[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

You are incorrect on both counts.

Paul was not setting himself against the believers. He had done that already in his former way of life.

Jesus is called "the Lion of the Tribe of Judah" and is a descendant of David.

Yes, but "According to my gospel," as Paul confessed to his disciple Timothy in 2 Tim. 2:8. And when you say that Paul had set himself against the believers, where, in the churches or in the synagogues? If you read Acts 9:1,2, it was in the synagogues. What were Gentiles doing in the synagogues of the Jews? Do you want to try to put some sense on this one? This whole thing is simply embarrassing.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by YahuShuan

And His lineage is traceable on both sides.

Does it mean that you finally admit that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's? If not, how come "both sides?" Joseph was the one from the lineage of David. Even if Mary had been, she could not pass down that lineage to her son Jesus. What's what?
Ben

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

All right, I am ready to commit to be of your mind. So, go right ahead and show me where else were the disciples called Christians before Paul in Antioch? Be careful because you are getting too warm to raise one more contradiction in the NT.
Ben

What I am saying is that Paul was in Antioch, and they were first called Christians in Antioch. The question is if there is a causal relationship, or simply a correlation.

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Yes, but "According to my gospel," as Paul confessed to his disciple Timothy in 2 Tim. 2:8. And when you say that Paul had set himself against the believers, where, in the churches or in the synagogues? If you read Acts 9:1,2, it was in the synagogues. What were Gentiles doing in the synagogues of the Jews? Do you want to try to put some sense on this one? This whole thing is simply embarrassing.
Ben

I'm talking about when Paul was persecuting the believers, before He became a believer himself.

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

What I am saying is that Paul was in Antioch, and they were first called Christians in Antioch. The question is if there is a causal relationship, or simply a correlation.

To what, to the fact that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch? But of course there is! That Paul was teaching that Jesus was Christ, which means Messiah. Therefore, according to his gospel, since there was no such an idea before him. (2 Tim. 2:8)
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

I'm talking about when Paul was persecuting the believers, before He became a believer himself.

Yes, I understand. He was persecuting the believers in the Jewish synagogues. Read Acts 9:1,2. He never became of those kinds of believers. He started his own church which became known as Christian Church. I think that's quite clear, according to the quotes I have used.
Ben

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

To what, to the fact that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch? But of course there is! That Paul was teaching that Jesus was Christ, which means Messiah. Therefore, according to his gospel, since there was no such an idea before him. (2 Tim. 2:8)
Ben

Yes there was. Read Acts. Read the gospels. In Acts you will find this before Paul repented of his evil ways.

Acts 2, 3, 4, and 5

Start with:

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

[jeremysdemo]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Please, quote what you say or we can't advance in our discussion. I cannot take your word for it.
Ben

1 Thessalonians 1:5, Galatians 1:8.


Matthew 10:5, Matthew 28:19, let the record show they were preaching unto the Gentiles long before Paul was even on board Acts 11:18, Paul curses anyone that preaches a gospel other than the one "we" (we the apostles) preached unto them.

keep shinin

jerm

[YahuShuan]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Does it mean that you finally admit that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's? If not, how come "both sides?" Joseph was the one from the lineage of David. Even if Mary had been, she could not pass down that lineage to her son Jesus. What's what?
Ben

Really? I guess the part of "the two will be one flesh" just was ignored by Judaism? And I suppose you can't see that is the way it goes by blood typing today either eh? Is some cases, even inheritance can be passed down when there are no men to carry it down in what YOU say is "lineage". Methinks some folks may have gotten it wrong all these years because they think they know more than God does. Tell me...Where in Scripture does it say that BLOOD LINEAGE is passed down only by the males? And even if that is the case...God is the Father of Yeshua, Miriam being the Mother. If you ignore Miriam lineage of David, you can not ignore this; David's bloodline originally came from God, back through Noah, then Adam...So the same bloodline the God gave Adam, God gave David, and God Gave to Yeshua. And you saying that "she could not pass her lineage down" is men's traditions until you show me different within the Biblical Scriptures...THAT GOD SAID IT IS THAT WAY. And I mean blood...not inheritances.

But, since you want things your way...Here..."Yeshua's Right to David's Throne"

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

Yes there was. Read Acts. Read the gospels. In Acts you will find this before Paul repented of his evil ways.

Acts 2, 3, 4, and 5

Start with:

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

You have forgotten three things. First, that the book of Acts is not written in chronological order. Second, that Luke, who was the one who wrote the book of Acts was a Greek Doctor, who happened to be a Hellenistic disciple of Paul. (Col. 4:14) And third, that this book was written about ten years after the fall of Jerusalem. About year 75 to 80 ACE. Therefore, about 50 years after Jesus had been gone.
Ben

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

You have forgotten three things. First, that the book of Acts is not written in chronological order. Second, that Luke, who was the one who wrote the book of Acts was a Greek Doctor, who happened to be a Hellenistic disciple of Paul. (Col. 4:14) And third, that this book was written about ten years after the fall of Jerusalem. About year 75 to 80 ACE. Therefore, about 50 years after Jesus had been gone.
Ben

Why do you believe Luke did not write Acts chronologically? There is no way Paul was saved that soon.

The chapters I pointed you to are before Stephen was martyred.

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by jeremysdemo

1 Thessalonians 1:5, Galatians 1:8.


Matthew 10:5, Matthew 28:19, let the record show they were preaching unto the Gentiles long before Paul was even on board Acts 11:18, Paul curses anyone that preaches a gospel other than the one "we" (we the apostles) preached unto them.

keep shinin

jerm

1 Thess. 1:5 has nothing to do with the issue in discussion.

Gal. 1:8 is a confirmation that the gospel preached by Paul had nothing to do with the gospel of the Nazarenes, disciples of Jesus.

Here is the history behind the Galatians: The synagogue of Galatia had been invaded by Paul and overturned into a Christian church. From Judea, some of the Nazarenes, whom Paul would pejoratively call Judaizers had been sent to try to salvage their work in Galatia. Paul got extremely upset that some of the members were returning to their previous faith and threatened them with cursing any one who would preach a different gospel from his. Even if it were a gospel brought down by an angel from heaven. Read Galatians 1:6-9.

Matthew 10:5 is about Jesus forbidding his disciples to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Therefore, a contradiction to your own views.

Matthew 28:19 is about the great commission to preach the gospel according to Paul, which was according to the Trinity. In the name of the Father, the son and the Holy Ghost. Nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus.

Acts 11:18 is about the gospel of the Nazarenes preached to the Gentiles by Peter who had been the one assigned to be the apostle of the Gentiles, and not Paul. Read Acts 15:7.

Sorry, Jeremy. Now, the only thing left to do is to admit the truth of the matter.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by YahuShuan

Really? I guess the part of "the two will be one flesh" just was ignored by Judaism? And I suppose you can't see that is the way it goes by blood typing today either eh? Is some cases, even inheritance can be passed down when there are no men to carry it down in what YOU say is "lineage". Methinks some folks may have gotten it wrong all these years because they think they know more than God does. Tell me...Where in Scripture does it say that BLOOD LINEAGE is passed down only by the males? And even if that is the case...God is the Father of Yeshua, Miriam being the Mother. If you ignore Miriam lineage of David, you can not ignore this; David's bloodline originally came from God, back through Noah, then Adam...So the same bloodline the God gave Adam, God gave David, and God Gave to Yeshua. And you saying that "she could not pass her lineage down" is men's traditions until you show me different within the Biblical Scriptures...THAT GOD SAID IT IS THAT WAY. And I mean blood...not inheritances.

But, since you want things your way...Here..."Yeshua's Right to David's Throne"

YahuShuan, tell me something, what god are you talking about a Greek god? That's an absolute anthropomorphic concept of God you are sharing with me here. Even blood from God being inherited by man!!! Gosh!

The part of "the two will be one flesh" has nothing to do with tribal genealogy or blood inheritance. You are getting totally confused. The issue here is about tribal genealogy, which, according to Judaism, was passed down only through the father. If you cannot understand this, it is pretty obvious. You are not Jewish. This is a thing of our Faith and not of Christianity. If you cannot take my word for it, do me a favor, go ask any Rabbi you meet. He will be more than happy to confirm what I am telling you. The Tanach cannot be the way you want. It was written by Jews for the Jews.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

Why do you believe Luke did not write Acts chronologically? There is no way Paul was saved that soon.

The chapters I pointed you to are before Stephen was martyred.

Books written many years after the facts, are by definition, not chronologically written; unless it is a copy of books written about the time.

Do you believe that Stephen was martyred? By who? One to be condemned to death in Israel had to be sentenced by the Sanhedrin.
The power of jurisdiction in any Roman province was, as a matter of Roman policy, removed from the local authorities and invested in the Roman authority. It means that the Sanhedrin could not have condemned Stephen to death. It was either a hooligan act perpetrated by a mob or it never happened.
Ben

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Books written many years after the facts, are by definition, not chronologically written; unless it is a copy of books written about the time.

How is that "by definition"? Have you read Acts? It sure seems chronological to me!

Do you believe that Stephen was martyred? By who? One to be condemned to death in Israel had to be sentenced by the Sanhedrin.
The power of jurisdiction in any Roman province was, as a matter of Roman policy, removed from the local authorities and invested in the Roman authority. It means that the Sanhedrin could not have condemned Stephen to death. It was either a hooligan act perpetrated by a mob or it never happened.
Ben

According to your standard, he was unjustly tried.