Paul, the Cuckoo Bird

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Ben Masada, Feb 20, 2012.

  1. BrotherMichaelSky

    BrotherMichaelSky New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    The GENUINE problem, IMOFFO, is that the Very Point was taken from future generations.....

    The blame does not lie with Paul, as is clearly shown in Romans 9-11 .
    Paul was sharing a message that was disliked by the Jews, as well as by a great many Christians...

    A message which is argued still, by those who will not see it....

    But during the Early Church especially - when a naked sword, fire, domination were the methods of argument - those who UNDERSTOOD the message were almost sure to fall victim to those "persuasions"...
    ONE understanding is what would be tolerated as things progressed - and is the reason for this quote:
    Over and over again, the message is pointed out to belong to all....

    Paul had been a pharisee ... he was familiar with the arguments of "Lawyers"...

    He argued with Jews until they were out to get him ( put a price on his head )- then he chilled, and started spending more time with the gentiles - go figure..... live to preach another day and all.....

    Paul did not steal from the Jews - he acknowledged that the Jews were all set up to be the favored people - but they would not stop focusing on themselves long enough to see the next lesson....
    so a new example emerged....

    and it is due in large part to Paul ( no other made such a large contribution ) - that there is enough remaining to see the argument in it's entirety...
    if one has but ears to hear, and eyes with which to see.....

    but that's just MY lil ol' opinion...... :)
     
  2. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wiped out by God, or, what lately seems the same thing, the "Anglo-American Alliance." As if to drive the point home, the Nuremberg Trials concluded on Yom Kippur, thus leading Nazi propagandist, Julius Streicher, to yell out, before his neck swung in a noose, "Purim Fest 1946!"

    Well, if you ask the Anti-Defamation League and SPLC, they are multiplying under our beds, joining militias, and backing Ron Paul in the US Presidential auction, correction, election. At any rate, they are not making as much fuss as they were back ...



    Serv
     
  3. Amergin

    Amergin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    1
    Nazi Psychopaths are alive and recruiting people across the United State, Britain, France, Sweden, and Germany. Ron Paul is not the only Nazi over there. The Tea Party is in my opinion a copy of Nazism. They are undoubtedly racist, with President Obama's ethnicity being the only real issue of importance to them. Remember Adolph Hitler was a Christian and a Choir boy in the Catholic Church of his home town in Austria.

    Attention Ben.

    The Tea Party and Right Wing Republican (crypto-nazis), claim to support Israel. However, the only need the Jews to be slaughtered in Jerusalem to bring their Pagan Idol, Jesus Christ back to Earth to rule as Emperor. That is not the real Jesus of course. It is a false Jesus, a Pagan Idol, who leads an army of killer space aliens to rid the Earth of unconverted Jews, intelligent people, and any kind of Pseudo-Christian Trinitarian.

    A US comedian whose name I forgot did a skit about the American Christian Fundamentalists reaching out to the Jews. He then added, "run Jews, run."

    Amergin
     
  4. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why should Jews run? According to Norman Podhoretz, one of the architects of Neoconservatism and a Jewish policy wonk, Fundamentalist Christians such as Pat Robertson are very useful to the state of Israel. Because they are useful (and send alms), their "objective" anti-Semitism can apparently, as Michael Lind reports, be overlooked, downplayed and excused. Pat Robertson, in other words, is a festering piece of pork lard that Norman Podhoretz is using to bake his loaf of otherwise kosher bread. Politics makes strange bedfellows.



    Serv
     
  5. Amergin

    Amergin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    1
    Serv;

    Spot On!

    Amergin
     
  6. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    How could we fall in love with Paul's message? For two reasons, we couldn't: The first, because of his attempt to replace the Jewish Priesthood and Jewish Covenant with Jesus' priesthood and the Christian New Covenant. Read Hebrew 7:12,22.

    And the second reason is that, according to the Jewish culture at his time, marriages were usually performed during the teenage years of the young men and not too far into the 20's. Then, comes Paul advising the men to remain single as he was, and not to get married at all if they could handle to live without women. That's in I Cor. 7:8. No wander, a group of women in the city of Antioch got fed up with him and Barnabas and expelled them out of the city. That's in Acts 13:50,51. How could we like such a message? Obviously, the man was definitely looking for trouble.
    Ben
     
  7. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, let them multiply as to become big enough to form a State and even dream to oppress the Jewish People. Israel will take care of them pretty good.
    Ben
     
  8. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  9. BrotherMichaelSky

    BrotherMichaelSky New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    the message of Jesus, which was the message of Paul, was incompatible with the established methods.... it required a change that was not expected, desired, and didn't match with the OLD WAY.... If the Jews had embraced the message, as their historical precedent would require, it would have been a JEWISH thing... never would have been Christians....
    and he was speaking in PARABLES.... which REALLY messed their heads up....
    The POINT being - that connection Jesus had, which Paul had to a lesser degree, which several of the Church Fathers had - also to a lesser degree, was insulting to the priest craft which DID NOT have it......
    and rather than listen and develop it - they turned away.... and accepted the very same idea which was so beneficial to the Institution of the Roman Empire....... albeit with their own flavor....
     
  10. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1

    So, the message of Jesus was the message of Paul, wasn't it? In that case, I have a problem for you to solve. In Mat. 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Law. About 30 years later, BTW, after Jesus had been gone, Paul showed up in scene with the message that Jesus had abolished the Law on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15) Well, go right ahead. I am all ears. The message of Jesus was still the message of Paul?
    Ben
     
  11. BrotherMichaelSky

    BrotherMichaelSky New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    I held the same view for a very long time.
    But i very much think it is a question of how you see His mission, how you see the Message...

    Jesus did not come to abolish the Law - but to update it....

    Paul understood this - but he also had to deal with the establishment of hundreds of Years... an establishment that had fulfilled its task with remarkable tenacity.... and still had its teeth sunk all the way in.... who misunderstood their task and thought they stood to LOSE something - lose EVERYTHING......
    So Paul had to build a new vessel, for the next period in the uplifting of Souls....
    and when one considers the complexity of such works as the Jewish Holy Books - the man HAD to feel overwhelmed by the task - he WAS NOT dealing with idiots.. completely..... and he was dealing with extreme violence and prejudice....

    I was once hard on Paul - but i now believe he learned a lot from The Master Jesus - one had to have something for everyone, and that would appear to water down the message - but Paul left clues in his own hand.... He did what he could, IMO...
    The fact that his words remain for us tells us quite a bit....

    the whole question revolves around what the Law was intended to be understood as... fixed and unchanging or fluid and dynamic.... refined over time or stagnant... and the Jewish history of recording their interactions with their God shows us very plainly what the expected response SHOULD have been from Jews................... LISTEN TO THE PROPHET............. which is what all the prophets repeatedly said while banging their heads against the establishment .... they just stopped hearing prophets....
     
  12. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, Jesus came to update the Law, didn't he? Let us take a look. Here is Matthew 5:17-19.
    v. 17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them, but to fulfill them."
    v.18 - "Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter of the Law, not even the smallest part of a letter shall be done away until all comes true." In case we should wonder what he meant by "untill all comes true," read v.19.
    v.19 - "Whoever breaks the least significant of these commandments and teaches others to do so, shall be called least in the kingdom of God. Whoever fulfills and teaches these commands, shall be great in the kingdom of God."

    So, "whoever." It means, not only Jesus but everyone else was supposed to do the same: To fulfill God's Law that Jesus did not come to abolish or update. As you can see, Jesus neither abolished nor updated the Law, if the whole Law was to remain as it was down to the letter, or even down to the dot of the letter.

    Then, you add above that "Paul learned a lot from master Jesus." How did that happen if Paul never ever saw Jesus? When Paul showed up in scene, it was about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. So, what was he talking about by claiming that Jesus abolished the Law on the cross? (Ephe. 2:16)

    Please, if you don't have a good answer to my questions, why don't you consider a new perspective to your life?
    Ben
     
  13. BrotherMichaelSky

    BrotherMichaelSky New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes, even if you do not understand why i feel that way...
    lil mistake there Ben - " as you can see"...
    as I see: yes, Jesus came to "simplify" the law for us..... he came to UPDATE it because we were ready.....
    that's because "as i see" it, Paul was one of the "Elect" within the Church - he was able to meditate deeply and receive illumination on certain things...
    My perspective is in a constant state of change - for i refuse to sit still and be satisfied with the experiences of men a couple thousand years ago....
    their satisfaction gives me no Joy....
    it carries me no closer to My Father....

    I have given you more in the few exchanges we have had, than probably any other single individual in your experience thus far - but you needn't say thank you, i did it because I have a Love for the soul within you.... and I realize that we are the same, just viewing life from differing places....

    this will not be the last time i annoy you i'm betting.... how's THAT for prophecy...... lmao :)
     
  14. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, Jesus came to "simplify" the Law for us...? For us who, Gentiles? As far as I am concerned, Matthew 5:17-19 was addressed to the Jews. The Gentiles, Jesus even forbade his disciples to take the gospel to. Read Mat. 10:5,6.

    And for the "soul within you," I would like to remind you that man does not have a soul inside him. Take a look at Genesis 2:7. When, metaphorically, God formed man from the dust of the earth, He breathed in his nostrils the breath of life and man BECAME a living soul. To become is to be. Therefore, we are living souls. We don't have souls.
    Ben
     

Share This Page