Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

Evidence That Jesus Was Married (1)

169 posts in this topic

Can you name a Christian denomination or movement that specifically teaches "Replacement" theology as a doctrine?

All of them as a matter of course and "JW's" affirm categorically that Judaism has indeed been replaced by them as the real ones.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Christ represents al of Christianity. But Paul did come as a representative of Christ.

How could Jesus, a loyal Jew, represent a Christianity that has murdered millions of Jews throughout History?

We've already discussed Ephesians 2:15 elsewhere - the Law as a rigid set of commandments has been set aside, but the Law itself still remains for us.

Isn't God's Law a law of commands and precepts? That's the Law that Paul claimed in Ephesians 2:15 which was bolished on the cross.

As for Galatians 4, I see not a single point where Paul wrote that the Law was done away with. It says we are not to be slaves to the Law, but it does not say we should not follow the Law.

Isn't God's Law the soul of the Sinaitic Covenant? That's the Covenant established by God with His People at Sinai. Paul compared it to the slave girl Hagar and God's People to her son Ishmael. Read Galatians 4:24,30. That's the Covenant and the People Paul urged his followers to cast them out. I understand you PA, Christians cannot see these things. Too close to the sun.

Let me ask you a question now. Paul tells us to live righteous lives, to abstain from sinful ways. How can we do this if we have no knowledge of the Law? If I don't have the Law, how can I abstain from sinful ways? My answer to this would be that I can't. I need the Law to know how to follow God. But in saying that I need the Law to know how to follow God, I am not constrained by the Law, for the covenant of Moses has been replaced by a better covenant, a covenant of Grace.

Finally PA, you have seen the light. As far as Christians are concerned, yes, God's Covenant made with His People through Moses has indeed been replaced by a covenant of Grace whose guarantor, in the words of Paul, was Jesus. (Heb. 7:22) Moreover, that Jesus replaced not only that Covenant but also the Law and the Priesthood. (Heb. 7:12) In a word, "Judaism" has totally been replaced by Christianity.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore, what you are really telling me is that Paul did not fulfill his mission as an apostle to the Gentiles.

No, I am telling you that Paul did minister to the Gentiles. He made several trips around the Mediterranean Sea area, preaching to Gentiles and Jews as he went.

Then you say above that "You do not recall God limiting Paul to the Gentiles."
Do you know of a scripture reference which forbids Paul from preaching to Jews?
Do you recall God extanding his mission to the Gentiles, I mean that is not reported by himself?

“But the Lord said unto him [Ananias], Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:” Acts 9:15

Those are the words of God. “Before the Gentiles” and “the children of Israel” encompasses everybody, does it not? Also, please note that God said “a”, not “the”. Ministering to Gentiles was not the sole responsibility of Paul.

BTW, Peter declared that he, Peter, was the one assigned to the Gentiles, while all the other Apostles would work with the Jews. (Acts 15:7)

The vision which indicated to Peter that the Gentiles could receive the Gospel did not indicate he was the sole bearer of the news. It was Peter’s decision to phrase it the way he did.

It was at a meeting of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem. Paul was there as a guest and said nothing.

“Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. (Acts 15:12).” I believe that would be considered speaking.

He was probably afraid to start a contension since the Apostles did not acknowledge him as a disciple. (Acts 9:26)

The Acts 9:26 reference is just after Paul received salvation. The council meeting was much later, and Paul had experience ministering to both Jews and Gentiles by that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of them as a matter of course and "JW's" affirm categorically that Judaism has indeed been replaced by them as the real ones.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are tangential to most of Christianity. They use the same vocabulary, but with different meanings.

As far as Christians are concerned, yes, God's Covenant made with His People through Moses has indeed been replaced by a covenant of Grace whose guarantor, in the words of Paul, was Jesus. (Heb. 7:22) Moreover, that Jesus replaced not only that Covenant but also the Law and the Priesthood. (Heb. 7:12) In a word, "Judaism" has totally been replaced by Christianity.

I can agree with you that Judaism has been replaced by Christianity as the way to achieve righteousness in God's eyes However, the Old Testament still remains as the foundation upon which Christianity is built. Also, please notice that it is called "Christianity". Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of that foundation. The disciples were already preaching the Gospel of Jesus before Paul receive salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but why is the past more important then the future let alone the present old rule to be best remenbered ..not to be worring about what the people next door are doing but worry about your self cause your self is only truely in your self control and even this is but a mear just reflection in tha mirria of whats realy infront of you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could Jesus, a loyal Jew, represent a Christianity that has murdered millions of Jews throughout History?

The early Christians (1st-3rd Century) were not like that. Yes, I understand your point, but the earliest Christians were followers of Christ, many of whom were Jews.

Christians cannot see these things. Too close to the sun.

And yet a Jew is able to tell us what we believe even when we say they are wrong. Interesting.

Finally PA, you have seen the light. As far as Christians are concerned, yes, God's Covenant made with His People through Moses has indeed been replaced by a covenant of Grace whose guarantor, in the words of Paul, was Jesus. (Heb. 7:22) Moreover, that Jesus replaced not only that Covenant but also the Law and the Priesthood. (Heb. 7:12) In a word, "Judaism" has totally been replaced by Christianity.

Ben

???? I have never argued otherwise, the Mosaic covenant was replaced with the covenant of Grace. That does not mean that the Law is abolished though. You're stuck in a loop where you cannot perceive the Law existing despite the new covenant. And until you fix that loop, your logic is going to continue to remain faulty, and your interpretation of Christianity will continue to be second-rate (at best).

I notice you neatly sidestepped my question entirely - how can a person live a righteous life free from sin without an understanding of what "sin" actually is? And how can a person develop an understanding of "sin" without a knowledge of the Law?

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/size]

No, I am telling you that Paul did minister to the Gentiles. He made several trips around the Mediterranean Sea area, preaching to Gentiles and Jews as he went.

Yes, about 2% to the Gentiles and 98% to the Jews. IMO, 2% of one's missionizing activities hardly classifies him as an apostle to the Gentiles but to the Jews.

Do you know of a scripture reference which forbids Paul from preaching to Jews?

His own declaration that he would leave the Jews alone and turn to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:46) Did he?

But the Lord said unto him [Ananias], Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:” Acts 9:15

Okay, although that's Luke, a Hellenistic disciple of Paul reporting about a certain Ananias from Damascus who had a vision confirming Paul as an apostle in general. However, Jesus' Apostles did not accept Paul as a disciple. (Acts 9:26) IMO, they should have been the ones to be informed about Paul being chosen and not this strange Ananias from Damascus who is not mentioned anywhere else.

Those are the words of God. “Before the Gentiles” and “the children of Israel” encompasses everybody, does it not? Also, please note that God said “a”, not “the”. Ministering to Gentiles was not the sole responsibility of Paul.

IMHO, that could have been a fast one Paul tried on the Apostles in order to be accepted and failed.(Acts 9:26)

The vision which indicated to Peter that the Gentiles could receive the Gospel did not indicate he was the sole bearer of the news. It was Peter’s decision to phrase it the way he did.

As it was Paul's decision to phrase Ananias' vision the way he did. We must be open to all probabilities. Paul was too cunning.

“Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. (Acts 15:12).” I believe that would be considered speaking.

Yes, but that the converts by the Nazarenes were staunch defenders of the Law, while Paul was preaching against Moses, circumcision and urging with the Jews to abandon the Jewish customs. (Acts 21:20,21)

The Acts 9:26 reference is just after Paul received salvation. The council meeting was much later, and Paul had experience ministering to both Jews and Gentiles by that time.

Three years afterwards. Enough time to have collected references that he had changed and not been sent back to Tarsus because of the havoc he wrought in Jerusalem preaching about Jesus as the Messiah, son of God and that he had resurrected. (Acts 9:30; Gal. 1:18)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree with you that Judaism has been replaced by Christianity as the way to achieve righteousness in God's eyes. However, the Old Testament still remains as the foundation upon which Christianity is built. Also, please notice that it is called Christianity. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of that foundation. The disciples were already preaching the Gospel of Jesus before Paul receive salvation.

I am sorry JK, but Jesus was a Jewish man and he never had anything to do with Christianity. To say that he was the cornerstone of Christianity is to deny that he was Jewish at all. Paul yes, was the one because he did desert Judaism when he founded Christianity

in the city of Antioch about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. (Acts 11:26) And yes, the disciples of Jesus were indeed preaching the gospel of Jesus when Paul was still chasing them in the synagogues of the Jews in Damascus. (Acts 9:1,2) But the gospel they preached was too alien to the gospel of Paul. Hence, Paul's reference to their gospel as "The other gospel." (Gal. 1:6-9) And because

they would try to salvage their synagogues that Paul had overturned into Christian churches, Paul would consider them as "False Apostles. (2 Cor. 11:13)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never argued otherwise, the Mosaic covenant was replaced with the covenant of Grace. That does not mean that the Law is abolished though. You're stuck in a loop where you cannot perceive the Law existing despite the new covenant. And until you fix that loop, your logic is going to continue to remain faulty, and your interpretation of Christianity will continue to be second-rate (at best).

I notice you neatly sidestepped my question entirely - how can a person live a righteous life free from sin without an understanding of what "sin" actually is? And how can a person develop an understanding of "sin" without a knowledge of the Law?

The only way "To fix that loop" IMHO, is by getting rid of the whole NT altogether.

Now, with regards to your question, indeed, nobody can live a righteous life free from sin without the Law, only Paul who considered

himself an extraordinary man. When he found out in the Law that the way he was living was sinful, and since he could not get rid of that thorn in his flesh, he decided that the only solution was to serve two masters: The Law in his mind and sin in his flesh. (Rom. 7:8-25) Especially verse 25. He found himself to be an excepption to the rule because, as he declared himself, he was not bound by the Law. (1 Cor. 9:20) Just like the extraordinary man according to Dostoevsky in his book "Crime and Punishment."

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, about 2% to the Gentiles and 98% to the Jews. IMO, 2% of one's missionizing activities hardly classifies him as an apostle to the Gentiles but to the Jews.

And how did you arrive at those figures? I am unaware of any Scripture that counts how many Jews and Gentiles were in the audiences that were preached to.

I am sorry JK, but Jesus was a Jewish man and he never had anything to do with Christianity. To say that he was the cornerstone of Christianity is to deny that he was Jewish at all. Paul yes, was the one because he did desert Judaism when he founded Christianity

It doesn't bother me if you want to call Christianity a false religion, and if you want to think that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament, and if you want to think that the New Testament is a flawed document.

However, no matter how hard you try, you cannot overturn the fact that Christianity - as I and many others practice it - is based on the ministry of Jesus Christ in the four Gospels, and the ministry of the apostles and disciples in the later books. Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. I am sorry, but your Paulianity and my Christianity are two different belief systems. You have assessed many in the past of having preconceived notions; you seem to have your own preconception that it's impossible to create a religion centered on Jesus Christ. However, it is possible, and it has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence, Paul's reference to their gospel as "The other gospel." (Gal. 1:6-9)

There is no indication in Galatians that the "different gospel" is referring to the teachings of the other apostles.

Now, with regards to your question, indeed, nobody can live a righteous life free from sin without the Law, only Paul who considered

himself an extraordinary man. When he found out in the Law that the way he was living was sinful, and since he could not get rid of that thorn in his flesh, he decided that the only solution was to serve two masters: The Law in his mind and sin in his flesh. (Rom. 7:8-25) Especially verse 25. He found himself to be an excepption to the rule because, as he declared himself, he was not bound by the Law. (1 Cor. 9:20) Just like the extraordinary man according to Dostoevsky in his book "Crime and Punishment."

Ben

Nice way to dodge the question and twist it around to suit your purposes. I give up! It's fruitless to talk to someone uses their mouth twice as often as they use their ears. Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how did you arrive at those figures? I am unaware of any Scripture that counts how many Jews and Gentiles were in the audiences that were preached to.

It doesn't bother me if you want to call Christianity a false religion, and if you want to think that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament, and if you want to think that the New Testament is a flawed document.

However, no matter how hard you try, you cannot overturn the fact that Christianity - as I and many others practice it - is based on the ministry of Jesus Christ in the four Gospels, and the ministry of the apostles and disciples in the later books. Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. I am sorry, but your Paulianity and my Christianity are two different belief systems. You have assessed many in the past of having preconceived notions; you seem to have your own preconception that it's impossible to create a religion centered on Jesus Christ. However, it is possible, and it has happened.

I don't mean 2% of the Gentiles; I mean 2% of Paul's missionary activities was to the Gentiles, while 98% to the Jews. And for your

standing on your view that Jesus was the cornerstone of Christianity, if you believe that he was a Jewish man, can you tell me how he liked the idea of being the son of God with an earthly woman? As I hope you must know, this is about the mythological concept

of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. How can you harmonize this with Judaism which was the Faith of Jesus?

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no indication in Galatians that the "different gospel" is referring to the teachings of the other apostles.

Nice way to dodge the question and twist it around to suit your purposes. I give up! It's fruitless to talk to someone uses their mouth twice as often as they use their ears.

You definitely must have a different NT from mine. That's why you cannot see what I see in the text of Galatians about the "other gospel." Or could it be preconceived notions? Anyway, why struggle further? You have finally decided to quit the debate. The difference between us is that you are moved by faith while I am moved by reason. Of course, no offense meant.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And for your standing on your view that Jesus was the cornerstone of Christianity, if you believe that he was a Jewish man, can you tell me how he liked the idea of being the son of God with an earthly woman? As I hope you must know, this is about the mythological concept of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. How can you harmonize this with Judaism which was the Faith of Jesus?

Regarding the faith of Jesus, I count myself among those whom He mentioned here: ""I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." John 17:20-21. Whatever you wish to call this being-one-in-Us thing is fine with me.

As for the topic of a demi-god..."Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14. It is my understanding that "Immanuel" means "God with us."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between us is that you are moved by faith while I am moved by reason. Of course, no offense meant.

Ben

I think you will find that we are both moved by faith. That is the only explanation for your closed-mindedness. I make no apologies for my Christianity, I understand it is based on faith. But at the same time I acknowledge the gaps in my own knowledge where they arise. You do not. You stubbornly refuse to accept that what Christians believe and what you THINK they should be believe are not the same thing. And where the difference lies, your only answer in that brain of yours is "oh, I can't possibly be wrong about what someone else should believe, so therefore they can't ever be right".

In short, no matter how many times a Christians says the Law is NOT done away with, you will stubbornly sit there, plug your ears, cry out "LA LA LA LA", and then demand that Paul taught that (which we believe he did not do).

As I said, fruitless. You're not here for discussion. You're here to preach your views as right and everyone who disagrees is wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the faith of Jesus, I count myself among those whom He mentioned here: ""I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." John 17:20-21. Whatever you wish to call this being-one-in-Us thing is fine with me.

As for the topic of a demi-god..."Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14. It is my understanding that "Immanuel" means "God with us."

Isaiah 7:14 has absolutely nothing to do with Mary the mother of Jesus, which is what you assume. On the other hand, I tell you that the virgin is Israel. If I pressed you for a quote to document your assertion, you would never be able to produce one. On the other hand, if you pressed me for one to document my assertion, I would give you more than two. Let us assume you have indeed demanded those quotes. Take a look at this:

Psalm 78:67-69 - The Lord rejected Ephraim, the Tabernacle of Joseph and confirmed the Tribe of Judah whom He loved. That's when Israel the Ten Tribes was conquered and removed for good from the Land of Israel by the Assyrians.

Amos 5:2 - Prophet Amos took that divine action in Psalm 78:67-69 as "The VIRGIN Israel has fallen and shall rise no more.

Isaiah 7:14 - A virgin shall conceive and bear a son who shall be called Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:15 - And the son Immanuel shall feed on butter and honey.

Isaiah 7:22 - Butter and honey shall be the food of everyone that is left in the Land. And Judah was left back in the Land after Israel was removed to Assyria, remember?

Isaiah 8:8 - And the king of Assyria invaded throughout Judah, overflowing all over the countryside of thy Land O Immanuel. Thy Land whose land? The Land of Judah. So, Isaiah mentions Judah by name as being Immanuel. Would you be able to be at least half as clear as

I have been about Judah as being Immanuel? I don't think so.

But please don't take this as arrogant excitement for the Truth but a joy to learn something new completely different from what you have been trained to believe.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find that we are both moved by faith. That is the only explanation for your closed-mindedness. I make no apologies for my Christianity, I understand it is based on faith. But at the same time I acknowledge the gaps in my own knowledge where they arise. You do not. You stubbornly refuse to accept that what Christians believe and what you THINK they should be believe are not the same thing. And where the difference lies, your only answer in that brain of yours is "oh, I can't possibly be wrong about what someone else should believe, so therefore they can't ever be right".

In short, no matter how many times a Christians says the Law is NOT done away with, you will stubbornly sit there, plug your ears, cry out "LA LA LA LA", and then demand that Paul taught that (which we believe he did not do).

As I said, fruitless. You're not here for discussion. You're here to preach your views as right and everyone who disagrees is wrong!

You say I am not here for discussions and that's exactly what we have been doing so far. IMHO, what you call "To be here for discussions" is to change my views and accept yours. PA, again, please take not this as an offense, but you do not have what it takes

to make a Jew who is trained in both Bibles (Old and New Testaments) to change his mind and become a Christian. I am indeed here for discussions but not to take your word for it. Take a look at my reply to JK above and tell me if it is possible to agree with you guys as I bring such a rich documented testimony? Not when I have almost zero content in the responses you guys present back to me.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding the faith of Jesus, I count myself among those whom He mentioned here: ""I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." John 17:20-21. Whatever you wish to call this being-one-in-Us thing is fine with me.

I was going to ask you exactly who Jesus was referring to in this passage - 'those who will believe in Me - but now I realize that you say that Paul wrote or influenced the writing of those words, so I should just disregard them, along with the rest of the New Testament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to ask you exactly who Jesus was referring to in this passage - 'those who will believe in Me - but now I realize that you say that Paul wrote or influenced the writing of those words, so I should just disregard them, along with the rest of the New Testament.

JK, if you disregard Paul because he influenced this or that passage in the NT, you are right that you will end up by disregarding the whole of the NT altogether. And talking about the Faith of Jesus as you have quoted yourself above, the Faith of Jesus was Judaism. So, according to Revelation 14:12, "Here is the patience of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus." But let not the Gentiles who want to join God's People say that because they are Gentiles, the Lord will surely exclude them from His People. Absolutely not, for thus says the Lord that a name better than sons and daughters is reserved to those who hold fast to His Covenant with His People. That's in Isaiah 56:1-8.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.