>was literally a Pharisee who persecuted Christians
>never talks about his three year trip in Arabia
>despite never having met Jesus, his letters comprise a huge part of the New Testament
>justification comes from having a ''''''''''vision'''''''' of Jesus
why is this allowed?
Fan fiction that was taken way too seriously.
>>888007
mysterious ways XDD
>>888007
>Paul
>Pharisee
>Implying.
He was almost certainly a hellenized Jew who grew up outside of Palestine itself.
And as for why, isn't it obvious? Paul was the one who went out and converted the gentiles, mostly by saying you don't need to be a Jew and chop up part of your dick to be a Christian. Consequently, he got more followers than those sticks in the mud who are demanding you live by those old ritual laws.
And if that wasn't enough, the more Jewish Christians got decimated during the revolt at the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
>>888007
>>never talks about his three year trip in Arabia
>>despite never having met Jesus, his letters comprise a huge part of the New Testament
I think you need to re-think how these things may just go together.
>>888054
He was a pharisee quickly climbing the ladder at the feet of Gamaliel in Jerusalem, actually.
>>888007
Pauline Theology won out because his message resonated with gentiles.
He constantly clashed with the mother assembly headed by James (also so loved by Romans and Jews they called him 'James the Just') and the other apostles.
Paul was called several times to the mother assembly for his blasphemy teachings.
James (jesus brother, who knew Jesus the best) said Paul was full of shit.
James wanted to uphold the Law, and Paul didn't, because, you know, it's too difficult for lazy gentiles.
James was top tier Christian. Paul was literally the Joseph Smith of his day.
>>888088
I don't think we can be sure that James was the "brother" of christ in that sense. additionally the reference to James in Josephus seems to be a later interpolation. it makes more sense for him to be the brother of the other Jesus later mentioned in the passage
>>888088
What absolute rubbish.
The reason the Jews didn't have a problem with James teaching in their Temple was that James was teaching people to become Jews. Get circumcised, get baptized, follow the Law of Moses, do good works.
That is not the New Covenant. At all.
I thought his name was Saul. Who are we calling this man?
>>888132
Jesus changed his name from Saul to Paul. Names mean things, and Jesus tends to rename everyone. Even Himself.
>>888114
lol That's because Jesus was a JEW!
Paul turned him into a spooky celestial being
>>888075
If you believe Acts, sure. His choice of terms for OT quoting in his epistles, however, display no evidence of skill in Hebrew. His conflation of the paschal offering with a sin offering also argues against Pharisee training, especially since he never attempts to contradict the regular understanding.all of his friends and patrons on the Jewish establishment prior to converting were Sadducees, not Pharisees
He almost certainly was no Pharisee.
Yeah I never got this
Paul's claims were about as valid as Mohammed's or Mani's
>>888153
Jesus is a Jew; He's still alive.
And He is God. Son of Man, and Son of God.
The New Covenant has nothing to do with the Law of Moses; the Law was given to the servant; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
>>888160
You say that because you do not know that Jesus is the Lamb of God, slain for the sins of the world.
>>888153
or was he a celestial being that got turned into a Jew in the later gospel tradition
>>888161
Paul received many direct revelations from Jesus, and was shown the answers to many mysteries by Jesus, after Jesus rose from the dead, and when Jesus met with Paul in Arabia.
>>888173
Lambs as sin offerings are supposed to be female......,
>>888173
>I know the account is true because a feeling tells me so!
>only believers get this feeling so the analysis of nonbelievers has no validity
>>888182
haven't you read the Odes of Solomon? you can drink the milk of Wisdom from God's tit. I'm sure Jesus is a hermaphrodite too
>>888178
>Paul received many direct revelations from Jesus
According to Paul
>>888178
Kind of like the angel Gabriel met with Mohamed?
>>888165
Aaaaaaaaaand here we go.
This is where we move away from history and into the realm of theology.
You kill all historical discussion when you spew your 1st century spooky thoughts. You intentionally drive a wedge into the historical discussion.
But whatever, it's Good Friday, you can have this day to regurgitate your pastors/priests talk.
>>888175
>or was he a celestial being
Do you hear yourself. Come on now...
>>888160
>The lamb was slaughtered in the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nissan, prior to the commencement of the festival (Lev 23:5).
Jesus was slaughtered on the 14th of Nisan, in the afternoon.
>The lamb was slaughtered by Israelites. Most other offerings were slaughtered by the priests.
Jesus was slaughtered by Israelites who shouted for Him to be crucified.
>No uncircumcised Jew was permitted to partake of the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:48). If Gentiles wanted to eat the Passover lamb, they would have to be circumcised first.
Jesus' sacrifice was offered first to the Jews for 40 days, and then to the Gentiles.
>There was believed to be a connection between circumcision and the Paschal lamb. It was also believed by many that the 14th of Nissan, which is the anniversary of the Exodus, was the anniversary of the Abrahamic covenant. The penalty for not being circumcised and not observing Passover may have been the same.
Jesus made the covenant with Abraham. "Before Abraham was, I Am."
>The crossing of the Jordan River occurred at Passover, 40 years after the original Passover. The first two official rites ordered by Joshua were the rites of circumcision and the Paschal lamb (Joshua 5:3,10).
Jesus crossed over from life into death, on the Passover, and everyone who believes in Him is likewise crossed over from death into life.
>None of the bones of the Paschal lamb could be broken (Exodus 12:46).
None of Jesus' bones were broken. Instead, they stabbed Him in the heart, post-mortem.
>The atonement offering had to be a perfect animal (Deuteronomy 15:21).
Jesus was perfect.
>>888205
>The family would pick a lamb, handsome and healthy looking, that was a yearling. Its age could range from eight days to one year. Then they would watch it for four days to make sure it wasn't sick before sacrificing it.
God picked His Lamb, Jesus, and offered Him for inspection on Nisan 10, to be found spotless and blameless.
>The Passover sacrifice had to be eaten entirely in one night (Exodus 34:25).
Jesus died before nightfall.
>Only God could pick the place of the Paschal Lamb offering (Deuteronomy 16:5,6).
He picked Golgotha, the Hill of the Skull, outside Jerusalem, for it is not right that a prophet dies outside of Jerusalem.
>While the temple was standing, the only place you could sacrifice the Lamb was in Jerusalem.
Jesus was sacrificed in Jerusalem.
And as He prophesied, by the sign of Jonah, He spent three days and nights in the belly of the earth, and arose on the third day to be alive forevermore.
>>888182
Exodus 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats.
>>888184
Feeling are feelings. They're not facts.
>>888200
It makes more sense to me anyways. we really have almost nothing that we could possibly attribute to a historical man named Jesus and many of the fundamental elements of the gospels are obviously contrived, such as the parallel between Jesus and Barnabas and the sacrifice of one lamb and the release of another on passover
>>888189
Yes, according to Paul He received things from God that could only come from God Himself. And according to the Holy Spirit in Paul, who inspired Paul to write what he wrote.
So according to God Himself, and the greatest apostle of Christ Jesus, yes.
>>888184
M-Muh positivism
>>888190
Jibrail is Shaitan, as he told Mohammad Jesus was not God, did not die, was not crucified, and did not rise from the dead.
>>888218
>doesn't see his circular logic.
Being THIS religious damages people.
>>888194
Gee, how nice of you to allow religious posts in a religious thread made on a religious holiday to contain religious thoughts on a board where religion is discussed.
Quite magnanimous.
>>888202
Correct.
And the New Covenant was not instituted until His death and resurrection.
>>888226
there's a difference between religious posts and fundamentalists shitposting stuff that they heard their pastor say
>>888218
...are you a fedora roleplaying as a stereotypical christian?
>>888243
Poe's law in action
>>888225
It's the truth. Paul knows things that only God could know. Paul knows Jesus better than all the other apostles combined. Paul wrote more than all the other apostles combined. Paul knew the New Covenant better than all the other apostles combined.
That only comes from the Holy Spirit of God. Paul never knew anything about Jesus until years after Jesus rose from the dead. Years. Yet he knows more than the men who spent over three years living with Jesus, traveling with Jesus, talking with Jesus.
There's only one way that happens.
Jesus and Paul spend time together after Jesus' resurrection. A lot of time. Three years' time.
>>888205
>Jesus was slaughtered on the 14th of Nisan, in the afternoon.
Only in John. The Synoptics have something else to say about that.
>Jesus was slaughtered by Israelites who shouted for Him to be crucified.
No, I'm pretty sure it was the Romans who nailed him to a stick. Not to mention that a mob in Jerusalem isn't "all Israelites".
>Jesus' sacrifice was offered first to the Jews for 40 days, and then to the Gentiles.
And thanks to Paul, gentiles don't circumcise! Whoops!
>Jesus made the covenant with Abraham. "Before Abraham was, I Am."
I could claim to be God too. Wouldn't make me a god.
>Jesus crossed over from life into death, on the Passover, and everyone who believes in Him is likewise crossed over from death into life.
Adorable.
>None of Jesus' bones were broken. Instead, they stabbed Him in the heart, post-mortem.
Irrelevant. And if you're caliming Jesus is a paschal offering, then he's not a sin offering, and a fundamental theological leg of your entire stupid religion disappears.
>The atonement offering had to be a perfect animal (Deuteronomy 15:21).
Every offering had to be free of physical blemishes. Not to mention that the Gospels record Jesus sinning.
>>888207
>God picked His Lamb, Jesus, and offered Him for inspection on Nisan 10, to be found spotless and blameless.
I love how you throw out your own scriptures to make these arguments work. Not what happened in the synoptics!
>Jesus died before nightfall.
Who ate him?
>He picked Golgotha, the Hill of the Skull, outside Jerusalem, for it is not right that a prophet dies outside of Jerusalem.
What? Golgotha doesn't even exist outside the Gospels, and what's wrong with dying in Jerusalem as opposed to anywhere else?
>Jesus was sacrificed in Jerusalem.
No, I'm pretty sure he got nailed in Calvary, another made up place.
Go back to your Chick Tracts, people who actually read scripture hang out on this board.
>>888209
Paschal Offerings =/= sin offerings. Leviticus 4:32
>>888238
Everything I post I back up from the bible.
Piss off.
>>888253
How do you know they were things only God could know?
>>888226
There is a difference when discussing religion in its proper historical, sociological, archeological, and anthropological academic setting...
Then there is the circular reasoning that is Theology, which ignores the humanities and goes off on its religious proselytizing and supernatural concoctions.
The only reason why it's tolerated here is because the owner of these forums is too fucking stupid to know what humanities consist of. There is a reason why all the Divinity Schools are separated from the Humanities.
>>888253
so you are saying that Paul knew more about Jesus than all the other apostles combined, which is absolutely nothing about Jesus's human life. so did his disciples suffer sever head trauma to know less than nothing about Jesus's earthly ministry?
>>888243
Such a thing is impossible.
>>888247
Only people lacking discretion cite Poe's Law.
>>888254
The gospels all say the same thing. Learn that the Feast of Unleavened Bread started 24 hours after the Passover, that both festivals have preparation days, and that the second is a special sabbath day. The gospels do not contradict each other. They harmonize.
The mob yelled for Jesus to be crucified. Murder begins in the heart. Guilty. His blood is on their hands, and on the hands of their children, as they requested.
Circumcision of the dick means nothing; circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit is salvation.
You keep thinking you know the Law.
You're blind, Jew, and YHWH is coming.
>>888255
>Doesn't see the circular logic
So sad.
>>888255
if you love the bible so much then go jerk off to Ezekiel 23:19 faggot
>>888269
>The gospels all say the same thing.
No they don't. Mark, 14:12, Matthew 26:17 and Luke 22:7 all talk about preparing and/or eating the Passover, which was eaten "with the unleavened bread and bitter herbs before you".
They do not harmonize. Try reading.
>The mob yelled for Jesus to be crucified.
The mob isn't everyone, idiot.
>Circumcision of the dick means nothing; circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit is salvation.
Don't add or subtract from the Law. Unless you're Paul, I guess.
>You keep thinking you know the Law.
Yes, I have basic reading skills. You do not.
>You're blind, Jew, and YHWH is coming.
Keep on reading Chick. Meanwhile, I'll actually be studying what God wants.
>>888253
>Paul never knew anything about Jesus until years after Jesus rose from the dead.
lol
Does anyone actually like Paul?
>Paul simply shifted the centre of gravity of that whole life to a place behind this existence—in the lie of the “risen” Jesus. At bottom, he had no use for the life of the Saviour—what he needed was the death on the cross, and something more. To see anything honest in such a man as Paul, whose home was at the centre of the Stoical enlightenment, when he converts an hallucination into a proof of the resurrection of the Saviour, or even to believe his tale that he suffered from this hallucination himself—this would be a genuine niaiserie in a psychologist. Paul willed the end; therefore he also willed the means.... What he himself didn’t believe was swallowed readily enough by the idiots among whom he spread his teaching.—What he wanted was power; in Paul the priest once more reached out for power—he had use only for such concepts, teachings and symbols as served the purpose of tyrannizing over the masses and organizing mobs. What was the only part of Christianity that Mohammed borrowed later on? Paul’s invention, his device for establishing priestly tyranny and organizing the mob: the belief in the immortality of the soul—that is to say, the doctrine of “judgment”....
If two roleplayers are roleplay in at each other, are either of them trolled?
>>888007
Every time I see this image I think it's Christian Bale before looking more closely.
>>888399
He's not the apostle Rome needs, but the one they deserve
The emphasis on Jesus's death ruined the entire religion.
Jesus was a man walking around as a moral and spirtual teacher. He got killed when he wasn't expecting it. His followers couldn't cope with the idea so they tried to come up with a way for it have meaning. Eventually the entire religion focused on his death and the hopes that he would return a second time.
This created two Jesus. The origenal Jesus and the new Jesus who is the judge of the universe and will come with a sword of vengence.
The culture of matyrdom, the emphasis on sin, guilty, heaven, and hell are cancer. Paul was partially respnsible for this shit with his huge emphasis on Jesus as a herald of the apocalypse. The earlier a document is the less firey and vengeful the religion looks, while the last cannonical work of revalutions is pretty much all paranoid doomsday bullshit and revenge fantasies. Giving this pattern of earlier and earlier documents being less and less about the afterlife and judgement you can extrapolate the original teaching didn't even have this stuff.
Most of Jesus's writngs, especially the old ones are about some "Kingdom" and the kingdom isn't something of the future, but it's laid out over the earth and men do not see it. The kingdom of heaven was meant to be a state of mind. The whole point of Jesus willingly accepting his death was that he truly believed he was already in the Kingdom, that's why he wasn't afraid to die.
>>888369
Christfags seem to get a sadistic satisfaction on baiting people to hear them preaching, much like irl preachers and televangelists.
Moses is the only character in the entire bible to have seen the true face of God. The fact that he doesn't mention Jesus or the trinity should tell you something.
I was listening to a Yale professor discuss the Old Testament and she said early Judaism had a concept of being spiritually "cleansed" which was different from sin. According to her the animal sacrifices didn't even involve sin but were a cleansing ritual, needed to make one pure enough to enter the temple where God dwelled.
Can anyone confirm?
I'm not a Christfag but this whole discussion is pretty stupid and has a little bit of "new-atheism" taint on it.
The whole argument that there is a "historical Jesus" who lived like a normal man, banged Mary Magdalene, and was a pretty chill Jewish guy. Literally who gives a shit about that guy, the whole point of Jesus as a figure in the Christian religion is that he is a a son of God, and that God himself dies on the cross for all of humanity. Without this there is no Christianity per se and we are just talking about an insignificant Jewish heresy, or a Buddha/Gandhi hybrid figure.
The whole point of Christianity and in Jesus is the universalist message it brings after Jesus dies on the cross and with the assurance of holy spirit, the believers are the community instructed by Jesus to live and aspire to be like Jesus. With this Jesus violently shattered not only the entirety of classical civilization which was based on harmony,logic, and hierarchy, he also created a religion that wasn't based around on fearing a permanently pissed off God, but on good acts and personal faith. Paul was teh messenger of this universalism by opposing the "traditionalist" camp. It didn't matter who Jesus was, what mattered was his message.
People who don't understand this need to read this excellent book by Badiou.
>>888664
>he whole argument that there is a "historical Jesus" who lived like a normal man, banged Mary Magdalene, and was a pretty chill Jewish guy. Literally who gives a shit about that guy, the whole point of Jesus as a figure in the Christian religion is that he is a a son of God, and that God himself dies on the cross for all of humanity. Without this there is no Christianity per se and we are just talking about an insignificant Jewish heresy, or a Buddha/Gandhi hybrid figure.
To historians whether Jesus was literally as he was portrayed in the gospels is a very valid question. Is the message of the historical Jesus the same as the message of Christianity, and if not why not?
These are questions with huge implications for how human religion and societies develop
>>888695
Even if there is a historical Jesus (which I personally think there is, though that's beside the point) to a serious person this question doesn't matter for two reasons.
The first is that no matter how much data one unearths, it would still be impossible to get an accurate biography of Jesus apart from teh gospels, the question would still hinge on, "was he really the son of God?", "did he really perform miracles?", "Did he rise from dead?", these questions would still persist for Christianity, and would be subtracted from the clerical understanding on what Jesus was.
Secondly for history as it has developed there is really one Jesus, and there is really one message found in the New Testament. Even if things like the Gospel of Judas were found , however unlikely, to be 100% historically authentic, it wouldn't matter for Christianity as a religion, or it's development.
>>888733
and would not * be subtracted from the clerical understanding
>>888662
yeah sounds about right from what i know. thing is, it became increasingly codified and complex over time so that a distinction arose between the sadducees and the laypeople. the pharisees were a reaction to that: they wanted to help the laypeople understand the law and spread the message outside of the temple.
jesus took it even further: forget about clean/unclean, the message is for every person no matter who they are. i think people forget how radical that is, and they erect boundaries between themselves in jesus' name which is exactly what he was against.
>>888616
he DID expect it, hence his greatness. he didn't recant under pain of punishment of death, he continued to live in the way he thought was just and good. his death was a testament to his life. the last supper was a celebration, not a lamentation.
other than that, i 10000% agree with you. i wish christians understood this, especially here where they get bogged down in "my theology is better than yours" bullshit.
>>888054
>hellenized
HELLENIZED
>>888761
Do modern Jews still understand spiritual cleanliness and sin as 2 different things?
So we know why Paul was popular back in the day (he was the cool dad for Gentiles)...but how do modern Christians justify it?
>>888786
You should know this.
>>888796
Well, I don't.
>>888616
>The emphasis on Jesus's death ruined the entire religion.
>ruined the entire religion
as opposed to what exactly?
I mean it's only one of the biggest religions and most influential religions in human history, how exactly was it "ruined"?
>>888817
>it's big so it must be good
>>888165
"was" does not preclude "is"
>>888777
pretty sweet get beah
Jesus is LORD & SAVIOUR
>>888220
But Islam never made the assumption that the Christians had it right in the first place.
That's like saying Jesus was Satan because he claimed to be the Son of God.
>>888007
Bump.
>>888007
>never talks about his three year trip in Arabia
Think he was a muslim in disguise?
>>890745
Yeah, he used that time machine, don't you know?
>>888733
Your right, there is a lot of educated guess work involved, but that work has shed a lot of light on early Christianity and contemporary Judaism, as well as the Greek cults Christianity interacted with.
Thats why historian pursue questions like this, because even if we never get a clear answer, we do learn alot about the question
>my shitpost thread turns some actual discussion
I love /his/
>>892174
meant sparks*
>>888817
It shifted the focus from the earth and the life we already have to thinking about what happens when you die.
Jesus's teachings about how to live on earth were trivialized. Turned into nothing more than a keys to open the gate to another world. Everything in the religion ended up being interpreted in respect to the "other world" which de-valued the apparent world.
Try to imagine a world where people are going to live a good life with no promise of a heavenly reward or fear of a heavenly punishment. This is literally what early Judaism was.
>>888007
Paul was based. He told Jews to cut their crap with dick mutilation, turned Jewish sect into world religion and wrote the oldest parts of new testament.
>>888007
Why didn't you stop it?
>>888662
Yes, Biblical Judaism draws a distinction from "sin" and being ritually unclean. The latter has to do with coming into contact with things that are dead, or contained some potential to become life that didn't come to fruition, such as semen or vaginal discharges. In fact, several divine commandments will make you ritually unclean to perform, like burying the dead.
That being said, animal sacrifices being solely there to regain your "cleanliness" is incorrect. There IS a sacrifice pursuant to such, the thing with the red heifer, but it's not the only sacrifice, there are sacrifices for remission of sin, and there are sacrifices that have nothing to do with either sin or ritual purity, such as any given holiday's offering.
And while you couldn't enter the temple in some cases of ritual impurity, you needed to purify yourself to bring the sacrifice, since you were supposed to do that at the temple.....
>>888781
Yes, although the focus on ritual cleanliness isn't as big of a deal anymore, it's more relegated to the realm of theory, not day to day practice. With all the means of purifying yourself from "Tamai Meit" (impurity of the dead) gone for about 2,000 years or so, everyone's presumed to be impure and unable to regain purity. Furthermore, a lot of the things that lack of purity bars you from doing are linked to the Temple, which isn't around anymore, so it just isn't that big of a deal.
>>888200
It's not even ridiculous to hear.
>>888664
underrated post, tbhwwjd.
I have to admit, the conversion of Paul is the weakest link in my rejection of Christianity. Why would someone have a vision of someone he didn't think was God?
>>888664
>Badiou
>black_canadian_jew_turning_away_in_disgust.jpg
>>893120
>Why would someone have a vision of someone he didn't think was God?
>implying
>>892981
Why do Jews have to perenially come onto Christian threads and then LIE like disciples of Satan that they are? Can't you just be satisfied with ruining the world's finances and moral fiber?
You will never be pure, or free from Sin, because you reject your Lord. Open your eyes.
>>893494
We are trying to have a conversation about how the historical ancient Jews viewed their world.
You don't need to get your panties in a bunch because every single religious convention doesn't match your particular theology. The idea of sin as being permanent and inescapable is from Augestine. Ancient Jewish concept of sin wasn't as heavy (for instance the book of Job makes it explicit Job never sinned in his life at the start of the story). Removal of sin operated in different ways to: sin could be acting pious, by having the community collectivilivly act pious on your behalf (Old Testament is filled with examples where a sinful King's action must be redeemed by his children's actions), or simply the passage of the time. It was also a a strictly earthly affair, there was no count of sin in the after life because there was no after-life.
Whether or not this is "true" or not isn't even a fucking question. We are discussing religion in a historical sense, which means discussing what they believed, not screaming like a baptist.
>>888269
You seem like a pretty disgusting person, I hope you stop posting
