are derived. This was a universal covenant and predates the covenants with the other patriarchs, and is evidence that God cared, or thought about, other people and not just the Hebrews. But some people do argue that is a Rabbincal invention to negate Christianity's universal message, in that the covenant with Noah is universal.

>>2936175
>it means that 100% of the new testament is Pauline theology.
And this is the bitter truth about Christianity. Jesus had not much to do with Christianity at all.

>>2942363
>reads Jewish holy book
>club is exclusive, Israelites only
>oh me too, me too too

The amount of mind bending Christians have to do, just because their little sect was founded on the theology of someone else is boggling.

>>2942363
You do realize the covenant is about the Jews getting military control over certain pieces of land? It's basically a divine land-deed. Yawheh agree's to help the Jews conquer their enemies and not starve to death in the dessert in-exchange for following his priesthood exclusively.

That's what the convenant is, it's about the Jews fighting over some ground in the dessert. It has nothing to do with an after-life. There is no after-life in the old testament at all!

So not only are the other races not part of the convent but they are on the land which Yawheh has says belongs to his Chosen race. He didn't want the Jews to get along with other races, he wanted them to sake their cities and kill their children,

Israeli air strikes on Pakistan hospitals is what the covenant of God looks like in action.

>>2936175
>Paul is the founder of Christianity.
This is not controversial in the least to anyone who has studied even the slightest bit of information on early Christianity. There wasn't even a clear distinction between Judaism and Christianity until after the destruction of the Second Temple, when Paul and his followers split off from mainstream Jewish theology.

>mfw the gospels were written after paul's epistles

Does jesus even exists

>>2943135
The safe bet is that he did. Exactly what he taught and did with his life are really up to debate.

>>2941704
No, you believe Paul met Jesus via a vision. A claim which if someone made today would be met with some skepticism on your part. But because its in the bible you simply accept it.

Historians and researchers simply dont take for granted that this actually happened

>>2941704
>>2944687
Even worst the theology that living Jesus=/=eternal Jesus is contradicted by John virtually all modern sects of Christianity. The Christian poster is actually advocating the corner stone of Gnostic theology. The reason that Paul insisted there were two seperate Jesus's was to descredit James who knew the historical Jesus. It was only after James died that we got a shift in theology that said the historical Jesus was identical the eternal Jesus....since James isn't around anymore to tell them Jesus never said such things.

>>2945472
Exactly which verses say these things?

>>2945599
How about the ones where Jesus comes back from the dead and proves that he is not a celestial being but a human by eating food and letting his disciples feel his wounds? He stays with them for 3 days to convince them that he is all flesh and blood.

Another clue is that in the Gospel of John Jesus is constantly refereed to as being divine. While in the other Gospels he never claims such things.

>>2945472
>Paul insisted there were two seperate Jesus's

Where are you getting this idea from?

>>2945774

Dionysos did the same thing and no-one thinks he was real.

>>2942110
>Do you have a brother? Imagine if some random guy said that you never actually knew your brother and he did because he say him in a dream. Now imagine he tells that everything he is saying is the real opinions of your brother.
>This is essentially what you are being asked to believe.
There is nothing impossible or implausible about that, being related to someone does not grant you special insight into their soul. To approach from a perverse perspective, consider how many people are related to serial killers and don't actually know the truth within them.

>>2944687
>Historians and researchers simply dont take for granted that this actually happened
I would imagine that's their loss.

>>2945789
I'm not that anon but, from what I understand, this was a pretty common idea from people who followed Johannine literature and teachings. That "Jesus" was a historical figure but was filled with the Holy Spirit (i.e. God) at his baptism by John the Baptist and became the Christ. Then, essentially, the physical Jesus was taken along with the Christ at the resurrection. I'm not positive on this, but that's about what I understood it as.

>>2945997
Yeah gnostics believe all kinds of lies about Jesus, but the idea that Paul would teach something like that is just ridiculous.

>>2945864
I would imagine its just reasonable not to assume every claimed supernatural experience is genuine

>>2946003
Well I'm no scholar on this stuff, but I believe the implication is that Paul started teaching this or something like it, then the Gospel of John was written in support of the idea/to make more sense/make it more coherent theology. Are you saying all gnostics are offshoots of John?

I'm still relatively new to gnostic theology, I'm not criticizing you. Trying to understand better myself.

>>2946018
Paul taught that there is only one Jesus and this is supported by all the Gospels. Gnostics on the other hand believed all sorts of conflicting things about Jesus, some said he was only a ghost while others said he was a mere man, there were no consistent gnostic doctrines other than a vague idea of spiritual dualism and contempt for the material world. Jesus loved the world which is why He died for us.

>>2936082
Nothing he said was wrong though.

>>2946012
I would assume it's reasonable not to dismiss claimed supernatural experience out of hand as historians and researchers do in our Godless secular age.

>>2946128
t. Ahmed

>>2946142
Jesus was really trying to start a pedophile cult and Paul was the one who turned it into what we see today. I know that because a Giant Rabbit Spirit told me so in a dream after I ate 300 carrots that day.

File: Golden_katana_detail.png (104KB, 980x798px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 980x798px

>>2946173

>>2946176
So, I'm curious, why do you presumably believe Paul and not me?

>>2946173
>if we do not dismiss the supernatural out of hand then clearly we must accept it without question

File: Christ wants you.jpg (1MB, 1368x1464px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1368x1464px

>>2946182
Because Paul's work bore good fruit.

>>2946182
You're a literally anonymous nobody on an image board while Paul is literally a saint.

>>2946142
>I would assume it's reasonable not to dismiss claimed supernatural experience out of hand as historians and researchers do in our Godless secular age.

Why?

>>2946186
So then what criteria are you using to actually evaluate a supernatural experience? Because I'm not seeing any.

>>2946191
How the hell are you defining that?

>>2946192
Confusing cause and effect here, aren't we? Paul is a saint precisely BECAUSE he was believed; if not, he would be some raving loonie or one of any number of offshoot teachers who have been lost to history.

>>2946192
Which means what exactly? There were several high priests of old hellenic gods, would you believe their claims of the supernatural?

>>2945792
Well not even the followers of Dionysus thought he was a real person. He was always treated as a spirit. The Jesus character is treated as a historical person by many of his earliest followers. The guy even had a brother and family members. A good clue that there was a historical Jesus is that even the guy's enemies think he actually existed, they of all people would want to say he wasn't real.

>>2945832
Your analogy sucks. Paul is literally claiming that the guy that James grew up with his entire life that went around preaching for 3 years didn't actually mean what he said. And that he only told his real opinion after he turned into a ghost and met some random guy on the road.

>>2946003

Let me put it directly. The original version of Christianity didn't even allow gentiles to join, that didn't happen until Paul set up a rival version of Christianity. Paul had many successors and some of them went on to invent Gnostism, others invented the modern Christianity we have now. Eventually Paul's descendents fought and one of them won out and called all the other segments heretics. The original version of Christianity, which was lead by James, was defeated by the heretics.

>>2936077
Hey. What do you mean with "did not read hebrew"?

File: PETROS.png (78KB, 999x999px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 999x999px

>>2946211
By its taste.

>>2945997
>"Jesus" was a historical figure but was filled with the Holy Spirit (i.e. God) at his baptism by John the Baptist and became the Christ.
That's actually what happened according to Mark (the earliest gospel). In Mark, Jesus is basically just a normal man until his baptism, when God names him as the messiah. The original ending of Mark also doesn't really feature a resurrection; women find an empty tomb and don't tell anyone about it because they're scared, so apparently no one knew what happened to him. In John, Jesus is implied to have been perpetually divine, since he calls himself God.

>>2946221
We want actual explanations, not cryptic nonsense. We could get that from any crazy man on the street.

File: 1453862450327.jpg (41KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x480px

>>2946226
>But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

- 1 Cor 2:14

>>2946232
Shit like this is why Christianity is declining in the developed world.

>>2946211
>Because I'm not seeing any.
That would be because I didn't give you any, nor am I obligated to do so.

>>2946217
Jesus serves all people, including gentiles.

>>2946242
>I came here to participate in this discussion, but I'm not obligated to further it in any way, HURF DURF.

Good for you, you childish dipshit.

>>2946242
No, you're not obligated in a strong moral sense, but if you want to actually distinguish between two supernatural claims and not be laughed at as an irrational idiot, you really do need a classification system of some sort.

File: A New Hope.jpg (1MB, 1341x1481px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1341x1481px

>>2946241
>Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

- 2 Thes 2:1-4

>>2946211
>Paul is a saint precisely BECAUSE he was believed;
Yes, that is my point.
His contemporaries considered his account to be factual, so I see no reason to second guess them and believe you, a random anonymous asshole on a seedy website famed world-wide for it's liars.

>>2946256
>His contemporaries considered his account to be factual, so I see no reason to second guess them and believe you, a random anonymous asshole on a seedy website famed world-wide for it's liars.
So, essentially, you're simply relying on argumentum ad populam. Homer's contemporaries believed in his depictiosn of the actions of the various Greek Gods on the battles around Troy. Does the fact that he was believed, and was enormously widely quoted in the Hellenistic world, mean that Aphrodite, Ares, Poseidon, et al really did exist and really did throw down on a massive battlefield in Northwest Turkey? And how can you possibly believe in any sort of monotheist religion after that clear proof?

File: 1489511078825.png (123KB, 338x504px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 338x504px

>the absolute state of this thread
not sure what I expected in a bait thread anyways

>>2946256
Not him, but you have looked at the political process behind the assembling of the Biblical canon, right? It wasn't some pure "his words held their weight and they believed" process.

>>2946217
>Paul is literally claiming that the guy that James grew up with his entire life that went around preaching for 3 years didn't actually mean what he said. And that he only told his real opinion after he turned into a ghost and met some random guy on the road.

Yes?
and?
As I said, blood does not magically grant understanding.

>>2946217
>The original version of Christianity didn't even allow gentiles to join,
Define "gentile".

is there a name for this argument so I may learn more

>>2946291
Which argument? I see several buzzing around the thread.

>>2946291
it is called autism.
this anon always comes into threads about early christianity and shits them up like the good judaizer he is.

>>2946254
>but if you want to actually distinguish between two supernatural claims and not be laughed at as an irrational idiot, you really do need a classification system of some sort.

I really couldn't care less what fedora-tippers laugh about. I'm just pointing out that "academics and researchers" who instinctively grope for ways to explain away supernatural events are guilty of intellectual bias.

I don't have to come up with a classification system to point that out, and it's intellectually dishonest to imply that I do.

>>2946301
about st paul lying

>>2946281
irrelevant as it still holds greater weight than some loser's anonymous musings about "Giant Rabbit Spirits"

>>2946306
>I'm just pointing out that "academics and researchers" who instinctively grope for ways to explain away supernatural events are guilty of intellectual bias.
How?

>I don't have to come up with a classification system to point that out, and it's intellectually dishonest to imply that I do.
You kind of do, assuming (which seems likely) that you believe some supernatural claims and not others in relation to even something as narrow as Paul's applicability. For instance, you would need to disbelieve every other theological claim ever made based on some sort of supernatural experience, which if true would deny the existence of a monotheistic God.

>>2946312
I don't actually know of any formal name of it. I've seen several books on the subject with names revolving around things like "The Problem of/with Paul", but that's it really.
I'd recommend "Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity", if you're interested in the subject.

>>2946273
>Does the fact that he was believed, and was enormously widely quoted in the Hellenistic world, mean that Aphrodite, Ares, Poseidon, et al really did exist and really did throw down on a massive battlefield in Northwest Turkey?

No, but I certainly find their existence more plausible than the Revelation of the Divine Giant Rabbit which anon cooked up solely to serve as an item of rhetoric to attack Christianity.

>>2946325
Of course. You don't have a wide base of support to believe in the Giant Rabbit Spirit. But clearly, if our anon goes ahead and missionizes, gains widespread support for his whatever, that makes it more plausible, right?

>>2946314
>How are people who a priori assume the supernatural is not real guilty of intellectual bias
Figure it out anon.

>You kind of do
No, I kind of don't, as my argument stands on it's own and your only justification for your demands revolve on assumptions about me, rather than my argument itself.

>>2946329
This is reductionist as fuck, do you actually think you are making a good point? You aren't.

>>2946306
In what way are they guilty of intellectual bias? There's no reason to assume that the supernatural exists, and thus another explanation than a supernatural one is the most likely.

>>2946329
Certainly, but we both know that's not going to happen. To put it another way, if my aunt had balls she'd by my uncle, but she don't so she ain't.

>>2946335
>There's no reason to assume that the supernatural exists
but there's reason to assume it doesn't amirite?
:^)

>>2946313
You came here to discuss the subject. Why are you engaging in ad hominem attacks rather than actually engaging with the point? If you truly dislike the point so much that you're simply incapable of not acting like a child, why don't you go somewhere else?

>>2946339
The fact it cannot be demonstrated to exist is a good reason to assume it doesn't exist.

>>2946341
>ad hominem attacks
LOL
The fact that anon is a loser has no bearing on the plausibility of his claim, and thusly no connection to my rejection of it.

>why don't you go somewhere else?
Make me.

>>2946342
testing immaterial subjects through material means does not seem like it will get you anywhere

>>2946330
>Figure it out anon.
I mean, I get what you're trying to argue, namely that a categoric refusal to consider something is indicative of "intellectual bias" but that's retarded. For instance, meaningful communication like what we're attempting right now assumes that there are no random hijackers of peoples minds to cause them to completely switch their positions mid-post. Or that these posts aren't just random collections of letters spontaneously appearing on the screen with no actual meaning behind them. That nobody is considering that possibility doesn't speak of intellectual bias.

>No, I kind of don't, as my argument stands on it's own
Holy shit, you're serious about this. You're wrong, for the simple reason that "bias" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bias
Now, what person or group is a categorical refusal to believe in the supernatural aimed against? Why is it an example of bias instead of simply a classification of thinking? When a chemist implicitly assumes that all chemical reactions are based on electron interactions of atoms and molecules, is he being biased against nuclear physicists for not considering the possibility that different isotopes might be a possible factor to consider even though there is 0 evidence that they can for such reactions? No, of course not.

Similarly, "intellectual bias" for making an internally consistent classification system and then using it is stupid.

>>2946306
Supernatural claims are not always dismissed out of hand. Any number of historians are a member of some religious sect or another

There is a case to be made that all supernatural events are coincidence or foibles of the human mind. But even if they are not. unless there is hard evidence or a way to distinguish the credibility of one supernatural claim over another than it would be irresponsible to assume one happened and allow that to effect your historical conclusions.

You can always say maybe a miracle did happen, but even if Christ did most or all the things Christian tradition says he did it would not change the fact that all the material evidence suggests the gospels and related writings are not the bias documents historiography says they are.

They were written decades after Jesus's death. They were all written by followers of Paul, they almost all demonstrate ignorance of Jewish theology and practices that any observant Jew at the time would know.
None of that proves or disproves Christ. or Paul's version of Christ, but it does cast doubt on the material as it has been passed down today.

>>2946347
We figured out several means to test immaterial (not composed of matter) things like energy.

Why should we assume the supernatural exists?

>>2946346
>The fact that anon is a loser has no bearing on the plausibility of his claim, and thusly no connection to my rejection of it.

Except that's wrong. You outright state we shouldn't listen to him over Paul because you consider him to be a loser.

>Make me.

Grow up.

>>2946358
Because the supernatural is immaterial in an absolute sense, it is metaphysical.
It cannot be tested by an physical means, and shouldn't be subject to that either.
You either believe or you don't, and I think both are equally valid in most cases, but I think physical happenings should be evaluated physically before any metaphysical thought is brought into play.

>>2946365
Metaphysical is not some shield term you get to use to mean "absolute woowoo." Metaphysical claims can be evaluated on their own merits too, through philosophical processes.

Historians are not required to take every bit of insane nonsense as "potentially true" to be intellectually credible. The supernatural claims of the Bible need strong supporting evidence (which they don't have) to bear even the slightest consideration.

>>2946365
>Because the supernatural is immaterial in an absolute sense, it is metaphysical.

Then how does it interact with the physical?

>>2946342
Wrong.
"Supernatural" is an example of a false categorization that is deliberately constructed to discredit what ever is assigned to it. It is impossible to actually demonstrate the existence of the supernatural because any supernatural phenomenon that is successfully demonstrated ceases to be supernatural. In short it only exists to serve as a weasel method of implying something is false without actually bothering to prove it so.

Therefore the only logical response to the allegation that an event is supernatural is to be skeptical of the motivations of the person who classified it as such in the first place.

>>2946375
Would "event not possible under known science" be better?

>>2946225
He was never just a mortal man
He was always the chosen savior from God even if you use Mark alone

>>2946371
I only responded to the claim if we the supernatural cannot be demonstrated to exist then it probably doesn't.
>>2946370
I am not talking about whether it should be taken seriously not. Again, not sure how you would test a metaphysical claim because, frankly, you can't.

>>2946375
That's moronic. It's Christians themselves that insist that these miracles are something outside of nature itself.

>>2946218
I was confused about that too
Where do we get this idea?

>>2946351
Sorry anon, I disagree.

>>2946387
So you're saying the Christians are right?

>>2946381
Only if we acknowledge the fact that known science is not absolute.

>>2946282
If you wanted to know what a person thought would you listen to the brother of that guy or some someone that claimed to have met his ghost?

Seriously. If you think Paul's story is more believable than James than rather than talk to your family members maybe you should call up a spirit-channeler and ask them what your family members REALLY think.

Just make sure the spirit-channler said that he fell off his horse and that his friend Luke will vouch for him.

>>2946360
No I stated that I wouldn't listen to him because he's an anonymous voice on a website famed for it's liars, making a claim with no means of backing it up. I mean even Paul was said to have witnesses.
>inb4 another anonymous post claims to corroborate anon's story, as if that's somehow equivalent to actual people allegedly providing testimony

The fact that anon is a loser is entirely ancillary to my rejection of his claims.

>>2946410
Are you fucking retarded?

>>2946410
>If you wanted to know what a person thought would you listen to the brother of that guy or some someone that claimed to have met his ghost?
That honestly depends anon.
Your appeal to ridicule isn't going to magically make me change my mind either.

>>2946426
You do realize that Paul IS a spirit-channler claiming to know what a guy's family member thinks that better than his own family.

The concept is ridiculous which is why James and the rest of the apostles hated the guy's guts.

What's even sadder is that this ridiculous claim of his is the cornerstone of the entire religion which essentially means Christians are forced to believe it.

>>2946431
you are deluded holy shit lmao

>>2941239
>In Judaism God really only cares about the Jews

I'd say he just loves the Jews more than everyone else. I've studied religion a good amount, and there are times YHWH says positive things about Goys, I mean he made Cyrus the Great a Messiah and he's not a Jew.

>>2946436
Many academics would agree with what he is saying.

Paul's theology was based on his claimed visions and its clear he clashed with the Jerusalem church. That the only accounts of this conflict we have come from his followers suggests we might not be receiving the whole story

>>2942520
Not true. If anything it's better to be a Gentile because {{{we}}} don't have to follow all those stupid rules and we will be rewarded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism
All I have to do is not curse God, kill anyone or worship idols and i'll be fine.

>>2946488
>eating flesh that was removed from a living animal
What did they mean by this?

>>2947329
Don't eat Rocky Mountain Oysters.

>>2936077
>Claimed to be a Pharisee but couldn't read Hebrew
Yes he could. So did Jesus.
>Claims to have been sent by the High Priest to persecute Christians in Syria
He was. There's evidence in favor of it.
>High Priest was a Sadducee, why would he send a Pharisee to do his bidding?
No they weren't. They were Pharisees, which preceded Rabbinical Judaism.
>Christianity was a tiny sect, why would the High Priest care about it?
Because they knew Jesus Christ was the Messiah and felt threatened.
>High Priest had no authority outside Israel, why would he send anyone to Syria?
Obviously had enough authority to get Jesus crucified for no reason.
>Claims to be a pupil of Gamaliel
Again, he was.
>Gamaliel commanded his disciples not to hinder the proselyting of Peter and was sympathetic to Christians
This is a non-point.

You fedora are so easy to shred into pieces. There is more proof for Jesus than Alexander the Great and most historical figures, yet you deny it because you are afraid of the truth. Lies seem better than the truth to you.

>>2936077
>>Claimed to be a Pharisee but couldn't read Hebrew
Proof? Evidence? Anecdote? Random dice roll?

>>Claims to have been sent by the High Priest to persecute Christians in Syria
Correct, he was.

>>High Priest was a Sadducee, why would he send a Pharisee to do his bidding?
Because he was preaching that Jesus rose from the dead, which was anathema to the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection.

>>Christianity was a tiny sect, why would the High Priest care about it?
Because in their own writings the scarlet ribbon failed to turn white forever after Jesus' crucifixion, which rent the veil in the Holy of Holies, darkened the sun, and caused an earthquake.

>>High Priest had no authority outside Israel, why would he send anyone to Syria?
He had power over Jews, and Syria was not an independent nation any more than Israel. The Romans let the Jews do Jew stuff, including persecute Christians.

>>Claims to be a pupil of Gamaliel
A claim which you cannot refute.

>>Gamaliel commanded his disciples not to hinder the proselyting of Peter and was sympathetic to Christians
Not wanting to make martyrs of them. He also said strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter. He was wrong there too.

Jews. Not even once.

>>2947824
>Yes he could. So did Jesus.
[citation needed]
>He was. There's evidence in favor of it.
What evidence?
>No they weren't. They were Pharisees, which preceded Rabbinical Judaism.
So you're saying Acts 5:17 is wrong? And that Josephus is wrong? And you're basing this on what?
>Because they knew Jesus Christ was the Messiah and felt threatened.
Why would they feel threatened by a Messiah? After all, Jews believed that a messiah would come and put them on top. Why didn't they react similarly to other messianic claimants?
>Obviously had enough authority to get Jesus crucified for no reason.
You can't read too good, can you? You do understand how in most political units, authority is only invested in certain areas, right?
>Again, he was.
Then why does he not know the difference between sin offerings and paschal offerings?
>This is a non-point.
It is entirely a point; why would a disciple of Gamaliel run counter to his supposed master's teachings and yet still consider himself a disciple of such?

>>2941239
>Christianity has no concept of ritual impurity

What on earth do you think "being washed in the blood of the Lamb" means?

>>2947824
(((Atheists))) are clueless. If they put the same standards for Alexander the Great or any other historical person that they do for Jesus Christ than they wouldn't believe in anyone.

>>2941699
They definitely had a dispute, which is why Paul and Barnabas were summoned to Rome to see what they were teaching the Gentiles.

However, they are harmonized in this way, Paul being the apostle to the Gentiles and 100% correct on the New Testament, and James the half-brother of Jesus who never believed Jesus was the messiah until after the resurrection, who then Judaized people directly in the Jewish temple with no problem from the Jews.

Paul says we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works; it is a gift from God.

James said if a man SAYS he has faith, but has no works, then his faith is dead.

They are not speaking of faith in the same way at all. Paul is addressing proper faith in the risen Christ Jesus, and James is addressing faith in anything.

Faith in Buddha will never produce the works of God, in other words.

But yes, James and Paul clearly had problems with each other, which is why Paul wrote in Galatians that if anyone wanted to follow James' judaizing gospel, they could be accursed under the law same as the Jews.

>>2941729
Another reason is that the Jews never considered them scripture, and in Malachi, we can see God stops talking to the Jews.

>>2947850

Evidence of ****The God**** walking around historical Israel as a man, and performing miracles requires pretty fucking strong evidence to be taken seriously - at least versus the evidence required for a non-divine person.

I mean I believe in God, but c'mon man.

>>2941869
Paul says that he is all things to all people, that he might save some.

To the Jew, he's a Jew. To the Greek, he's a Greek.

Maybe take him at his word.

Jesus did not say "the kingdom of God is within you"; He said "the kingdom of God is in your midst".

In other words, as King, His Kingdom was where He was. Right smack dab in their face, and they refused to recognize it.

>>2941923
Paul is the greatest apostle to 98% of the world; James wasn't even a disciple. It really makes one wonder why non-Christians focus on James so much.

>>2942058
Matthew, John Mark, Peter, John the Beloved, Jude, Paul; these are all Hebrews, and no Greeks.

The Greek, Luke, put everything they had written in order, so that it would appeal to the Greeks.

>>2942080
Gnostics prove that going to hell is simple. All you have to do is blaspheme the Holy Spirit, which they do.

>>2947841
>Because he was preaching that Jesus rose from the dead, which was anathema to the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection.
I didn't know the Sadducees didn't believe the Tanach. I'm pretty sure that was their thing. You might want to read 2 Kings 13:21, and then show me where you picked up the notion that the Sadducees rejected it.

>Because in their own writings the scarlet ribbon failed to turn white forever after Jesus' crucifixion,
What "own writings"? The Sadducees rejected the Talmud, and of course, the same work contains multiple condemnations of Jesus. Also, if you bothered to look up Yoma 39b, you would note that the failure of the strip to turn white was 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, which would be before Jesus's crucifixion. It's also hardly proof. I could just as easily say that it failed because Jews started sinfully listening to Jesus, not the other way around. Also, why does Ezekiel state that the animal sacrifices will be reinstated in their full glory in the Messianic age, and that Ezekiel himself will offer a sin offering in the future messianic temple (EZ 45:22). Why are you focusing on that particular miracle failing, and not, say, the pyre on the altar miraculously burning without fuel, or the lot with "LaHashem" that would always appear in the hand of the High Priest that are explicitly connected with the death of Shimon HaTzaddik?

>He had power over Jews,
[citation needed]
> and Syria was not an independent nation any more than Israel
That doesn't mean the governor of one province can issue orders in another, not that the high priest was a governor.

>The Romans let the Jews do Jew stuff, including persecute Christians.
[citation needed]

>A claim which you cannot refute.
His ignorance of basic Jewish theology refutes it.

>>2942126
The entire region was Hellenized, yes, and had been for over a century.

>>2942421
The gospel was given first to the Jews, and then when it was rejected, to anyone who believes.

That was always the plan, another mystery revealed by Paul, the greatest apostle.

>>2944687
Secular historians understand nothing of God, because the things of God are spiritually discerned.

>>2946358
Have you never encountered the numinous?

>>2947850
They don't believe in anyone but themselves; they're their own shitty little gods absolving themselves of all responsibility.

>>2947875
Sad·du·cee
ˈsajəˌsē,ˈsadyəˌsē/Submit
noun
plural noun: Sadducees
a member of a Jewish sect or party of the time of Jesus Christ that denied the resurrection of the dead, the existence of spirits, and the obligation of oral tradition, emphasizing acceptance of the written Law alone.

>>2947875
Jesus' crucifixion was Nisan 14, 32 AD; the Yom Kippur sacrifice was never accepted after that date.

>>2947896
Good, you made up a definition. Show me where the Sadducees rejected 2 Kings as scripture (which is not part of the oral tradition) which very explicitly mentioned resurrection.

>>2947901
>Jesus' crucifixion was Nisan 14, 32 AD; the Yom Kippur sacrifice was never accepted after that date.
So, in other words, you're just making shit up and not actually following "The Jews on book" like you claimed back here>>2947841

Have a read. http://www.yashanet.com/library/temple/yoma39.htm

By the way, the ribbon not changing color? Not a necessary part of the sacrifice; it was "only" a supernatural reassurance from God saying that the sins of the nation were forgiven.

>>2947875
Rome allowed the Jews to practice Judaism, and to enforce their own religious rules. Pliny wrote of this, as did Josephus.

>>2947903
I googled a definition in 10 seconds.

You obviously don't give a shit about the subject.

That a man popped up from the grave, then died again, says nothing about an eternal bodily resurrection and an afterlife.

Blind Jews. Not even once.

>>2947921
>Rome allowed the Jews to practice Judaism, and to enforce their own religious rules.
Except of course that "their own religious rules" do not in fact give the High Priest authority to persecute people. So again, where the hell are you drawing this from to support the assertions in Acts?

>>2947909
Yes, and the sign was never given again because they murdered the messiah.

However, the messiah accomplished what he came to do; forgive all the sins of mankind.

So your idiotic Jewish traditions to atone for sins, which is far inferior to the propitiation of sins Jesus accomplished, is meaningless, as is your slaughter of animals for their blood.

Which you don't even do.

Because of course you are not really a Jew, as nobody is really a Jew, lacking literally everything one would need to be a Jew.

>>2947930
>I googled a definition in 10 seconds.
Yes, and it's shit.

>That a man popped up from the grave, then died again, says nothing about an eternal bodily resurrection and an afterlife.
Who said he died again? Who said that "Resurrection" only counts as "eternal bodily resurrection"? Why do you constantly have to shift the terms of your argument for it to even begin to make sense?

>>2947938
It does if the high priest says it does. Who the fuck are you to second guess real Jews of thousands of years ago?

Oh, yeah, nobody.

>>2947946
The people who witnessed him rise from the dead would have witnessed his death, same as the boy Elijah saved, same as everyone who was brought back from the dead and then subsequently died.

You annoying Jew.

At the risk of being redundant, of course.

>>2947943
>Yes, and the sign was never given again because they murdered the messiah.
But the sign ceased before they (The Romans) murdered a guy that didn't fulfill the Messianic prophecy, and is explicitly tied to Shimon HaTzaddik.

>However, the messiah accomplished what he came to do; forgive all the sins of mankind.
Contradicted by Ezekiel 45:22.

>idiotic ad hominems.
Why do you persist in this? Who do you think will actually be persuaded by such rhetoric?

>>2947947
>It does if the high priest says it does.
See, this is where "Not knowing jack shit about Judaism" comes into problem territory.

>. Who the fuck are you to second guess real Jews of thousands of years ago?
Well, actually, I just cite the OTHER Jews of thousands of years ago, the ones who wrote down stuff. There is not a single mention anywhere in the Tanach or the Talmud about the High Priest having judicial authority.

>>2947956
>The people who witnessed him rise from the dead would have witnessed his death
Then you'll point to the passage where it says that. Please do so.

>>2947961
[11] ‘Julius Caesar confirmed those rights and privileges anew to the Jewish nation (although Judaea was no longer a sovereign state), and more particularly to the high-priesthood.5 Luke’s narrative implies that the right of extradition continued to be enjoyed by the high priest under the provincial administration set up in A.D. 6. The followers of The Way whom Saul was authorized to bring back from Damascus were refugees from Jerusalem, not native Damascene disciples.’, Bruce, ‘The Book of the Acts’, New International Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 180-181 (1988); his source for the decree of Caesar is a passage by Josephus, ‘I also ordain, that he and his children retain whatsoever privileges belong to the office of high priest, or whatsoever favors have been hitherto granted them;’, Antiquities 14.195, in Whiston, ‘The Works of Josephus: Complete and unabridged’ (electronic ed. 1996).

[12] ‘The high priest served as head of the Sanhedrin, which as a legislative body had jurisdiction over the Jews living in Jerusalem, Palestine, and the dispersion. Thus the high priest had power to issue warrants to the synagogues in Damascus for the arrests of Christian Jews residing there (see 9:2; 22:5; 26:12).’, Kistemaker & Hendriksen, ‘Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles’, Baker New Testament Commentary, volume 17, p. 329 (1953-2001); as evidence they cite ‘Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), rev. and ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973–87), vol. 2, p. 218.’, p. 329.

Who doesn't know jack shit about Judaism again?

>>2947961
Oh, now you believe bible passages?

Great!

Here's the New Covenant that I partake in and enjoy immensely:

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,[a] says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

>>2947958
It happened after Nisan 14, 32 AD.

You know, when the Messiah gave up his life for his brothers, and was cut off, having nothing, just as the prophets said. And exactly when the prophets said. And exactly how the prophets said. And exactly why the prophets said.

Shame you don't believe in Moses and the prophets.

>>2947958
You're an annoying Jew. I just thought you should know.

I think it's hilarious that you think being called a Jew is a slur.

>>2948014
>Relying on your own passages in acts to prove the veracity of themselves

Idiot. And what about the times when the High Priest WASN'T serving as head of the Sanhedrin? You know, like in Berakhot 27b-28a.

>>2948018
And then it will be inscribed on their hearts, and no mention of it changing yada yada yada, we've all read Jeremiah. By the way, you still haven't come up with a reason why Ezekiel is mentioning sin offerings in the Messianic era in 45:22.

>>2948021
>It happened after Nisan 14, 32 AD.
nnnnope.

http://www.yashanet.com/library/temple/yoma39.htm

> Our Rabbis taught: Throughout the forty years that Simeon the Righteous ministered, the lot [‘For the Lord’] would always come up in the right hand; from that time on, it would come up now in the right hand, now in the left. And [during the same time] the crimson-coloured strap12 would become white. From that time on it would at times become white, at others not. Also: Throughout those forty years the westernmost light13 was shining, from that time on, it was now shining, now failing; also the fire of the pile of wood kept burning strong,14 so that the priests did not have to bring to the pile any other wood besides the two logs,15 in order to fulfil the command about providing the wood unintermittently; from that time on, it would occasionally keep burning strongly, at other times not, so that the priests could not do without bringing throughout the day wood for the pile [on the altar]. [During the whole period] a blessing was bestowed upon the ‘omer,16 the two breads,17 and the shewbread, so that every priest, who obtained a piece thereof as big as an olive, ate it and became satisfied with some eating thereof and even leaving something over. From that time on a curse was sent upon ‘omer, two breads, and shewbread, so that every priest received a piece as small as a bean: the well-bred18 ones withdrew their hands from it, whilst voracious folk took and devoured it. Once one [of the latter] grabbed his portion as well as that of his fellow, wherefore they would call him ‘ben hamzan’ [grasper] until his dying day.

1/2

>>2948021
>Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself?5 I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee:6 Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.

It really really helps to read this stuff instead of just posting evangelical websites lazily copypastad.


>>2948027
>I think it's hilarious that you think being called a Jew is a slur.
I've never said that. But surely you can cite to a time when I have, like you cite so well to other things.

>>2936175
So it's safe to call them Paulists then.

>>2947850
NO one is saying Jesus never existed. And yes, we dont t read the histories of Alexander, some written hundreds of years after he was alive without a grain of salt

>these sources written hundred of years after X can't be trusted
>instead we should trust the opinions of modern academics who lived thousands of years after X

Not specifically related to this topic but I can't help but think it's kind of funny.

>>2936282
The hubris of this is luciferian . Were Adam and Eve not nobler before their fatal wisdom?

>>2936087
what do judeo fascists call it? takkiyah?

>>2936207
its just one of the macro templates don't take it too seriously

its all about pushing a faux "white" cultural message

>>2950941
Historians use multiple sources and archaeology, combined with critical thinking.

So yes, in many cases there conclusions are more reliable than the primary sources they use for research

>>2952205
>Historians use multiple sources
And ancient people didn't? I mean isn't the New Testament literally a collection of "multiple sources", or are you claiming that Christians were an abberation from the norms of the past and nobody else was smart enough to gather various statements about events in the past?
>archeology
Is a fucking meme. "Hurr nobody else smart enough to dig in dirt for old stuff me am some kind of genius!"

>>2953328
The vast majority of New Testament sources are written by anonymous people falsily claiming to be someone else. The only sources which are actually written by who they say they are Paul's sources and that's only about half his books.

In other words yes the people compiling the New Testament failed to recognize they forgeries. In addition of the books that are considered authentic when new copies were made the text was changed, sometimes accidentally sometimes in an attempt to re-write history.

Doing fraud back than was pretty easy. Anyone could go to a city, write a document under someone else's name and claim that it's a authentic. People rarely left their own city so they would have no way of knowing no one else has this book. Information traveled slowly and there was no way of dating any books. This isn't unique to the Old Testament, several of Plato's dialogues are considered to be falsely attributed to him.

>>2953328
Unfortunatly we can only theorize on the sources that the gospel writers used, in any case their goal was not to create a religiously neutral picture of the life and teachings of Jesus.

AS for other writers like Roman historians many of them were guided by standards which would be unacceptable today, like the need to tell a moral lesson through history.

Your comments on archeology are just stupid. No one was doing what modern archeologist are doing in Roman times, even 19th century archeology was haphazard in comparison to today.