Things from the Old Testemant that raise questions

I don't even know who this Eisenman is, bud.
Paul started a new church...period. that is my conclusion, disagree if you must.
Jesus was a Rabbi, (that's Jewish, you know)
And your choice of explanations is cuz you like it, as much or more than mine is.
Whether you can admit it or not, cuz that is what we all do, I think.

 

Errr..

There are far far too many sources which indicate why Jesus Christ established Christianity and why Paul is an Apostle of Christ and accepted by the Disciples.

You on the other hand base your belief system on nothing more than a guy named Eiesnman who, for no explicable reason (and he wont return calls on this) simply found the word 'Liar' and decided to say it was speaking of Paul.

There is no comparison between our rationales for belief about Paul.
Not even close

 

Paul read "The Prince" by Machiavelli

 

For the 2nd time, Eiesnman is a mystery, never heard of the fellow.

Jesus established that gentiles are worthy of love too, no more. He was Jewish, and if you can show me where the story of his renunciation of his Jewish faith is, I would be happy to read it.
Who is the liar, oh wise one? Don't answer maybe he will then...

Paulianity celebrates concepts and ideas that are not from Him, but from Pauls own mind.

 

And totally disgested, comprehended, and took it to heart. Then acted on it.

It must have been a hard book to get a hold of in those days.

 

BlackyG
There is no where you find Jesus renouncing Judaism. Sure, many of his fellow Rabbi's from various sects accused him of doing so - but they never succeed in proving it.

Why do you think Jesus needs to renounce Judaism?

For that matter.. why would Paul renounce his Judaism.
He never does.

Please explain where your going with this and why you think Classic Christianity is going the other way?

 

He doesn't need to renounce it, and he doesn't.

so he is a Jew.
Paul was previously not a believer at all, but was non religious, was he not?

 

Paul (Then called Saul of Tarsus) was an enforcer for the Jewish Establishment.
He was also a Roman Citizen.
[Much of these things are discussed in Pauline Epistles]

Paul never renounces his Judaism .. but DOES renounce his persecution of the Christians (and if i recall he was at Stephens Assasination but doesnt actually say if he was in on it)

Nothing Paul teaches conflicts with any of the other Apostles.
Thats why its very unusual to hear Fake Essene wannabe's suggest Paul does.

Paul does have a 'feud' with the Apostle to the Jews but there is no disagreement in theology.
Just a butting of heads

 

thanks, I didnt connect his enforcer position with being a follower of the Jewish faith.

 

I running late but your point is a good one. God said let us make God in our image. God exist eternally as one God, but three persons. Much like the atom. One atom, but three elements. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

 

Jesus was called a Rabbi. Yet how could He be an Official Rabbi when He never received any Temple Training? As stated in the scriptures. It's like saying I'm going to be a priest in the Catholic church, but I'm not going to divinity school.

 

You assume he never received training. 17 years of his life are not covered, ample time to train.
Lets say he did not receive training, as you seem to be sure is the case. Who is to say that he did not challenge the course, and take the finals without taking the course. It is not an unheard of thing for gifted students to do so.
He is called Rabbi three times. If he was not, then the bible authors are lying.
I see this as being quite obvious.

 

Ah, also it was siad that how could He know so much without being taught when He was a boy at the , i think it was passover, when He got away from Mary and Joseph...ya, He was gone for 17 years...he could have learned then....

 

Im going to agree with BlackGuard on this one..

Jesus is called 'Rabbi' numerous times and by strangers, friends and critics

•And Jesus answered and said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he said, "Rabbi, what is it?" (Luke 7:40)

•A lawyer asked him a question to test him: "Rabbi, what is the greatest commandment in the Torah?" (Matthew 22:35-36)

•And behold, a [rich] man came up to him and said, "Rabbi, what good thing must I do to have eternal life?" (Matthew 19:16)

•And someone in the crowd said to him, "Rabbi, order my brother to divide the inheritance with me." (Luke 12:13)

•And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, "Rabbi, rebuke your disciples." (Luke 19:39)

•Some of the Sadducees came up to him...and they asked him, saying, "Rabbi...." (Luke 20:27-28)

Note the diversity of those who addressed Jesus as rabbi: a lawyer, a rich man, Pharisees, Sadducees and ordinary people. Clearly, there was a wide range of Jesus’ contemporaries who saw him as a rabbi.

Now.. 'Rabbi' did not necessarily mean He had our modern concept of a 'Diploma' and was necessarily 'Ordained' by a particular registered Synagogue.

Yes, we all know how he 'amazed' the Rabbi's in the Temple as a young boy - discussing all things in the scriptures.
It can also be that He is being called 'Master Teacher'.
Either way, everyone is acknowledging him as a 'Rabbi'.

We dont get much about Jesus life during his Teen and Young Adult years but we are left off knowing he was a brilliant student of the Scriptures.

When we pick up at his Ministry
(he is thought to be around 30 at that time)
He is not only being called 'Rabbi' but he is calling Disciples to Himself
He is holding 'Public Speaking Events'
He is using 'Rabbinical' Teaching methods and 'Styles'.

So ya.. its pretty obvious what is going on here.

 

It is so unnerving whenever I see you have agreed with me on something.
I must be more specific so as to ensure we are very far apart in our faiths.
Yeshua Ben Joseph was a Jewish Rabbi. The exact sect may be up for debate, but the basic faith of Judaism being his religion is pretty much clear if the Bible texts are truthful. He was born to a successful, royal family, and Joseph, his dad, was a Master of the Craft, a very highly educated, knowledgeable, and influential man. His lineage is outlined in Luke, I guess to ensure that all who read it would see his royal blood.
The translation of 'carpenter' as his trade is, in my belief, more character assassination of the supporting cast around Him.
So, after Yeshua travelled to Egypt and was initiated into the arcana of the Priests of Egypt, in perfect accord with his forebears. The Egypt/Jewish royal family connection starts with Sarah, then includes Egyptian prince Moses and Vizier Joseph of the colorful coat. So, the Priests had no trouble accepting Him into their ranks, and sharing their wealth of knowledge.
After the final initiation ceremony in the sarcophagus within the King's Chamber of the great pyramid, Yeshua left Giza.
He went to Tibet and studied under the great spiritual leaders there.
By the time He returned to Jerusalem, He was an exceptionally qualified spiritual teacher.
There, Brocktoon, may I ask if this all sounds about right to you?
I sure hope not.

 

This is probably redundant, but the "We" is the Royal We (Pluralis Majestatis), used as a first-person pronoun by the speaker, usually a person of great importance, in reference to him/herself. This has been used since ancient times in many countries around the ancient world.

 

I'm not assuming anything the bible clearly tells you in John 7:15. The Jews marveled saying how knoweth this man letters, having never learned? No one is lying, He was called Rabbi because He was a teacher of the law. What part of never learned don't you understand. Jesus did not take His G.E.D. And because the Jews knew that Christ knew more than the official Rabbis they called Him one. This is clearly pointed out in Matthew 7:28,29 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29. For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Jesus never had to learn about the law, because he wrote the law.

 

OR because he was one with the law and recognized this fact (when he read the laws, he saw that they described his inner feelings on life- therefore he could make judgements based upon his own inner compass and know that they would perfectly fit in with the law).

 

It does not sound right to me, but more importantly it does not sound right when held up against what we DO know about Jesus (or if you insist Yeshua Son of Joseph).
We do know he travelled to Egypt, however all your fanciful details of Sacophagi and tours of Tibet are simply speculation and illustrations which may or may not be true.

Interestingly, you are happy to deem certain scriptures valid - where ever it fits your story.
Maybe a few scriptures later you will insist these are 'Re-writes' or illegitimate verses.

So No,, I dont think its 'about right' to pick and choose what scriptures fit an imaginary story... then discount those scriptures which dont suit your fancy.

Happy Now?

 

We all have our own individual take on what the texts mean. You also pick and choose, the only difference being that your choices are more common ones. That doesn't make them facts though.

I will have you know that the Giza sarcophagus initiation rite information was from a very reliable source.
I read it in a book that was by a 'channeller'. She directly channelled that information, so I cannot see how anyone could doubt its veracity....

I am just happy we are clearly back in disagreement.