Saturday, September 17, 2011
Messiaic Manifesto: The Teachings of Paul
It is apparent to me that there exist widespread misunderstanding of the teachings of Paul in the Christian community, as well as among the Jewish community. The "Messianic Manifesto" will address these misconceptions so that the internal consistency of the faith in light of Paul's unique teaching will be apparent. It is true that Paul taught about the faith in ways the rest of the Apostles didn't. And the basis of this is understandable. Paul was also different from Jesus in how he taught about the faith. This to is understandable and will be addressed in this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Merkavah: I don't only doubt Paul, but the accuracy of the bulk of NT writings, whether in concept or content - and as I think more on it, his teachings seem to have been very effective in circumventing the Netzarim and diverting gentile interest in the true Ribi Yehoshua. I believe this is why he preached an easily pagan-syncretized story and doctrine - something "universal" - even more sinister than violent persecution.
ReplyDeleteV: In light of the variance of context between Jesus Teachings and Paul's teachings, it is immediately understandable that their respective teachings would have a degree of contrast. Jesus taught as a jew to Jewish people. Paul's taught as a Jew sent to accommodate Gentile followers of Jesus. Two groups with contrasting backgrounds and divergent cultures would by course, need to have different considerations.
As already mentioned in another blog. Jesus' teachings are for Hebrews who resided under the national Covenant of Sinai. Paul's teachings were for gentiles who were citizens of other nations which were not under the Covenant of Sinai, but under Naochide. Equally covenant being equally valid, yet the Noachide is more universal to all humanity, whereas the Covenant of Sinai applies only to those of the Chosen Nation, or those who specifically adopted it. This is part of the basis's of the contrast in teachings and is very obvious.
As for Paul's seeming paganized, this would not be the case. We know that Paul was a learned Pharisee. He was actually more learned than the rest of the Apostles by me estimation. Paul drew upon material that most Christians don't realize he drew upon, yet which is itself deeply rooted Hebrew traditions. This reliance upon Hebrew doctrines not generally understood by Christians, is the basis of Paul's sharp contrast with most of the other Apostles writings. Simply stated, Paul was an Enochian Theologian, drawing heavily upon doctrines and accounts recorded in the Book of Enoch. This is another part of the basis of Paul's contrast with the other Apostles.
Another reason for Paul's apparent contrast is based in Christians misunderstanding of topics being addressed. Peter might be on a topic concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and Christians would perceive this as last days eschatology. Whereas Paul's would clearly be on an eschatological topic, and yet it would jive with Peter. The reason? Peter and Paul were actually on different topic addressing different time periods and event, even though Christians popularly perceive them both to be on last days eschatology and the same subject. Christians misperception is therefore part of the perception of contrast between Paul's and the other figure, when in fact Paul is being quite literally, very Jewish in Doctrine in light of the revelation to him of Jesus being the Messiah.
People have to also understand, is that Lord Jesus was not teaching anything to the Jews.
ReplyDeleteThey already knew all the teaching. They just failed constantly.
He was showing people how imperfect they were and how they could never be perfect.
Why should they have cared??? Because of who the Lord was. How did Lord Jesus show who he was??
Through the LOrd's death and resurrection.
The true message of Christ is his death and resurrection. Only in this was the world saved.
And the Apostles DID NOT preach a different message than Saint Paul.
They accepted Lord Jesus death and resurrection just as Saint Paul did. And they also saw Lord Jesus as Lord and Savior as Saint Paul did.
It's only nonbelievers who play this game to try and created a riffed between Christians.
Jews can celebrated their customs as much as they like but at the end of the day they must see Lord Jesus as the Apostles did.
Making them closet Christians.
Tex: The true message of Christ is his death and resurrection. Only in this was the world saved.
ReplyDeleteV: That is why the meaasge is universal for all, Jews or Gentiles.
Tex: And the Apostles DID NOT preach a different message than Saint Paul.
V: I know, It's not a different message so much as a different style, using more source material to a different group. When it came to the message of Jesus Christ, Paul appeares to me to have been the most scholarly.
Tex: They accepted Lord Jesus death and resurrection just as Saint Paul did.
V: You have to remember though, that even Peter thought some of Paul's preaching was mighty fancy.
I don't want to make it seem like Paul was intent on deception. I now reconsider the necessity of this charge, especially since it is near impossible to substantiate. He didn't need to be devious, only wrong and fully convinced.
ReplyDeleteV: Let's start with an example of where you believe Paul is fowling up, and how you think it is at variance with Jesus teaching. You might have a good point to bring to my attention.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the NT has been heavily redacted to make it look like they reconciled, among other things. that the scholastic doubt over the authenticity of 2 Peter is respectable, and the fact that the two accounts of Paul's PRIVATE experience in Acts (chap.'s 9 & 22)are blaringly contradictory make him completely unreliable. I think the better approach is proving that he was in agreement with the Netzarim. The website really has a lot of info.
ReplyDeleteI'll start with the two accounts of Paul's private experience in Acts chap.'s 9 & 22, which are blaringly contradictory, making him (and the NT, for that matter) completely unreliable from the outset.
ReplyDeleteV: I read both accounts of the Road to Damascus episode, Merkavah, but I didn't see anything that struck me as significantly contradictory in the two versions. I could use a bit more of a hint from you.
ReplyDeleteWhat most people really get unraveled about concerning Paul's teachings is how they have such a contrast to Jesus' and the other Apostles. I personally don't snag up on that since I understand where Paul is coming from.
Paul is commissioned to testify before Gentiles by Jesus, whereas Jesus confined himself to Hebrew people.
Also Paul uses a lot of source material from Enoch, Janus and Jambres, Lives of the Prophets, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, etc etc.. which doesn't appear to be as prevalent in Jesus or the Apostles teachings.
Paul also emphasizes Noachide to his gentile audiences, whereas this was unnecessary for Jesus, since he taught Jews and Noachide was not as relevant.
V: ...I didn't see anything that struck me as significantly contradictory in the two versions.
ReplyDeletemerk: Acts 9:7 says the people with him "heard the sound, but didn't see anyone", while 22:9 says they "saw a light but didn't hear anything". Directly contradictory.
V: Paul is commissioned to testify before Gentiles by Jesus, whereas Jesus confined himself to Hebrew people.
merk: Which we are to take on a flimsy claim of a private experience and xtian religious principle dogma.
merk: Which we are to take on a flimsy claim of a private experience and xtian religious principle dogma.
ReplyDeleteTex: Then be happy and don't believe it.
Tex: Then be happy and don't believe it.
ReplyDeletemerk: I already don't believe it. "Being happy" isn't really an on-command activity, that I know of. Are you sure you've understood what I'm talking about?
merk: I already don't believe it. "Being happy" isn't really an on-command activity, that I know of. Are you sure you've understood what I'm talking about?
ReplyDeleteTex: If you don't "believe it" Then what are you trying to do? Tell us idiots what we have faith in, is a joke.
Tex: Then what are you trying to do?
ReplyDeletemerk: I'm trying to converse with people who want to challenge their own ideas and find a path to progress. If you aren't interested, then what are you trying to do?
Tex: What do you mean by "progress"? Stop being a Christian??
ReplyDeletemerk: Acts 9:7 says the people with him "heard the sound, but didn't see anyone", while 22:9 says they "saw a light but didn't hear anything". Directly contradictory.
ReplyDeleteV: Such is the nature of humanity. I think you've spotted a contradiction.
"V: Paul is commissioned to testify before Gentiles by Jesus, whereas Jesus confined himself to Hebrew people"
merk: Which we are to take on a flimsy claim of a private experience and xtian religious principle dogma.
V: Whatever the basis, this is part of the basis of the contrast between their ministries and this is what they actually did do. Paul did speak to many gentiles about Jesus, and Jesus did speak to Hebrews almost exclusively.
merk: I'm trying to converse with people who want to challenge their own ideas and find a path to progress
V: Absolutely, some Christian dogmas definately need challenging, as do some Jewish dogmas. My personal vision of progress is the clarity in Jewish and Christian people, that doesn't separate Jesus from his own Jewishness.
Tex: What do you mean by "progress"? Stop being a Christian??
ReplyDeletemerk: If being a xtian means ceasing to search, learn, test, verify, etc. , then yes. That would only be conceivable if the related ideas were proven wrong, which requires a challenge, and a challenge can only be complete if it's accepted. If you're asking about my expectations, I like to think that I am relatively realistic in that I dont expect anyone to stop being what they are, only hope that they realize their true potential.
V: Whatever the basis, this is part of the basis of the contrast between their ministries and this is what they actually did do. Paul did speak to many gentiles about Jesus, and Jesus did speak to Hebrews almost exclusively.
merk: Maybe it would be helpful to ask why one should believe that this contrast was complementary, rather than conflicting.
merk: Maybe it would be helpful to ask why one should believe that this contrast was complementary, rather than conflicting.
ReplyDeleteV: You are absolutely right. But a lot of that is answered in understadning the sources of Paul's contrast. Then finer points can be addressed. I wonder if anyone has the stomach to deal with the possibilities of contradictions in doctrine.
Tex: Why search, when no search is needed. The only people that search are those who don't know their purpose.
ReplyDeleteNow, when you know what your purpose is, then life has meaning. Which means you know why you are "learning" and don't need to test and verify for the rest of your life.(This applies to purpose of life).
V: I've been thinking about the recent direction of the conversations Merk. it seems to me that you desire to believe in a perfect scripture in Torah, but not of Acts or Paul. I can sympathize with finding Biblical errors and easily admit that errors are all over the place. The Torah is no exception. Our faith in God is not rooted any any human endeavor to replicate anything in perfection. Our faith is rooted in those flimsy personal experiences of those prophetic guys who claimed to encounter this guy in the sky they saw riding in a burning cloud. They called him Adon ha Kavod, and Christians called him Jesus for some reason I have yet to figure out.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, imperfections and all, the testimonies as flimsy as they are, are the very source of our faith.
Paul had his own style. People make much out of his contrast with other Christian teachers. Truth is, Pual was as Jewish as it gets in drawing upon source materials.
V: The Torah is no exception.
ReplyDeletemerk: What errors are you aware of in Torah (or prophets, writings, etc.)?
merk: What errors are you aware of in Torah (or prophets, writings, etc.)?
ReplyDeleteV: Not really my favorite topic, but one example is the fact that Genesis contains creation accounts from two cultures, Jebusite and Hebrew, while the Psalms have a third creation tradition represented which is Babylonian Rabah the dragon traditions. I could go on over mayn issues I have with the failings in the OT such as the ommited information on source material, lost books the OT referances by name, uninspired and useless text being regarded as valid such as Shir ha Shirim, Eclesiates, and Proverbs.
The point of perfect scriptures is a wasted effort and not the basis of our faith. Our faith is based on those who experience God and our own experiences with God. It is based on a common source. It has protocols and it's own cultural spirituality. Thing inconsistent with that spirituality pattern of expression, are not of the source. Paul has the pattern of the source evident in his spirituality and is in common with the experiences of the prophets. Pauls also referances much material ommitted from the Bible.
merk: What errors are you aware of in Torah (or prophets, writings, etc.)?
ReplyDeleteV: Not really my favorite topic, but one example is the fact that Genesis contains creation accounts from two cultures, Jebusite and Hebrew, while the Psalms have a third creation tradition represented which is Babylonian Rahab the dragon traditions. I could go on over many issues I have with the failings in the OT such as the omitted information on source material, lost books the OT references by name, uninspired and useless text being regarded as valid such as Shir ha Shirim, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs.
The point of perfect scriptures is a wasted effort and not the basis of our faith. Our faith is based on those who experience God and our own experiences with God. It is based on a common source. It has protocols and it's own cultural spirituality. Thing inconsistent with that spirituality pattern of expression, are not of the source. Paul has the pattern of the source evident in his spirituality and is in common with the experiences of the prophets. Paul also references much material omitted from the Bible.