The Pauline Paradox

[Ben Masada]

Paul was a crackpot. Problem solved.

You ain't kidding Quip, but we can't help admitting that the man was very smart.

 

[Ben Masada]

As a stepson adopted into a family myself the mystery is easily debunked. As Joseph's adopted son ordained by God He was in the house of David.

No Jamie, if you find hard to take it from me, you can ask any Rabbi you meet if a child from a certain Tribe in Israel were adopted by a man of a different Tribe, the child would become known as of belonging to the Tribe of the adopter. No, adoption would not give the child that right. They had to be related biologically as father/son. Bottom line is that the gospel writers committed a blunder.

 

[Crucible]

The so called 'Pauline Paradox' has to do with the Law, not Jesus' lineage or deity.

And there's nothing very legitimate about any of it- it fundamentally sits on false dichotomies when it's not simply looking entirely too far into Paul's words.

 

[patrick jane]

PJ, I know that deep down your ego is hurting. To say that this thread is nothing but "More Jewish nonsense" you can't stand that it had to come out of a Jewish mind of all people. Have you ever read the essay of Mark Twain about the Jews? If you read it, your pain will only hurt stronger.

:chuckle:

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus' lineage goes through his mother just like lineage in the State of Israel today (mtDNA).

Since men owned the land, inheritance was from the father.

Jesus' inheritance is the universe.

Sorry but now you are taking me into the mysteries of Christian preconceived notions. "Jesus' inheritance is the universe!" You can say that but, at least precede it with a declaration of faith. That's what you need to believe what you have said. Now, the only lineage that comes from the mother is the Jewish identification of the child. No other inheritance is from the mother. Regarding Tribal inheritance it has ceased to exist in Israel since the Tribal system was annulled with the establishment of the New Covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31)

 

[Ben Masada]

If one of Mary's parents was of the Levite line, it does not both parents were.. Not all Levites were priests. Therefore not all Levites had to marry within the clan.

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.

 

[patrick jane]

No Jamie, if you find hard to take it from me, you can ask any Rabbi you meet if a child from a certain Tribe in Israel were adopted by a man of a different child would become known as of belonging to the Tribe of the adopter. No, adoption would not give the child that right. They had to be related biologically as father/son. Bottom line is that the gospel writers committed a blunder.

Wrong Benny, Jesus comes from the seed of David - Romans 1:3 KJV -

 

[Ben Masada]

The Messiah concept of modern Judaism is never original. It is fabricated after AD 200~500 by Rabbis not originated from Jerusalem. This can be told by the fact that today's Judaism concepts are more Sadducee like than Pharisaic in terms of immortal soul, hell and etc.

In a nutshell, the Jews lost almost everything in AD 70 siege, including the once dominated Pharisaic concepts, and the Messiah concepts.

Particularly, my idea of Messiah aka the collective concept of Messiah, whether it was fabricated by Rabbis or not, is irrelevant to me as I have learned it from my studies of the Tanach. I have found about 17 references to Israel qua Messiah in the Tanach. Many Jews even Rabbis still expect an individual Messiah but, it does not make of any Jew less than a Jew for that matter.

 

[Ben Masada]

There are 2 spiritual seeds shown in scripture. The first is of the flesh=serpents seed=father of a wicked generation in the first man Adam after sin entered into the world= corruptible seed.

The second is those who are born of the Spirit of God,and from the Father of the good seed= incorruptible seed in Christ.

These 2 spiritual seeds are first shown here...

Genesis 3:14-15 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed[ and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

So both these spiritual seeds has an origin, as in a father Father.

Jesus spoke to the hypocrites of his day as being a generation of vipers, and serpents, being of their father the Devil(Matthew 23:33) Are they literally born from a physical serpents seed, or perhaps the meaning is spiritual?

When you understand the origin of the 2 spiritual seeds, then you will understand why Christ is called the only begotten Son of God, being the One seed that came forth from the Father, who is also the firstborn of all creation.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Okay I.S.I.T., I do understand what you mean by spiritual seeds. Now, I have a question to you about Jesus
not directly related to the subject of seed versus seeds. It is about Matthew 23:13-33. Do you believe that
Jesus insulted the Jewish authorities, especially the Pharisees with names of hypocrites and brood of vipers? I find it a little hard to believe it myself. Why? Because I am sure he would not have liked to be addressed himself as a hypocrite or brood of vipers. That's called the Golden Rule which covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. Serious transgressions of the Law right there. But since it is in the NT, it automatically implies that Jesus was a sinner. What is your opinion? Don't you find much better not to believe Mat. 23:13-33?

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus Christ claimed that.....Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Jesus could not have been of the offspring of David if he was not a biological son of Joseph who was the one from the Tribe of Judah. That's the problem with the Pauline paradox. He wanted to bake his cake and eat it too. On the other hand, to disclaim Joseph as Jesus' biological father we will be either assuming that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier or Jesus was not a Jew but a Greek demigod according to Mat. 1:18 which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Paul committed a blunder.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Jesus could not have been of the offspring of David if he was not a biological son of Joseph who was the one from the Tribe of Judah. That's the problem with the Pauline paradox. He wanted to bake his cake and eat it too. On the other hand, to disclaim Joseph as Jesus' biological father we will be either assuming that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier or Jesus was not a Jew but a Greek demigod according to Mat. 1:18 which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Paul committed a blunder.

As a Jew, you have a huge problem with the New Testament, obviously. What I can't understand is, why do you sit here daily on a Christian forum and argue with a group of posters you have nothing in common with? Do you find it enjoyable to argue? Are you trying to have Christians give up their faith and turn to Judaism? Do you mainly get a thrill out of disrupting? I mean, what's your goal? Why aren't you looking around for a Jewish forum where you'll find mutual comradery?

 

[jamie]

No Jamie, if you find hard to take it from me, you can ask any Rabbi you meet if a child from a certain Tribe in Israel were adopted by a man of a different child would become known as of belonging to the Tribe of the adopter. No, adoption would not give the child that right. They had to be related biologically as father/son. Bottom line is that the gospel writers committed a blunder.

Do you know Israeli law?

The Law of Return
July 5, 1950

Amendment No. 2 5730-1970*
1. In the Law of Return, 5710-1950**, the following sections shall be inserted after section 4:

4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."​

Paul had Timothy circumcised because his mother was Jewish, but his father was Greek.

Acts 16:1 "Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek."

Acts 16:3 "Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek."

 

[I.S.I.T.]

Okay I.S.I.T., I do understand what you mean by spiritual seeds. Now, I have a question to you about Jesus
not directly related to the subject of seed versus seeds. It is about Matthew 23:13-33. Do you believe that
Jesus insulted the Jewish authorities, especially the Pharisees with names of hypocrites and brood of vipers? I find it a little hard to believe it myself. Why? Because I am sure he would not have liked to be addressed himself as a hypocrite or brood of vipers. That's called the Golden Rule which covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. Serious transgressions of the Law right there. But since it is in the NT, it automatically implies that Jesus was a sinner. What is your opinion? Don't you find much better not to believe Mat. 23:13-33?

I'm sure what Jesus said insulted them, but sometimes the Truth offends. The Light reproves the darkness, but those who are of the darkness are offended by the Light of the Truth. The Holy Spirit reproves the world of sin, and these men were of their father the Devil being hypocrites and sinners, blind guides of the blind. Jesus went as far to call them the children of hell, meaning they were already citizens.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Those who are born of God's Spirit are of the Kingdom of God and dwell in the Kingdom, as the King and Kingdom dwells in them.


Luke 17:20-21

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

[Ben Masada]

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.= God with us.

The virgin was Israel the Ten Tribes if you read Amos 5:2. That's when Israel fell to the Assyrians forever. The son was Judah as Prophet Isaiah mentions him by name. If you read the text in the following context, you will see what I mean: Isaiah 7:14, 15, 22; 8:8. That's when Judah was identified with being Emmanuel, the only one left after Israel was rejected by the Lord Almighty. (Psalm 78:67-70)

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this."

This prophecy of Isaiah was given to be fulfilled in the acclamations of the Gentiles of Galilee acclaiming the Jews with the role of Emmanuel when they were returning from Babylon to the Land of Israel at the end of the 70 years assigned to them. (Isaiah 9:1-7)

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Since Jesus was a Jew and not a Greek demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman, the case did not happen. Besides, as you can see, Joseph was the one son of David aka from the Tribe of Judah. If Jesus was not his biological son, he could not have been the Messiah who is supposed to have come from the Tribe of Judah.

 

[I.S.I.T.]

Jesus could not have been of the offspring of David

Then you reject the words of God. No need to discuss the words of God if reject them as true. I'll leave you with the words of God spoken by His anointed One Jesus Christ, which will probably only confuse you more, but here goes...


Matthew 22:41-46

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

 

[Ben Masada]

The so called 'Pauline Paradox' has to do with the Law, not Jesus' lineage or deity.

And there's nothing very legitimate about any of it- it fundamentally sits on false dichotomies when it's not simply looking entirely too far into Paul's words.

The problem of Paul with the Law is another paradox. But now, to claim that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God, we have as big a paradox as it could be.

 

[Crucible]

To claim that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God, we have as big a paradox as it could be.

He's the Messiah and the Son of God. Why doesn't that work?

You may as well have just said 'because I don't like it'- because your argument is sorry.

 

[Ben Masada]

Wrong Benny, Jesus comes from the seed of David - Romans 1:3 KJV -

Do you want a better one from Paul. He himself declared to his disciple Timothy that Jesus being of the lineage of David and resurrected, was according to his gospel. (II Timothy 2:8) It means that there was another gospel at the same time in whose agenda those things Paul used to claim about Jesus were not mentioned. Guess who were preaching that different gospel from Paul? The Apostles of Jesus. What a messy!

 

[Ben Masada]

As a Jew, you have a huge problem with the New Testament, obviously. What I can't understand is, why do you sit here daily on a Christian forum and argue with a group of posters you have nothing in common with? Do you find it enjoyable to argue? Are you trying to have Christians give up their faith and turn to Judaism? Do you mainly get a thrill out of disrupting? I mean, what's your goal? Why aren't you looking around for a Jewish forum where you'll find mutual comradery?

The huge problem is with Christians who have picked up a Jew to preach against his Faith which just happens to be the same as mine. And for the other question why I don't go after a Jewish forum, the reason is that there is no learning in the chit-chattering of common beliefs. Learning comes mainly from controversy.

 

[Ben Masada]

Do you know Israeli law?

The Law of Return
July 5, 1950

Amendment No. 2 5730-1970*
1. In the Law of Return, 5710-1950**, the following sections shall be inserted after section 4:

4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."​

Paul had Timothy circumcised because his mother was Jewish, but his father was Greek.

Acts 16:1 "Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek."

Acts 16:3 "Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek."

Probably Timothy's Greek father had a sadistic power over his mother and would not allow any thing Jewish closer to his son. Probably some Jews knew about this and spread the word.