The Pauline Paradox

[Ben Masada]

Moving the goal post are we?

You wanted a solution to your contrived paradox and I gave it to you.

If you're honest, (which you aren't), you'll stop using the argument (which you won't).

Hey Clete! You don't have what it takes to stop a Jewish mouth from speaking. Israel has been prophetically assigned as light unto the the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:6) You are better off keeping the lights on.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben needs to take it up with the prophets, not Paul. His name means "God with us".

Well! That's what Prophet Isaiah said about Judah aka the Jews if you read Isaiah 8:8. He named Judah with being Emmanuel, the representation of God on earth.

 

[Ben Masada]

However, you're not here to learn. That is, if you were, to be honest. Most folks aren't honest with themselves, let alone with others. Would you tend to agree?

Believe me GM, you can't imagine how much I have learned by discussing the Scriptures with Christians; especially in this forum of Theology on Line.

 

[john w]

Perhaps but according to Christian preconceived notions as if Jesus had ever been a Christian. I think Christians would achieve much better if they acknowledged Jesus as a Jew and not as a Christian. If the dead could speak from the grave, Jesus would reveal that he never even dreamed Christianity would ever rise. (Psalm 49:12.

This is not a talk show, Oprah. And I think I am cool, good looking. Point? And in arguing that "Jesus" was a Christian, is quite grade school.

 

[Wick Stick]

Since you are not humble enough to take it from me...

You're right; I'm not. When you know something, you may as well hold it out there for everyone. Otherwise, you are only withholding information... to what end? To spare feelings? And they go into perdition for lack of knowledge, as you are fond of quoting.

...ask any Rabbi wherever you meet one if adoptions in ancient Israel would render the child to be of the same Tribe of the adopter. There were many adoptions in ancient Israel but never a case when the child would become of the same Tribe of the adoptive father.

This is bad information all around. There weren't many adoptions in pre-exile Israel. Or, if there were, they weren't documented well. The Tanach doesn't even contain the word adoption, and in every place where an adoption is assumed/conjectured, there is debate as to whether it is a case of fostering or adoption. The closest thing that is adequately spelled out is the practice of Levirate marriage.

The official guidance on the subject is, "Scripture looks upon one who brings up an orphan as if he had begotten him" (Sanh. 19b; Meg. 13a),

My position is that this glaring omission is because the ancients simply put no difference between an adopted son and a regular son.

That's the assumption of a Christian which I would consider arrogance. I am sharing with you the Jewish tradition which becomes quite obvious before any Christian assumption.

That's the product of hours of research in comparative religions, looking into ancient manuscripts and archaeological dig reports. I find hard evidence more compelling than 'Oral Tradition,' which is the real fairy tale, here.

Not only the NT but also the "Summa Theologica" by Thomas Aquinas I have read. The two best as Christian concepts are concerned.

Summa is written so far after the fact as to be a corruption of a corruption (Anselm) of a corruption (Augustine) of Christianity.

Jesus tried to institute no reform in Judaism if you read Matthew 5:17-19. He remained loyal to the letter, even the dot of the letter. Unless you are implying that Jesus lied. In fact, Jesus warned us all to listen to "Moses" aka the Law in order to achieve salvation from hell-fire. (Luke 16:29-31)

Are you truly this blind? Jesus retained the written law and the prophets, yes, but He also attempted to put the so-called "Oral Law" out to pasture. Jesus was an early Karaite, as it were.

That's absolutely not true as no Jew at all wrote a single page of the NT which was written by Hellenists former disciples of Paul.

Copy-paste? This claim has very little going for it. It isn't well accepted among those of ANY faith, including Judaism, including the Pharisee sect of Judaism.

I hope what I have revealed above about adoptions in ancient Judaism is enough if you are any serious at all about the truth.

You have quoted no-one, and referenced no works of antiquity. You are source-less. By contrast, everything I have ever read leads me to the conclusion that some ancient water rites are intended to be re-enactments of birth - a new birth, or second birth of those already born. This is adoption, even if not so-called.

Please, complete the quote by mentioning the verses in Psalm 2. I read it and I found nothing to do with begetting or genealogical inheritance.

6"But I have enthroned My king on Zion, My holy mount."
ווַאֲנִי נָסַכְתִּי מַלְכִּי עַל צִיּוֹן הַר קָדְשִׁי:
7I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you. זאֲסַפְּרָה אֶל חֹק יְהֹוָה אָמַר אֵלַי בְּנִי אַתָּה אֲנִי הַיּוֹם יְלִדְתִּיךָ:
8Request of Me, and I will make nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession. חשְׁאַל מִמֶּנִּי וְאֶתְּנָה גוֹיִם נַחֲלָתֶךָ וַאֲחֻזָּתְךָ אַפְסֵי אָרֶץ:
9You shall break them with an iron rod; like a potter's vessel you shall shatter them."
טתְּרֹעֵם בְּשֵׁבֶט בַּרְזֶל כִּכְלִי יוֹצֵר תְּנַפְּצֵם:

You really can't find any begetting or inheritance here?

You don't have the Truth WC. The Truth was not given unto you but, as the Psalmist says, to Israel only and to no other people on earth if you read Psalm 147:19,20. And you will never have it as long as you remain too proud to take it from a Jew.

Irony. Shall I call home and ask dad, then?

The truth was given to Israel, sure, but she couldn't/wouldn't hear it, so it was published for the whole world to see (~70BCE). You're a couple millennia behind, it seems. And people tell me I live in the past!

 

[Bradley D]

True that marriage was allowed in between the different Tribes in Israel but, the woman who would marry a Levite, she would not become a Levite. She would rather carry on the identification after her father's Tribe without taking that of her husband.

"We know that Mary’s relative Elizabeth was from the tribe of Levi:


Luke 1:5 Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

Luke 1:36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.

But this doesn’t mean that Mary was from Levi. The most obvious meaning of “relative” here, given the age difference between Mary and Elizabeth, that Elizabeth was Mary’s aunt – in which case she would be a maternal aunt, suggesting that Mary’s father – from Judah – married a girl from Levi. Which explains the words of Gabriel:


Luke 1:30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?

Note that Mary does not say “How will this be, since I am not descended from David?”



http://bibleq.net/answer/2926/

 

[Ben Masada]

This is not a talk show, Oprah. And I think I am cool, good looking. Point? And in arguing that "Jesus" was a Christian, is quite grade school.

I don't think so. If Jesus could get acquainted with what his People have suffered at the hands of the Church throughout History by way of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and the Holocaust, he would turn in the grave.

 

[Ben Masada]

6"But I have enthroned My king on Zion, My holy mount." ווַאֲנִי נָסַכְתִּי מַלְכִּי עַל צִיּוֹן הַר קָדְשִׁי:
7I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you. זאֲסַפְּרָה אֶל חֹק יְהֹוָה אָמַר אֵלַי בְּנִי אַתָּה אֲנִי הַיּוֹם יְלִדְתִּיךָ:
8Request of Me, and I will make nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession. חשְׁאַל מִמֶּנִּי וְאֶתְּנָה גוֹיִם נַחֲלָתֶךָ וַאֲחֻזָּתְךָ אַפְסֵי אָרֶץ:
9You shall break them with an iron rod; like a potter's vessel you shall shatter them."
טתְּרֹעֵם בְּשֵׁבֶט בַּרְזֶל כִּכְלִי יוֹצֵר תְּנַפְּצֵם:

This Psalm which follows the same rithim of Psalm 110 was written by king David and selected to be chanted by the Levites in the Temple. In Psalm 2:7 we have it how it was written in the original by David thus: "The Lord said to me..." Since it would become awkward for the Levites to sing it "The Lord said to me," an amend was arranged so that it could be chanted by the Levites without calling much of a strange attention. The Psalm then was fixed into the right form as we have in Psalm 110 thus: "The Lord said to my lord..." HaShem for the capitalized "Lord" and David for the lord without capitalization. Christianity, of course, could not agree with that arrangement which would push Jesus further from the Tanach and back into the NT. Too bad for you, unfortunately, who seem to have converted to Christianity for not so obvious reasons.

 

[Ben Masada]

"We know that Mary’s relative Elizabeth was from the tribe of Levi: Luke 1:5 Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

Luke 1:36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.

But this doesn’t mean that Mary was from Levi. The most obvious meaning of “relative” here, given the age difference between Mary and Elizabeth, that Elizabeth was Mary’s aunt – in which case she would be a maternal aunt, suggesting that Mary’s father – from Judah – married a girl from Levi. Which explains the words of Gabriel:

Luke 1:30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?

Note that Mary does not say “How will this be, since I am not descended from David?”

Very nice try but, it still can't work. True that the best I could find for Mary as a Tribe is concerned was her relation to the Tribe of Levi according to Luke 1:5,36 but I didn't have to. Mary would influence nothing concerning Jesus genealogy; only as Jesus Jewishness was concern. Even if Mary had been from the daughters of David, it would do nothing to help Jesus to become of the Tribe of Judah. Bottom line, if Jesus' biological affiliation to Joseph is not restored for the sake of truth, any attempt to claim that Jesus was the Messiah becomes a forgery to vandalize his own Faith which was Judaism.

 

[john w]

I don't think so. If Jesus could get acquainted with what his People have suffered at the hands of the Church throughout History by way of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and the Holocaust, he would turn in the grave.

Translated: IMO....An emotional appeal....Quite standard fair....

 

[Hawkins]

Very nice try but, it still can't work. True that the best I could find for Mary as a Tribe is concerned was her relation to the Tribe of Levi according to Luke 1:5,36 but I didn't have to. Mary would influence nothing concerning Jesus genealogy; only as Jesus Jewishness was concern. Even if Mary had been from the daughters of David, it would do nothing to help Jesus to become of the Tribe of Judah. Bottom line, if Jesus' biological affiliation to Joseph is not restored for the sake of truth, any attempt to claim that Jesus was the Messiah becomes a forgery to vandalize his own Faith which was Judaism.

So from the perspective of the Jews in Jesus time, which tribe they will consider Jesus from?

In Christianity, Jesus is 100% deity and 100% human. His human identity can thus be the Prophet and Messiah from the Tribe of Judah. His deity allows Him to be God the Son.

 

[Ben Masada]

Translated: IMO....An emotional appeal....Quite standard fair....

Tell me John, can a Jew help not being emotional after loosing an uncle in Auschwitz and having the grandfather of his wife trying all the time to hide that shameful number on the inner side of his arm?

 

[Ben Masada]

So from the perspective of the Jews in Jesus time, which tribe they will consider Jesus from?

In Christianity, Jesus is 100% deity and 100% human. His human identity can thus be the Prophet and Messiah from the Tribe of Judah. His deity allows Him to be God the Son.

From the Jewish perspective, if Matthew 1:18 is to be believed, Jesus was Jewish because of Mary but a Jew without a Tribe in Israel. He could not be from the Tribe of Judah because Joseph was the one from that Tribe and adoption did not count for Tribal inheritance. Now, your second paragraph above is sheer nonsense, no offense meant. To make sense, either Jesus was not a Jew or the Greek myth of the demigod must be brought into account.

 

[john w]

Tell me John, can a Jew help not being emotional after loosing an uncle in Auschwitz and having the grandfather of his wife trying all the time to hide that shameful number on the inner side of his arm?

Tell me, Ben, can God the Father, help not being emotional, after watching His only begotten Son, the most beautiful person ever to walk this graveyard called earth, who knew no sin,be whipped, mocked, spat upon, beat up, so much so, that he was unrecognizeable, and then crucified, for our sake? What about the LORD God's broken heart, re. the devastating consequences of sin/sins? Would you allow your child do that for someone he loved? Would you allow your child to do that for his enemies? And yet, that is what happened 2000+ years ago, at Calvary....

 

[Ben Masada]

Tell me, Ben, can God the Father, help not being emotional, after watching His only begotten Son, the most beautiful person ever to walk this graveyard called earth, who knew no sin,be whipped, mocked, spat upon, beat up, so much so, that he was unrecognizeable, and then crucified, for our sake? What about the LORD God's broken heart, re. the devastating consequences of sin/sins? Would you allow your child do that for someone he loved? Would you allow your child to do that for his enemies? And yet, that is what happened 2000+ years ago, at Calvary....

Yes, God does not have emotions. And Jesus was not crucified for our sins. He was a Jew and, a Jew would not contradict the Law and the Prophets. (Mat. 5:17-19; Ezekiel 18:3,20)The text says that no one can die for the sins of another. And, who told you that Jesus knew no sin? Read Ecclesiastes 7:20; "There has never been a man upon earth to have done only good and never sinned." Jesus was a man upon earth for 33 years of his short life. Besides, the Golden Rule covers the whole second part of the Decalogue and Jesus broke it 15 times only in Matthew 23:13-33 unless you admit that we are not to believe what Matthew wrote. Anyway, Jesus was not alone. Josephus says in his book "Wars of the Jews" that thousands of Jews were crucified only in the First Century. And this is without mentioning that six millions suffered more than Jesus. One million and a half were of children thrown in the human ovens of the Holocaust. Have you ever read about the Holocaust? Not much of a difference from what Jesus went through. But I am sorry all the same.

 

[john w]

Yes, God does not have emotions. And Jesus did was not crucified for our sins. He was a Jew and, a Jew would not contradict the Law and the Prophets.

God does not have emotions, you quip? Made Up. You are clueless, a speculator, a talk show host, not a serious student of the book, which the LORD God has magnified above His name.


Sit-I no longer take you seriously, and filed the rest of your "interpretation" in my "dummy bin."

(Have you ever read about the Holocaust? .

Why, you condescending little punk. And learn how to express yourself:

And Jesus did was not crucified for our sins.

Or quit posting, after "Happy Hour."

 

[Wick Stick]

This Psalm which follows the same rithim of Psalm 110 was written by king David and selected to be chanted by the Levites in the Temple. In Psalm 2:7 we have it how it was written in the original by David thus: "The Lord said to me..." Since it would become awkward for the Levites to sing it "The Lord said to me," an amend was arranged so that it could be chanted by the Levites without calling much of a strange attention. The Psalm then was fixed into the right form as we have in Psalm 110 thus: "The Lord said to my lord..." HaShem for the capitalized "Lord" and David for the lord without capitalization. Christianity, of course, could not agree with that arrangement which would push Jesus further from the Tanach and back into the NT. Too bad for you, unfortunately, who seem to have converted to Christianity for not so obvious reasons.

Do you even bother to read the posts before you respond? Nothing you say here even remotely applies to what I said.

I guess you just saw 'Psalm 110' and figured you could use the stock response? Another LORD lord argument? Except, it isn't a LORD lord argument.

The points under discussion are (a) whether 'To day I have begotten you' is indicative of adoption, and (b) what we can learn about the link between adoption and inheritance in early Jewish history.

Start over. Address the topic.

 

[Hawkins]

From the Jewish perspective, if Matthew 1:18 is to be believed, Jesus was Jewish because of Mary but a Jew without a Tribe in Israel. He could not be from the Tribe of Judah because Joseph was the one from that Tribe and adoption did not count for Tribal inheritance. Now, your second paragraph above is sheer nonsense, no offense meant. To make sense, either Jesus was not a Jew or the Greek myth of the demigod must be brought into account.

Every Jew will have to have a tribe. As a historical fact, the historical Jews (whether they reckon the virgin birth or not) had treated Jesus as from the tribe of Judah.

This is a historical fact which the prophecy goes with. You failed to admit such a historical fact simply because you are unwilling to face such a fact!

In Jesus time, no Jews ever treated Jesus as a Levite because he's the son of Mary. Everyone without exception treated Jesus as from the Tribe of Judah. That's how the prophecy is fulfilled. Jesus' bloodline has not much to do with this fact.

Moreover, "Joseph's son" bears the meaning of inheritance instead of pure bloodline. That's why the 12 Tribes are referred as from sons of Jacob, though 2 of them are adapted from Joseph instead of true sons of Jacob.

 

[DAN P]

The Pauline Paradox

When Paul started preaching about Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, he never realized that he had created a huge paradox.
/QUOTE]


Hi and Paul never created your so-called PARADOX because Paul wrote by the Holy Spirit !!

First , Jesus did have a genealogy in Matt 1:16 !!

But here is your and many others, your Dilemma , is that the Holy SPIRIT PUT jESUS IN Mary >

Mary could NOT have Mary's blood OR Jesus blood woulf be TINNED by Mary's blood as Mary's blood will NEVER cleNSE SIN !!

This meANS THAT jESUS was both God and Man !!

This is just a starter !!

dan p

 

[Ben Masada]

God does not have emotions, you quip? Made Up. You are clueless, a speculator, a talk show host, not a serious student of the book, which the LORD God has magnified above His name.

Sit-I no longer take you seriously, and filed the rest of your "interpretation" in my "dummy bin."

Why, you condescending little punk. And learn how to express yourself:

Or quit posting, after "Happy Hour."

Emotions imply changes and God is not like a man to change. You are being too anthropomorphic as God is concerned. Come down from your horse. Your excitement is getting too hostile.