Non-Pauline Christians

[Joseph474]

Hittites were not followed of YHWH and Hittite religion is incompatible with Torah. Yet Deuteronomy follows the treaty structure common in the Hittite culture. Read Dr. Kline. He is a credible scholar and I have studied under him and listened to his lectures and defense of the views he presents. His material is not like what is sloshed on the sites you cite.

This is different from copying paganism. Just like Paleo-Hebrew uses Canaanite stuff...also the calendar is never uniquely Jewish.

What I humbly say is about Paul's actual admittedly copying quotes from pagan plays and pagan religious materials while using them in a positive way. Like Acts 17. Please read my poorly-portrayed argument on the second page of this thread.

 

[All Souls]

It is not patterned after paganism, right?

You have studied ancient Israelite religion right? So you will know all about the origins of Biblical Monotheism, i.e. Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts? You will be well versed in Early History of God, i.e. Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel?

 

[Joseph474]

If I may, I'd add Moshe Weinfeld and Jeffrey Tigay, though Deut was patterned after Assyrian treaties not Hittite .

What actually matters is Paul's freely usage of paganism as opposed to secular culture of a society that happens to be pagan. For example we can not say that fish sauce in Vietnam is pagan just because Vietnam has a large pagan population.

 

[All Souls]

Paul's actual admittedly copying quotes from pagan plays and pagan religious materials while using them in a positive way. Like Acts 17.

Paul is not copying quotes; he was a very well educated Jewish man, who likely knew these Hellenistic texts first hand, and he used them to make a theological point. In the same way that when I preach, I may quote relevant songs or dialogue from a film that helps to illustrate my point.

 

[Joseph474]

Paul is not copying quotes; he was a very well educated Jewish man, who likely knew these Hellenistic texts first hand, and he used them to make a theological point. In the same way that when I preach, I may quote relevant songs or dialogue from a film that helps to illustrate my point.

The problem is here.

I do not preach..if i do i would avoid these materials since I consider them pagan. This is about intentionally copying paganism because he did it knowingly(your own poet, their own prophet).

 

[Joseph474]

You have studied ancient Israelite religion right? So you will know all about the origins of Biblical Monotheism, i.e. Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts? You will be well versed in Early History of God, i.e. Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel?

YHVH only allows people to worship Him.
If there are people who worship Him as well as paganism, it is their fault.
At least internal hostility towards paganism is required, i humbly believe(the first Commandment). A large part of Tanakh is about bashing paganism.

I do not think that there exists other gods. There are demons, spirits. But we should not deal with them.

 

[All Souls]

The problem is here.

What is the problem?

Oh, and how did you get into this non-Pauline faith, do your parents share it?

 

[All Souls]

YHVH only allows people to worship Him.
If there are people who worship Him as well as paganism, it is their fault.
At least internal hostility towards paganism is required, i humbly believe(the first Commandment).

There is no way you read them; not least because what you say has no relevance to their conclusions

 

[Joseph474]

Paul is not copying quotes; he was a very well educated Jewish man, who likely knew these Hellenistic texts first hand, and he used them to make a theological point. In the same way that when I preach, I may quote relevant songs or dialogue from a film that helps to illustrate my point.

A true devoted Jew should be hostile to anything of Hellenic paganism. Just like we Messianics are hostile to anything of paganism. Not outward hostility(i.e. want to destroy pagans) but inward hostility(try to reduce influence of paganism on our faith and our life)

 

[Joseph474]

What is the problem?

Oh, and how did you get into this non-Pauline faith, do your parents share it?

my parents are secular.(not that this is relevant in any way) my background is...convert in 2011. I come from a non-Christian country. I now live in a Christian one. Also this has nothing to do with whether Paulism is correct. I..just a layman, not a Christian scholar.

I admit that you guys know far more than I do. But Paulism is still incorrect, as far as I humbly believe. I hear Paulism weekly...I thought about it..At least currently i do not consider it valid. It is just too irreconcilable with the rest of the Bible.

Shalom and bye since I still need to do my secular stuff. If i ever return it should be at least Thursday. I have posted on TS. I don't know whether someone will come.

If you are interested in debating, you should debate someone that is actually a learned dude such as the author of Jesus Words Only, the author of Questioning Paul as well as some people from TruthSeekers. If you like Paul that much please come over to TruthSeekers.

 

[All Souls]

my parents are secular.

How did you get into non-Pauline non-trinitarian Messianism?

 

[drstevej]

Below is a form of a Hittite Suzerainty Treaty.[13]

• Preamble: Identifies the parties involved in the treaty
• Prologue: Lists the deeds already performed by the Suzerain on behalf of the vassal
• Stipulations: Terms to be upheld by the vassal for the life of the treaty
• Provision for annual public reading: A copy of the treaty was to be read aloud annually in the vassal state for the purpose of renewal
• Divine witness to the treaty: These usually include the deities of both the Suzerain and the vassal
• Blessings if the stipulations of the treaty are upheld and curses if the stipulations are not upheld
• Sacrificial Meal: Both parties would share a meal to show their participation in the treaty

Michael D. Coogan, A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 100.

In 1954, G.E. Mendenhall was one of the first scholars to analogize the structure of the Sinai covenant with the suzerain-vassal treaties of the Hittites from the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C.5 Mendenhall delineated striking similarities between the six-part treaty formula and both Exodus 19-24 and the entire book of Deuteronomy.

K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, Inter-Varsity, 1966, p. 91.

 

[All Souls]

I'll raise you Lothar Perlitt's Bundestheologie im Alten Testament and Zenger's Einleitung in das Alte Testament, esp. 'Das Buch Deuteronomium'.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Was Luke inspired? He states Paul was an Apostle in Acts 14:14.

I find it ironic that the other day you were arguing against apostolic succession, and here you are insisting that Paul became an apostle.

 

[All Souls]

I find it ironic that the other day you were arguing against apostolic succession, and here you are insisting that Paul became an apostle.

Irrelevant, answer the question posed!

 

[Phantasman]

Hi friend...
Sorry..Actually whether Paul has sinned has nothing to do with this. We all have our own sins.

What is relevant is: Is Paul inspired? Furthermore shall we listen to Paul? These are relevant. This is the entire case of non-Paulism: removal of Paul from the Scriptures. We think that what Paul wrote is invalid.

I know it is hard to follow Yeshua. But this is what we should do.

To me, Paul was part of a bigger picture. There is truth in what he says and there is division as well. No man can be perfect. Only the spirit can give us the image of what is truth and what isn't. To say every word in scripture is truth is to place faith in physical imperfection.

Were not the very words of the scriptures used to challenge Christ himself? By the devil? By the Pharisee's? It is the understanding through the spirit, through the knowledge Christ taught, that makes us see the truth in all scripture.

Paul IS correct in that we battle not those of flesh and blood, but of spirit. And he even admitted he battled them as well. I believe if he were alive today he would say "I didn't write the book of Hebrews, or the Pastorals". They definitely don't appear to fall in line with his other letters.

But in my study, the Paul uses more of a teaching method, like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip, than the NT Gospels, that are more like the Acts of Jesus. The church DOES rely more on Pauls teachings than the disciples followers themselves who wrote their Gospels from their teachings.

 

[All Souls]

The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology by N. T. Wright is worth reading.

 

[ananda]

But Paulism is still incorrect, as far as I humbly believe. I hear Paulism weekly

As my extended family also noticed, Paul is incessantly preached in their corporate churches ... but Messiah's Words from the gospels are rarely mentioned. They never noticed this before, until I pointed it out to them!

 

[Phantasman]

As my extended family also noticed, Paul is incessantly preached in their corporate churches ... but Messiah's Words from the gospels are rarely mentioned. They never noticed this before, until I pointed it out to them!

I agree. The "church" is based more on Paul than on Christs teachings, IMO. I was reading about William Tyndale (a father of the English Bible) the other day, and found this:

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of some of the words and phrases introduced by Tyndale, such as "overseer", where it would have been understood as "bishop", "elder" for "priest", and "love" rather than "charity". Tyndale, citing Erasmus, contended that the Greek New Testament did not support the traditional Roman Catholic readings. More controversially, Tyndale translated the Greek "ekklesia", (literally "called out ones"[42]) as "congregation" rather than "Church".[43] It has been asserted this translation choice "was a direct threat to the Church's ancient—but so Tyndale here made clear, non-scriptural—claim to be the body of Christ on earth. To change these words was to strip the Church hierarchy of its pretensions to be Christ's terrestrial representative, and to award this honour to individual worshipers who made up each congregation.-WIKI on William Tyndale

Tyndale was strangled to death then burnt at the stake. The RCC seemed to make sure that their menagerie was to be protected. NOT.

 

[ananda]

I agree. The "church" is based more on Paul than on Christs teachings, IMO. I was reading about William Tyndale (a father of the English Bible) the other day, and found this:

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of some of the words and phrases introduced by Tyndale, such as "overseer", where it would have been understood as "bishop", "elder" for "priest", and "love" rather than "charity". Tyndale, citing Erasmus, contended that the Greek New Testament did not support the traditional Roman Catholic readings. More controversially, Tyndale translated the Greek "ekklesia", (literally "called out ones"[42]) as "congregation" rather than "Church".[43] It has been asserted this translation choice "was a direct threat to the Church's ancient—but so Tyndale here made clear, non-scriptural—claim to be the body of Christ on earth. To change these words was to strip the Church hierarchy of its pretensions to be Christ's terrestrial representative, and to award this honour to individual worshipers who made up each congregation.-WIKI on William Tyndale

Tyndale was strangled to death then burnt at the stake. The RCC seemed to make sure that their menagerie was to be protected. NOT.

Sounds like a good system to keep the uneducated, uninformed "laity" in its place.