Paul and the Gospels

wayseer

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
8,226
503
Maryborough, QLD, Australia
✟11,121.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
So their 'knowledge' is not knowledge at all, but more akin to wishful thinking on their part, insofar as I am concerned. If I am wrong, so be it. But I do not think so.

Question - on what grounds do you base your knowledge? Could not a similar charge of 'wishful thinking' be leveled at you?

You may well disagree with the body of scholars but such disagreement is hardly a substitute for critical analysis.

I might come across somewhat challenging but the simple cliches responses taught in the Sunday School catechetical class need to be confronted for what they are - Sunday School stuff, good fun at the time but we are now somewhat more mature.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Indeed - but the Mishnah also had an oral tradition along the lines I have previously illustrated - so I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
You said:"As far as I am aware the Mishnah is the collection of oral tradition of the Pharisees which they commenced during the Exile - it was their own judgments - not something from the time of Moses.

What I gave you proved that you are incorrect about the Mishnah, unless you want to prove the Jews of today know less than yourself about their traditions. The Pharisees didn't create the oral traditions, it was something that was handed down to them from ancient Judaism.
Then perhaps you might do a re-read.
Don't you know the the Gospels well enough to provide me the verse in context?
Through a process of interpretation by those who wrote later in the century. Besides, just to argue that Jesus is the Son of God therefore explains everything might have been applicable 300 years ago but it won't survive the 21st century.
Here again you show that you doubt in the reality of Jesus. Do you believe the Gospels and in Jesus or do you believe that Paul created this theology?
If you believe in the reality of Jesus and the Gospels then it is quite simple to understand how he could read Hebrew and Greek.

But what does him being able to read Hebrew and Greek have to do with anything?

No - but apparently your do. The only response you can provide is the 'Jesus Son of God' mantra.
How am I putting any limitations on God by believing that he can do anything?
If you think this passage, along with others, only serves to provide evidence that the Scribes and Pharisees were a dozy lot then I suggest you have missed the meanings contained therein.
I missed the meanings?:confused: What does dozy have to do with Jesus warning the Disciples against the teachings of the Pharisees?

You claimed that they lived under the Law perfectly, or at least made a snide remark about, which you should have noted that if it was. But scripture proves that Jesus did not approve of how the Pharisees failed to live as the Law called them to.

But that was exactly what they were doing - upholding the law to the nth degree - that was the problem.
No that is not the reality. To the Jews, the Pharisees looked as if they were upholding the Law but to Jesus, who knew the truth about the Law and how the Pharisees taught the Law of Moses but failed to live by that law. That is one of the points that Jesus was making in Matthew 23:27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth. 28 Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoers

He did not 'speak against the actions of the Pharisees'.
No, he spoke out continually against them and other factions of Jewish society.
Such is a narrow and legalistic interpretation.
There is nothing narrow or legalistic about what I said. It is backed up by scripture, which you fail to provide to back up your position.

Jesus taught at a greater depth than what cultural sensitivities dictated. Jesus demonstrated that solely in adhering to the law was not necessarily what God was interested in.
I totally agree. The scriptures tell us that God is more interested in mercy.

Matthew 9: 11 The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 12 He heard this and said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. 13 Go and learn the meaning of the words, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' I did not come to call the righteous but sinners."
And in this he more often than not referred back to the Prophets for his authority - which is exactly what Pharisees are trained to do.
Jesus did refer back to the Prophets and the Pharisees and others factions did as well but did they listen to those Prophets?


Luke 11:
38 The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not observe the prescribed washing before the meal.
39 The Lord said to him, "Oh you Pharisees! Although you cleanse the outside of the cup and the dish, inside you are filled with plunder and evil.
40 You fools! Did not the maker of the outside also make the inside?
41 But as to what is within, give alms, and behold, everything will be clean for you.
42 Woe to you Pharisees! You pay tithes of mint and of rue and of every garden herb, but you pay no attention to judgment and to love for God. These you should have done, without overlooking the others.
43 Woe to you Pharisees! You love the seat of honor in synagogues and greetings in marketplaces.
44 Woe to you! You are like unseen graves over which people unknowingly walk."
45 Then one of the scholars of the law said to him in reply, "Teacher, by saying this you are insulting us too."
46 And he said, "Woe also to you scholars of the law! You impose on people burdens hard to carry, but you yourselves do not lift one finger to touch them.
47 Woe to you! You build the memorials of the prophets whom your ancestors killed.
48 Consequently, you bear witness and give consent to the deeds of your ancestors, for they killed them and you do the building.
49 Therefore, the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles; some of them they will kill and persecute'
50 in order that this generation might be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who died between the altar and the temple building. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be charged with their blood!
52 Woe to you, scholars of the law! You have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not enter and you stopped those trying to enter."
53 When he left, the scribes and Pharisees began to act with hostility toward him and to interrogate him about many things,
54 for they were plotting to catch him at something he might say.
No, Jesus was not a Pharisee but he was the right kind of Jew.
 
Upvote 0

djconklin

Moderate SDA
Sep 8, 2003
4,019
26
73
Visit site
✟11,806.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
>We know Paul wrote his letters (the genuine ones) well before any of the gospels writers got going. We also know that Mark was written about 68 AD, about the time Paul was killed, and that Luke and Matthew, who wrote after 70 AD, utilized Mark and Q to compose their work.

We do not know any of that. B. Orchard has noted that Paul quoted a portion of Matthew in his letter to the Thessalonians. We do not know when Mark was written. I've seen estimates anywhere from 40 AD to 90 AD. I suspect it was written more likely around 64 AD when Peter was killed. Luke wrote his Gospel before he wrote Acts which ends before Paul's death. This then places the Gospel of Luke to around the 50's. Mathew was written first in Hebrew. It is possible that it was finished in time for the new believers at Pentecost could take a Gospel account home with them--that would mean it was written within weeks of the death and resurrection of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

wayseer

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
8,226
503
Maryborough, QLD, Australia
✟11,121.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You said:"As far as I am aware the Mishnah is the collection of oral tradition of the Pharisees which they commenced during the Exile - it was their own judgments - not something from the time of Moses.

I think I have acknowledged that.

What I gave you proved that you are incorrect about the Mishnah, unless you want to prove the Jews of today know less than yourself about their traditions.
?

The Pharisees didn't create the oral traditions, it was something that was handed down to them from ancient Judaism.

The Pharisees only came into existing at the time of the Exile. So what are you referring to here?

Here again you show that you doubt in the reality of Jesus. Do you believe the Gospels and in Jesus or do you believe that Paul created this theology?

Yes, and Yes.

If you believe in the reality of Jesus and the Gospels then it is quite simple to understand how he could read Hebrew and Greek.

I am not interested in what one might 'believe' - I am not interested in what might have happened.

But what does him being able to read Hebrew and Greek have to do with anything?

Most people in 1st century Palestine could neither read or write. Only the select few achieved such a status. Clearly Jesus went to 1st university.

How am I putting any limitations on God by believing that he can do anything?

By maintaining your mantra as if the repeating 'Son of God' is the only answer you think I need.

I missed the meanings?:confused: What does dozy have to do with Jesus warning the Disciples against the teachings of the Pharisees?

Because if that is all you can see you miss the message Jesus is trying to convey.

You claimed that they lived under the Law perfectly, or at least made a snide remark about, which you should have noted that if it was.

My statement was neither snide nor as you claim. I said the Pharisees were the ones who tried to live perfectly under the law.

But scripture proves that Jesus did not approve of how the Pharisees failed to live as the Law called them to.

Exactly. Now all you have to work out is in what way they 'failed'.

To the Jews, the Pharisees looked as if they were upholding the Law but to Jesus, who knew the truth about the Law and how the Pharisees taught the Law of Moses but failed to live by that law. That is one of the points that Jesus was making in Matthew 23:27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth. 28 Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoers


Good - we seem to have that much established.

No, he spoke out continually against them and other factions of Jewish society.

But what was Jesus 'speaking out' about? It was not the fact that they were trying to act perfectly within the law. What he demonstrated, using debate as his pedagogical tool, was while failing in their attempt to keep the law they expected others to be perfect condemning them for the failings which they themselves so able illustrated.

I totally agree. The scriptures tell us that God is more interested in mercy.

Agreed.
 
Upvote 0

Frogster

Galatians is the best!
Sep 7, 2009
44,343
3,066
✟74,307.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
This could be of interest ...

Like the Pharisees, Jesus held himself apart from non-Jews, referring to them variously as swine or dogs. His manner of dress was consistent with that of the Pharisees, as was his way of calling disciples.
He sure was glad to see the woman knew the heart of Jesus though.bow wow.;)


Mark 7:26 Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.” 29 And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.”
You can read more here

Here's some more ...

Gospel scholars have recently come to the shocking conclusion that not all Pharisees were hypocrites. In fact, the majority of them seemed to be pretty decent fellows! ... The simple point is that Yeshua (not to mention His brother James and His apostle Paul) was, for all practical purposes, a Pharisee. His theology, His hermeneutic, His parables, His argumentation, His conclusions and even His dinner invitations were Pharisaic in origin. While we cannot be overly dogmatic that Yeshua was a Pharisee, there is no other sect or form of faith in all of human history with which He shared a closer affinity. He conducted Himself as if He were one. ('King of the Jews', D. Thomas Lancaster).

And more ...

In my earlier book on Jesus, Revolution in Judaea, I showed how, in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks and acts a Pharisee, though the Gospel editors have attempted to conceal this by representing him as opposing Pharisaism... (pgs.4&5). ('The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity', Hyam Maccoby).
 
Upvote 0

Frogster

Galatians is the best!
Sep 7, 2009
44,343
3,066
✟74,307.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
Here is a little insight,of how Jesus viewed "first century pharisees."

Look,"dogs" get the kingdom.:D

Matt 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. 44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” [5]

45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them

Lets face it,this thread is just another liberal,lets attack Paul thread,masked behind heady lofty ideas,that any first year bible student can see through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nilloc
Upvote 0

sungaunga

Junior Member
Jul 10, 2009
931
62
✟27,471.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What do you mean by 'what the Gospels writers experience first hand'?

The authors of Matthew and Luke copied chunks from Mark and another source known as Q.

Mark was written about the time of Paul's death, 68 AD. Paul had written his letters well before that date.

Matthew and Luke were written in the late 70s AD and John about the turn of the century. None of those authors had any experience with a living Jesus - even Paul who started his ministry perhaps as early as one year after Jesus' death had not met Jesus.

(You might note that I do not subscribe to the believe that God 'controlled the pen' or that we and nothing more than puppets).

when you pick up your Bible, you're not reading the word of men, you're reading the Word of God that was written down by men who were moved along in the process by the power of the Holy Spirit. Not apart from their personalities and not apart from their experiences and not apart from their vocabulary and not apart from their heart passion and compulsion, but integrating all of that into the power of the Spirit of God and never compromising the truth that every word came from God...a great and glorious miracle, so vital.

John MacArthur
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frogster
Upvote 0

wayseer

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
8,226
503
Maryborough, QLD, Australia
✟11,121.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Lets face it,this thread is just another liberal,lets attack Paul thread,masked behind heady lofty ideas,that any first year bible student can see through.

!. Where have I 'attacked' Paul?

2. By liberal I guess you mean stuff you wish was not raised.

3. Which particular ideas are 'masked'.

4. Fortunately many have progressed from repeating 1st year again, and again, and again - time to move on.
 
Upvote 0

Frogster

Galatians is the best!
Sep 7, 2009
44,343
3,066
✟74,307.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
!. Where have I 'attacked' Paul?

2. By liberal I guess you mean stuff you wish was not raised.

3. Which particular ideas are 'masked'.

4. Fortunately many have progressed from repeating 1st year again, and again, and again - time to move on.

What do you think about this passage here?
I think it has insight into the idea of "dogs".
Seems like the heart of Jesus is different to your reference of his seeming anti-gentile attitude .Dont you see that he was testing to see if her faith was transcending the collective?Think outside the odd little websites you are visiting.:)

Mark 7:26 Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.” 29 And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.”
 
Upvote 0

djconklin

Moderate SDA
Sep 8, 2003
4,019
26
73
Visit site
✟11,806.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Besides, you have to convince me how a carpenter's son gets to read Hebrew and Greek.
Boys would be taught Hebrew in school. The Greek was koine Greek--the Greek that was used in the market-place (quite simple Greek, if you learn about 1200 words you can read the NT in its original language, in fact you already know at least 150 words in Greek that are currently in English).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
"As far as I am aware the Mishnah is the collection of oral tradition of the Pharisees which they commenced during the Exile - it was their own judgments - not something from the time of Moses.
I think I have acknowledged that.
I know that you said the quote which I provided. What I gave you showed that you were wrong about Oral tradition. It did not come from the Pharisees.

Yarddog said: "What I gave you proved that you are incorrect about the Mishnah, unless you want to prove the Jews of today know less than yourself about their traditions."

If you wonder about what I said, go back and read the information that I gave you in the prior post showing that Oral tradition came from Moses and not the Pharisees.
The Pharisees only came into existing at the time of the Exile. So what are you referring to here?
That Oral tradition preceded the Pharisees and originated with Moses and that is the Pharisees that say it.
Yes, and Yes.
That is the basis of your error because theology did not originate with Paul. If Paul created the theology then Jesus did nothing with the Disciples that preceded Paul in Christian theology. Paul "and" Barnabas teaching that Gentiles should not have to submit to all the Mosaic Laws does not equate into Paul creating the theology. Christian theology existed well before Paul
began teaching and writing.
Most people in 1st century Palestine could neither read or write. Only the select few achieved such a status. Clearly Jesus went to 1st university.
What was it that you said in the last post? Oh yeah, the below applies to your theories as well.
I am not interested in what one might 'believe' - I am not interested in what might have happened.


By maintaining your mantra as if the repeating 'Son of God' is the only answer you think I need.
You don't believe that God can read and write English, Russian, Hebrew, or any language? You put limitations, not me.
Because if that is all you can see you miss the message Jesus is trying to convey.
That's fine, enlighten us with your grand theology, on that subject.

My statement was neither snide nor as you claim. I said the Pharisees were the ones who tried to live perfectly under the law.
No you didn't. You said:
"What? That was the whole object of being a Pharisee - to live under the Law - perfectly."

You did not say they "tried", you said "perfectly". Your whole premise has been that Jesus was a Pharisee but you fail to establish any proof.
Exactly. Now all you have to work out is in what way they 'failed'.
They failed to understand the Spirit of the Law and the proper practice as well. Man cannot purify himself and attain righteousness through his own efforts, such as obeying the Mosaic Law. The only way that we can find righteousness is through trusting in God. We follow God's spiritual laws because we have faith and not because we are trying to make ourselves righteous.
Good - we seem to have that much established.
Establishing that has not been the problem, that has always been there. That Jesus was a Pharisee has been the question which you have been trying to push in many recent posts.
But what was Jesus 'speaking out' about? It was not the fact that they were trying to act perfectly within the law. What he demonstrated, using debate as his pedagogical tool, was while failing in their attempt to keep the law they expected others to be perfect condemning them for the failings which they themselves so able illustrated.
I agree, but that has not been the discussion. You have not established your claim that Jesus was a Pharisee. This is getting away from the point.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
This question has been asked before:
John 7:15

The ability of Christ to read is established here:
Luke 4: 17-20

To write, seems to be attested here:
John 8:8
Hey Thekla,
Thanks for the scriptures. I especially like John 7:

14 When the feast was already half over, Jesus went up into the temple area and began to teach. 15 The Jews were amazed and said, "How does he know scripture without having studied?" 16 Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not my own but is from the one who sent me.


That establishes that Jesus didn't study to be a Pharisee as Paul had done in his youth and what Wayseer is claiming.
 
Upvote 0

wayseer

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
8,226
503
Maryborough, QLD, Australia
✟11,121.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I know that you said the quote which I provided. What I gave you showed that you were wrong about Oral tradition. It did not come from the Pharisees.
Quite so - I have never said it did - you are misinterpreting what I have said.

That is the basis of your error because theology did not originate with Paul. If Paul created the theology then Jesus did nothing with the Disciples that preceded Paul in Christian theology. Paul "and" Barnabas teaching that Gentiles should not have to submit to all the Mosaic Laws does not equate into Paul creating the theology. Christian theology existed well before Paul began teaching and writing.

I am not even going to attempt to respond. If you cannot understand the process of exegesis then you will come up with make believe.

You don't believe that God can read and write English, Russian, Hebrew, or any language?[//quote]

The Jews claim God only spoke in Hebrew.

Establishing that has not been the problem, that has always been there. That Jesus was a Pharisee has been the question which you have been trying to push in many recent posts.

Well, in all fairness, it is my thread.

I agree, but that has not been the discussion. You have not established your claim that Jesus was a Pharisee. This is getting away from the point.

Good. End of subject.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Quite so - I have never said it did - you are misinterpreting what I have said.
Maybe you can tell me how I misinterpreted what you said in post #97?
As far as I am aware the Mishnah is the collection of oral tradition of the Pharisees which they commenced during the Exile - it was their own judgments - not something from the time of Moses.
What you said is clear.
I am not even going to attempt to respond. If you cannot understand the process of exegesis then you will come up with make believe.
That is just a cop out on your part and something I that see so many times when people don't understand Christian theology. Is this your Mantra?

The Jews claim God only spoke in Hebrew.
Is this another wild statement that you are going to throw out which has no basis in fact? I know of no Jewish site which makes such a claim.
Well, in all fairness, it is my thread.
Yes it is.
Good. End of subject.
Great, can we get back to the OP?

Paul did not effect the Gospels because he had nothing to do with them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Frogster

Galatians is the best!
Sep 7, 2009
44,343
3,066
✟74,307.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
Maybe you can tell me how I misinterpreted what you said in post #97?

What you said is clear.

That is just a cop out on your part and something I that see so many times when people don't understand Christian theology. Is this your Mantra?


Is this another wild statement that you are going to throw out which has no basis in fact? I know of no Jewish site which makes such a claim.

Yes it is.

Great, can we get back to what the OP?

Paul did not effect the Gospels because he had nothing to do with them.

Yes,as far as getting back to the op.I said this on page one.:D
Same thought as yours.


The Spirit inspired the gospels,and Acts for that matter,to be written in more of an historical,biographical nature.

Where the Spirit inspired Pauls writings to be more revelatory.

Isn’t that amazing?!
 
Upvote 0