The Christian Hedge Around the Law

[Derideo_Te]

A very simple one is that the Apostle Paul knew James, the brother of Jesus, so if Jesus didn't exist I imagine James would have been aware of that and clued Paul in.

Then again the nickname that James coined for Paul was "the man of the lie" because he insisted that Jesus had called himself the "son of god" which is blasphemy under Judaism.

So yes, you make a good argument for the existence of Jesus but on the other side of that coin you have to deal with the discrediting of Paul on whom the entire existence of Christianity depends.

Speaking of Paul there is the question regarding his motivation for founding Christianity as an alternative to Judaism. What better way to prevent an uprising in an occupied territory than to divide what unites the population? Saul (who became Paul) was a Roman who was tasked with dealing with the "Jewish problem" in Israel at the time. Inventing a competing religion would have been a great way to undermine the unity of the people. Furthermore making the Jews themselves "responsible" for the death of the "savior" would fit right in with that agenda.

We can go down that rabbit hole in another thread since I don't want to derail this one.

 

[BluePhantom]

A very simple one is that the Apostle Paul knew James, the brother of Jesus, so if Jesus didn't exist I imagine James would have been aware of that and clued Paul in.

Then again the nickname that James coined for Paul was "the man of the lie" because he insisted that Jesus had called himself the "son of god" which is blasphemy under Judaism.

So yes, you make a good argument for the existence of Jesus but on the other side of that coin you have to deal with the discrediting of Paul on whom the entire existence of Christianity depends.

Speaking of Paul there is the question regarding his motivation for founding Christianity as an alternative to Judaism. What better way to prevent an uprising in an occupied territory than to divide what unites the population? Saul (who became Paul) was a Roman who was tasked with dealing with the "Jewish problem" in Israel at the time. Inventing a competing religion would have been a great way to undermine the unity of the people. Furthermore making the Jews themselves "responsible" for the death of the "savior" would fit right in with that agenda.

We can go down that rabbit hole in another thread since I don't want to derail this one.

The conflict between James and Paul is possible but probably highly exaggerated. If there was disagreement it had to do with the message of Jesus and not the existence of Him. But yes I am familiar with the arguments against Paul and I agree one must be very careful with Paul for a lot of reasons. I am very well aware of the theories you refer to and am ready to discuss them at your leisure. Thank you for not derailing the thread and I look forward to the conversation

 

[HaShev]

Yeah Saul was not Roman, Sergius Paulus called Paul was. Saul in Acts came across Paul who had with him an Ellymas (maggis) called Bar(son)Jesus who Saul called the son of the Devil.
LIKE I said Paul is a converged figure, Appolonius Of Tyana called Pol, who was from Tarsus, had been the figure they used stories like the Syria trip and other accounts to make the figure seem historical in the same way they did with Jesus.

 

[amrchaos]

But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

Except that "what it actually says" in one place is contradicted by "what it actually says" in another place so who is supposed to know which of the "what it actually says" is the right "what it actually says"?



AVG-JOE might want to address this dilemma for us since he has many profound insights IMO.

That is definitely true and that's why it is so important to take individual books of the Bible and allow them to stand on their own. In other words, in Luke and Matthew there are great contradictions regarding the genealogy of Jesus. Which is right and which is wrong? Are either right? They can't BOTH be right. Well the answer is to simply say "according to Luke, this was his ancestral line and according to Matthew that was his ancestral line." It doesn't really matter because each author crafted the genealogy in order to accomplish specific things.

In Matthew, his line is traced in sets of 14 back to Abraham. Every 14 generations something significant happens. 14 generations after Abraham came King David. 14 generations later came the Babylonian exile. Now 14 generations later comes Jesus, the next big thing, the direct descendant of Abraham who is coming in behalf of the Jews.

In Luke, the genealogy traces back to Adam. Why? Because in Luke-Acts Jesus is depicted as coming for all mankind and not just the Jews. So it is traced back to Adam to show that he is the direct descendant of Adam who has come for the good of mankind as a whole.

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

Don't you mean the Genealogy of Joseph(Joseph's Bloodline to David?)

The reason I say this is because the same authors then later points out that Joseph is not Jesus biological father--i.e Jesus can not claim to be of the bloodline of David through Joseph

Matt 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

In other words, Joseph does not father Jesus according to Matthew

Luke 1:34
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Now Luke does the same.

Also, this is only the 1st time these books make mention that Jesus is not Joseph son, but suggest the same idea elsewhere. So, talking about the genealogy of "Jesus" is therefore a misnomer and even pointless. And to argue that Jesus is the son is to argue the claims made in the Gospel about how Jesus was conceived.

 

[BluePhantom]

Don't you mean the Genealogy of Joseph(Joseph's Bloodline to David?)

No. I understand your points but that's not the way it worked in antiquity for the Jews. Culturally, Jesus would have been considered Joseph's son whether Joseph sired Him or not. They didn't recognize step-sons like we do. Think of Abraham and Ishmael. Ismail would have been considered Sarah's son even though Hagar bore him. So the recognized bloodline according to culture went through the husband and wife regardless of who the biological father or mother was.

In Matthew 1 it is written, "1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham...
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah." (Matt. 1:1, 16-17, NIV)

So Matthew is linking the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus through Joseph. Luke does the same, he just goes further with it. This is one reason why the Gnostics argued that Jesus had two fathers, although there were several other reasons. Somewhere in one of the Gnostic gospels (I don't recall offhand which one and I don't have time to look it up right now*) the argument is made that Jesus had God as His spiritual father and Joseph as His recognized earthy father, thus He had two fathers which is why, according to them, He often distinguishes between the two by saying "My Father" or "My Father in heaven". "My Father in heaven" refers to God, and simply "My Father" refers to Joseph. That seems very odd to us today, but that's a result of how the culture worked and how the Gnostics interpreted the issue.

*I think it's in the Gospel of Philip but I am not certain. Feel free to browse though it if you are really interested.

The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

 

[HaShev]

Should note that in forging his lineage the Roman's thought so little of the intelligence of the followers of this giant joke that they placed his lineage through all the harlotscof the Bible-and probably laughed the whole time they did so. From my essay;
"The Harlot Church as the Whore of Babylon"

It’s clearly recorded that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus. The statement in the Gospel of Matthew that Joseph "knew her not until she had her first born son" (Matt. 1:25)
This eliminated the Church's claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that she had no others after him-why else is one called first born unless others followed?
If they lie about having brothers and sisters and her remaining a virgin then is it possible they lied about the virginal attributes of Mary altogether?
The answer is: absolutely yes!
The Mandeans (followers of John) in their Text they account his brother James in THE HARAN GAWAITHA.

In the Mishnah B. Yebamoth 49a, M. Yebamoth 4.13- Simeon ben Azzai said: Yeshu is a bastard son of a married woman.
History accounts one of the christ figures used to make the Jesus imagr was a son of a lady named Mary to be a Bastard son of a Roman Soldier named Pandera. Because she strayed and was a Harlot she was deemed 'STADA' (she deviated).
This is why the NT states: Matt 1:19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. This becomes problematic because: Deuteronomy 23:2 "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
In fact not only is Jesus born of the harlot Mary but his lineage mysteriously goes through all the major harlots of the Bible: Matthew mentions 4 sinful women of the bible in the Joseph genealogy:
1) (Genesis 38:12-19) Tamar the one who disguised herself as a harlot to seduce her father-in-law Judah.
2) (Joshua 2:1) Rahab a harlot living in the city of Jericho and wasn’t even Jewish, she was a Canaanite.
3) (Ruth 3:1-14) Ruth through her mother-in-law Naomi's request, came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married.
4) (2 Samuel 11:2-5) Bathsheba who became pregnant by King David while still married to Uriah.
Shines a whole new meaning on the Harlot church doesn't it?

 

[amrchaos]

Don't you mean the Genealogy of Joseph(Joseph's Bloodline to David?)

No. I understand your points but that's not the way it worked in antiquity for the Jews. Culturally, Jesus would have been considered Joseph's son whether Joseph sired Him or not. They didn't recognize step-sons like we do. Think of Abraham and Ishmael. Ismail would have been considered Sarah's son even though Hagar bore him. So the recognized bloodline according to culture went through the husband and wife regardless of who the biological father or mother was.

In Matthew 1 it is written, "1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham...
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah." (Matt. 1:1, 16-17, NIV)

So Matthew is linking the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus through Joseph. Luke does the same, he just goes further with it. This is one reason why the Gnostics argued that Jesus had two fathers, although there were several other reasons. Somewhere in one of the Gnostic gospels (I don't recall offhand which one and I don't have time to look it up right now*) the argument is made that Jesus had God as His spiritual father and Joseph as His recognized earthy father, thus He had two fathers which is why, according to them, He often distinguishes between the two by saying "My Father" or "My Father in heaven". "My Father in heaven" refers to God, and simply "My Father" refers to Joseph. That seems very odd to us today, but that's a result of how the culture worked and how the Gnostics interpreted the issue.

*I think it's in the Gospel of Philip but I am not certain. Feel free to browse though it if you are really interested.

The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

I admit that you are correct when you say Genealogy of Jesus. But there is still the issue of the bloodline.

Even in the example, Ishmail does not gain Isaac's inheritance due to the fact that the promise is made to both Abraham and Sarah. So, yes, you can call Ishmail the son of Sarah, but Ishmail is not of Sarah's bloodline. Hence there is a distinction and the issue of
inheritance is followed along this distinction.

Likewise is with the Prophecy of the Messiah. It says that the messiah will be of the bloodline of David.(David relation to Abraham we can consider known and thus redundant in repeating). Hence any blood son of Joseph would work. However, any adopted son does not.

Also note, the Jewish prophecies also states the Messiah will be of man. If I am to follow this concept literally, then either I have to reject Jesus as the messiah(as claimed through his birth through the Holy Spirit), assume he is of David's bloodline through Mary(again, making the Genealogy of Joseph pointless) or assume later authors of these books intentionally rewritten how Jesus was conceived in order to make Jesus divine--which clearly undermines the credibility of the authors themselves.

 

[amrchaos]

By the way

I think it is in Matthew where this occurs, but I can be mistaken on the placement of the story.

But it appears that Matthew suggested that Jesus become Divine(a 2nd time?) when John the Baptist Baptized him. To me, that tends to suggest the Book has been rewritten several times. Once to suggest Jesus was always divine, and another to suggest Jesus becomes divine after his anointment at the hands of John the Baptist.

Of course, one could suggest different meanings behind this.

 

[BluePhantom]

I admit that you are correct when you say Genealogy of Jesus. But there is still the issue of the bloodline.

Even in the example, Ishmail does not gain Isaac's inheritance due to the fact that the promise is made to both Abraham and Sarah. So, yes, you can call Ishmail the son of Sarah, but Ishmail is not of Sarah's bloodline. Hence there is a distinction and the issue of inheritance is followed along this distinction.

Well more to the point, Ishmael didn't receive the inheritance because after Isaac was born, Sarah saw to it that Hagar and Ishmael were banished. This is why the Muslims/Arabs and the Jews have been at each other's throats ever since. The Muslims argue that Ishmael was to inherit because he was the legal and cultural son of Abraham and Sarah. The Jews argue that Isaac was to inherit because Sarah gave birth to him. They are both right and hence the dilemma.

Likewise is with the Prophecy of the Messiah. It says that the messiah will be of the bloodline of David.(David relation to Abraham we can consider known and thus redundant in repeating). Hence any blood son of Joseph would work. However, any adopted son does not.

I understand, but that's not how the ancients looked at it. Adopted children were considered blood. Consider Dave and Tom that lived in antiquity. Dave was married to Debbie and Dave dies without giving her children. It becomes Tom's responsibility to give her a son, BUT that son is considered Dave's son and not Tom's. They didn't distinguish the way we do today. Jesus would have been considered Joseph's son, blood and all, because because Mary gave birth to him while married to Joseph. The only time that didn't happen is if you were charging your wife with adultery . Depending on the era that would result in a divorce, her death, the unborn child's death, or death of both the woman and the unborn child.

Also note, the Jewish prophecies also states the Messiah will be of man. If I am to follow this concept literally, then either I have to reject Jesus as the messiah(as claimed through his birth through the Holy Spirit), assume he is of David's bloodline through Mary(again, making the Genealogy of Joseph pointless) or assume later authors of these books intentionally rewritten how Jesus was conceived in order to make Jesus divine--which clearly undermines the credibility of the authors themselves.

Yes, I would agree, but I don't think it undermines their credibility. The authors were reading from the Septuagint which had simply mistranslated the prophecy given to Ahaz due to linguistic problems between the Hebrew and Greek languages. This is the problem of translation so often referred to between the Hebrew world 'almah' and the Greek word 'parthenos' as well as problems involving Hebrew tenses. So it doesn't undermine their credibility because what they were reading in Greek had a different meaning than when read in Hebrew, the language in which it was written. In other words, they were not knowingly lying, they simply knew no better

 

[BluePhantom]

By the way

I think it is in Matthew where this occurs, but I can be mistaken on the placement of the story.

But it appears that Matthew suggested that Jesus become Divine(a 2nd time?) when John the Baptist Baptized him. To me, that tends to suggest the Book has been rewritten several times. Once to suggest Jesus was always divine, and another to suggest Jesus becomes divine after his anointment at the hands of John the Baptist.

Of course, one could suggest different meanings behind this.

Well Matthew has been rewritten several times I think. All of them have. That's the whole point of textual criticism...to figure out what it said before it was changed. As far as the question of divinity you bring up. I see how you are interpreting it that way, but in Matthew Jesus is kind of...oh.....a demi-god perhaps. Similar to Hercules who had a mortal mother, Alcmene, and a divine father, Zeus. Hercules was a man but he had divine elements. In Matthew, that's similar to what Jesus was. But the focus in Matthew is that the Holy Spirit redisded within Him in order to have the authority to interpret Torah in the proper way. He was the "new Moses" representing the fourth of 14 generations. Now in John, it's a far different story. Jesus was God and has been in existence since the beginning of time as God. So it kind of depends on which book you are looking at.

 

[TrinityPower]

I admit that you are correct when you say Genealogy of Jesus. But there is still the issue of the bloodline.

Even in the example, Ishmail does not gain Isaac's inheritance due to the fact that the promise is made to both Abraham and Sarah. So, yes, you can call Ishmail the son of Sarah, but Ishmail is not of Sarah's bloodline. Hence there is a distinction and the issue of inheritance is followed along this distinction.

Well more to the point, Ishmael didn't receive the inheritance because after Isaac was born, Sarah saw to it that Hagar and Ishmael were banished. This is why the Muslims/Arabs and the Jews have been at each other's throats ever since. The Muslims argue that Ishmael was to inherit because he was the legal and cultural son of Abraham and Sarah. The Jews argue that Isaac was to inherit because Sarah gave birth to him. They are both right and hence the dilemma.

Likewise is with the Prophecy of the Messiah. It says that the messiah will be of the bloodline of David.(David relation to Abraham we can consider known and thus redundant in repeating). Hence any blood son of Joseph would work. However, any adopted son does not.

I understand, but that's not how the ancients looked at it. Adopted children were considered blood. Consider Dave and Tom that lived in antiquity. Dave was married to Debbie and Dave dies without giving her children. It becomes Tom's responsibility to give her a son, BUT that son is considered Dave's son and not Tom's. They didn't distinguish the way we do today. Jesus would have been considered Joseph's son, blood and all, because because Mary gave birth to him while married to Joseph. The only time that didn't happen is if you were charging your wife with adultery . Depending on the era that would result in a divorce, her death, the unborn child's death, or death of both the woman and the unborn child.

Also note, the Jewish prophecies also states the Messiah will be of man. If I am to follow this concept literally, then either I have to reject Jesus as the messiah(as claimed through his birth through the Holy Spirit), assume he is of David's bloodline through Mary(again, making the Genealogy of Joseph pointless) or assume later authors of these books intentionally rewritten how Jesus was conceived in order to make Jesus divine--which clearly undermines the credibility of the authors themselves.

Yes, I would agree, but I don't think it undermines their credibility. The authors were reading from the Septuagint which had simply mistranslated the prophecy given to Ahaz due to linguistic problems between the Hebrew and Greek languages. This is the problem of translation so often referred to between the Hebrew world 'almah' and the Greek word 'parthenos' as well as problems involving Hebrew tenses. So it doesn't undermine their credibility because what they were reading in Greek had a different meaning than when read in Hebrew, the language in which it was written. In other words, they were not knowingly lying, they simply knew no better

Also if a child is adopted they have the same birthright as a first born to inherit. That is a HUGE factor in regard to many illustrations from the bible

 

[BluePhantom]

I admit that you are correct when you say Genealogy of Jesus. But there is still the issue of the bloodline.

Even in the example, Ishmail does not gain Isaac's inheritance due to the fact that the promise is made to both Abraham and Sarah. So, yes, you can call Ishmail the son of Sarah, but Ishmail is not of Sarah's bloodline. Hence there is a distinction and the issue of inheritance is followed along this distinction.

Well more to the point, Ishmael didn't receive the inheritance because after Isaac was born, Sarah saw to it that Hagar and Ishmael were banished. This is why the Muslims/Arabs and the Jews have been at each other's throats ever since. The Muslims argue that Ishmael was to inherit because he was the legal and cultural son of Abraham and Sarah. The Jews argue that Isaac was to inherit because Sarah gave birth to him. They are both right and hence the dilemma.

Likewise is with the Prophecy of the Messiah. It says that the messiah will be of the bloodline of David.(David relation to Abraham we can consider known and thus redundant in repeating). Hence any blood son of Joseph would work. However, any adopted son does not.

I understand, but that's not how the ancients looked at it. Adopted children were considered blood. Consider Dave and Tom that lived in antiquity. Dave was married to Debbie and Dave dies without giving her children. It becomes Tom's responsibility to give her a son, BUT that son is considered Dave's son and not Tom's. They didn't distinguish the way we do today. Jesus would have been considered Joseph's son, blood and all, because because Mary gave birth to him while married to Joseph. The only time that didn't happen is if you were charging your wife with adultery . Depending on the era that would result in a divorce, her death, the unborn child's death, or death of both the woman and the unborn child.

Also note, the Jewish prophecies also states the Messiah will be of man. If I am to follow this concept literally, then either I have to reject Jesus as the messiah(as claimed through his birth through the Holy Spirit), assume he is of David's bloodline through Mary(again, making the Genealogy of Joseph pointless) or assume later authors of these books intentionally rewritten how Jesus was conceived in order to make Jesus divine--which clearly undermines the credibility of the authors themselves.

Yes, I would agree, but I don't think it undermines their credibility. The authors were reading from the Septuagint which had simply mistranslated the prophecy given to Ahaz due to linguistic problems between the Hebrew and Greek languages. This is the problem of translation so often referred to between the Hebrew world 'almah' and the Greek word 'parthenos' as well as problems involving Hebrew tenses. So it doesn't undermine their credibility because what they were reading in Greek had a different meaning than when read in Hebrew, the language in which it was written. In other words, they were not knowingly lying, they simply knew no better

Also if a child is adopted they have the same birthright as a first born to inherit. That is a HUGE factor in regard to many illustrations from the bible

Exactly. It's a major concept that is seen over and over in the Bible. As much as I support the Jews, I have to say...according to the culture and the laws in antiquity, the Muslims have a point....a very good point actually.

 

[HaShev]

But the inheritance the Muslims received is in the shared Abrahamic God showed to him by Melchizedek.
Allah=Shalem.
The irony is their claim they are an extension of the Abrahamic faith in claim people fell away from it and yet they did just that by not adding to the Tanakh like Christians did and fell away from the teachings when they added Afterlife jargon and forgot the meaning of Shalem.
It also didn't help that by being sepratist and exclusionist that they did not explemplify the Abraham message of loving and inviting they neighbors.
Arabs are still hospitable, but their regimes/govt's and policies are not inclusive. I guess one can conclude Muslims can generally be Abrahamic, but Islam is not.