A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2012, 06:37 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2012 07:03 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(28-05-2012 05:46 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 04:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul the Salesman


Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. He had a vision to expand his particular interpretation of Judaism into the gentile world, and he was convinced he knew how to do it. He had a cunning plan to undermine all those dangerous Nazarene beliefs (i.e. the real beliefs of Jesus and his followers) that incited rebellion against Roman rule and, what’s more, required obedience to cumbersome dictates.


He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they all believe only his theology. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that he thought of Gentiles as an offering he would bring to God. He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) who were associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles”), although he didwrite to Jews too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of pagans because he thought he was one of the few god fearers who understood Gentile cultures.


Paul’s theology had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He was a salesman who knew his customers. His market was mainly, but not exclusively, gentile. He knew he needed a good product, something very different to traditional Judaism. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. One was required to believe in a xenophobic Yahweh, a rather thunderous and reputedly violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. One could only eat kosher food, marry someone Jewish, and had to stop all work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were to be regarded as superior to all others, and one was required to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. One was expected to believe Jews were destined to one day be the masters of the world. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these rules and beliefs as a type of slavery. He knew he had to jettison them, so he did.


All of a sudden, according to Paul, there was no need for circumcision and no need to stop work on the Sabbath or to obey the dietary kosher rules. He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple. He ignored the idea of a political messiah of Israel and replaced him with Christ, the savior of all humankind. The “kingdom of God” became a place in heaven, not one in Israel. He claimed Yahweh was such a decent chap he had sent his own precious son to earth. He affirmed gentiles should be considered descendants of Abraham too. He called the centuries-old Jewish Law a “curse.” He said all that was now required to achieve salvation was faith in his story about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.


Paul was one of history’s first examples of a power-hungry cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. The so-called “old covenant” of the Jews was replaced by Paul’s imaginary “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and dampen down Jewish messianic dreams.


To help achieve this metamorphosis of belief, he engineered the character assassination of Yeshua’s family and disciples behindtheir backs. He was surprised and angry that he found himself competing with traditional Jews for people’s allegiance. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war mongering Jewish pillars were full of subversive fantasies about a character called Yeshua, but the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ, had been revealed to him by God! He, not them, was the bearer of the “good news.” He knew what the more flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God really wanted in those modern pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a lot more about selling a suitable religion to the people of the Empire than the anti-Roman, narrow-minded hicks from the backwater of Galilee!

ST....here you have...in a nutshell....the origin of the "New Covenant," a term Jesus never heard of (Paul was only around decades after Jesus was crucified) and something which Jews, even today, think is utter nonsense. It was invented by Paul!
Once again your ignorance (and I mean that in a nice way...lol) and bitterness are astounding to me.
Would you like to try again? This time with something that actually can correlate to scripture?
I will you give you space, before I address your post, to google it again.
God bless.




Huh? What bitterness are you referring to? What ignorance are you referring to? If you label me as ignorant, please pay me the courtesy of saying why.

Maybe you need to learn a little more about the chasm that existed between what Paul preached and what the original followers of Yeshua believed? In the process I will certainly discuss scripture...


Paul’s Relationship with the Nazarenes

How did Paul get on with the disciples and family of Yeshua? Let’s return to Galatians:“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB).Anyone who believes that Paul wrote about Yeshua must find the above scenario very perplexing. Paul was once again bragging about the fact that God, not anyone human, was the source of his ideas. That may have fooled people two thousand years ago, but shouldn’t impress today’s intelligent reader. After realizing Christ was the Son of God, Paul more or less snubbed the family and supporters of Yeshua by going to Arabia for three years. If he had suddenly “seen the light” and become a believer in Yeshua the Nazarene, he would surely have rushed to Jerusalem to meet James, the son of God’s half brother, and Yeshua’s close friends Peter and Mary. Surely he would have been anxious to meet the other Mary, the mother of Yeshua, the mother of God! No! There was something more important that enticed him to Arabia. Paul’s Christ was obviously not Yeshua the Nazarene.Three years later, he still didn’t meet all the Nazarenes, except for James and Peter.

The Gospel stories are sadly lacking in genuine historical facts about Yeshua. Things could have been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could have saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years (the historicity of Yeshua has only been seriously studied over the last three hundred years) by jotting down some facts about Yeshua as related by his family and disciples. Paul could have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. He only wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ and his own theology and ethics. Most Christians I have talked to about this go very quiet when they come to this realization. They are perplexed, and with good reason, because Paul’s lack of commentary on Jesus totally undermines the conventional story about Jesus being a miracle-working and wise character that had so impressed everyone.

At the so-called “Jerusalem council,” in or about 49 CE, James, who was the leader of the Nazarenes after Yeshua’s death, convened a meeting to discuss tactics for promoting the group’s beliefs. 2 Galatians, written by Paul, describes the meeting. It is a truly enlightening page of the Bible:“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB).

Each sentence here reveals a facet of the very strained relationship between Paul and Yeshua’s disciples. Paul was clearly intimidated by the authority of James, John and Peter, because he feared that what he was teaching would not be allowed. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and was well aware they might not accept his proclamation of “Good News” as preached to gentiles:“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.” What is more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority: “Not that their importance matters much to me” Imagine saying that about the half brother of the son of God! He quite clearly regarded them as competition: “I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.” There was a faction within the leadership group which Paul mistrusted and disagreed with. They did not “belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on “the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had “nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they “want to reduce us all to slavery.” Paul believed that the “good news” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood and freed them from the “slavery” of the Judaic Law.Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together), bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his “good news” and told Peter he had no right to insist that pagans behave like Jews. He publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy: “I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways."


What an intriguing snippet of the Bible! Paul, the real founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with the brother and other disciples of Yeshua! He was angry and frustrated that someone, anyone, had been preaching something that undermined him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Why the churlish, even hostile attitude? Weren’t they all supposed to be preaching the same Christian message?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
28-05-2012, 06:40 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(28-05-2012 04:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 05:12 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Is this where I said I have a "secret knowledge of scripture?"



I am referring to this website. The claim I read was "We know scripture better than you," or something to that effect.



In return, I must warn you that I have not forgotten our earlier exchanges...lol. I am fully aware of the "respect" which has been forthcoming.



Where are they?

There is a tendency not only to ignore context on the part of some here, but to villify it. It is made to seem that keeping something in it's proper context is ridiculous.



I have many favorites, but I will choose one I have already asked you about, to which I believe no reply ever came. Once I post this I will try to find the other thread.

The topic: The New Covenant.

An especially important doctrine of the New Testament, the New Covenant is seldom discussed...by anyone. So what is your understanding of this doctrine?

God bless.
Paul the Salesman


Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. He had a vision to expand his particular interpretation of Judaism into the gentile world, and he was convinced he knew how to do it. He had a cunning plan to undermine all those dangerous Nazarene beliefs (i.e. the real beliefs of Jesus and his followers) that incited rebellion against Roman rule and, what’s more, required obedience to cumbersome dictates.


He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they all believe only his theology. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that he thought of Gentiles as an offering he would bring to God. He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) who were associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles”), although he didwrite to Jews too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of pagans because he thought he was one of the few god fearers who understood Gentile cultures.


Paul’s theology had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He was a salesman who knew his customers. His market was mainly, but not exclusively, gentile. He knew he needed a good product, something very different to traditional Judaism. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. One was required to believe in a xenophobic Yahweh, a rather thunderous and reputedly violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. One could only eat kosher food, marry someone Jewish, and had to stop all work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were to be regarded as superior to all others, and one was required to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. One was expected to believe Jews were destined to one day be the masters of the world. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these rules and beliefs as a type of slavery. He knew he had to jettison them, so he did.


All of a sudden, according to Paul, the "old covenant" was null and void. There was no need for circumcision and no need to stop work on the Sabbath or to obey the dietary kosher rules. He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple. He ignored the idea of a political messiah of Israel and replaced him with Christ, the savior of all humankind. The “kingdom of God” became a place in heaven, not one in Israel. He claimed Yahweh was such a decent chap he had sent his own precious son to earth. He affirmed gentiles should be considered descendants of Abraham too. He called the centuries-old Jewish Law a “curse.” He said all that was now required to achieve salvation was faith in his story about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.


Paul was one of history’s first examples of a power-hungry cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. The so-called “old covenant” of the Jews was replaced by Paul’s imaginary “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and dampen down Jewish messianic dreams.


To help achieve this metamorphosis of belief, he engineered the character assassination of Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry that he found himself competing with traditional Jews for people’s allegiance. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war mongering Jewish pillars were full of subversive fantasies about a character called Yeshua, but the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ, had been revealed to him by God! He, not them, was the bearer of the “good news.” He knew what the more flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God really wanted in those modern pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a lot more about selling a suitable religion to the people of the Empire than the anti-Roman, narrow-minded hicks from the backwater of Galilee!

ST...here you have...in a nutshell...the origin of the "New Covenant," a term Jesus never heard of (Paul was only around decades after Jesus was crucified) and something which Jews, even today, think is utter nonsense. It was invented by Paul!


ps apologies I misunderstood you...I thought you thought you had something new to say.

Okay, have to get going, but I thought I might help you out on your google search, so here are a few things to look for answers to:

1-The establishment of the New Covenant did not originate with Paul.

2- The New Covenant was promised by God Himself.

3-Christians are partakers of the New Covenant, whereas Israel has yet to be brought into it. This will happen when her judgment is complete, which will be when the Seventieth Week comes to it's conclusion.

4-God specifically listed blessings that would be associated with the New Covenant.

5-Christ referred to the New Covenant specifically.

Okay, that should be enough. Really, look into it. even if you choose to view this as myth, it is a fascinating study.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 06:41 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(28-05-2012 06:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 05:46 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Once again your ignorance (and I mean that in a nice way...lol) and bitterness are astounding to me.
Would you like to try again? This time with something that actually can correlate to scripture?
I will you give you space, before I address your post, to google it again.
God bless.




Huh? What bitterness are you referring to? What ignorance are you referring to?

You mean you don't read your own posts?

lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 07:01 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2012 07:06 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(28-05-2012 06:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 05:46 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Once again your ignorance (and I mean that in a nice way...lol) and bitterness are astounding to me.
Would you like to try again? This time with something that actually can correlate to scripture?
I will you give you space, before I address your post, to google it again.
God bless.




Huh? What bitterness are you referring to? What ignorance are you referring to? If you label me as ignorant, please pay mr the courtesy of saying why.

Maybe you need to learn a little more about the chasm that existed between the what Paul preached and what the original followers of Yeshua believed? In the process I will certainlt discuss scripture...


Paul’s Relationship with the Nazarenes

How did Paul get on with the disciples and family of Yeshua? Let’s return to Galatians:“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB).Anyone who believes that Paul wrote about Yeshua must find the above scenario very perplexing. Paul was once again bragging about the fact that God, not anyone human, was the source of his ideas. That may have fooled people two thousand years ago, but shouldn’t impress today’s intelligent reader. After realizing Christ was the Son of God, Paul more or less snubbed the family and supporters of Yeshua by going to Arabia for three years. If he had suddenly “seen the light” and become a believer in Yeshua the Nazarene, he would surely have rushed to Jerusalem to meet James, the son of God’s half brother, and Yeshua’s close friends Peter and Mary. Surely he would have been anxious to meet the other Mary, the mother of Yeshua, the mother of God! No! There was something more important that enticed him to Arabia. Paul’s Christ was obviously not Yeshua the Nazarene.Three years later, he still didn’t meet all the Nazarenes, except for James and Peter.

The Gospel stories are sadly lacking in genuine historical facts about Yeshua. Things could have been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could have saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years (the historicity of Yeshua has only been seriously studied over the last three hundred years) by jotting down some facts about Yeshua as related by his family and disciples. Paul could have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. He only wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ and his own theology and ethics. Most Christians I have talked to about this go very quiet when they come to this realization. They are perplexed, and with good reason, because Paul’s lack of commentary on Jesus totally undermines the conventional story about Jesus being a miracle-working and wise character that had so impressed everyone.

At the so-called “Jerusalem council,” in or about 49 CE, James, who was the leader of the Nazarenes after Yeshua’s death, convened a meeting to discuss tactics for promoting the group’s beliefs. 2 Galatians, written by Paul, describes the meeting. It is a truly enlightening page of the Bible:“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB).

Each sentence here reveals a facet of the very strained relationship between Paul and Yeshua’s disciples. Paul was clearly intimidated by the authority of James, John and Peter, because he feared that what he was teaching would not be allowed. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and was well aware they might not accept his proclamation of “Good News” as preached to gentiles:“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.” What is more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority: “Not that their importance matters much to me” Imagine saying that about the half brother of the son of God! He quite clearly regarded them as competition: “I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.” There was a faction within the leadership group which Paul mistrusted and disagreed with. They did not “belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on “the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had “nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they “want to reduce us all to slavery.” Paul believed that the “good news” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood and freed them from the “slavery” of the Judaic Law.Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together), bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his “good news” and told Peter he had no right to insist that pagans behave like Jews. He publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy: “I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways."


What an intriguing snippet of the Bible! Paul, the real founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with the brother and other disciples of Yeshua! He was angry and frustrated that someone, anyone, had been preaching something that undermined him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Why the churlish, even hostile attitude? Weren’t they all supposed to be preaching the same Christian message?

Here is a little more help, my friend, you may not be aware of it, but you are quoting a paraphrase, not a translation.

Just to help you with this "perplexing dilemma" which seems to befuddle you, understand that what Peter was guilty of was no less than hypocrisy. Of course Paul withstood him to the face. Because he (Peter) had respect of persons, fearing that certain from Jerusalem, he reverted to Jewish custom after preaching liberty in Christ. But in Peter's defense, I personally believe that the ingrained teaching of his culture was, as with many Jews, difficult to forego. And understand, I don't mean the commandments of God only, but the extrabiblical tradition that was prevalent in his day, which was in large part antithetical to the commandment of God Himself.

Hypocrisy. Look it up.

Another issue for you to consider would be that while Christians, whether Jewish of Gentile, are not under the First Covenant (but under the New), there is also no command for the Jew to divorce himself from his culture (though he is commanded to repent and look to Jesus Christ for salvation, thus being brought under the New Covenant). Paul also, out of respect and to keep the peace, engaged in Jewish ceremony, which ended up in a riot despite his good intentions. Peter, a mere Jewish fisherman, declared before the Lord that he had eaten no unclean thing from his youth, showing the strength of his convictions towards his heritage and upbringing.

So you see, while you dance around the topic at hand, talking about anything but the New Covenant, even the commentary you have thus far offered falls short of a scientific approach to examining the text itself. You turn to a paraphrase, and what is undoubtedly opinions gathered from the fields of the web, rather than a serious look at the scripture and the topic of the New Covenant.

The fact that you feel this is a doctrine began by Paul (and I cannot tell you how hilarious this is) shows me that not only have you not studied scripture, nor are you capable of giving this subject a serious look, but you are unwilling to stick to the terms you yourself set forth for the conversation.

If you want to pick a subject yourself, I'm okay with that...we can change it to something you have "studied."

But please...lol...enough of this rabbit trail comedy.

Have to get going, but will be back when I can.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 12:50 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
ST, I'm disappointed at your response.

These conclusions I have shared with you are the product of many years study....and I'm giving you the benefit of that, and you simply dismiss it as something i've read somewhere.

I'm not "dancing around' anything...I'm questioning and explaining the very origin of Christian theology, and you quite clearly simply don't understand or are dismissing the points I am making.

Digest this...Yeshua, if he ever existed, knew nothing of a "new covenant." His surviving followers, 20 or 30 years later, dismissed Paul's "new covenant" as heresy and nonsense. It was only circa 140 CE, when Paul's letters resurfaced, in Rome, in the hands of a character named Marcion, that the people who would eventually create a new religion, Christianity, took any notice of them.

Now, ST, if you are going to contribute anything worthwhile to a discussion about scripture, you need to do some reading around these issues. This is not hard ....just use google. A whole new world will open up for you.

Please do not try to belittle my ideas, because you are, in fact, only demonstrating your own ignorance.

Also, no more "god blesses' please. While I know you mean well, it is patronising to someone who has absolutely no belief in imaginary friends.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 02:35 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(28-05-2012 06:40 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 04:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul the Salesman


Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. He had a vision to expand his particular interpretation of Judaism into the gentile world, and he was convinced he knew how to do it. He had a cunning plan to undermine all those dangerous Nazarene beliefs (i.e. the real beliefs of Jesus and his followers) that incited rebellion against Roman rule and, what’s more, required obedience to cumbersome dictates.


He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they all believe only his theology. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that he thought of Gentiles as an offering he would bring to God. He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) who were associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles”), although he didwrite to Jews too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of pagans because he thought he was one of the few god fearers who understood Gentile cultures.


Paul’s theology had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He was a salesman who knew his customers. His market was mainly, but not exclusively, gentile. He knew he needed a good product, something very different to traditional Judaism. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. One was required to believe in a xenophobic Yahweh, a rather thunderous and reputedly violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. One could only eat kosher food, marry someone Jewish, and had to stop all work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were to be regarded as superior to all others, and one was required to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. One was expected to believe Jews were destined to one day be the masters of the world. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these rules and beliefs as a type of slavery. He knew he had to jettison them, so he did.


All of a sudden, according to Paul, the "old covenant" was null and void. There was no need for circumcision and no need to stop work on the Sabbath or to obey the dietary kosher rules. He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple. He ignored the idea of a political messiah of Israel and replaced him with Christ, the savior of all humankind. The “kingdom of God” became a place in heaven, not one in Israel. He claimed Yahweh was such a decent chap he had sent his own precious son to earth. He affirmed gentiles should be considered descendants of Abraham too. He called the centuries-old Jewish Law a “curse.” He said all that was now required to achieve salvation was faith in his story about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.


Paul was one of history’s first examples of a power-hungry cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. The so-called “old covenant” of the Jews was replaced by Paul’s imaginary “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and dampen down Jewish messianic dreams.


To help achieve this metamorphosis of belief, he engineered the character assassination of Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry that he found himself competing with traditional Jews for people’s allegiance. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war mongering Jewish pillars were full of subversive fantasies about a character called Yeshua, but the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ, had been revealed to him by God! He, not them, was the bearer of the “good news.” He knew what the more flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God really wanted in those modern pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a lot more about selling a suitable religion to the people of the Empire than the anti-Roman, narrow-minded hicks from the backwater of Galilee!

ST...here you have...in a nutshell...the origin of the "New Covenant," a term Jesus never heard of (Paul was only around decades after Jesus was crucified) and something which Jews, even today, think is utter nonsense. It was invented by Paul!


ps apologies I misunderstood you...I thought you thought you had something new to say.

Okay, have to get going, but I thought I might help you out on your google search, so here are a few things to look for answers to:

1-The establishment of the New Covenant did not originate with Paul.

2- The New Covenant was promised by God Himself.

3-Christians are partakers of the New Covenant, whereas Israel has yet to be brought into it. This will happen when her judgment is complete, which will be when the Seventieth Week comes to it's conclusion.

4-God specifically listed blessings that would be associated with the New Covenant.

5-Christ referred to the New Covenant specifically.

Okay, that should be enough. Really, look into it. even if you choose to view this as myth, it is a fascinating study.

God bless.
Re..."1-The establishment of the New Covenant did not originate with Paul."


Yes it did. The term "the New Covenant, " as understood by Christians, is first mentioned by Paul. The phrase is used in one place in the OT, in Jeremiah, but that is not a reference to what Christians mean.

Re..."The New Covenant was promised by God Himself."

St, if you think God talks to us, maybe you should be posting on a Christian forum where people will believe you?

Re "God specifically listed blessings that would be associated with the New Covenant."

see above

Re "Christ referred to the New Covenant specifically."

No! Somebody familiar with Paul's ideas wore in Yeshua's name.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 04:28 AM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2012 04:31 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(28-05-2012 07:01 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 06:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Huh? What bitterness are you referring to? What ignorance are you referring to? If you label me as ignorant, please pay mr the courtesy of saying why.

Maybe you need to learn a little more about the chasm that existed between the what Paul preached and what the original followers of Yeshua believed? In the process I will certainlt discuss scripture...


Paul’s Relationship with the Nazarenes

How did Paul get on with the disciples and family of Yeshua? Let’s return to Galatians:“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB).Anyone who believes that Paul wrote about Yeshua must find the above scenario very perplexing. Paul was once again bragging about the fact that God, not anyone human, was the source of his ideas. That may have fooled people two thousand years ago, but shouldn’t impress today’s intelligent reader. After realizing Christ was the Son of God, Paul more or less snubbed the family and supporters of Yeshua by going to Arabia for three years. If he had suddenly “seen the light” and become a believer in Yeshua the Nazarene, he would surely have rushed to Jerusalem to meet James, the son of God’s half brother, and Yeshua’s close friends Peter and Mary. Surely he would have been anxious to meet the other Mary, the mother of Yeshua, the mother of God! No! There was something more important that enticed him to Arabia. Paul’s Christ was obviously not Yeshua the Nazarene.Three years later, he still didn’t meet all the Nazarenes, except for James and Peter.

The Gospel stories are sadly lacking in genuine historical facts about Yeshua. Things could have been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could have saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years (the historicity of Yeshua has only been seriously studied over the last three hundred years) by jotting down some facts about Yeshua as related by his family and disciples. Paul could have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. He only wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ and his own theology and ethics. Most Christians I have talked to about this go very quiet when they come to this realization. They are perplexed, and with good reason, because Paul’s lack of commentary on Jesus totally undermines the conventional story about Jesus being a miracle-working and wise character that had so impressed everyone.

At the so-called “Jerusalem council,” in or about 49 CE, James, who was the leader of the Nazarenes after Yeshua’s death, convened a meeting to discuss tactics for promoting the group’s beliefs. 2 Galatians, written by Paul, describes the meeting. It is a truly enlightening page of the Bible:“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB).

Each sentence here reveals a facet of the very strained relationship between Paul and Yeshua’s disciples. Paul was clearly intimidated by the authority of James, John and Peter, because he feared that what he was teaching would not be allowed. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and was well aware they might not accept his proclamation of “Good News” as preached to gentiles:“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.” What is more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority: “Not that their importance matters much to me” Imagine saying that about the half brother of the son of God! He quite clearly regarded them as competition: “I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.” There was a faction within the leadership group which Paul mistrusted and disagreed with. They did not “belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on “the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had “nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they “want to reduce us all to slavery.” Paul believed that the “good news” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood and freed them from the “slavery” of the Judaic Law.Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together), bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his “good news” and told Peter he had no right to insist that pagans behave like Jews. He publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy: “I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways."


What an intriguing snippet of the Bible! Paul, the real founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with the brother and other disciples of Yeshua! He was angry and frustrated that someone, anyone, had been preaching something that undermined him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Why the churlish, even hostile attitude? Weren’t they all supposed to be preaching the same Christian message?

Here is a little more help, my friend, you may not be aware of it, but you are quoting a paraphrase, not a translation.

Just to help you with this "perplexing dilemma" which seems to befuddle you, understand that what Peter was guilty of was no less than hypocrisy. Of course Paul withstood him to the face. Because he (Peter) had respect of persons, fearing that certain from Jerusalem, he reverted to Jewish custom after preaching liberty in Christ. But in Peter's defense, I personally believe that the ingrained teaching of his culture was, as with many Jews, difficult to forego. And understand, I don't mean the commandments of God only, but the extrabiblical tradition that was prevalent in his day, which was in large part antithetical to the commandment of God Himself.

Hypocrisy. Look it up.

Another issue for you to consider would be that while Christians, whether Jewish of Gentile, are not under the First Covenant (but under the New), there is also no command for the Jew to divorce himself from his culture (though he is commanded to repent and look to Jesus Christ for salvation, thus being brought under the New Covenant). Paul also, out of respect and to keep the peace, engaged in Jewish ceremony, which ended up in a riot despite his good intentions. Peter, a mere Jewish fisherman, declared before the Lord that he had eaten no unclean thing from his youth, showing the strength of his convictions towards his heritage and upbringing.

So you see, while you dance around the topic at hand, talking about anything but the New Covenant, even the commentary you have thus far offered falls short of a scientific approach to examining the text itself. You turn to a paraphrase, and what is undoubtedly opinions gathered from the fields of the web, rather than a serious look at the scripture and the topic of the New Covenant.

The fact that you feel this is a doctrine began by Paul (and I cannot tell you how hilarious this is) shows me that not only have you not studied scripture, nor are you capable of giving this subject a serious look, but you are unwilling to stick to the terms you yourself set forth for the conversation.

If you want to pick a subject yourself, I'm okay with that...we can change it to something you have "studied."

But please...lol...enough of this rabbit trail comedy.

Have to get going, but will be back when I can.

God bless.
ST, you are going to have to raise the standard of your posts or I won't bother with you. I'm trying to discuss the topic, a topic you suggested, yet you are mainly straw manning me.

I am clearly not paraphrasing. The quote comes directly from the Jerusalem bible. All comments are original and my own.

I am not in the slightest befuddled.

Re... "Because he (Peter) had respect of persons, fearing that certain from Jerusalem, he reverted to Jewish custom after preaching liberty in Christ." Come on ST, your English should be better than this.

I do know what hypocrisy is, and am well aware Paul claimed, in effect, that Peter was a hypocrite. I think you demonstrate a poor understanding of Peter: he was a traditional Jew. Jewish religious beliefs were not "extra biblical;" in fact they were based on scripture. The "commandment of God himself" could only ever have been read in scripture, so it is impossible for there to have ever been an extra biblical tradition that was antithetical to god.

Your paragraph which starts with "Another issue" is not clearly expressed and littered with unsubstantiated claims.

I have discussed the origin of the "new covenant." You disagree with me, which is fine, but what is not fine is that you don't say why. You don't think it was invented by Paul, but you don't say by who, when or where you think it was invented. Then you accuse me of not being scientific. (after suggesting I look up "hypocrisy!")

ST, I have spent over 10,000 hours studying scripture, who wrote it, when and why. I've even written a book on the topic. You are doing yourself a disservice by showing no interest in, and cursorily dismissing, what I have to say. How about a bit of respect, even if you disagree, or don't understand?

I am interested in your opinion...but, as yet, you haven't really said anything apart from some disjointed anecdotes (mostly incorrect, in my opinion) about Paul and Peter.

I have googled "new covenant" and...well....the commentary is contradictory. You better tell me what YOU mean by it if we are going to advance the argument. It is possible we are talking about two different things.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 04:41 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Perhaps it might be enlightening, before you folks go any further, to define exactly what the OLD covenant was, and what that meant, and who the parties were, who made it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 04:54 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 04:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Perhaps it might be enlightening, before you folks go any further, to define exactly what the OLD covenant was, and what that meant, and who the parties were, who made it.
Discussion of the First Covenant is definitely an important part of this issue, and will certainly come up. I would be glad to hear your thoughts on the matter.
God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 04:57 AM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2012 05:06 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 04:54 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(29-05-2012 04:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Perhaps it might be enlightening, before you folks go any further, to define exactly what the OLD covenant was, and what that meant, and who the parties were, who made it.

Discussion of the First Covenant is definitely an important part of this issue, and will certainly come up. I would be glad to hear your thoughts on the matter.
God bless.


Please tell me, what your understanding is, of :

a. who the parties were, b. what the "covenant" was, c. when it was made, d. why it was made.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: