The Shipwrecked Imposter

[simplynoone]

The shipwrecked Chimpanzee had been clinging for a long time to a
slender spar, when a Dolphin came up and offered to carry him
ashore. This kind proposition was immediately accepted, and, as they
moved along, the Chimp commenced to tell the Fish many marvelous
tales, every one of them a bundle of falsehoods. “Well, well, you
are indeed an educated chap,” said the Dolphin in admiration. “My
schooling has been sadly neglected, as I went to sea when but a week
old.” Just then they entered a large bay, and the Dolphin, referring
to it, said, “I suppose you know Herring Roads?” The chimp, taking
this for the name of a fellow, and not wishing to appear ignorant,
replied: “Do I know Rhodes? Well, I should almost think so! He’s an
old college chum of mine, and related to our family by-” This was
too much for the Dolphin, who immediately made a great leap, and
then diving quickly, left the impostor in the air for an instant
before he splashed back and disappeared.

“A liar deceives no one but himself.” ~ Aesop

This particular fable has always made me think of Paul, the supposed Apostle of Jesus… though this is from his own mouth. That he inserted Jesus into the place of God with the use of verses from the Tanakh was enough for me, personally, to realize about him what the dolphin knew about the chimpanzee… that Paul indeed was an imposter.

I question the authenticity of Paul’s claim because his teachings are in obvious opposition to not only the Tanakh, but even in opposition to the teachings of Jesus.

Examples:

Jesus: Matthew 5:17-19
Paul: Ephesians 2:15

Paul completely distorts what Deuteronomy 30 says in his version, given in Romans 10.

He is the only one I have known to use the phrase, “the just shall by faith alone…” in Romans 1:17… then let’s us know that this is by way of Jesus Christ in Galatians 2:16 and furthermore he admits that this is his personal gospel in Romans 16:25 and 2 Timothy 2:8…
Yet… this saying, the just shall not live by HIS faith is written in Habakkuk 2… and not at all in a pleasant light… so, again, Paul shows himself not to be of the identity of a Jew but rather of the Greek mentality (which was certainly absorbed into the Roman Empire).

2 Corinthians 4:4 Paul is speaking of Jesus, a man, as the image of God when Moses clearly said in Deuteronomy 4:12-19 NOT TO imagine God as the image of anything in the heavens or the earth, lest there be idols made… God can have NO image to be likened to Him… that is impossible for God to become a man and Jesus confirmed this his own self by pointing to the teachings of Moses in Matthew 5:17-19.

Not to mention the whole circumcision arguement … Paul may have spoken against it and this is fine for one who realizes they are not under this command given to Abraham for his descendents in Genesis 17. One can NOT be compatible with the descendents of Abraham unless he is circumcised (of course, this is not all that conversion entails, but it is necessary according to Torah)… and that Paul spoke against this is clearly identifying him as NOT a Jew; or claiming to be Jew only with the purpose of futhering a personal agenda.

Paul was not a Jew… or he was only a Jew for a personal agenda… but clearly he knew little of the Scriptures his own self when he wrote his letters to promote hellenistic ideals as though they were compatible with Judaism. They are not (compatible, Judaism and hellenistic Christianity), mind you… as Jesus pointed to the Tanakh being the Scriptures his teachings were based on, so one can look to the Tanakh to see Paul’s ideas were against the teachings.

I am not opposed to the idea of others having the religion if it pacifies them in life; but to say that it could be a replacement or even an extension of Judaism is silly considering Paul’s religion, Christianity, was fully opposing Judaism, the Torah… and… the Tanakh as a whole, really. Certainly the evidence is there that his teachings promote violence against the Jews, right? Hitler, as well as the Catholic church itself are testimony to this being a fact.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…
“A liar deceives no one but himself.” ~ Aesop …

… An interesting quote.

 

[agrange]

“Christianity, was fully opposing Judaism, the Torah… and… the Tanakh as a whole, really. Certainly the evidence is there that his teachings promote violence against the Jews, right? Hitler, as well as the Catholic church itself are testimony to this being a fact.”​

While I agree that Christianity and Judaism or opposites and I do oppose the all to frequent use of the term “Judeo-Christian”, I just don’t buy into the rest of your statements. I really don’t much care. Much more scholarly men than me decided this long ago and confirm it today.
It is ludicrous to claim that his teachings promote violence against Jews and that Hitler used Paul’s words as justification for his killing of millions.

 

[reen12]

Hi, simplynoone, http://bestsmileys.com/waving/5.gif

My understanding is that Paul was educated in Torah at the feet of of Gamaliel,
grandson of Hillel the Elder.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

There is no question - with regard to Saul’s understanding of the Tanach.
This is why Saul was held to be apostate. Here was a man, highly educated
in Judaic thought, who was suddenly declaring that the One God is, in reality, tripartite.

Saul provided a *raison *d’être for the appearance of a god/man -
which god/man was to save his people from a newly manufactured reality
-----> original sin.
[A sin in one’s very being, now said to have been ‘inherited’ from Adam.]

In fact, Saul was the most brilliant theologian Christianity has ever had -
precisely because he had been so well educated in Judaic thought.
A passionate man, first Saul hounded the members of the new religion,
then did a 180 - becoming a powerful advocate of the rising movement.

The fishing expeditions, for supporting material in the Judaic scriptures -
discovering ‘mystical meanings’ in same - carry on in the great tradition
of Saul. If it doesn’t exist, make it up. :coffeeread:

Best,

reen

 

[Contarini]

They are not (compatible, Judaism and hellenistic Christianity), mind you

Do you think that there was such a thing as a non-Hellenistic Judaism in the ancient world? In other words, do you disagree with Shaye Cohen (*From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, *Library of Early Christianity, ed. Wayne A. Meeks [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987], p. 45) that “‘To Hellenize or not to Helenize’ was not a question the Jews of antiquity had to answer. They were given no choice. The questions that confronted them were ‘how?’ and ‘how far?’ How should Judaism adapt itself to meet the new conditions of the age? . . . [Some] adopted an anti-Hellenistic stance, but their rhetoric cannot mask their willingness to follow Hellenistic ways as long as those ways did not threaten Judaism.”

In other words, I challenge your use of “Hellenistic” as a dirty word. You appear to be assuming a “pure,” non-Hellenistic Judaism and judging Paul by that standard. I don’t think that’s historically reasonable.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi, simplynoone, http://bestsmileys.com/waving/5.gif

My understanding is that Paul was educated in Torah at the feet of of Gamaliel,
grandson of Hillel the Elder.

Paul claimed this in Galatians. This is not the first time I’ve heard Jews suggest that he may have been lying. I of course do not believe this, although the statement in Galatians is vague and we can’t be sure just how thorough or extensive this rabbinic education was. It’s also hard to know just what the rabbinic education of the first century C. E. looked like. Most modern scholars do not assume that the Talmudic account of the “tannaim” is necessarily accurate. They may have been a lot more “Hellenistic” than later rabbinic tradition indicates. As far as I can see, there’s no way to know for sure.

There is no question - with regard to Saul’s understanding of the Tanach.
This is why Saul was held to be apostate.

Since we have no contemporary Jewish criticisms of Paul, this is merely speculation.

Here was a man, highly educated
in Judaic thought, who was suddenly declaring that the One God is, in reality, tripartite.

I think that’s too strong–one can argue that Paul’s thought is implicitly Trinitarian, but he doesn’t explicitly say that God is “tripartite.” I suspect that he’d be very puzzled if you put it to him that way. (In fact, even mature Trinitarian theology is probably not best described this way–the Persons of the Trinity are not “parts.”)

Saul provided a *raison *d’être for the appearance of a god/man -
which god/man was to save his people from a newly manufactured reality
-----> original sin.
[A sin in one’s very being, now said to have been ‘inherited’ from Adam.]

Again, I think that the phrase “original sin” is probably anachronistic applied to Paul, though certainly the roots of the idea are there.

The fishing expeditions, for supporting material in the Judaic scriptures -
discovering ‘mystical meanings’ in same - carry on in the great tradition
of Saul.

And of ancient Judaism generally.

Edwin

 

[reen12]

Do you think that there was such a thing as a non-Hellenistic Judaism in the ancient world? In other words, do you disagree with Shaye Cohen (*From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, *Library of Early Christianity, ed. Wayne A. Meeks [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987], p. 45) that “‘To Hellenize or not to Helenize’ was not a question the Jews of antiquity had to answer. They were given no choice. The questions that confronted them were ‘how?’ and ‘how far?’ How should Judaism adapt itself to meet the new conditions of the age? . . . [Some] adopted an anti-Hellenistic stance, but their rhetoric cannot mask their willingness to follow Hellenistic ways as long as those ways did not threaten Judaism.”

In other words, I challenge your use of “Hellenistic” as a dirty word. You appear to be assuming a “pure,” non-Hellenistic Judaism and judging Paul by that standard. I don’t think that’s historically reasonable.

Edwin

Hi, Contarini,

Perhaps you could offer an explanation as to why St. John - a fisherman in his first life - was able to employ the Greek* logos* in his gospel. Logos - as the informing principle of all creation.* Logos* as Word…in this instance, the Word of God.
‘In Him, all things were created.’] Perfectly exquisite.

First God gave man His word in the Hebrew scriptures. Then His prophets
announced the word of God delivered unto them…also part of the earlier scriptures. Then, in the fulness of time, Christ - the anointed of God, appears as the Word incarnate. Logos as God.

Yet as the brilliant Saul notes: “If Christ has not risen, then our faith is in vain.”
Agree wholeheartedly, Saul.

Kindest regards, Contarini.

reen

It was recommended that I check with you, as to whether Frederick, the Elector of Saxony, ran afoul of Charles V - when Frederick had Luther snatched and taken to the Wartburg Castle.
[Matter arose in a thread entitled “It is Finished.”]

Have company coming, this afternoon. Will reply to your post #6 soonest.

 

[reen12]

Paul claimed this in Galatians. This is not the first time I’ve heard Jews suggest that he may have been lying. I of course do not believe this, although the statement in Galatians is vague and we can’t be sure just how thorough or extensive this rabbinic education was. It’s also hard to know just what the rabbinic education of the first century C. E. looked like. Most modern scholars do not assume that the Talmudic account of the “tannaim” is necessarily accurate. They may have been a lot more “Hellenistic” than later rabbinic tradition indicates. As far as I can see, there’s no way to know for sure.

Your points taken, Contarini. Thank you for sharing them. My training is in philosophy,
and the writings of Saul astound me in their brilliance. Prescinding from the source of his learning, one only need read that which the man wrote - to discover [wholly unaided by expert assessment] Saul’s knowledge of Judaic thought. I have no reason whatever to discount the claim that Saul had been a student of Gamaliel.
In fact, Saul’s own brillance makes it quite easy for me to accept such a claim.
Gamaliel surely would have noted the immense intellect of his student.
[Just as various faculty members would have noted the immense intellect of
Karol Wojtyła, in the last century.] I need not share Karol Wojtyla’s religious
beliefs to acknowledge a brilliant intellect. Such was Saul of Tarsus.

quote: reen12

There is no question - with regard to Saul’s understanding of the Tanach.
This is why Saul was held to be apostate.

quote: Contarini
Since we have no contemporary Jewish criticisms of Paul, this is merely speculation.

Solidly based speculation, at that. Saul must have thrilled his Jewish audience in
Damacus - given that Saul was lowered in a basket, at night, down the outer wall
of the city…so that he and his teaching would not be subject to more physically
expressed criticism.

But Saul grew all the stronger and confounded (the) Jews who lived in Damascus, proving that this is the Messiah. After a long time had passed, the Jews conspired to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. Now they were keeping watch on the gates day and night so as to kill him, but his disciples took him one night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. [Acts 9]

And in Jerusalem, another highly critical assessment had been made, as well:

Acts 21: "Fellow Israelites, help us. This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place… * the Temple]*

quote: reen12
Here was a man, highly educated in Judaic thought, who was suddenly declaring that the One God is, in reality, tripartite.

I think that’s too strong–one can argue that Paul’s thought is implicitly Trinitarian, but he doesn’t explicitly say that God is “tripartite.” I suspect that he’d be very puzzled if you put it to him that way. (In fact, even mature Trinitarian theology is probably not best described this way–the Persons of the Trinity are not “parts.”)

No matter how this is framed - and, yes, God is described by Christian doctrine
as three Divine Persons in one Godhead - this yet remains three distinct deities…
a tripartite godhead. Theologizing - vis a vis a triune Godhead - remains a
Christian endeavor.
[In terms of the *filioque, even the Christian churches are divided on the matter;
Orthodoxy holding that a definition of such procession constituted blasphemy.]
Then there is Augustine, stating that no human being can comprehend the
mystery of the Trinity.

Correct Augustine. Not when the cry across the millenia is heard:

Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.
“Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

Again, I think that the phrase “original sin” is probably anachronistic applied to Paul, though certainly the roots of the idea are there.

They have to be, Contarini. Saul states that: “If Christ has not risen, then
our faith is in vain.” Yet if there is not ontological sin, then no need for a savior.
As I said, Saul provided the raison d’etre for a god/man savior.

Judaism awaits moschiach. The anointed of God.
Not a savior in the Christian sense. The God of Israel was and is Savior.
I turn to the following webpage for an explanation of this belief:

jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm

It’s noteworthy, I think, that there are a growing number of Gentiles who seek guidance from Judaism.
It is the living out, in the present, of the words of Zechariah.

Thus says the Lord of hosts: In those days ten men of every nationality, speaking different tongues,
shall take hold, yes, take hold of every Jew by the edge of his garment and say,
“Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”
[Zechariah 8:23]

Kindest regards, Contarini. I respect your knowledge, and I am
grateful for your willingness to share what you have learned.
When I have the stamina, I would like to begin a thread on
the topic of the Abrahamic God. If and when I do, I would welcome
your thought.

reen

 

[simplynoone]

It is ludicrous to claim that his teachings promote violence against Jews and that Hitler used Paul’s words as justification for his killing of millions.

Is it really? Let’s take a look first at the things that are in the letters attributed to Paul.

1 Thess 2:14-15
***For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the ***Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

Paul depicts the Jews as killers who not only do not please God but even says they are contrary to ALL mankind.

Titus 1
***For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision(Jews): ***Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Whose mouths must be stopped; rebuke them sharply; Jewish fables; liars; they are defiled and unbelieving; their is nothing pure in them; their minds and conscience …defiled; they are abominable, disobedient and their works are reprobrate. ouch!
**
*Gal 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
*2 Cor 10:6
And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

It is no wonder Hitler, who was baptized as a Roman Catholic when he was a baby, was an alter boy thus knowing quite well the NT, and even made Christianity a part of the public school education system in Germany, said:

“The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Throwing in the above because Christians tend to say that Hitler was not Christian and rather pagan as to throw off that he indeed used Christianity as his platform for having a large number of the Jewish People slaughtered.

**“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 **

**“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf **

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf

These last statements sound like none other than Paul himself in the verses I quoted, no?

 

[simplynoone]

Hi, simplynoone, http://bestsmileys.com/waving/5.gif

Hi.

My understanding is that Paul was educated in Torah at the feet of of Gamaliel,
grandson of Hillel the Elder.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

Yes, I am quite familiar with the Rabbis immediately following the return from Babylonian captivity throughout the first century and I assure you, Paul was not taught by any of them else he would not have made all the blunders he had… misquoting scriptures from the Tanakh shows this.

There is no question - with regard to Saul’s understanding of the Tanach.
This is why Saul was held to be apostate. Here was a man, highly educated
in Judaic thought, who was suddenly declaring that the One God is, in reality, tripartite.

It wasn’t his new found religious points that shows him to be uneducated in Judaic thought, it was his lack of knowing what was around the verses he pulled out and used to try and support his new found religion.

Saul provided a *raison *d’être for the appearance of a god/man -
which god/man was to save his people from a newly manufactured reality
-----> original sin.
[A sin in one’s very being, now said to have been ‘inherited’ from Adam.]

In fact, Saul was the most brilliant theologian Christianity has ever had -
precisely because he had been so well educated in Judaic thought.
A passionate man, first Saul hounded the members of the new religion,
then did a 180 - becoming a powerful advocate of the rising movement.

Of course he was the most brilliant theologian of Christianity; he was the founder of it.

 

[simplynoone]

Do you think that there was such a thing as a non-Hellenistic Judaism in the ancient world? In other words, do you disagree with Shaye Cohen (*From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, *Library of Early Christianity, ed. Wayne A. Meeks [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987], p. 45) that “‘To Hellenize or not to Helenize’ was not a question the Jews of antiquity had to answer. They were given no choice. The questions that confronted them were ‘how?’ and ‘how far?’ How should Judaism adapt itself to meet the new conditions of the age? . . . [Some] adopted an anti-Hellenistic stance, but their rhetoric cannot mask their willingness to follow Hellenistic ways as long as those ways did not threaten Judaism.”

In other words, I challenge your use of “Hellenistic” as a dirty word. You appear to be assuming a “pure,” non-Hellenistic Judaism and judging Paul by that standard. I don’t think that’s historically reasonable.

Edwin

Judah, the son of the priest Mattathias, was the first that the name Maccabee was ascribed to. I assure you, he was wholly against the Hellenism being intermingled into Judaism. It was NOT a matter of “how much or how little” to these men… their thinking and what they were fighting for was “NOT AT ALL.” He was a warrior for Judaism and against the heathen alters and their mock priests being brought into the temple. To say that these Jews were willing to follow Hellenistic ways shows your lack of knowledge to these great heroes of the faith of Jesus, Judaism. Many were slaughtered trying to keep Judaism pure from those trying to corrupt it for their political gain. Many Jews who were willing to follow the hellenistic ways were ACTUALLY Jewish converts who converted for the sole purpose of trying to dim the light of the Truth so they could keep control of the peoples.

As for your challenge, just look at what has been done in the name of Christianity for your answer as to why Hellenism is such a dirty word. Lies sold as truth and especially for purposes of political agenda is NOT what Scriptural Judaism is about… they are not at all compatible.

 

[kalt]

It probably says something (not good) about me that with all of the serious discussion about this accusation, the thing that bugs me is that the author calls a dolphin a fish.

 

[reen12]

Of course he was the most brilliant theologian of Christianity; he was the founder of it.

Hi, simplynoone,

To acknowledge the brilliance of another is not to affirm the other’s conclusions. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif
Saul had to thoroughly understand Judaic thought and Judaic writings.
Had he not been so familiar with this material, he would not have been able
to spin same. And that’s precisely what he did do.
[Surely an inelegant expression, on my part, but the reality nonetheless.]
Yet I have no doubt, whatever, that Saul truly believed what he said and wrote.

I think it not unusal at all - that an individual, who is a passionate defender of
one entity, may do an instantaneous turn - and align totally with a new entity,
which is wholly in opposition to the first.

Perhaps an analogy would clarify my thought.
If an individual made an exquisite art forgery, I might
well admire the vast skill brought to this work, while
still rejecting the forgery.

---

Catholic theology is exquisite in expression. I need neither
accept the premises, nor the conclusions offered,
to acknowledge the intricate craftwork present. The
theology is perfectly gorgeous.

Yet, through it all - the claims and counter-claims, the
expert opinion sought - in the end, simple lines
convey that which is in question.

-God is One, or He is triune.

-Yeshua was a God/Man, or he was not.

-Man is born with a sin in his/her very being,
inherited from Adam, or he is not so born.

-The God of Israel is Savior, and He extends
forgiveness and mercy to His people - or
ontological sin exists, and God appeared
among men as the God/Man, to save human
beings from this ontological sin.

-One needs to convert to Christianity and
acknowledge Yeshua as God/Man Savior,
or one may remain a Gentile, accepting
the God of Israel as Savior and One true God,
not at all the Divine Trinity proclaimed by
Christianity.

Kindest regards,

reen

 

[simplynoone]

It probably says something (not good) about me that with all of the serious discussion about this accusation, the thing that bugs me is that the author calls a dolphin a fish.

The author’s mindset, Greek, is the same mindset of the Christians… so I am sure that you will end up in the same afterlife at which time you can take up your complaint with him. crosses fingers for you.

 

[simplynoone]

Hi, simplynoone,

To acknowledge the brilliance of another is not to affirm the other’s conclusions. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif
Saul had to thoroughly understand Judaic thought and Judaic writings.
Had he not been so familiar with this material, he would not have been able
to spin same. And that’s precisely what he did do.
[Surely an inelegant expression, on my part, but the reality nonetheless.]
Yet I have no doubt, whatever, that Saul truly believed what he said and wrote.

I think it not unusal at all - that an individual, who is a passionate defender of
one entity, may do an instantaneous turn - and align totally with a new entity,
which is wholly in opposition to the first.

Perhaps an analogy would clarify my thought.
If an individual made an exquisite art forgery, I might
well admire the vast skill brought to this work, while
still rejecting the forgery.

---

Catholic theology is exquisite in expression. I need neither
accept the premises, nor the conclusions offered,
to acknowledge the intricate craftwork present. The
theology is perfectly gorgeous.

Yet, through it all - the claims and counter-claims, the
expert opinion sought - in the end, simple lines
convey that which is in question.

-God is One, or He is triune.

-Yeshua was a God/Man, or he was not.

-Man is born with a sin in his/her very being,
inherited from Adam, or he is not so born.

-The God of Israel is Savior, and He extends
forgiveness and mercy to His people - or
ontological sin exists, and God appeared
among men as the God/Man, to save human
beings from this ontological sin.

-One needs to convert to Christianity and
acknowledge Yeshua as God/Man Savior,
or one may remain a Gentile, accepting
the God of Israel as Savior and One true God,
not at all the Divine Trinity proclaimed by
Christianity.

Kindest regards,

reen

I understand your first statement. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia lists Paul as a brilliant mind… though quite deceptive.

As far as being gorgeous, I will disagree. The truth for the sake of good is Gorgeous. Lies, though they may have been brilliantly spun, are not gorgeous and in fact, I am just one of those types that has a great aversion to lies spun specifically for the purpose of oppressing those with a much weaker mentality… even worse, when it advocates the hushing of the stronger minds who seek the good of the People.

 

[reen12]

I understand your first statement. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia lists Paul as a brilliant mind… though quite deceptive.

As far as being gorgeous, I will disagree. The truth for the sake of good is Gorgeous. Lies, though they may have been brilliantly spun, are not gorgeous and in fact, I am just one of those types that has a great aversion to lies spun specifically for the purpose of oppressing those with a much weaker mentality… even worse, when it advocates the hushing of the stronger minds who seek the good of the People.

Thank you for your reply, simplynoone.
Here’s an area wherein we might agree to disagree.

Best wishes, http://bestsmileys.com/waving/5.gif

reen

 

[kalt]

:heaven:

The author’s mindset, Greek, is the same mindset of the Christians… so I am sure that you will end up in the same afterlife at which time you can take up your complaint with him. crosses fingers for you.

 

[Contarini]

Hi, Contarini,

Perhaps you could offer an explanation as to why St. John - a fisherman in his first life - was able to employ the Greek* logos* in his gospel. Logos - as the informing principle of all creation.* Logos* as Word…in this instance, the Word of God.
‘In Him, all things were created.’] Perfectly exquisite.

Well, most scholars don’t think that John wrote the Gospel in the form we have it (though it may have been based on his teachings–I certainly think so). But it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that he learned a lot in the years after he left his nets to follow Jesus!

It was recommended that I check with you, as to whether Frederick, the Elector of Saxony, ran afoul of Charles V - when Frederick had Luther snatched and taken to the Wartburg Castle.

Good question. I don’t know what Charles’s response was, but Frederick did the whole thing incognito, so he Charles wouldn’t necessarily have known at the time. And in many ways Frederick had the political upper hand. He had been approached as a candidate for the imperial crown and had chosen to support Charles. Charles needed him more than he needed Charles, as I understand it. So even if Charles knew or suspected, he wouldn’t have done much. Also, I’m not sure how anxious Charles was to have Luther executed. That probably wouldn’t have been good for the stability of the Empire. He was in a very difficult position. Having Luther hidden away for a while, not causing trouble but not turned into a martyr either, probably wasn’t such a bad thing from his perspective. But I admit that I don’t know as much as I should about this.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No matter how this is framed - and, yes, God is described by Christian doctrine
as three Divine Persons in one Godhead - this yet remains three distinct deities…

No, it doesn’t. That is not what we believe, just as Catholics don’t believe that Jesus is resacrificed in the Mass, even if that’s what it looks like to Protestants. You may think that our view is incoherent, but it’s unfair to accuse us of believing what we explicitly deny.

a tripartite godhead.

Again, they aren’t parts. You say they are, I say they aren’t. We go round and round. Not much of an argument here . . .

Theologizing - vis a vis a triune Godhead - remains a
Christian endeavor.

Yes, and surely we get to explain what our theology means?

They have to be, Contarini. Saul states that: “If Christ has not risen, then
our faith is in vain.” Yet if there is not ontological sin, then no need for a savior.
As I said, Saul provided the raison d’etre for a god/man savior.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “ontological” sin. Have you read Athanasius’ treatise On the Incarnation? It sets out a pre-Augustinian soteriology quite nicely. Sure, you can call what Athanasius describes original sin. He certainly thinks that human nature has been affected by sin (which I presume is what you mean by “ontological” sin). He thinks that human beings are subject to death because of sin, that they are ignorant of God, and that they are subject to decay and corruption of all kinds. But he does not say that human beings are individually guilty because of Adam’s sin. That was Augustine’s teaching and it’s generally viewed by scholars as a misunderstanding of Paul (or at least a development of Paul’s ideas that clearly went beyond what had been said before). In fact, one factor in Augustine’s position was a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 to say “in whom all sinned” instead of “inasmuch as all have sinned.”

I’m putting this a bit strongly. I don’t reject Augustine’s view outright, but I do think that it has problems and needs to be corrected by the views of earlier (and on the whole, in my opinion, more balanced) theologians like Irenaeus and Athanasius.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Judah, the son of the priest Mattathias, was the first that the name Maccabee was ascribed to. I assure you, he was wholly against the Hellenism being intermingled into Judaism. It was NOT a matter of “how much or how little” to these men…

Sure it was. He was opposed to idolatry and I haven’t claimed otherwise. But it’s no accident that the major documents we have describing the activities of the Maccabees are written in Greek (although I know that there are Hebrew accounts as well which have been traditionally better known among Jews than the Greek texts). IV Maccabees in particular is deeply Hellenistic. The point Cohen is making is that “Hellenism” went beyond just worshiping the Greek gods. (Which obviously Paul didn’t do.) You couldn’t live in that era and be completely immune from Greek culture.