Is Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 antisemitic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter artortega
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
curious_cath said:
40.png
midori:
Paul was publicly preaching that Jesus was the Son of God
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true, But was the Son of God one and the same as God for Paul? He says:

“The Son is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15)

Paul had no explicit concept of a triunite God, the Holy Trinity, which is the true place of Jesus as the 2nd person of God.
Click to expand...
Do you realize you are basically calling St Paul a heretic?

St Paul didn’t just start preaching on his own, he received training from the Disciples when he was blind, and continued to learn while he was a Deacon. By the time St Paul started writing his epistles, he was already a Bishop.

St Paul was very well schooled in theology… if he wasn’t, the early Church won’t have kept his letters to begin with.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
Do you realize you are basically calling St Paul a heretic?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Paul had a pre-Trinitarian view of Jesus which was normal in the early Christian church. He placed Jesus very high as the Son of God. But the advanced Christian understanding of the Holy Trinity as the form of the living God came only later. Perhaps 100 years after Paul, parallel to the developments of Christian theology.
 
Last edited:
curious_cath said:
40.png
phil19034:
Do you realize you are basically calling St Paul a heretic?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Paul had a pre-Trinitarian view of Jesus which was normal in the early Christian church. He placed Jesus very high as the Son of God. But the advanced Christian understanding of the Holy Trinity as the form of the living God came only later. Perhaps 100 years after Paul, parallel to the developments of Christian theology.
Click to expand...
Source? Because my understanding is that St Paul had them same understanding as the Apostles, and received the same Deposit of Faith.
 
phil19034 said:
the same Deposit of Faith.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the deposit is something to accumulate. The Trinitarian concept of God has accumulated step by step, following a high Christology and by the time of the Creed it was deposited in the form of the Creed. Just think about the arguments of consubstantiality of the Father and the Son in the 4th century.
 
Last edited:
curious_cath said:
40.png
phil19034:
the same Deposit of Faith.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the deposit is something to accumulate. The Trinitarian concept of God has accumulated step by step, following a high Christology and by the time of the Creed it was deposited in the form of the Creed. Just think about the arguments of consubstantiality of the Father and the Son in the 4th century.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Doctine of the Trinity developed into the Dogma, but the Doctrine of the Trinity was always there from the beginning.

If you are going to say that St Paul was not Trinitarian, you are going to have to back that up with evidence.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
One of the most famous passages from Paul goes–
“Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, and being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Click to expand...
It’s hard to interpret that without having an idea of the divinity of Jesus, and equating him with the “form of the living God”.
 
midori said:
though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as
Click to expand...
This is not from Paul. This had already existed before Paul’s conversion. This is actually an important pre-Paulian creed of the early Christians.
 
Last edited:
artortega said:
I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not,
Click to expand...
The Jewish rabbis at the Synod of Jamnia decided to break with the Jesus sect in about 84 AD . They could not tolerate the Christians in their synagogues anymore. So the Christians became homeless from one day to the other. This prompted St. John, the Evangelist, to condemn this break-up and blame it on the Jews.

It was also a time of emancipating the Jesus sect from Judaism, not as a result of free choice of the apostles, but under compulsion of the expulsion from the synagogues. The rabbis have never acknowledged Jesus as a legitimate Jew. They accused Him to be an unlawful child of a Jewish woman Miriam and a Roman soldier. That is why they called him Jesus ben Pantera.
 
Last edited:
Those rabbis said that in the Talmud. What you said that Jesus was not a legitimate Jew was said in the Talmud. The Talmud is a blasphemous book against Jesus Christ. The Talmud is satanic.
 
The conversion of Paul the Apostle, was, according to the New Testament, an event in the life of Paul the Apostle that led him to cease persecuting early Christians and to become a follower of Jesus. It is normally dated to AD 33–36.
Click to expand...
I’m having trouble following-- you say, “The advanced Christian understanding of the Holy Trinity as the form of the living God came only later. Perhaps 100 years after Paul” and at the same time, when you’re given an example of Paul saying, “Jesus was in the form of God…” and you respond, “This had already existed before Paul’s conversion and was an important pre-Paulian creed of the early Christians.”

If there’s only a brief period between Jesus’ death and Paul’s conversion-- where Jesus’ death is estimated to have taken place between AD 30-36 and Paul’s conversion is estimated to have taken place between AD 33-36— I’m having trouble following the logic there.
 
curious_cath said:
Paul did not seem to know this!
Click to expand...
Really? What makes you think not?

“He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col. 1:19 )

“Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal’s death on a cross.

Because of this, God raised him up to the heights of heaven and gave him a name that is above every other name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:6-11)

The Jews understood that, in claiming to be God’s son, Jesus was making himself equal to God.
 
There’s nothing antisemitic about it. Why would you suggest that?
 
curious_cath said:
It was said because of the expulsion of the followers of Jesus from the synagogues.

"As the divinity of Christ came to more articulate and explicit expression, first in the letters of St. Paul, the realization gradually emerged that they were expanding the traditional Jewish monotheism so as to encompass the person of Jesus. The Jewish Synod of Jamnia, probably in the mid-80s of the 1st century, was responsible for excommunicating the Christians/ Nazarenes from mainstream Judaism for two reasons: first, this expansion of monotheism, and second, the repudiation of Torah dietary laws and circumcision that came with the embrace of the Gentiles. "
Click to expand...
OK… so, we have an unattributed statement by an unknown author. No so reliable. Moreover, the author subscribes to a discredited theory: scholars tell us that Jamnia never happened. So, at best, we have someone who learned their Scripture scholarship a while back (oh, I’d give it a good 30-40 years ago), and is now simply parroting back what was ‘well-known’ then, but is well and truly discredited now!

(P.S., Paul’s first encounter with Christ was on the road to Damascus. Seeing a vision of Christ castigating him for persecuting Him…? Well… I’m betting that that clued him in pretty quick that Christ was divine… 😉 )
 
guanophore said:
And you think this means that Paul did not believe Jesus was God?
Click to expand...
“Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.” (Rom 8: 34) Jesus is interceding to God for us, while sitting at God’s right hand. Is he God?

“7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.” (Heb. 5)

Who is the One who could have saved him from death? Is it not God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top