St Paul was a liar

>>What is the Septuagint

A translation made for non-Jews

>He doesn't know Jesus and the Apostles primarily used the Septuagint

Absolute nonsense.

There is no evidence Jesus even spoke greek, and even if he did it wouldn't mean Paul's story makes sense because that is only one inconstancy among many

>He doesn't knoe most jews used the septuagint when they no longer spoke hebrew.

American education

>>He doesn't knoe most jews used the septuagint when they no longer spoke hebrew.

I don't know this because it's simply a lie. Even after Hebrew stopped being a native language, the Torah was always and only preserved in Hebrew.

I never see anybody bitch about st. paul except on Veeky Forums. what is this about? is it a protestant thing?

>High Priest had no authority outside Israel, why would he send anyone to Syria?

Do you have even the slightest clue how spectacularly autistic Jews are about the temple?! The High Priest, the only one who could enter the Holy of Holies, was a big deal to Jews no matter where they were.

>it's simply a lie

Just because it proves you wrong doesn't make it a lie. Welcome to reality, sport.

It is because there are a lot of Jews and Muslims. Jews hate Paul because he out-Jewed them and Muslims hate him because they want to relegate Jesus to prophet status and Paul gets in the way of that.

It doesn't prove me wrong because it's a lie. How typical of a christcuck to lie and simply claim "my lie proves me right".

Even IF you weren't a liar, Hebrew was still the majority spoken language at the time of Jesus. So you're proven a liar twice over.

You insisting it is a lie doesn't make it so.

The arrogance of fedora tippers I swear...this is why God made pride a sin.

Go on then, prove your lie to me. I won't wait, because you can't prove it.

It's the truth, do your research instead of letting your American shit system teach you bullshit like Hebrew being the native language when Jesus spoke Aramaic and Greek.

cuck

Right?

The ignorant are always the most arrogant.

Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things - Philippians 3:19

...

Your argument lacks absolutely any evidence to support these wildly absurb Hebrew-centric power fantasies. You don't have any idea what the world was like in the time of the New testament but level of hostilty and aggression is entirely on par with the typical atheist virgin who uses historical falsehoods to validate your broken and lost existence. You are a cuck and have done a wonderful job making those who share your ignorant deletrius and nihilstic worldview.

>most Jews
The fucking Pharisees were not most Jews, but "most Jews" in the diaspora would have been Hellenized, and it would have certainly been true in Tarsus.
This entire debate is retarded although OP was right to call Paul's bullshit.

Oh no it's perfectly fashionable to hate "Pauline Christianity" outside of Veeky Forums too.

>most jews used the septuagint when they no longer spoke hebrew
yes, hellenistic jews outside of palestine, not the ones that spoke aramaic primarily

*Look ignorant and angry for no reason

you dont really here about it at church but the idea that "Pauline" Christianity was significantly different from the "original" Christianity is somewhat popular in academic circles

>academic circles

aka SCRIBES

If by Scribes you mean people who know how to write yes. If you mean to imply some connection the the Jewish scribes talked about in the bible not really. But I suppose labeling them as evil rather than addressing their arguments might help you sleep at night.

itt: butthurt Pharisees

I only follow /pol/ine Christianity.

more like murray

I actually study old forms of theology and I am constantly amazed at how early Christianity got so much wrong about Judaism.

To give you an idea let's take the idea of Atonement Theology: the idea that Jesus died to save people from sin. Paul and the Gospel of John say that this is the center of the entire religion and they try to say that it's related to Jewish sacrifices (Jesus is the lamb and his blood redeems). Well there's several things wrong with that. First of all sacrifices cannot be used to forgive the sins of others only the sins of one's self, second you can't use a lamb, third the animal has to be female, and fifth the blood of the unaimal is actually creates impurity, so does the animal dying.

t. scribe

Pharisees were a sectarian division, they had people wherever jews were in the empire, which was somewhat extensive.
Talmudic lore tells us the Sadducees and and Pharisees cooperated in the temple.
High Priests are always concerned with rooting out heresy wherever it is, that's true in any religion.
If you're so convinced Paul's depiction in the New Testament is falsified why are you so confident in Gamaliel's?

Not him but let me try and contexualize this for you. Imagine it is the height of the Protestant reformation. Now imagine a guy claiming to be a devote Protestant says he is taking orders from the local Bishop in order to hunt down heretics. Also imagine that you said that the local Odin worshipping Pagans have given the legal power to punish these heretics against Jesus.

That's essentially what Paul sounds like. In the analogy the Saudecee would be Catholics, the Pharisee the Protestants, and the Odin worshippers would be the Romans.

His story was so ridiculous he couldn't convience a single Jew that he knew a thing about their religion. The disciples that knew Jesus accused saw right through his lies. That's why he went to the Gentiles because they would actually buy his fake history.

Where exactly does the Talmud claim such cooperation?

Anything else?

The whole thing really. I think that Judaism has more in common with Islam than Christianity.

One of the big fuck ups is that Christianity has no concept of ritual impurity and confuses it with sin. In Judaism certain things make you impure. Being around dead things or blood makes you impure. Having children makes you impure. But these are not 'bad things', in fact God demands the Jews do these things all the time (eg give birth). Impurity is cured with certain rituals, usually involving washing. If you are impure you shouldn't go near temples or priests because you might drive God away from them. Impurity is cured with certain ceramonies.

Think of it like body odor, it's not evil, but you have to get rid of it if you want to be respected.

Paul can't tell the difference between a sinful act and an impure act when attacking Judaism.

---minor other things
Let's take the concept of sin. In Christianity sin is like a piece of your body, you are born with it and you die with it, it's always there. While in Judaism sin is like mud. Sometimes you have it, sometimes you don't and it washes off pretty easily (sin can be forgiven just by having enough time pass, or your ancestors can do something cool and it makes up for your sin). While in Christianity sin is only forgiven by God himself it's on your permanent record for infinity otherwise.

Than there is God's view of his subjects. In Judaism God really only cares about the Jews, he has no problem with them pillaging and conquering Gentile's lands. While in Christianity he loves them all equally. I really can't see how these can be the same God.

Interesting stuff, is there a good book/video or website that deals with this area specifically?

Christ's sacrifice was unique because He is perfect and therefore able to atone for humanity's collective sins. It's misguided to compare Christ's perfect sacrifice with the animal sacrifices that preceded beyond the fact that they both are ritual atonement.

The point is that humans have a sinful nature so the Jews had to constantly make sacrifices because no matter how hard they tried they would inevitably sin again. Furthermore, God is ultimately the one who forgives sin in both Christianity and Judaism, the difference is that the Jews have a much more transactional conception of this in the sense that they do their cleansing/sacrificial rituals in exchange for forgiveness of each sin whereas Christians are redeemed once and all their future sins are already forgiven Christianity really streamlined things because you no longer have to do some ritual every time you mess up.

Also your understanding of God's relationship with the nations in the Old Testament is impoverished. Yes, Israel occupies a privileged position among the nations but the prophets foretold that it is God's desire for all people to worship Him and God even uses pagan leaders to enact His plans. The prophets praised Cyrus the Great and explained that he was chosen by God even though he was not a Jew.

>Now imagine a guy claiming to be a devote Protestant says he is taking orders from the local Bishop in order to hunt down heretics.
psssst.
Protestants have bishops too buddy....

With the theological difference between Judaism and Christianity? No. The differences are obvious to anyone who seriously looks at both religions. Just understand that Christians will treat the Old Testament completly differently from a Jewish or secular scholar.

To understand Judaism there are some great lectures from Yale on youtube.
youtube.com/watch?v=mo-YL-lv3RY

To get a general feel watch the lectures up to the first 5 books, which where like 80% of theology comes from anyway.

New Testament study. Take your pick, that field is massive.

Any accessible texts you would personally
recommend NT wise?

Jesus is God therefore Jesus is us. Thanks for playing, though, fuckin wannabe intellectual. Back to 101 with you.

Cursing does not help your credibility as a Christian. Different user btw.

You literally don't know shit and should demAnd a fucking refund on whatever bullshit you studied. Jesus H. Christ.

Erhman is kind of the go to guy for New Testament history. He deals mostly with historical factsrather than theology. I will say I disagree with his interpretation of what the historical Jesus's ministry was about. Erhman thinks he was just an apocalyptic prophet and doesn't bother contemplating why Jesus's theology endured while the countless other doomsayers aren't remembered.

If you want theology I'd just recommend you get it from the source. There's plenty of resources online about what Augustine, Luther, Aquinas, or all the other big guys taught. Just keep in mind theology actually has nothing to do with the historical truth. It's basically doing philosophy but you also need to mangle the bible's text.

I also like Nietzche's Anti-Christ for analyzing the 2 halves of the bible.

Neither does not knowing shit. But hey, it's 11pm on a Sunday night on Veeky Forums and I'm not a pedantic faggot so go fuck yourself.

>doesn't bother contemplating why Jesus's theology endured while the countless other doomsayers aren't remembered.
That's because to him (and most other academics), there's no indication that Jesus's theology was notably different than his contemporaries. The usual position is that his followers and Paul were the ones who later introduced a distinct theology related to Jesus, and especially his divinity.

>no indication that Jesus's theology was notably different than his contemporaries.

Except for the Gospels of course because they are full of lies right?

"Let God Be True, But Every Man A Liar"

for the word of God will not be tainted nor perished, For the law will stand against time

The gospels reflect Pauline theology, so they're not usually regarded as an accurate reflection of what Jesus taught. You're going to meme and deny that, but it's pretty accepted, and there are plenty of books addressing the issue.

I am of the opinion that it is pretty obvious that both Paul and James cannot be right at once.

The Gospels are the most reliable sources we have about Jesus' life, of course they agree with Paul because Paul met the same Jesus. As for the apocrypha which is what I assume you're relying on, they were neither as commonly reproduced nor widespread as the Gospels. Furthermore the earliest Christian writings we have are from Paul so the proximity of his epistles to Christ's lifetime makes them more credible than any of the later documents.

So men are lying even when they are delivering a sermon?

>delivering a sermon of the word of God

fixed that for you...

For that matter that too but my point was basically everyone is lying as long as they aren't saying something inside the bible? But ESPECIALLY if they are speaking praise of God but in their own words?

the reason why the Apocrypha is not included on the Bible is because they conflict what the original OT/NT stands for,

unlike OT/NT they both fit on the same puzzle
while the apocrypha does not,

but back in the times of King james, they still Included it on the original king james version,
because in my own opinion, some of it's text may still hold some extra information, but still

they can't fit the same way ot/nt fits

>apocrypha is not included on the Bible is because they conflict what the original OT/NT stands for,

How so?

Out of context. but that passage means was that
All men can't be 100% foolproof, someway or another, we will fall down on our flesh.

As long as the man never defile or twist the word of God, the truth will still abide on his/her mouth.

that's why you can see Jesus refuting satan on his temptation

"It is written"

>But ESPECIALLY if they are speaking praise of God

As I am like one of you, I can't answer that but
rest assured that God Only knows What's inside a man's heart,

We can all praise in our ways, But ONLY GOD can tell a man be a liar or not, for we can't be above what we can't reach,

Even the most evil person can praise God, but we can judge him if he is a liar or not, for Only God can judge both the evil and good, the liar and the truth,

Long story,, lazy to talk about it, but it's true, you just have to search it on your own.

One conflict is in the maccabees,

>Even the most evil person can praise God, but we can judge him

"we can't"

None of that has anything to do with the fact that the Gospels were more widely produced and are in greater harmony with the earliest Christian writings (Paul's epistles). To claim that Christ teachings weren't a radical departure from Jewish orthodoxy and that he was just a dime-a-dozen rabbi ignores the most reliable documents we have about his life. If Jesus was such a traditionalist, why was He crucified?

From what I know about Greek and Roman religions Paul's stuff is just his take on the mystery cults and Platonism. Dying and rising Gods were a fad that was popular. I think Paul even mentions the word "pleroma" in the origenal Greek text which is a distinctly Platonic metaphysics.

Christians are generally uncomfortable with the idea that their religion's theology would actuall have a historical root. It kind of contradicts the idea of "revealed truth" if their theology is just an evolution of a previous thought.

I side with Nietzsche that Jesus's theology was that when he says "the kingdom of heaven is within you" he actually meant it literally. The historical Jesus was not afraid to die nor did he ressent any suffering because for him the real world was a daydream and he was perfectly content to live in his head without any material cares. Essentially the "kingdom of heaven" is comparable to the idea of Nirvana. The idea of a literal kingdom and a revenge fantasy of the "last judgement" was a later development.

Figuring out exactly what Jesus actually taught is a nightmare, there's the New Testament and several 'noncannonical' works like Thomas to shift through. Since every account of Jesus's words are not written by real eye wittnesses it's not as simple as just pulling up quotes as there is no way to easily tell what was recorded accuratly and what was simply shoved into his mouth.

A major part of Pauline theology is that the Jesus that met James and Peter was not the Jesus that Paul met. The reason Paul had to invent this theology was that James actually knew what Jesus really taught and could call out Paul's bullshit. So it goes "no you don't understand James. I met the spirit that lived the physical body of your brother. He told me the secret Gnosis that you guys never learned. So I actually know the real theology!"

This little bit eventually got ret-conned in the later centuaries.

>None of that has anything to do with the fact that the Gospels were more widely produced and are in greater harmony with the earliest Christian writings (Paul's epistles)

But it does, because if it not, and if the apocrypha was established as canonical,
then Christianity would be divided more than we have today because One unknown puzzle can't fit to the whole picture, one of that unknown puzzle that the catholics have is one of the many reason reformation was born,

>To claim that Christ teachings weren't a radical departure from Jewish orthodoxy and that he was just a dime-a-dozen rabbi ignores the most reliable documents we have about his life.

But I didn't say it weren't, And He didn't change anything to the Old law, He just fulfills it, He define it even more for the New Law to be establish, He Use the Old as he prepares the New for the gentiles, Us.

>If Jesus was such a traditionalist, why was He crucified?

But He wasn't, the reason Why He was crucified, Because He make every Argument of Jews fall down on them,

Paul met the resurrected Jesus who is the same Jesus James and Peter knew. James didn't even become a disciple until after the resurrection anyway so it's not like he has more authority than Paul.

Although it has many members, there has been and always will be only one body of Christ user.

Wouldn't it mean that Gentiles are fucked if Paul was a fake? I don't think you actually believe this.

That is true, though there will be branches that He can only pluck out, Because we're told to cut it out once it go out of the truth, that we all stand in.

"for Every tree that brought put evil fruits will be cast out and thrown in the lake of fire",

He prunes the vine so that it bears fruit.

Let me put it in the most extreme context. Because the the Gospels were written by Greeks, not the disciples. Well the Greeks all got their theology from followers of Paul. So the New Testament is 100% Paul. He really is the founder of the religion. The very idea that there is an afterlife and that you need to be saved is Pauline theology. Hell Jesus isn't even divine without Paul he's just the brother of James.

So Paul being wrong effectively destroys the religion at it's core.

Yeah. That's Paul's plan to discredit the James ministry. If James knew the "real" Jesus than that means that when James said Jesus never preached an afterlife or that Gentiles could john the religion he was probably right.

James didn't follow Jesus during His earthly ministry; the only reason he became a Christian was that he witnessed proof of life after death.

>Because the the Gospels were written by Greeks, not the disciples

The disciples Wrote the Gospels in Greek because it was the prevalent language used at that time, not the other way around

but if you're against Christianity then I can't argue it enough, it's your own decision not to anyway

Perhaps all religions past and present are a manifestation of mankind's desire to know the creator.

Perhaps none of us really know the creator as well as we think.

Perhaps the whole point, from the creator's perspective, is that he is recognized as such and revered and sought out by the creation.

You can have faith in Jesus in spite of any historical incongruity or compromising of doctrine and dogma. Gnostics prove that.

Don't think it's odd that James, the guy who spent his entire life with Jesus as the guy's brother is suddenly told he "never knew Jesus" is something you are supposed to accept without question? You are just supposed to ignore that everyone seemed to think James was the leader and that he went around warning people about Paul being a usurper.

Than Paul comes in, some random guy that was never part of Jesus's guy's life. You are supposed to think everything Paul said is right. Despite the fact that he is lying about his past and the entire basis for this is that he had a vision on some road (the only wittness to this is his friend Luke). Oh and the only source that says James ever sided with Paul is some books written by cronies of Paul!

>“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Without Paul, christianity is gnostic.

Who is Paul?

Let's see: Yes goy, I saw god and he said that I was right.

Don't be stupid. I'm not saying gnostics are saved you stupid fucker. I'm saying obviously the new testament has an inspirational quality that has moved many to find Jesus a compelling spiritual figure. That wouldn't change if some revelation came out about Paul.

Before the resurrection, James only knew Jesus as a brother not a teacher and Christ Himself said a prophet is without honor among his relatives. Jesus traveled all over Israel during his ministry without James accompanying him so to say that James had some special insight into Jesus' teachings is facetious at best. Furthermore the fact that James couldn't even recognize his own brother as the messiah until He literally rose from the dead is an illuminating lesson for Jews to this day.

Back than if you were a poor person you would be not know how to read and you certainly wouldn't know how to write. So not only are we supposed to beleive that all these starving fishermen can write fluently but that they did it in a language they wouldn't have even been exposed to.

From what I have read of bible scholars they say the Gospels use poetic and writing techniques. So not only did these fishermen learn a foreign language, learn to write, but they also taught themself poetry. Also the scholars I've read say that half Gospel texts are literally the same words letter for letter, which indicates they were copying it off another text. Why would an eye wittness do that? You'd only copy another text if you didn't know the events yourself!

Oh and to top it off they all wrote it pretty late in their life. Some of the estimated dates for John put it AFTER the guy is supposed to be dead.

Like really the list of reasons is HUGE.

...

Do you have a brother? Imagine if some random guy said that you never actually knew your brother and he did because he say him in a dream. Now imagine he tells that everything he is saying is the real opinions of your brother. Also the guy talking about you has an elaborate backstory which is completly made up.

This is essentially what you are being asked to believe.

James thought Paul was a fraud. He dragged the guy out into a public place and made Paul tell all his students that his lessons were lies. Than he killed Paul out and told him to fuck off. That's why Paul had to go to the Gentiles because the entire Jewish community had been warned about him.

>I'm not saying gnostics are saved

I do say it, gnostics are saved by their gnosis

>ah yes, I believe this religion
>ah so you believe in jesus
>how come you know from jesus because of a guy that was never an apostle nor a disciple
>silence infidel

Peter who both followed Jesus during His life and lead the church after His ascension considered Paul's writings authoritative and James acknowledged Peter's authority which means he ultimately accepted Paul. I don't understand how you can claim James and Paul were enemies when both their writings are New Testament canon. Regardless, I'm going to bed now so I'll be praying for you user. Goodnight.

are we supposed to beleive that all these starving fishermen can write fluently but that they did it in a language they wouldn't have even been exposed to

that was answered on the last pages of the book of John before Acts,

"have you heard of tongues and Holy spirit dwelling in them"

the disciples we're just vessels of Him who resides in them, They are the physical manifestation of Him, they're the instrument of the one who creates. they are not just on their own, but in Him who resides in them.

it's only faith and Holy spirit can make anyone believe all of this, that's the line boundary between Him and Us.

I have this theology where these books were written by other people and changed capriciously for lies.

>are we supposed to beleive that all these starving fishermen can write fluently but that they did it in a language they wouldn't have even been exposed to

that was answered on the last pages of the book of John before Acts,

>"have you heard of tongues and Holy spirit dwelling in them"

the disciples we're just vessels of Him who resides in them, They are the physical manifestation of Him, they're the instrument of the one who creates. they are not just on their own, but in Him who resides in them.
it's only faith and Holy spirit can make anyone believe all of this, that's the line boundary between Him and Us.

that is also true, I've read that there were defiled version that still exist today, But I've forgot what it was,as the lies exist so is the truth.

One thing is their motive and that is to make money out of it.

I've also read this theology where most of makind are sons of hell and thus pretend they are suprised at the sight of a proposal that the bible may not be very true and be a book of darkness.

>. If Jesus was such a traditionalist,
there was a Jewish civil war
the violence between Jews existed way before Yoshi, even to the 1st temple times

He is by no means a single casualty in this civil war
>The Zealots
>Another group, likely related, were the Sicarii, who raided Jewish habitations and killed Jews they considered apostate and collaborators

The Pharisees and the Sadducees are the antitheses of one another.

the Sadducees saw the Pharisees as heretics, the temple was ruled and maintained by the Sadducees, who were the high priests, but the Pharisees demanded presence in judiciary affairs ( Sanhedrin, the high Jewish court).

why? because Pharisees were the majority of the criminals and demanded their own interpretations in the court

>Randomly capitalizes certain words.

I've noticed this a lot, is Christianity linked to autism?