OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[muffler dragon]

[quote='BusNative;120141;3]Yeah, I was afraid to go right back to Romans, but its what I'm most academically familiar with and can easily reference when I'm supposed to be financial-modeling. [/quote]

Understood. And I recognize that Romans has its place. It's just that since it's the last letter he wrote that's in the canon, it doesn't help much for earlier in his life.

[quote='Bus]So some questions:

1) Where do you start an investigation with regards to pre-Demascus Paul? I admit that I do not have many sources on this part of his life.[/quote]

Primarily the Book of Acts. The means of comparison would be first century Judaic dynamics.

[quote='Bus]2) It is unclear to me - what would you consider Paul's background to be?[/quote]

In our dialogue, I'll primarily be arguing the point that Paul was, at best, a horrendous Pharisee and at worst, not one at all.

Theoretically, as I mentioned before, I find myself attached to the Ebionite tradition regarding Paul which claims that he was a convert to Judaism. Thus, he had no familial roots in Judaism and was rather ignorant of Torah.

[quote='Bus]It is clear to me that he departs from a "strict" adherence to the law with regards to the Gentiles, but there is no reason to assume that Paul has himself diregarded the law.[/quote]

And this is probably one of the HUGE issues with regards to Paul's presentation of Judaism (esp. Pharisaic Judaism): with regard to Torah and the Gentiles, there is no "strict" adherence of Torah. Gentiles are not required to follow all 613 mitzvoh (commandments). Essentially, Paul is dismantling a strawman (at least, from a Pharisaic POV).

[quote='Bus]3) How do you surmise that Paul has a poor understanding of the Torah (#3 of your first post above)?[/quote]

For one example, just as I mentioned above with regard to Gentiles and Torah. Furthermore, as we get more into it, I'll be able to show examples from Paul's own words how he either contradicts Torah or continues to compile more strawmen.

[quote='Bus]If we consider Acts to be post-conversion and the letters to be written with regards to how to admit Gentiles into the Jesus-movement, there is nothing in Scripture to prove his understanding of the Torah one way or another.[/quote]

Actually, there are a number of telling moments through his actions and his words that rather deflate his knowledge. Remember, it is claimed that Paul learned at the feet of Gamaliel. Learning under Gamaliel is not rudimentary halacha, but instead, advanced courses.

[quote='Bus]It is interesting to me that Paul does not engage in any real debate about the law as it applies to Jews in his letters - IMO it's because there is no need to when corresponding with the various communities.[/quote]

Actually, Paul internally debates the Law as it applies to his "Jewish" self. His internal projection is something that he seems to admonish others to follow. At least, that's how I interpret some of the situations in the Epistles.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Thanks for answering so clearly/concisely. I need to dust off Acts a little to discuss more constructively. I'll have to get back to this later this afternoon/evening (PST).

 

[muffler dragon]

One Reason for Pharisaic/Sadducean Friction

I found the answer to this point that I had made (ftr, I was wrong about the time frame):

5) I don't recall the name of the Sadducee, but there was a priest who slaughtered thousands of Pharisees about 2-400 BCE. Therefore, the relationship between the two was rather "chilly".

Here it is from an acquaintance of mine:

The second messiah (anointed one) we're not sure about -- there are three that potentially fit the profile. One high on the list was the high priest and Hasmonean ruler, Alexander Yannai.

Yannai came to power just at the end of the real sixty-two week period in 103 BCE and was the last of the important Hasmonean leaders. Yannai was known as a violent and bloody ruler.

When some of the Pharisees oppose him, he has 800 of them executed after first forcing them to watch the slaughter of their families. During the executions, Alexander Yannai hosts a Greek-style feast. In one Temple revolt over 6000 people were killed due to his direct actions.

<snip>

Josephus says that Yannai (a Sadduccee) fought against the Pharisees for six years,

"and . . . slew no fewer than fifty thousand of them" (Jewish Antiquities XIII. 13. 5. [373]). He also "ordered some eight hundred of the Jews to be crucified, and slaughtered their children and wives before the eyes of the still living wretches" (Jewish Antiquities XIII. 14. 2. [380]).

 

[muffler dragon]

Pharisaic Leniency in Acts

'Bus:

I'm not attempting to inundate you. Please take the posts that I present as bits to discuss whenever is convenient. I just happen to have a few moments available, and btw, I'm in Oregon. Thus, we're both PST.

*Note: I typically use the NASB when it comes to the Christian Testament.

Acts 5 (NASB)
33But when they heard this, they were (AU)cut to the quick and intended to kill them.

34But a Pharisee named (AV)Gamaliel, a (AW)teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in (AX)the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time.
35And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men.
36"For some time ago Theudas rose up, (AY)claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
37"After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of (AZ)the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered.
38"So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action (BA)is of men, it will be overthrown;
39but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found (BB)fighting against God." 40They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they (BC)flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them.

Thus, you see a representation in Acts that properly depicts the temperament of the President of the Sanhedrin (Gamaliel).

Interestingly enough there is a SIDE thought about this section, the timing that Luke has for Theudas and Judas are incorrect with regard to Josephus. I'm not presenting it to solidy a point; but instead, just for reading. Here is a link that discusses it:

Antiquities 20.5.1 97-99
During the time when Fadus was procurator of Judea a certain enchanter named Theudas persuaded a great number of the people to take their belongings with them and follow him to the Jordan River. He told them he was a prophet and that he would, by his own command, divide the river and afford them an easy passage through it. And many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to gain the result of this wildness, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them captive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.
Antiquities 20.5.2 102
And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain. This was the Judas who caused the people to revolt against the Romans when Quirinius came to take an account of Judea, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, who were crucified by order of Alexander.
Comment Theudas was one of the many charismatic figures described by Josephus who gained large followings for short periods of time before succumbing to the forces of the procurator. Some of these are explicitly linked to the revolutionaries, particularly as war approached during the time of Nero, and some just seem to be religious leaders, such as the Samaritan killed by Pontius Pilate. They all seemed to claim that Deuteronomy 18:15-22 refers to them..
Judas the Galilean again makes his appearance in these parallels, although this is the only time he is mentioned by name in the New Testament. Here, two of his sons are crucified; but others would go on to take part in the War. The procurator involved here, Alexander, governed from 46 to 48 CE.
There is a famous discrepancy here between Josephus and the quotation from Acts. The speech made by Gamaliel occurs in the 30's CE, not long after Jesus' death. But Theudas arose under Fadus, who was procurator from 44 to 46. So Gamaliel's speech is anachronistic. Furthermore, Gamaliel here states that Judas the Galilean arose after Theudas, in the time of the census; but this was in 6 CE.
The usual scholarly positions have been taken to alternately preserve or attach the accuracy of the New Testament. Perhaps there was another, earlier Theudas that Josephus forgot to mention; perhaps the text of Acts has been corrupted in transmission. One interesting theory is that Luke (the author of Acts) read Josephus erroneously. Supporting this notion is the mention of Judas the Galilean's sons at section 102, just a few lines after the end of the description of Theudas at 99. A misreading or poor notetaking could cause someone to think Theudas appeared before Judas. It is rather hard to see, though, how someone could so badly misread the Antiquities in this way, including ignoring the references to the procurators. A reasonable secular explanation is that Luke used some other, less reliable history that bore similarities to Josephus; perhaps this also served as one of Josephus' sources.
The import of the parallel is that Jesus was not seen by his contemporaries as a wholly unique figure. There were other charismatic leaders whom the people believed to be prophets and miracle-workers. Like the others, he fell victim to the procurator. What made Jesus different in the eyes of his contemporaries was that his followers did not cease their activities even after his death.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Ah, ok, I needed to revisit these posts. I was a little slow in relating the Sadducean/Pharisean comparative to the discussion ? my bad.

Pharisees v. Sadducees
1) Pharisees gave credence to the Oral and Written Torah. The Sadducees did not.
2) The Pharisees believed in resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees did not.
3) The Pharisees followed a more lenient approach when it came to capital offenses. The Sadducees were literalists.
4) The Pharisees are the Sages of Jewish tradition. The Sadducees became the priests of the Temple, and thus, the High Priest was also a Sadducee.
5) I don't recall the name of the Sadducee, but there was a priest who slaughtered thousands of Pharisees about 2-400 BCE. Therefore, the relationship between the two was rather "chilly".

The above causes concern for the validity of the Christian testament, because of the following reasons which are by no means exhaustive:

1) Oftentimes, the Pharisees are painted as the strict legalists with regard to punishment and outward expression. Whereas, when understanding the role and the mindset of the Sadducean priests, it becomes apparent that there are some quite possible inconsistencies. The Pharisees had nothing to do with people's money or sacrifices; however, this plays a role in the Christian testament.
2) The Sadducees (much like the modern-day Karaites) suffer from unanswerable questions when it comes to observance. Yet, the Pharisees are painted as ignorant in the Christian testament.

I, for one, absolutely do not look to the New Testament for an accurate depiction or history of the Pharisees (or much of history, for that matter). As I said in one of my posts, I think the NT is highly revisionist. (Gospel literalists cover your ears) As most scholars believe, the Gospels were each themselves amalgamations of many authors and voices with inconsistencies in the language and the style. ?Luke,? who adapted "his" gospel from Mark and Matthew as well as some other sources was not a historian. He wrote some time between 80-100 CE about events that happened from 50 or more years before his time, and all without the aide of Wikipedia. I would prefer primary sources, such as Josephus and/or archeology, for history. Acts, a book that purports to be historical is likely to be equally historically flawed.

Anyways, before I become absolutely tangential, there were a lot of cooks in the kitchen piecing together the gospels through the time the Cannon was formally established in the 5th century. Without getting too far into the Church's depiction of Jews over the years, I would venture as far as to say it was never a major concern of Christianity's to be historically accurate with regards to who the Pharisees were with regards to what they did, how they were different from the Sadducees, etc.

So, with all this in mind, what I know of the Pharisees agrees with what you listed above. In fact, I think what you listed makes it easier to imagine Paul as a Pharisee.

1) I?ll get back to this
2) The fact that, as a Pharisee, Paul already believed in resurrection allows me to imagine that he could be convinced of the suffering messiah image and/or the resurrection of Jesus
3) This leniency in capital cases seems to lend itself to someone who could be inspired to absorb Jesus? teachings.
4) Your depiction of a ?sage,? also depicts someone who would tend to make thoughtful judgments, as opposed to a literalist. This also lends credence to the notion of someone who could be inspired to leave one religious doctrine and consider something he felt to be wiser or more thoughtful.

3) Paul, IMO, presents a poor understanding of the Torah and its observations. He further misrepresents this concept to Gentiles when Torah observance is never a requirement in the first place.

Back to 1): as I?ve tried (probably unclearly) to argue previously, I think Paul did show that he (at least at one point) believes(d) in the law. It is clear that, in order to follow Jesus and include Gentiles, some leniencies are recommended to different communities in terms of how to include Gentiles into their communities, but I don?t think this means that he has abandoned (or never had) his knowledge and appreciation of the Torah.

Think about this: an agnostic and a Catholic get married (stop laughing). The agnostic has obviously not been through communion nor has he been confirmed. Therefore, at mass, the poor agnostic husband should not and does not take communion. Of course, despite the agnostic not following some of the Catechism, the wife AND husband are technically members of the church: their kids will be baptized there, they pay tithes at the church, their kids are a-listed into the associated school, etc. Does this mean the priest, the monsignor or the local bishop are abandoning their Catholicism? No, I don?t think so. It?s just that some leniencies were made to be inclusive. Now imagine you have a new religious movement that is still deciding upon its rules. The gross majority of members are Jewish, but there are many non-Jews that love how Jesus paraphrased the law as well as the other cool stuff he added ? not to mention the notion of a god having a son really fits into their notion of pantheons of gods (because the notion of a trinity has not yet been established)? so what is Paul, who would like the movement to include more people, to do? Well, he argues, emphatically at times, that these new members should be let in ? just like the agnostic husband of the example. He allows for the new members to be included if they act in the spirit of the law, though they may not necessarily follow all of the 613 laws, etc.

All this, and we haven?t even considered that the Jesus-movement was, in fact, a new movement. Its first members had to come from somewhere else ? in this case, the Jewish community. All of its members were converts at first, so we know Paul had to come from some other religion. There is no reason to assume that he couldn?t have been a Pharisee. Additionally, and this is admittedly tangential, the dichotomy of S/Paul as presented in the NT is a great literary tool.

Regarding the Pauline epistles and Paul's biography:
1) It is highly unlikely (if not impossible) for a Pharisaic Jew to align himself in the service/employ of a Sadducean High Priest. This distinction is somewhat shown in Acts when Gamaliel (Pharisee President of the Sanhedrin) is lenient towards the new Jewish Sect and the High Priest is sending out letters to arrest them and bring up charges.
2) There is no history in Jewish tradition of Paul being a student of Gamaliel, and yes, students are notated.

[3) moved to above]

I imagine, as I read back on this post, that a lot of my points are probably not presented in the most clear fashion. In truth, I haven't spent much time on these topics in the last year+, and I've forgotten a fair amount. It just seems to me that many times the Christian gospels make a claim or stance about the Pharisees when, in fact, the group that would fit such a claim or stance is the Sadducees.

Which is why I would trust history here ? just like you do. I just don?t come to the same conclusion

'Bus:

I'm not attempting to inundate you. Please take the posts that I present as bits to discuss whenever is convenient. I just happen to have a few moments available, and btw, I'm in Oregon. Thus, we're both PST.

*Note: I typically use the NASB when it comes to the Christian Testament.

Acts 5 (NASB)
33But when they heard this, they were (AU)cut to the quick and intended to kill them.

34But a Pharisee named (AV)Gamaliel, a (AW)teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in (AX)the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time.
35And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men.
36"For some time ago Theudas rose up, (AY)claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
37"After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of (AZ)the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered.
38"So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action (BA)is of men, it will be overthrown;
39but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found (BB)fighting against God." 40They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they (BC)flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them.

Thus, you see a representation in Acts that properly depicts the temperament of the President of the Sanhedrin (Gamaliel).

Interestingly enough there is a SIDE thought about this section, the timing that Luke has for Theudas and Judas are incorrect with regard to Josephus. I'm not presenting it to solidy a point; but instead, just for reading. Here is a link that discusses it:

No worries at all, and this is good stuff. The fact that there are some inconsistencies from the same ?author? in the NT further illustrates that it?s not a great historical tool. It?s definitely a good one, but it?s not a primary source. It?s not hard for me to imagine that, 50 years after Biblical events took place, someone or some people piecing this information together for the first time from scraps of older scrolls/codices or oral traditions would have gotten some things wrong. It?s even easier for me to imagine someone editing mistakes into the book 200 or more years later for the sake of brevity or just by mistake?

 

[CookyPuss]

For those looking to learn more about Paul, might I recommend Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography by Bruce Chilton. I think it is out in paperback now.

Tower.com: Rabbi Paul (Hardcover) by Bruce Chilton (Author) ...

I learned more about Paul by reading this book than I did in my lifetime of attending church and 2 years of seminary. I was simply amazed how much of an outsider he was and of how little influence he had during his life. Paul did study as a Pharisee (see Acts 23:6). Remember, Paul grew up in Tarsus (Turkey) in a gentile world and spent very little of his life in Israel. So, not surprisingly his views ran contrary to many others of his time. Also, keep in mind that Pharisaic Judaism was hardly a monolithic religion. Pretty much all modern forms of Judaism are descendants of the Pharisaic tradition. If you don't think there is a difference between Hasidic and reform Judaism, then you don't know your schlemiel from you schlimazel.

 

[muffler dragon]

[quote='BusNative;120155;1]Ah, ok, I needed to revisit these posts. I was a little slow in relating the Sadducean/Pharisean comparative to the discussion ? my bad. [/quote]

No worries.
Please keep in mind that my tone may get aggressive. I don't mean to direct it AT you. I just get very involved in these discussions, because they stimulate.

[quote='Bus]I, for one, absolutely do not look to the New Testament for an accurate depiction or history of the Pharisees (or much of history, for that matter). As I said in one of my posts, I think the NT is highly revisionist. (Gospel literalists cover your ears) As most scholars believe, the Gospels were each themselves amalgamations of many authors and voices with inconsistencies in the language and the style. ?Luke,? who adapted "his" gospel from Mark and Matthew as well as some other sources was not a historian. He wrote some time between 80-100 CE about events that happened from 50 or more years before his time, and all without the aide of Wikipedia. I would prefer primary sources, such as Josephus and/or archeology, for history. Acts, a book that purports to be historical is likely to be equally historically flawed. [/quote]

Very interesting. I never would have guessed that you felt this way. This was one (of many) of the reasons as to why I no longer could follow Christianity.

[quote='Bus]Anyways, before I become absolutely tangential, there were a lot of cooks in the kitchen piecing together the gospels through the time the Cannon was formally established in the 5th century. Without getting too far into the Church's depiction of Jews over the years, I would venture as far as to say it was never a major concern of Christianity's to be historically accurate with regards to who the Pharisees were with regards to what they did, how they were different from the Sadducees, etc. [/quote]

Personally, I would say that the poor representation of the Pharisees was on purpose. But that's another topic for another time.

[quote='Bus]So, with all this in mind, what I know of the Pharisees agrees with what you listed above. In fact, I think what you listed makes it easier to imagine Paul as a Pharisee.
[/quote][quote='Bus]1) I?ll get back to this 2) The fact that, as a Pharisee, Paul already believed in resurrection allows me to imagine that he could be convinced of the suffering messiah image and/or the resurrection of Jesus[/quote]

I understand this part. I do admit that I find it surprising that you believe my list makes it easier. But we shall see...

[quote='Bus]3) This leniency in capital cases seems to lend itself to someone who could be inspired to absorb Jesus? teachings.[/quote]

Yet, in the case of this same person. Paul gets letters from the SADDUCEAN High Priest to arrest and bring the followers of the Way into prison AND supporting their deaths.

Acts 7
58When they had (CE)driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and (CF)the witnesses (CG)laid aside their robes at the feet of (CH)a young man named Saul. 59They went on stoning Stephen as he (CI)called on the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!"
60Then (CJ)falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, (CK)do not hold this sin against them!" Having said this, he (CL)fell asleep.

Acts 8
1(A)Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death And on that day a great persecution began against (B)the church in Jerusalem, and they were all (C)scattered throughout the regions of Judea and (D)Samaria, except the apostles.
2Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him.
3But (E)Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and (F)dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.
Does this sound like one who sat at the feet of the lenient Gamaliel?


[quote='Bus]4) Your depiction of a ?sage,? also depicts someone who would tend to make thoughtful judgments, as opposed to a literalist. This also lends credence to the notion of someone who could be inspired to leave one religious doctrine and consider something he felt to be wiser or more thoughtful. [/quote]

A more common present-tense consideration for the Sages would be the Rabbinate. This grouping of Jews were the ones interpreting the Written Torah and carrying on what Moses did with the 70 elders (i.e. establishing the Oral Torah). Thus, you're correct to an extent, because both literalism and allegorical considerations come into play.

Bringing this back to Paul, he tries his darnedest throughout his letters to be a Rabbi to these communities that he has established or feels pulled towards. Unfortunately for him, many of his foundations are even without merit. I'll get into these further down.


[quote='Bus]Back to 1): as I?ve tried (probably unclearly) to argue previously, I think Paul did show that he (at least at one point) believes(d) in the law. It is clear that, in order to follow Jesus and include Gentiles, some leniencies are recommended to different communities in terms of how to include Gentiles into their communities, but I don?t think this means that he has abandoned (or never had) his knowledge and appreciation of the Torah. [/quote]

You have prompted me to view Paul through a partial dropping of the pendulum. Kudos. And what I'll say is this (which may sound like a compromise): while I doubt that Paul was a Pharisee, he attempted to take some of their practices as his own. I will address two areas of his knowledge/appreciation of Torah after your story below.

[quote='Bus]Think about this: an agnostic and a Catholic get married (stop laughing). The agnostic has obviously not been through communion nor has he been confirmed. Therefore, at mass, the poor agnostic husband should not and does not take communion. Of course, despite the agnostic not following some of the Catechism, the wife AND husband are technically members of the church: their kids will be baptized there, they pay tithes at the church, their kids are a-listed into the associated school, etc. Does this mean the priest, the monsignor or the local bishop are abandoning their Catholicism? No, I don?t think so. It?s just that some leniencies were made to be inclusive. Now imagine you have a new religious movement that is still deciding upon its rules. The gross majority of members are Jewish, but there are many non-Jews that love how Jesus paraphrased the law as well as the other cool stuff he added ? not to mention the notion of a god having a son really fits into their notion of pantheons of gods (because the notion of a trinity has not yet been established)? so what is Paul, who would like the movement to include more people, to do? Well, he argues, emphatically at times, that these new members should be let in ? just like the agnostic husband of the example. He allows for the new members to be included if they act in the spirit of the law, though they may not necessarily follow all of the 613 laws, etc. [/quote]

Unbeknownst to you, you have hit upon my largest single gripe regarding Paul, and this led to my disregarding him as an authority.

Observance of Torah and how the Messiah plays a role for Gentiles.

Paul is so outside of the Judaic box on this topic that it's ridiculous.

1) Observance of Torah
Nowhere in the Tanakh are all nations called to observe Torah. Not a single place. Yet, Paul rails against this strawman by saying that this is what the Jews in Jerusalem are clamoring for.
2) The Messiah, the Torah, and Gentiles
Paul takes it upon himself to reach out to all nations not to observe Torah, but instead, to place their faith in a man (the Messiah) who has nothing more than remote tangential relevance for them. But yet, somehow this demi-god of a person has replaced the Judaic understanding of who and what the Messiah will be. The Messiah in Paul's eyes is a vicarious atonement for all, and in some way this makes all believers in said Messiah as Torah observant as the most devout Jew. This still makes my eyes roll in my head thinking about it. And to fathom that I USED to believe this!!!

Serious Question: do you know that personal vicarious atonement does not exist in the Tanakh? No other person can take care of your sins.

I posted this back in post #958:

Genesis 4
5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.
6. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?
7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

Deuteronomy 24
16. Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, nor shall sons be put to death because of fathers; each man shall be put to death for his own transgression.

Ezekiel 18
4. Behold, all souls are Mine. Like the soul of the father, like the soul of the son they are Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die.
5. So a man who is righteous and practices justice and righteousness,
6. And does not eat [offerings of meals] on the mountains, and does not lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; neither defiles his fellow man's wife nor approaches a woman in her period of separation,
7. And wrongs no man; what has been pledged for a debt he returns; [he] has committed no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry, and clothes the naked with garments,
8. Does not lend on interest, nor does he take any increase on a loan, keeps his hand back from wrong, executes true judgment between man and man,
9. Has walked in My statutes, and has kept My ordinances to deal truly-he is a righteous man; he shall surely live, says the Lord God.
10. If he beget a profligate son, a shedder of blood, and he commits upon his brother any of these [crimes].
11. And he does not do all these [good deeds], but has even eaten [offerings of a meal] to the mountains and defiled his fellow man's wife;
12. Wronged the poor and the needy, committed robberies, did not return pledges, lifted up his eyes to the idols, committed abomination;
13. Gave out on interest, accepted increase on loans -shall he then live? He shall not live! He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood falls back on himself!
14. And behold, if he beget a son, who sees all the sins of his father which he has done, and sees and does not do likewise;
15. He did not eat on the mountains and did not lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, did not defile his fellow man's wife,
16. Wronged no man; did not retain any pledge, and committed no robbery; his bread he gave to the hungry and the naked he covered with clothes;
17. From the poor he kept his hand back, interest and increase he did not take; My ordinances he kept, in My laws did he walk-he shall not die for the sins of his father, he shall surely live.
18. [But] his father, because he illegally suppressed, committed robbery against his brother and did what is not good among his people, behold, he shall die for his iniquity.
19. Yet you say, "Why does the son not bear with the sin of the father?" But the son has practiced justice and righteousness, he has kept all My laws and he carries them out; he shall surely live.
20. The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
21. And if the wicked man repent of all his sins that he has committed and keeps all My laws and executes justice and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22. All his transgressions that he has committed shall not be remembered regarding him: through his righteousness that he has done he shall live.
23. Do I desire the death of the wicked? says the Lord God. Is it not rather in his repenting of his ways that he may live?
24. And when the righteous repents of his righteousness and does wrong and does like all the abominations that the wicked man did, shall he live? All his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered; in his treachery that he has perpetrated and in his sin that he has sinned, in them shall he die.
25. Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right!' Hear now, O house of Israel: Is it My way that is not right? Is it not rather your ways that are not right?
26. When a righteous man repents of his righteousness and does wrong and dies on that account; for the wrong that he has done he should die.
27. And when a wicked man repents of his wickedness that he has done, and does justice and righteousness, he will keep his soul alive.
28. He will see and repent of all his transgressions that he has committed-he shall surely live; he shall not die.
29. And yet the house of Israel say, 'The way of the Lord is not right!' Is it My ways that are not right, O house of Israel? Is it not rather your ways that are not right?
30. Therefore, every man according to his ways I will judge you, O house of Israel, says the Lord God: repent and cause others to repent of all your transgressions, and it will not be a stumbling block of iniquity for you.
31. Cast away from yourselves all your transgressions whereby you have transgressed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, and why should you die, O house of Israel!
32. For I do not desire the death of him who dies, says the Lord God: so turn away and live!"

Psalm 49
8. -a brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God.

The verses above come from:

1) Torah before Sinai.
2) Torah at/after Sinai.
3) The Prophets.
4) The Writings.

Consistently throughout the Tanakh, G-d has established the primacy of personal responsibility for one's actions as well as has shown what each individual can do in order to be forgiven. There is not one mention of a mediator for an individual nor any other form of Personal Vicarious atonement.

How does a supposed Pharisee, who sat at Gamaliel's feet, not absorb such a pronounced part of Jewish doctrine: Personal Accountability? It's beyond me. This is so pervasive throughout Paul's letters.

[quote='Bus]All this, and we haven?t even considered that the Jesus-movement was, in fact, a new movement. Its first members had to come from somewhere else ? in this case, the Jewish community. All of its members were converts at first, so we know Paul had to come from some other religion. There is no reason to assume that he couldn?t have been a Pharisee. Additionally, and this is admittedly tangential, the dichotomy of S/Paul as presented in the NT is a great literary tool. [/quote]

IF the first members to Paul's theology were Jewish members; then why would they have to convert to some other religion? Or am I misreading what you wrote?
[quote='Bus]Which is why I would trust history here ? just like you do. I just don?t come to the same conclusion [/quote]

LOL! Understood.

 

[muffler dragon]

For those looking to learn more about Paul, might I recommend Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography by Bruce Chilton. I think it is out in paperback now.

Tower.com: Rabbi Paul (Hardcover) by Bruce Chilton (Author) ...

MF06:

I wasn't familiar with Bruce so I googled him and found some information on wiki. It says that he has a degree in New Testament from Cambridge. Do you know what his background is in Jewish concepts?

I learned more about Paul by reading this book than I did in my lifetime of attending church and 2 years of seminary.

My condolences. :tongue2:

I was simply amazed how much of an outsider he was and of how little influence he had during his life. Paul did study as a Pharisee (see Acts 23:6).

Must ask: do you state this, because of anything more than what Paul states about himself?

Remember, Paul grew up in Tarsus (Turkey) in a gentile world and spent very little of his life in Israel. So, not surprisingly his views ran contrary to many others of his time.

Tarsus was also a Mithraic hub.

"According to Ulansey [The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (1989)], Tarsus, an intellectual hub in the first century B.C. and a center of Stoic philosophy, incubated a Mithraic doctrine of cosmic transcendence in response to the discovery of precession by Hipparchus in 128 B.C. To the astrally oriented Stoics, the precessional displacement of the entire cosmos implied the existence of a powerful, unseen god who resided beyond the stars and moved the entire universe according to his own timetable. Ulansey argues this supernatural power was identified in Tarsus with Perseus, the city's legendary founder and divine tutelary hero. Even in the fourth century B.C., Tarsus minted coins depicting Perseus in the company of Apollo and presiding over a lion-bull combat. Ulansey sees Aquarius in the bowl symbol and links it and the lion to the solstices. The pair of torch-bearing, cross-legged shepherds who so often flank the bull's death scene, he judges, symbolize the two equinoxes."
- E.C. Krupp, "Throwing the Bull"

Also, keep in mind that Pharisaic Judaism was hardly a monolithic religion. Pretty much all modern forms of Judaism are descendants of the Pharisaic tradition. If you don't think there is a difference between Hasidic and reform Judaism, then you don't know your schlemiel from you schlimazel.

I'm not sure what conclusion you're wanting drawn from this statement. Judaism has never attempted to claim stasis or stagnation. Instead, it grows like an organism and allows for peripheral changes. However, this does not mean that the core concepts have been altered throughout time. The dogma of Pauline theology is not a simple schism. It's an entirely different religion.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Very interesting. I never would have guessed that you felt this way. This was one (of many) of the reasons as to why I no longer could follow Christianity.

Even in my most spiritual moments, I still understand that the book was written by men - alot of them. Men are fallible, and mistakes, typos, misquotes, outright lies, etc., are bound to happen.

Personally, I would say that the poor representation of the Pharisees was on purpose. But that's another topic for another time.

Yeah, another thread at some point. And we can make fun of Mel Gibson in it too.

I understand this part. I do admit that I find it surprising that you believe my list makes it easier. But we shall see...

Yet, in the case of this same person. Paul gets letters from the SADDUCEAN High Priest to arrest and bring the followers of the Way into prison AND supporting their deaths.

Acts 7
58When they had (CE)driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and (CF)the witnesses (CG)laid aside their robes at the feet of (CH)a young man named Saul. 59They went on stoning Stephen as he (CI)called on the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!"
60Then (CJ)falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, (CK)do not hold this sin against them!" Having said this, he (CL)fell asleep.

Acts 8
1(A)Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death And on that day a great persecution began against (B)the church in Jerusalem, and they were all (C)scattered throughout the regions of Judea and (D)Samaria, except the apostles.
2Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him.
3But (E)Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and (F)dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.
Does this sound like one who sat at the feet of the lenient Gamaliel?

See, here I don't know. What you say makes sense - a Pharisee would likely not be working for a Sadducean. So either we're missing some details or something is wrong. I would personally have to do alot more reading before trying to come up with a better explanation.

A more common present-tense consideration for the Sages would be the Rabbinate. This grouping of Jews were the ones interpreting the Written Torah and carrying on what Moses did with the 70 elders (i.e. establishing the Oral Torah). Thus, you're correct to an extent, because both literalism and allegorical considerations come into play.

Bringing this back to Paul, he tries his darnedest throughout his letters to be a Rabbi to these communities that he has established or feels pulled towards. Unfortunately for him, many of his foundations are even without merit. I'll get into these further down.

Nice, so we agree to agree here...

You have prompted me to view Paul through a partial dropping of the pendulum. Kudos. And what I'll say is this (which may sound like a compromise): while I doubt that Paul was a Pharisee, he attempted to take some of their practices as his own. I will address two areas of his knowledge/appreciation of Torah after your story below.

I only stick with the Pharisee theme because every other thing I've read says as much... it's not a huge deal to me. I will consistently insist that Paul was highly educated in Jewish law. Only someone of such stature could mediate the relationships between the Jesus-following Jews and the Jesus-following Gentiles.

Unbeknownst to you, you have hit upon my largest single gripe regarding Paul, and this led to my disregarding him as an authority.

Observance of Torah and how the Messiah plays a role for Gentiles.

Paul is so outside of the Judaic box on this topic that it's ridiculous.

1) Observance of Torah
Nowhere in the Tanakh are all nations called to observe Torah. Not a single place. Yet, Paul rails against this strawman by saying that this is what the Jews in Jerusalem are clamoring for.

Can't argue with you here, I just don't have the text in front of me, so maybe he does. Remember, if this is from Paul's letters, I view the letters as dialogues with specific people or small communities of Jesus followers in the various cities. I can imagine a situation in which he was seemingly speaking to a straw man, but was really addressing the missing counterpart in one of the letters - of course, this is conjecture. I'm sure you're right here.

2) The Messiah, the Torah, and Gentiles
Paul takes it upon himself to reach out to all nations not to observe Torah, but instead, to place their faith in a man (the Messiah) who has nothing more than remote tangential relevance for them. But yet, somehow this demi-god of a person has replaced the Judaic understanding of who and what the Messiah will be. The Messiah in Paul's eyes is a vicarious atonement for all, and in some way this makes all believers in said Messiah as Torah observant as the most devout Jew. This still makes my eyes roll in my head thinking about it. And to fathom that I USED to believe this!!!

And that's the rub, right? This is because it's what Jesus said to do, more or less. After all, what Jesus was asking people to do was revolutionary in a lot of way - not in the traditional Davidic messiah way - but in many very new ways. The most unique way was supposed to be the switch from a conquering messiah to a suffering messiah - from warrior to King to Lamb of God (both rooted in the OT). Of course, we now have a stone tablet that may tell us that the suffering messiah wasn't as new to Jews as we may have thought.

We only know Jesus to speak around the Torah and traditional Jewish beliefs in paraphrases and parables because we only have so many books about him (others were deleted, destroyed, lost, untruthful, really weird, wrong, etc.). However we also know that his apostles were Jews. He was Jewish himself and largely addressed problems withing the Jewish community. He spoke of himself as the son of the Jewish God. He took on the high priests at the temple and is portrayed to have been 'betrayed' by the Jews (obviously it wouldn't have been betrayal if he was supposed to have been supported by his own people, etc.). Jesus, IMO, was undoubtedly portraying himself as the Jewish messiah.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Christianity to equal Judaism, but I think the Jesus movement was firmly rooted in Judiasm.

30. Therefore, every man according to his ways I will judge you,

Serious Question: do you know that personal vicarious atonement does not exist in the Tanakh? No other person can take care of your sins.

I posted this back in post #958:

How does a supposed Pharisee, who sat at Gamaliel's feet, not absorb such a pronounced part of Jewish doctrine: Personal Accountability? It's beyond me. This is so pervasive throughout Paul's letters.

First of all, I think Paul DID believe in personal accountabilty. And I'm happy because I can revert back to the section of Roman I've already quoted:

11For God shows no partiality. 12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. 17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed in the law, 19 and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth-- 21 you then who teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?...

In this passage I beleive Paul decrees precisely that God judges men based on their acts - except he uses this argument to open the Jesus movement up to the Gentiles. He is telling the Jewish Jesus-followers of Rome that simply having the law is NOT enough - they must act accordingly because men are judged on their acts and not just being part of the Jewish community. Of course, then he spins it to put the question of the Gentiles back on the Jesus-following Jews of Rome: he asks them why would a Gentile who also lives in accordance to the law be not equally qualified, etc., etc.

IF the first members to Paul's theology were Jewish members; then why would they have to convert to some other religion? Or am I misreading what you wrote?

I don't think you're misreading it - I think that I am not succinctly getting to my point. I touched on it above - the followers of Jesus were departing from the rest of the Jewish community - to name just some ways:

1. They believed that the messiah had come - most other had not
2. They believed in the suffering messiah - a difference from the mainstream, though not without prophetic precedent
3. By following Jesus, they were abandoning the recognized Jewish leadership (and Roman)
4. They were willing to accept Jewish thinking with a new spin in Jesus' teachings, parables, works, etc.
5. They were willing to religiously as well as culturally mingle with Gentiles

I'm sure the list could go on...

Not only that, but it was highly dangerous to be a Jesus-follower at that time. Both the Romans and the Jews saw them as a threat to power, especially as they're numbers grew. So, people probably had to be convinced, or at least be told the gospels.

So I think the disconnect is this: I'm saying that the Jesus movement was firmly rooted in Judaism and the Jewish community. I am not for a moment debating that it was also a departure from many of the traditional elements. But to claim - as many from all angles have - that the two are not closely related is... as BrutuStrength might say... 'intellectually dishonest.'

Now, I know that's not what you were saying, MD. We were having a conversation about Paul. Well all of the above is why I can accept the notion of Saul the Pharisee becoming Paul the Jesus-follower who tried to spread the new movement by corresponding with the various communities and coordinating with the Gentiles.

And with that, I'm off to my - now cold - Kung Pao

 

[muffler dragon]

[quote='BusNative;120170;2]Even in my most spiritual moments, I still understand that the book was written by men - alot of them. Men are fallible, and mistakes, typos, misquotes, outright lies, etc., are bound to happen.[/quote]

Got'cha.

[quote='Bus]Yeah, another thread at some point. And we can make fun of Mel Gibson in it too. [/quote]

Sounds like a plan.

[quote='Bus]See, here I don't know. What you say makes sense - a Pharisee would likely not be working for a Sadducean. So either we're missing some details or something is wrong. I would personally have to do alot more reading before trying to come up with a better explanation.[/quote]

Keep me informed of what you find. I'll gladly read it.

[quote='Bus]I only stick with the Pharisee theme because every other thing I've read says as much... it's not a huge deal to me. I will consistently insist that Paul was highly educated in Jewish law. Only someone of such stature could mediate the relationships between the Jesus-following Jews and the Jesus-following Gentiles. [/quote]

Why would someone have to be "highly educated in Jewish law" in order to mediate between those two groups?

[quote='Bus]Can't argue with you here, I just don't have the text in front of me, so maybe he does. Remember, if this is from Paul's letters, I view the letters as dialogues with specific people or small communities of Jesus followers in the various cities. I can imagine a situation in which he was seemingly speaking to a straw man, but was really addressing the missing counterpart in one of the letters - of course, this is conjecture. I'm sure you're right here. [/quote]

Ok.

[quote='Bus]And that's the rub, right? This is because it's what Jesus said to do, more or less. After all, what Jesus was asking people to do was revolutionary in a lot of way - not in the traditional Davidic messiah way - but in many very new ways. The most unique way was supposed to be the switch from a conquering messiah to a suffering messiah - from warrior to King to Lamb of God (both rooted in the OT). Of course, we now have a stone tablet that may tell us that the suffering messiah wasn't as new to Jews as we may have thought.

We only know Jesus to speak around the Torah and traditional Jewish beliefs in paraphrases and parables because we only have so many books about him (others were deleted, destroyed, lost, untruthful, really weird, wrong, etc.). However we also know that his apostles were Jews. He was Jewish himself and largely addressed problems withing the Jewish community. He spoke of himself as the son of the Jewish God. He took on the high priests at the temple and is portrayed to have been 'betrayed' by the Jews (obviously it wouldn't have been betrayal if he was supposed to have been supported by his own people, etc.). Jesus, IMO, was undoubtedly portraying himself as the Jewish messiah. [/quote]

Sincere question: why do you think Paul is promoting the mission of Jesus from the Gospels? I realize it may sound rudimentary, but from my position, Paul never met Jesus. He had an ethereal vision. He was never in Jesus' presence, and it's evident from the interactions between Paul, the Apostles and the writings amongst them that they weren't exactly in agreement.

[quote='Bus]Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Christianity to equal Judaism, but I think the Jesus movement was firmly rooted in Judiasm.[/quote]

For clarification, do you mean rooted as in ascribing foundational tenets to Judaism like Islam does to Judaism and Christianity, or some other meaning?

[quote='Bus]First of all, I think Paul DID believe in personal accountabilty. And I'm happy because I can revert back to the section of Roman I've already quoted:

In this passage I beleive Paul decrees precisely that God judges men based on their acts - except he uses this argument to open the Jesus movement up to the Gentiles. He is telling the Jewish Jesus-followers of Rome that simply having the law is NOT enough - they must act accordingly because men are judged on their acts and not just being part of the Jewish community. Of course, then he spins it to put the question of the Gentiles back on the Jesus-following Jews of Rome: he asks them why would a Gentile who also lives in accordance to the law be not equally qualified, etc., etc.[/quote]

I agree that Chapter 2 discusses personal accountability, and I think that my previous wording and/or explanation was insufficient/wrong. Here's some Scripture that discusses Paul's position just after acknowledgement of "personal accountability".

(As something for future consideration, what Paul says is counter to what the Torah says. We can discuss this in more detail later.)

Romans 3
19Now we know that whatever the (Y)Law says, it speaks to (Z)those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and (AA)all the world may become accountable to God;
20because (AB)by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for (AC)through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
21But now apart from the Law (AD)the righteousness of God has been manifested, being (AE)witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22even the (AF)righteousness of God through (AG)faith (AH)in Jesus Christ for (AI)all those who believe; for (AJ)there is no distinction;
23for all (AK)have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24being justified as a gift (AL)by His grace through (AM)the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25whom God displayed publicly as (AN)a propitiation (AO)in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the (AP)forbearance of God He (AQ)passed over the sins previously committed; 26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 5
1(A)Therefore, having been justified by faith, (B)we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2through whom also we have (C)obtained our introduction by faith into this grace (D)in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

9Much more then, having now been justified (R)by His blood, we shall be saved (S)from the wrath of God through Him.
10For if while we were (T)enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved (U)by His life. 11(V)And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received (W)the reconciliation.

17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned (AH)through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will (AI)reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18So then as through (AJ)one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one (AK)act of righteousness there resulted (AL)justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man's disobedience (AM)the many (AN)were made sinners, even so through (AO)the obedience of the One (AP)the many will be made righteous.

I realize that Paul's speaks of each person's responsibility for their actions, but it's the immediate step just after this that bothers me. The above passages speak of the cross being a vicarious atonement. And I realize what Paul goes on to say about conduct, but here's the key: it's not about repentance between man and G-d (as is laid out explicitly in the Tanakh); but instead, it's about man => cross => G-d. And who/what is the culprit in all this? The Torah (or as Paul calls it, "the Law"). Rhetorical question: would a Pharisee deride the Torah in the way that Paul does? Just something to think about.

[quote='Bus]I don't think you're misreading it - I think that I am not succinctly getting to my point. I touched on it above - the followers of Jesus were departing from the rest of the Jewish community - to name just some ways: [/quote]

Forgive me for breaking up the following, but there's a reason for it: IF Jesus had been the Jewish Messiah; then you and I (and everyone else in the world) would NOT be having this discussion. IF Jesus were the Jewish Messiah; then there wouldn't have been any reason for the "departing from the rest of the Jewish community". It would have been unanimous.

[quote='Bus]1. They believed that the messiah had come - most other had not[/quote]

Which, according to the Tanakh, is not possible. One knowledgeable of the Tanakh would have known this.

[quote='Bus]2. They believed in the suffering messiah - a difference from the mainstream, though not without prophetic precedent[/quote]

A suffering messiah to what end? And yes, I realize this probably delves into Isaiah 53. However, I should note that Jewish tradition has been consistent throughout its history that the Messiah would not operate as a means of atonement between man and G-d. Thus, even Messiah ben Yosef does not operate in the means that is ascribed to Jesus. Anyway...

[quote='Bus]3. By following Jesus, they were abandoning the recognized Jewish leadership (and Roman)[/quote]

But this partially comes back to the #1 "IF" statements. The Romans, of course, executed political enemies.

[quote='Bus]4. They were willing to accept Jewish thinking with a new spin in Jesus' teachings, parables, works, etc.[/quote]

All Jewish Rabbi's use drash to present teachings and morales to their disciples, this is nothing new. However, the expectation of separation is.

[quote='Bus]5. They were willing to religiously as well as culturally mingle with Gentiles[/quote]

:) Where do you see this in the Christian Gospels? I know what happens AFTER Jesus is gone, but I'm not certain I recall many incidents in the Gospels.

[quote='Bus]I'm sure the list could go on...[/quote]

And there's no need for enumeration nor for my unending discourse in return. I'm sorry if I make you feel like I need to have an answer for everything. What you've written just makes me think.

[quote='Bus]Not only that, but it was highly dangerous to be a Jesus-follower at that time. Both the Romans and the Jews saw them as a threat to power, especially as they're numbers grew. So, people probably had to be convinced, or at least be told the gospels.[/quote]

Point of clarification: all Messianic groups were seen as dangers to Roman leadership. When it came to Jewish leadership, the ones of concern would have been the priests.

[quote='Bus]So I think the disconnect is this: I'm saying that the Jesus movement was firmly rooted in Judaism and the Jewish community. I am not for a moment debating that it was also a departure from many of the traditional elements. But to claim - as many from all angles have - that the two are not closely related is... as BrutuStrength might say... 'intellectually dishonest.'[/quote]

I guess it depends on what stage of Christianity we're discussing. I understand your point though.

[quote='Bus]Now, I know that's not what you were saying, MD. We were having a conversation about Paul. Well all of the above is why I can accept the notion of Saul the Pharisee becoming Paul the Jesus-follower who tried to spread the new movement by corresponding with the various communities and coordinating with the Gentiles. [/quote][quote='Bus]

And with that, I'm off to my - now cold - Kung Pao[/quote]

Understood. Thanks for taking the time. And don't bother putting this dialogue ahead of hot food.

Btw, I'm leaving tomorrow for a wedding. So responses will probably come to a halt shortly for a little while.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Stumbled upon an interesting coat of arms last night.. Its the coat of Prince Charles

Revelation 13:2 "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion."

You'll notice this beast to the left of the crest has the body of leopard, feet of a bear and mouth of a lion.

Revelation 13:2 continues: "The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority."

Transcript of Prince Charles investiture of 1969:
Queen Elizabeth: "This dragon gives you your power, your throne, and your authority"
Prince Charles: "I am now your Liege-man and worthy of your earthly worship."

Revelation 13:1 "He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name."

You can also see the ten small lions being the 10 kings. The seven heads and ten crowns. And of course, the red dragon.

One inscription says "Evil on him who thinks ill of it", and other "I am your man".

Of interest is the newly broken chain on the unicorn (2Thess.2:6) called `little horn' with the man's eye (Dan 7:8, 8:9). Most of these symbols are totally unique to this coat of arms.

It may also interest you that on March 6th, 1996 on CNN, Charles showed the world that he and his sons had been the first people to be voluntarily implanted with a microchip in their right hands for security purposes.

Prince Charles, born in 1948 no less, is a member of The Order of Garter which seats 24 knights all considered to be top-level Free-Masons. Prince Charles is considered to be at the very top of the Free-Mason's order.

About the same time he elected to have his religious title of "Defender of the Faith" to be changed to the plural "Defender of Faith". Charles has expressed his desire to unite all the world's religions in order for peace.

He reportedly had a spiritual conversion in 1979 in Africa he described as "like Paul's experience on the road to Damascus". Charles was 31-32 years old when this happened. Christ was 30-33 years old when he was baptized and saw the heavens open before his eyes.

His one of a kind royal genealogy was shown in an Israeli documentary that proved he is a descendant of King David the house of Judah - a Messianic requirement. You have to appreciate that virtually no Jew can make such an outlandish claim today.

Revelation 13:18 also says that "666" it is the name/number of a man. The onomastical definition of the name "Charles" is "man". Like the motto on the crest: "I am your man".

He is welcomed as a hero in the Middle East and he is behind three of the most important documents of this decade, the U.N.'s Global Security Program, the 7 Year Oslo Accord, and the Rio Summit's `Agenda 21'.

"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings"
- Treaty of Paris

 

[OCBuckWife]

Stumbled upon an interesting coat of arms last night.. Its the coat of Prince Charles

Revelation 13:2 "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion."

You'll notice this beast to the left of the crest has the body of leopard, feet of a bear and mouth of a lion.

Uh.........leopards..........they have SPOTS.

The nose on that screaming face looks more like a monkey than a bear, at least to my eyes.

I adore these kinds of comparisons however. I am surprised there wasn't some numerology thrown in there too. Fun!

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Hmmmm.... I guess I just see it as a Lion, with a Lion's body and Lions paws. I mean... don't leopards have spots? I don't see any spots.

I also don't see a broken chain on the unicorn... much less can I discern whether any such break is "new"

I don't know, S&G... seems like a bit of stretch to me.

 

[OCBuckWife]

Am I blind? I am not seeing 10 crowns. I see the 10 little lions but they aren't each wearing a crown. I see 7 total in the crest around the shield.............

 

[Bleed S & G]

Uh.........leopards..........they have SPOTS.

The nose on that screaming face looks more like a monkey than a bear, at least to my eyes.

I adore these kinds of comparisons however. I am surprised there wasn't some numerology thrown in there too. Fun!

Lepords do have spots, however this isn't a photo but Heraldy:

The heraldic leopard differs from the real-life leopard (Panthera pardus). It does not have any spots and often has a mane. In heraldry, the leopard is also generally similar to a lion. The reason for this lies in the fact that in the Middle Ages leopards were thought to be a crossbreed between a lion and a panther. This was retained in heraldry.

Leopard (heraldry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The "mouth" is supposed to be of a lion, not the bear. The bear is the feet.. According to what I've read on the subject, the Queens crest has 3 claws because it is a lion. Bears have 4 or more claws. How accurate that is, I don't know.

I left the numerology out because, IMO, you can calculate it to mean anything, but just for you OCBW :tongue2::

Hmmmm.... I guess I just see it as a Lion, with a Lion's body and Lions paws. I mean... don't leopards have spots? I don't see any spots.

I also don't see a broken chain on the unicorn... much less can I discern whether any such break is "new"

I don't know, S&G... seems like a bit of stretch to me.

You may be right BKB, thats why I posted it here, so you guys can tear it apart and debate it