The Pauline Paradox

[Ben Masada]

I'm sure what Jesus said insulted them, but sometimes the Truth offends. The Light reproves the darkness, but those who are of the darkness are offended by the Light of the Truth. The Holy Spirit reproves the world of sin, and these men were of their father the Devil being hypocrites and sinners, blind guides of the blind. Jesus went as far to call them the children of hell, meaning they were already citizens.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Those who are born of God's Spirit are of the Kingdom of God and dwell in the Kingdom, as the King and Kingdom dwells in them.

Luke 17:20-21 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Jesus was a charismatic man. He could have used of his charisma to find his way around without having to break the Golden Rule. So, he was a sinner. And as the Kingdom of God is concerned, Jesus said that it is among you, reading from other translations. Among you in Israel was the Land. Therefore, the Kingdom of God is the Land of Israel when the Jews are in it.

 

[jamie]

Probably Timothy's Greek father had a sadistic power over his mother and would not allow any thing Jewish closer to his son. Probably some Jews knew about this and spread the word.

Hopeless.

:carryon:

 

[Ben Masada]

Then you reject the words of God. No need to discuss the words of God if reject them as true. I'll leave you with the words of God spoken by His anointed One Jesus Christ, which will probably only confuse you more, but here goes...

Matthew 22:41-46 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

Probably they thought Jesus was a biological son of Joseph who was the one from the Tribe of Judah.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

The gospel of Paul aka the NT is not composed of the Words of God. When Jesus was alive, every time he referred to the Scriptures as the Word of God, he always had the Tanach in mind. The NT he never even dreamed it would ever rise.

Now, with regards to Psalm 110, when David wrote it, originally it would say, "The Lord said to me..." But because it would be awkward for the Levites to sing it in the Temple that way. So, an arrangement was made so that the Psalm came out thus: "The Lord said to my lord..." That's how I read from the JPS a Jewish translation of the Bible aka the Tanach. The first Lord as a reference to HaShem and the second lord, a reference to David. Observe that the second lord comes not capitalized.

 

[Ben Masada]

He's the Messiah and the Son of God. Why doesn't that work?

You may as well have just said 'because I don't like it'- because your argument is sorry.

To be the Messiah he could not be the son of God because God cannot be identified as from the Tribe of Judah. You must admit that the Pauline paradox was simply a huge blunder committed by the Hellenists who wrote the gospels.

 

[patrick jane]

To be the Messiah he could not be the son of God because God cannot be identified as from the Tribe of Judah. You must admit that the Pauline paradox was simply a huge blunder committed by the Hellenists who wrote the gospels.

Stick to the torah, you have no clue about Pauline Doctrine

 

[Clete]

The Pauline Paradox

When Paul started preaching about Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, he never realized that he had created a huge paradox.

You see, for Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to be a biological son of Joseph's, who was the one from the Tribe of Judah, whose Tribe the Messiah was supposed to come from. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. She was of the family of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron the Levite. (Luke 1:5,36)

Since Jesus is also claimed to be the son of God, he could not be the Messiah, because God is not subject to human genealogies.

On the other hand, if Christians decided to grab the chance of at least to make of Jesus the Messiah by agreeing to drop the tale of the virgin birth, and to admit that he was indeed Joseph's biological son, he could not be son of God; and here the situation would get worse because even the doctrine of the Trinity would colapse.

That's indeed a huge paradox that can be accepted only by faith, which requires no explanation. But then again, where faith begins, knowledge ends. And for lack of knowledge, People perish. (Hosea 4:6)

Now, if there is anyone out there with enough wisdom to unriddle this paradox, I'll be more than happy to take my hat off to him or her. If not, the Sphynx will keep waiting patiently beside the Egyptian piramids for the passers-by.

Good luck!

Ben

Jesus needed to be, as Romans 1:3 confirms, of the seed of David according to the flesh. "According to the flesh" clearly refers to his physical descent in which from the human side indeed only Mary had part, because she became pregnant by God's working ("of the holy spirit" -- Matthew 1:18). This makes it necessary that Mary needed to be of the house and seed of David, and that is exactly what the genealogy given in Matthew 1:1-16 shows. Mary was of the house of David, and she was of the royal lineage through David's son Solomon, which gave Jesus based on his descend "according to the flesh" the full rights to the throne of his father David (Matthew 1:6). Joseph, the husband of Mary, was also of the house of David, but of a different line through David's son Nathan (Luk 3:31).

The point that Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias and mother of John the Baptist, was a relative of Mary even though she was of the house of Aaron (Luke 1:36) means simply that one of the ancestors of Mary on her mother's side were of the tribe of Levi. Mary's ancestors on her father's side are of the royal line of the house of David, as the record in Matthew 1 shows. - source

 

[Crucible]

To be the Messiah he could not be the son of God because God cannot be identified as from the Tribe of Judah. You must admit that the Pauline paradox was simply a huge blunder committed by the Hellenists who wrote the gospels.

Jesus was a rabbi, and all the apostles were trained very well in their religion. There is no 'blunder', just non-Christians with no love for the New Testament making things up

 

[Ben Masada]

Stick to the torah, you have no clue about Pauline Doctrine

What do you mean by "clue"? Have you ever checked my quotes from the NT? If you have, I think it is safe to say that I have more than a clue about Pauline doctrines. Jews don't need to read something more than once or twice to have more than clues about an issue.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

As a Jew, you have a huge problem with the New Testament, obviously. What I can't understand is, why do you sit here daily on a Christian forum and argue with a group of posters you have nothing in common with? Do you find it enjoyable to argue? Are you trying to have Christians give up their faith and turn to Judaism? Do you mainly get a thrill out of disrupting? I mean, what's your goal? Why aren't you looking around for a Jewish forum where you'll find mutual comradery?

It's just Ben Masada's usual antichrist, lying crap, of course of zero scholarship. There's nothing to indicate Mary was a Levite, and the Bible refutes this, outright, Hebrews 7:14, et al. A relative can be a cousin or aunt, the latter which the much older Elizabeth likely was, but what relation to Mary is not certain from original texts to derive any conclusion, whatsoever. And the truth is a father of different tribes between Elizabeth and Mary can be involved, in any case. So, his whole argument is based upon a fallacious assumption, a claim that's pulled out of thin air, a not even clever deception, cut from whole cloth of liars. The dude's an antichrist, anyway. He has no Holy Spirit to even be speaking on any New Testament matter, and any scripture is wasted on him. This argument is, as a matter of fact, a common, lying Muslim argument against Christ. Ben Masada is here to deny Christ, a trolling tare, and there are reasons to believe he's not really even a Jew.

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus needed to be, as Romans 1:3 confirms, of the seed of David according to the flesh. "According to the flesh" clearly refers to his physical descent in which from the human side indeed only Mary had part, because she became pregnant by God's working ("of the holy spirit" -- Matthew 1:18). This makes it necessary that Mary needed to be of the house and seed of David, and that is exactly what the genealogy given in Matthew 1:1-16 shows. Mary was of the house of David, and she was of the royal lineage through David's son Solomon, which gave Jesus based on his descend "according to the flesh" the full rights to the throne of his father David (Matthew 1:6). Joseph, the husband of Mary, was also of the house of David, but of a different line through David's son Nathan (Luk 3:31).

The point that Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias and mother of John the Baptist, was a relative of Mary even though she was of the house of Aaron (Luke 1:36) means simply that one of the ancestors of Mary on her mother's side were of the tribe of Levi. Mary's ancestors on her father's side are of the royal line of the house of David, as the record in Matthew 1 shows. - source

The problem is that Jesus was a Jew and not of Greek origin. To pick up a Jew and try to apply to him the Greek doctrine of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman won't stick. One will only be trying to vandalize Judaism with the things of Christianity. You need to understand that the whole NT was written by Hellenists former disciples of Paul. Not a single Jew wrote a page of the NT. A Jew would not be caught writing against his own Faith.

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus was a rabbi, and all the apostles were trained very well in their religion. There is no 'blunder', just non-Christians with no love for the New Testament making things up

Yes, you are right, all the apostles were trained very well in their religion. Happen to know what was their religion? Judaism; read my lips! Ju-da-ism! None of them ever had any thing to do with Christianity, and that includes Jesus who never even dreamed the NT would ever rise.

 

[Crucible]

Yes, you are right, all the apostles were trained very well in their religion. Happen to know what was their religion? Judaism; read my lips! Ju-da-ism! None of them ever had any thing to do with Christianity, and that includes Jesus who never even dreamed the NT would ever rise.

Except that the scriptures are the works of the Spirit and Jesus outright proclaimed that the Spirit will come, essentially to guide us.

That's a pretty bold claim if you ask me, and not only did it happen- but it changed the entire world.

 

[Ben Masada]

It's just Ben Masada's usual antichrist, lying crap, of course of zero scholarship. There's nothing to indicate Mary was a Levite, and the Bible refutes this, outright, Hebrews 7:14, et al. A relative can be a cousin or aunt, the latter which the much older Elizabeth likely was, but what relation to Mary is not certain from original texts to derive any conclusion, whatsoever. And the truth is a father of different tribes between Elizabeth and Mary can be involved, in any case. So, his whole argument is based upon a fallacious assumption, a claim that's pulled out of thin air, a not even clever deception, cut from whole cloth of liars. The dude's an antichrist, anyway. He has no Holy Spirit to even be speaking on any New Testament matter, and any scripture is wasted on him. This argument is, as a matter of fact, a common, lying Muslim argument against Christ. Ben Masada is here to deny Christ, a trolling tare, and there are reasons to believe he's not really even a Jew.

Tell me WLJ, do you have any idea what the term "Christ" means? If you check in a Greek-English dictionary, the real meaning for "Christ" is the Anointed One of the Lord. Let's take a look at Prophet Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the Son of God, if you read Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My Son, said the Lord; let My Son go that He may serve Me." It means that God's People Israel is the true "Christ." Now, for the term "Antichrist" which you so ardently charge me with I would ask you to read II John 2:18,19. Somehow, the writer of that book, speaking as a Christian about the antichrists, he said that they were going out from their own ranks, the ranks of Christianity that is. The Antichrist by definition is the one who persecutes "Christ" which was what the Church did from the First Century and throughout History with the "Christ" of God through pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and last but not least, the Holocaust. Now, keep in mind what is to be "Christ" and Antichrist, and forget no more.

 

[john w]

Messianic believer Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains it best:

http://www.messianicassociation.org/a-agf-throne.htm

http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v05-n06/genealogy

In depth study:

http://www.lifeofmessiah.vear.info/LifeOfMessiah.pdf

 

[Wick Stick]

The Pauline Paradox
You see, for Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to be a biological son of Joseph's, who was the one from the Tribe of Judah, whose Tribe the Messiah was supposed to come from.

Incorrect. While this is the most likely and intuitive qualifier, another exists. It is adoption.

The ancients did not recognize a difference between a natural born son and an adopted one. One who was adopted was thought to be re-born in the image of his new father, and take his attributes from the new father.

(This is one of the fundamental concepts of Christianity. If you cannot understand this, I question whether you understand Christianity at all.)

Since Jesus is also claimed to be the son of God, he could not be the Messiah, because God is not subject to human genealogies.

In the other thread, I wrote a bit about the reforms that Jesus tried to institute in Judaism. One of them, was a reformation of the way that heredity (being counted a Jew) was figured. The patriarchal genealogy was a flawed system.

Jesus sought to undermine the keeping of genealogies for this purpose, and replace it with a form of meritocracy, figured on the basis of law-keeping. As such, the issue of genealogies would have been a non-sequitor to anyone who understood and followed Jesus' teachings. (See John 8)

On the other hand, if Christians decided to grab the chance of at least to make of Jesus the Messiah by agreeing to drop the tale of the virgin birth, and to admit that he was indeed Joseph's biological son, he could not be son of God;

Still incorrect. He could be a biological son of Joseph, and later adopted (perhaps the right word is 'begotten') by God.

Actually, there is a precedent for just such a thing in Psalm 2, and the begetting event there appears to establish the kingship, not disqualify it.

...and here the situation would get worse because even the doctrine of the Trinity would collapse.

I think it might have collapsed a century or 12 ago. What remains should probably be consigned to the category of mysticism, not doctrine.

Now, if there is anyone out there with enough wisdom to unriddle this paradox, I'll be more than happy to take my hat off to him or her.

I've given you enough information to untie the knot. But do you really want the truth, or will your vested interest in keeping it all bound up induce you to make counter-arguments?

 

[Clete]

The problem is that Jesus was a Jew and not of Greek origin. To pick up a Jew and try to apply to him the Greek doctrine of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman won't stick. One will only be trying to vandalize Judaism with the things of Christianity. You need to understand that the whole NT was written by Hellenists former disciples of Paul. Not a single Jew wrote a page of the NT. A Jew would not be caught writing against his own Faith.

Moving the goal post are we?

You wanted a solution to your contrived paradox and I gave it to you.

If you're honest, (which you aren't), you'll stop using the argument (which you won't).

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The huge problem is with Christians who have picked up a Jew to preach against his Faith which just happens to be the same as mine. And for the other question why I don't go after a Jewish forum, the reason is that there is no learning in the chit-chattering of common beliefs. Learning comes mainly from controversy.

However, you're not here to learn. That is, if you were, to be honest. Most folks aren't honest with themselves, let alone with others. Would you tend to agree?

 

[Ben Masada]

Messianic believer Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains it best:

http://www.messianicassociation.org/a-agf-throne.htm

http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v05-n06/genealogy

In depth study:

http://www.lifeofmessiah.vear.info/LifeOfMessiah.pdf

Perhaps but according to Christian preconceived notions as if Jesus had ever been a Christian. I think Christians would achieve much better if they acknowledged Jesus as a Jew and not as a Christian. If the dead could speak from the grave, Jesus would reveal that he never even dreamed Christianity would ever rise. (Psalm 49:12.

 

[Ben Masada]

Incorrect. While this is the most likely and intuitive qualifier, another exists. It is adoption.

Since you are not humble enough to take it from me, ask any Rabbi wherever you meet one if adoptions in ancient Israel would render the child to be of the same Tribe of the adopter. There were many adoptions in ancient Israel but never a case when the child would become of the same Tribe of the adoptive father.

The ancients did not recognize a difference between a natural born son and an adopted one. One who was adopted was thought to be re-born in the image of his new father, and take his attributes from the new father.

That's the assumption of a Christian which I would consider arrogance. I am sharing with you the Jewish tradition which becomes quite obvious before any Christian assumption.

(This is one of the fundamental concepts of Christianity. If you cannot understand this, I question whether you understand Christianity at all.)

Not only the NT but also the "Summa Theologica" by Thomas Aquina I have read. The two best as Christian concepts are concerned.

In the other thread, I wrote a bit about the reforms that Jesus tried to institute in Judaism. One of them, was a reformation of the way that heredity (being counted a Jew) was figured. The patriarchal genealogy was a flawed system.

Jesus tried to institute no reform in Judaism if you read Matthew 5:17-19. He remained loyal to the letter, even the dot of the letter. Unless you are implying that Jesus lied. In fact, Jesus warned us all to listen to "Moses" aka the Law in order to achieve salvation from hell-fire. (Luke 16:29-31)

Jesus sought to undermine the keeping of genealogies for this purpose, and replace it with a form of meritocracy, figured on the basis of law-keeping. As such, the issue of genealogies would have been a non-sequitor to anyone who understood and followed Jesus' teachings. (See John 8)

That's absolutely not true as no Jew at all wrote a single page of the NT which was written by Hellenists form disciples of Paul.

Still incorrect. He could be a biological son of Joseph, and later adopted (perhaps the right word is 'begotten') by God.

I hope what I have revealed above about adoptions in ancient Judaism is enough if you are any serious at all about the truth.

Actually, there is a precedent for just such a thing in Psalm 2, and the begetting event there appears to establish the kingship, not disqualify it.

Please, complete the quote by mentioning the verses in Psalm 2. I read it and I found nothing to do with begetting or genealogical inheritance.

I think it might have collapsed a century or 12 ago. What remains should probably be consigned to the category of mysticism, not doctrine.

The opposite is rather true that the doctrine of the Trinity is rather on the rising.

I've given you enough information to untie the knot. But do you really want the truth, or will your vested interest in keeping it all bound up induce you to make counter-arguments?

You don't have the Truth WC. The Truth was not given unto you but, as the Psalmist says, to Israel only and to no other people on earth if you read Psalm 147:19,20. And you will never have it as long as you remain too proud to take it from a Jew.

 

[Nick M]

Ben needs to take it up with the prophets, not Paul. His name means "God with us".