Myths of Jesus vrs Paul

RGacky3 · May 8, 2014

Paleocon said:
1. Such as?

2. And the evidence that they specifically came to change Peter's eating habits is?

3. That they didn't have to, not that they shouldn't.

4. How does it apply inherently to governments?

5. Luke 16:23.

1. So let me ask you, before I start proving the obvious, do you REALLY believe that the Pharasees traveled throughout the empire trying to convert gentiles to Jews? Really?

2. Well, he ate before they came, they came, People from authority, then he stopped .... do you need to bible to spell EVERYTHING out for you?

3. What???? So James made him og through the ritual purity to disspell the rumer that he was teaching that jews didn't need to follow the Law ... a teaching that James actually agreed With???? This is Your argument?

4. BECAUSE IT SAYS RULERS AND AUTHORITIES AND SO ON"!!!!!

5. It's a parable .... not literal, obviously, (since obviously heaven isn't really sitting in Abrahams lap), also Hades is consistantly used as a Word for sheol, and sheol is a Place where there is no consciousness, no thought, nothing.

Ecclesiastes 9: 5,6 and 10

5 The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost. 6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun.

10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

Paleocon · May 8, 2014

RGacky3 said:
1. So let me ask you, before I start proving the obvious, do you REALLY believe that the Pharasees traveled throughout the empire trying to convert gentiles to Jews? Really?

2. Well, he ate before they came, they came, People from authority, then he stopped .... do you need to bible to spell EVERYTHING out for you?

3. What???? So James made him og through the ritual purity to disspell the rumer that he was teaching that jews didn't need to follow the Law ... a teaching that James actually agreed With???? This is Your argument?

4. BECAUSE IT SAYS RULERS AND AUTHORITIES AND SO ON"!!!!!

5. It's a parable .... not literal, obviously, (since obviously heaven isn't really sitting in Abrahams lap), also Hades is consistantly used as a Word for sheol, and sheol is a Place where there is no consciousness, no thought, nothing.

Ecclesiastes 9: 5,6 and 10

5 The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost. 6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun.

10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

1. Throughout the eastern Mediterranean (and not to the same extent as Christian missionaries would).

2. First, no one had authority over Peter. Second, people act differently depend into n who's around all the time, that doesn't require an express intention of the people they're around to cause such a change.

3. That's not what the rumors said.

4. As does Romans 13.

5. And the evidence in support of this interpretation is?

RGacky3 · May 8, 2014

Paleocon said:
1. Throughout the eastern Mediterranean (and not to the same extent as Christian missionaries would).

2. First, no one had authority over Peter. Second, people act differently depend into n who's around all the time, that doesn't require an express intention of the people they're around to cause such a change.

3. That's not what the rumors said.

4. As does Romans 13.

5. And the evidence in support of this interpretation is?

1. Yet there is 0 evidence for this AT ALL anywhere.

2. I'll let everyone read teh scripture themselves and come to there own conclusion .... I think you're case falls apart here.

3. Oh boy
21 They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs.

That is what Paul was teaching ... and James dissagreed With this teaching.

4. Which has to be taken into it's context and the context of the other scriptures.

5. The fact that it IS a parable, and the fact that the usage of sheol is consistant.

Paleocon · May 8, 2014

RGacky3 said:
1. Yet there is 0 evidence for this AT ALL anywhere.

2. I'll let everyone read teh scripture themselves and come to there own conclusion .... I think you're case falls apart here.

3. Oh boy
21 They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs.

That is what Paul was teaching ... and James dissagreed With this teaching.

4. Which has to be taken into it's context and the context of the other scriptures.

5. The fact that it IS a parable, and the fact that the usage of sheol is consistant.

1. Except as mentioned.

2. Ok.

3. That's what he was rumored to teach.

4. Exactly.

5. A parable based on non-existent torments?

ludin · May 8, 2014

RGacky3 said:
Commonly people think of Jesus being the free wheeling hippie figure concerned with being nice and egalitarianism and going against authority and law and the such, being about love and brotherhood and so on whereas Paul was more rigid and concerned with authority and making the "church" and moving away from a more lovey dovey christianity. So people talk about Jesus' christianity vrs Pauline, the former being supposedly more egalitarian and based on ethics the latter being more clerical and based on rules and the hereafter.

What bible are you using? i really want to know because this simply is not the case. Paul was setting guidelines for new churches that were having to deal with very secularist societies. Paul preached about love and forgiviness as well, but he was having to address a lot of corruptional issues that were going on during the early church. much of which was dealing with idol worship and other things.

Jesus was a Jew who thought that Jews and ONLY Jews were Gods chosen people, his message was only for the Jews, Paul was a universalist, who thought all men were equal before God.

Umm you are not correct as Jesus was often found preaching to other nationalities and anyone that would listen not just the jews. Israel is God's chosen people, but Christ came to redeem everyone not just the jews.

Paul spoke a whole lot more on personality traits and kindness than Jesus did, (at least from what he have in writing), and emphasised love over all.

where do you get this from. Christ constantly preached on love and forgiveness again i have to question your bible.

Jesus kept the law and didn't want to get rid of the law, Paul was against the law and thought it should be abolished for christians. Infact the big dispute between James (brother of Jesus) and Paul was over Jewish legalism.

again this is wrong. Christ had to keep the law in order to fulfill the law. as Christ said i have not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. In order to fulfill the law he had to live by it. His death on the cross fulfilled the law by being the perfect and last sacrifice that was required.

Jesus was born into a poor family, Paul was born into the professional class and CHOSE poverty (he went from being an ancient version of a lawer to a tent maker).

Christs birth fulfilled prophecy. Paul was not poor nor is it documented anywhere that the gave up any of his wealth. Paul was part of the sanhedran he was working his way to the top of the chain before his conversion. he then started using his resources to spread the message of God.

Jesus was never blatently political against Rome, he was focused on opposing the Jewish high priesthood and aristocracy. Paul talked about the powers and governments as being enemies, (people always bring up his pragmatic letter to the Romans and ignore the condemnations of worlly powers other places).

Jesus wasn't trying to establish an earthly kingdom. In order to keep with the law he had to follow roman law as well.

Paul consistantly focused on redistribution of wealth and caring for the poor (as did Jesus of coarse), but in pauls case it was in the context of an actual institution, and just like Jesus condemned persuit of wealth.

bible verse and scripture please.

Paul, even though you can find some "sexist" parts of his letters (some of which some scholars think are later additions), he was very egalitarian, he supported female prophets and leaders, and had the famous "there is neither male nor female, jew nor greek" and so on.

no paul was pretty clear that men should hold leadership positions and only if there was not a godly man to be found should a women take over.

Paul was not the leader of the church, infact he was very often in conflict with the leadership (Peter, James, John and others from the 12).

no one said he was the leader of the church. he was very much a planter of the church and he was friends with the other 11 later on.

Jesus was apocolyptic, talked about Gods judgement against the wicked, Paul generally focused on the positive hope that the church had.

again i have to question what bible you are talking about. yes Christ did talk about God's judgement, but he spoke on way more than that.

Paul was arrested by the authorities all the time.

Yes he was because for about 300 years it was illegal to be a christain in the roman empire.

(If you'd like scriptural backing I'll provide it for you).

Yea and what bible you are using.

My point is among many so called "liberal christians" who like the idea of Jesus as a sort of proto-anti-establishment figure, but then look at Paul as someone who ruined it have that concept based on popular imagination and not actual scripture or history. Paul was NOT a strict legalist, was not a judgmental guy going around trying to be the boss, Jesus wasn't just a lovey dovey ethicist while paul was an authoritarian doom and gloom preacher.

paul acts as a disicplinarian in many cases because he is trying to establish churches in many parts of the known world. almost all the churches were established in major ports and major city centers. all of which had a great deal of corruption. a lot of his letters were dealing with those issues faced by the early church as they try to establish a foothold.

Nor did their theologies really conflict, Jesus was the jewish massiah for the jewish people ... Paul was the apostle to the nations bringing the Christian message to the universal stage. Jesus dealt with a theological framework, Paul dealt with institutional practice.

No Jesus was the messiah for the entire world not just the jews.

RGacky3 · May 9, 2014

Paleocon said:
1. Except as mentioned.

2. Ok.

3. That's what he was rumored to teach.

4. Exactly.

5. A parable based on non-existent torments?

1. A figure of Speech you take literally ... that's IT, if that's Your only "evidence" that the pharisees were actually all over the empire proselatyzing (even though no one ever mentions it), then I'll let it stand.

3. And if he was would it have been wrong?

5. Yes, Jeses does parables about non existant Things all the time.

RGacky3 · May 9, 2014

ludin said:
1. What bible are you using? i really want to know because this simply is not the case. Paul was setting guidelines for new churches that were having to deal with very secularist societies. Paul preached about love and forgiviness as well, but he was having to address a lot of corruptional issues that were going on during the early church. much of which was dealing with idol worship and other things.

2. Umm you are not correct as Jesus was often found preaching to other nationalities and anyone that would listen not just the jews. Israel is God's chosen people, but Christ came to redeem everyone not just the jews.

3. where do you get this from. Christ constantly preached on love and forgiveness again i have to question your bible.

4. again this is wrong. Christ had to keep the law in order to fulfill the law. as Christ said i have not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. In order to fulfill the law he had to live by it. His death on the cross fulfilled the law by being the perfect and last sacrifice that was required.

5. Christs birth fulfilled prophecy. Paul was not poor nor is it documented anywhere that the gave up any of his wealth. Paul was part of the sanhedran he was working his way to the top of the chain before his conversion. he then started using his resources to spread the message of God.

6. Jesus wasn't trying to establish an earthly kingdom. In order to keep with the law he had to follow roman law as well.

7. bible verse and scripture please.

8. no paul was pretty clear that men should hold leadership positions and only if there was not a godly man to be found should a women take over.

9. no one said he was the leader of the church. he was very much a planter of the church and he was friends with the other 11 later on.

10. again i have to question what bible you are talking about. yes Christ did talk about God's judgement, but he spoke on way more than that.

11. Yes he was because for about 300 years it was illegal to be a christain in the roman empire.

12. Yea and what bible you are using.

13. paul acts as a disicplinarian in many cases because he is trying to establish churches in many parts of the known world. almost all the churches were established in major ports and major city centers. all of which had a great deal of corruption. a lot of his letters were dealing with those issues faced by the early church as they try to establish a foothold.

14. No Jesus was the messiah for the entire world not just the jews.

1. NRSV
my point there was that People think that, not that it is true.

2. He preached a few times to other nationalities, but he was very Clear, he was here for the Jews, and he commanded his disciples preach to the jews, the other nationalities we're the exception.

3. Jesus did preach about forgiveness and love, but it was basically along the times of 2nd temple liberal judaism, Paul took it to a Whole New Level.

4. That's a theological interpretation, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying what Jesus actually tought to the People at his time, he taught that they should keep the Law.

5. He worked as a tent maker, FROM working as a learned pharisee With a Roman citizenship ... Paul did give up his wealth .... that's why a lawer had to work as a tent maker.

6. Ok ....

7. For which ones? the Institutional background is described in Acts 2 and 4, social justice is all over the Place. in the sermon on the plain Luke 6:20-26, Luke 4:18,19, Matthew 25:31-46 and a Whole lot more, his condemnation of Money changers, re-enforcing the no usury Law and so on. For Paul, Galatians 2:10, 2 Corinthians 8:8-15, Romans 15:26, 2 Corinthians 9.

The point was Jesus talked about it escatologically, Paul talked about it within the context of a communal Church.

8. Not necessarily, women are called Deacons, women prophesy and so on, I suggest you read NT Wright's work on paul, his attitude toward women is a little more complicated.

9. Ok ....

10. Jesus spoke about judgement day way more than others in the bible .... no one said he didn't speak on other Things.

11. No it wasn't, it wasn't illigal until Nero, before then the attacks on christians we're local and sporatic, it was seen as an inter-jewish problem and usually ignored by the romans.

12. New revised standard Version, a standard Version used in universities and seminaries, which one do you use?

13. When you look at his actual teaching, it was extremely un authoritarian and rather "liberal," and he disicplinarian was often against legalists.

14. That's a theological interpretation of his life ....

Are you aware of how historical Jesus studies are done? You're mixing theology With straight historical study here.

ludin · May 9, 2014

RGacky3 said:
1. NRSV
my point there was that People think that, not that it is true.

2. He preached a few times to other nationalities, but he was very Clear, he was here for the Jews, and he commanded his disciples preach to the jews, the other nationalities we're the exception.

3. Jesus did preach about forgiveness and love, but it was basically along the times of 2nd temple liberal judaism, Paul took it to a Whole New Level.

4. That's a theological interpretation, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying what Jesus actually tought to the People at his time, he taught that they should keep the Law.

5. He worked as a tent maker, FROM working as a learned pharisee With a Roman citizenship ... Paul did give up his wealth .... that's why a lawer had to work as a tent maker.

6. Ok ....

7. For which ones? the Institutional background is described in Acts 2 and 4, social justice is all over the Place. in the sermon on the plain Luke 6:20-26, Luke 4:18,19, Matthew 25:31-46 and a Whole lot more, his condemnation of Money changers, re-enforcing the no usury Law and so on. For Paul, Galatians 2:10, 2 Corinthians 8:8-15, Romans 15:26, 2 Corinthians 9.

The point was Jesus talked about it escatologically, Paul talked about it within the context of a communal Church.

8. Not necessarily, women are called Deacons, women prophesy and so on, I suggest you read NT Wright's work on paul, his attitude toward women is a little more complicated.

9. Ok ....

10. Jesus spoke about judgement day way more than others in the bible .... no one said he didn't speak on other Things.

11. No it wasn't, it wasn't illigal until Nero, before then the attacks on christians we're local and sporatic, it was seen as an inter-jewish problem and usually ignored by the romans.

12. New revised standard Version, a standard Version used in universities and seminaries, which one do you use?

13. When you look at his actual teaching, it was extremely un authoritarian and rather "liberal," and he disicplinarian was often against legalists.

14. That's a theological interpretation of his life ....

Are you aware of how historical Jesus studies are done? You're mixing theology With straight historical study here.

1. I don't know what other people think you are listening to but they are not correct.
2. They you have ignored the Great commission that Christ gave his disciples.
matthew 26-18-20
. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

please show me where he told the disiples to only preach to the jews. Do you not realize that when pentacost happened there were many people from many nations that were witnessed to?

3. no it wasn't. when asked how many times they should forgive their brother that the law said only 7 times (after that you had the right to cut your brother off and where no longer required to forgive him) Christ responded "I say not 7 time but 70 times 7" not meaning the actual number but everytime.

4. Call it what you will as i said before his death the law was still intact and he didn't come ot abolish the law but to fulfill it. which he did fulfill the law and a new convenant was put into place.

5. Paul didn't need money. He was supported by what wealth he had and by the churches that he helped plant. i am sure that he had skills that he used to get around to various parts of the roman empire. it is easier to move about the roman empire as a tent maker than a apostle of Christ.

7. acts 2 deals with pentacost. acts 4 is again your distortion of scripture. nothing there says anything of manditory wealth redistribution. they did it of their own free will. it was nothing more than donating to charity. which is the opposite of weath redistribution. luke 6 says blessed are the poor it says nothing of wealth redistribution. again it has to do with Christ preaching about the love of money above all else. matthew 26 again nothing to do with wealth redistribution but charity.

As for the money changers you have no idea what you are talking about. it was required in the day that you buy sacrifices. The only way to buy sacrifices was to exchange your roman money for temple script. so what would happen is you would go to the temple and they had an exchange table. you would exchange your Roman currency for temple script. you would then buy your sacrifice and then you would have to convert what temple script you had back to roman coinage.

the money changers would keep the difference in the exchange as their payment and the temple kept the money from the sacrifice. the money changers were cheating people their exchange rates were absurd on both ends. so they might give you a 1:2 from roman to temple then on the way out it would be a 4:1 temple to roman. That is why Christ got angry.

galations 2:6 again nothing to do with wealth redistribution. 2 corinthans 8 again has to do with giving freely nothing to do with wealth redistribution. Romans 15 again has to do with charity and giving not wealth redistribution. 2 corinthans 9 again deals with supporting the church and giving to charity not wealth redistribution.

charity is not wealth redistribution if you do not understand the difference i will explain it to you.

8. again paul only suggested that women hold an office if a godly man was not found to be able to hold that office. it wasn't that complicated at all.
if there was a women decon then it was because men were not stepping up to their Godly role.

10. yes he spoke about it but it wasn't as often as you think. He spoke more often about the kingdom of heaven and the love of the father than he did judgment and wrath.

11. It was illegal far before nero. Nero was just one of a long line and the most documents. the persecution of the church happened for about 300 year or more on and off.

12. both the ESV study bible and NJK study bible. the reason i ask is a lot of the things you say are not in any bible i have read.
13. no he was against the temple priests because they had corrupted the law and corrupted the word of God has it had been passed down. They used it to empower themselves over other people. He was freeing people spiritually from the law.

14. actually no it is a historical version of his life based on the bible.

RGacky3 · May 9, 2014

ludin said:
1. I don't know what other people think you are listening to but they are not correct.
2. They you have ignored the Great commission that Christ gave his disciples.
matthew 26-18-20
. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

please show me where he told the disiples to only preach to the jews. Do you not realize that when pentacost happened there were many people from many nations that were witnessed to?

3. no it wasn't. when asked how many times they should forgive their brother that the law said only 7 times (after that you had the right to cut your brother off and where no longer required to forgive him) Christ responded "I say not 7 time but 70 times 7" not meaning the actual number but everytime.

4. Call it what you will as i said before his death the law was still intact and he didn't come ot abolish the law but to fulfill it. which he did fulfill the law and a new convenant was put into place.

5. Paul didn't need money. He was supported by what wealth he had and by the churches that he helped plant. i am sure that he had skills that he used to get around to various parts of the roman empire. it is easier to move about the roman empire as a tent maker than a apostle of Christ.

7. acts 2 deals with pentacost. acts 4 is again your distortion of scripture. nothing there says anything of manditory wealth redistribution. they did it of their own free will. it was nothing more than donating to charity. which is the opposite of weath redistribution. luke 6 says blessed are the poor it says nothing of wealth redistribution. again it has to do with Christ preaching about the love of money above all else. matthew 26 again nothing to do with wealth redistribution but charity.

As for the money changers you have no idea what you are talking about. it was required in the day that you buy sacrifices. The only way to buy sacrifices was to exchange your roman money for temple script. so what would happen is you would go to the temple and they had an exchange table. you would exchange your Roman currency for temple script. you would then buy your sacrifice and then you would have to convert what temple script you had back to roman coinage.

the money changers would keep the difference in the exchange as their payment and the temple kept the money from the sacrifice. the money changers were cheating people their exchange rates were absurd on both ends. so they might give you a 1:2 from roman to temple then on the way out it would be a 4:1 temple to roman. That is why Christ got angry.

galations 2:6 again nothing to do with wealth redistribution. 2 corinthans 8 again has to do with giving freely nothing to do with wealth redistribution. Romans 15 again has to do with charity and giving not wealth redistribution. 2 corinthans 9 again deals with supporting the church and giving to charity not wealth redistribution.

charity is not wealth redistribution if you do not understand the difference i will explain it to you.

8. again paul only suggested that women hold an office if a godly man was not found to be able to hold that office. it wasn't that complicated at all.
if there was a women decon then it was because men were not stepping up to their Godly role.

10. yes he spoke about it but it wasn't as often as you think. He spoke more often about the kingdom of heaven and the love of the father than he did judgment and wrath.

11. It was illegal far before nero. Nero was just one of a long line and the most documents. the persecution of the church happened for about 300 year or more on and off.

12. both the ESV study bible and NJK study bible. the reason i ask is a lot of the things you say are not in any bible i have read.
13. no he was against the temple priests because they had corrupted the law and corrupted the word of God has it had been passed down. They used it to empower themselves over other people. He was freeing people spiritually from the law.

14. actually no it is a historical version of his life based on the bible.

2. That's post Death and ressurection, and usually not included material in historical Jesus studies.

Matthew 10: 5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthwe 15:22 Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

3. That attitude was not unique to Jesus, it has it's background in 2nd temple Judaism.

4. ... Ok ... again, that's a theological interpretation.

5. What??? Where are you getting this from? He worked as a tent maker to SUPPORT HIMSELF, InFact he said that he didn't take advantage of the communal Finances of the Church, because he worked as a tent maker .... not as a cover ... you're just making this up. If you need the verse I'll give it to you.

7. The end of acts 2 and acts 4 describe a communal system, they held EVERYTHING IN COMMON .... it was systematic, no **** they did it out of their free will, they became CHRISTIANS through free will, it was not just donating to charity it was actual communal property, that's what the text says ... twice, and it was constant distribution. It was not just philanthropy, it was a system.

Luke 6, if you read the Whole thing, talks about a flipping of the social system, the poor will become Rich and the Rich will be cursed and so on.

Jesus didn't talk about the love of Money, Paul did.

Matthew 25 was about a communal sense of duty to one another,

The Money changers we're charging interest, something which was considered robbery and wrong (also the basis of capitalism), in the temple, that was the problem.

2 corinthians talks specifically about redistribution, Call it charity if you want, but it was Church policy to redistribute wealth and hold Things in common ....

Charity is also not philanthropy, it's a translation of the Word "agape" which refers to an attitude, not an act.

You're also missing where Jesus makes his mission statement and proclaims the year of the lord, referencing the jubilee year, a redistributive jewish concept.

8. Which is simpy untrue, where does he say that? The women deacon was in a Church filled With men, there we're various women in leadership roles in the NT.

10. What do you mean not as often as I think ???? How often do you think I think? I just said way more than paul, read what my OP says.

11. Evidence that it was illigal to be a christian before Nero????

12. The ESV is a good bible, you just need to read it without Your ideological presuppositions (i.e. right wing).

13. Paul? Paul was an aposlte to the nations .... not in Jerusalem .... There were no jewish preists in Asia Minor or greece.

14. Again, have you ever read any Critical scholarship on the historical Jesus?

ludin · May 9, 2014

RGacky3 said:
2. That's post Death and ressurection, and usually not included material in historical Jesus studies.

Matthew 10: 5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthwe 15:22 Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

3. That attitude was not unique to Jesus, it has it's background in 2nd temple Judaism.

4. ... Ok ... again, that's a theological interpretation.

5. What??? Where are you getting this from? He worked as a tent maker to SUPPORT HIMSELF, InFact he said that he didn't take advantage of the communal Finances of the Church, because he worked as a tent maker .... not as a cover ... you're just making this up. If you need the verse I'll give it to you.

7. The end of acts 2 and acts 4 describe a communal system, they held EVERYTHING IN COMMON .... it was systematic, no **** they did it out of their free will, they became CHRISTIANS through free will, it was not just donating to charity it was actual communal property, that's what the text says ... twice, and it was constant distribution. It was not just philanthropy, it was a system.

Luke 6, if you read the Whole thing, talks about a flipping of the social system, the poor will become Rich and the Rich will be cursed and so on.

Jesus didn't talk about the love of Money, Paul did.

Matthew 25 was about a communal sense of duty to one another,

The Money changers we're charging interest, something which was considered robbery and wrong (also the basis of capitalism), in the temple, that was the problem.

2 corinthians talks specifically about redistribution, Call it charity if you want, but it was Church policy to redistribute wealth and hold Things in common ....

Charity is also not philanthropy, it's a translation of the Word "agape" which refers to an attitude, not an act.

You're also missing where Jesus makes his mission statement and proclaims the year of the lord, referencing the jubilee year, a redistributive jewish concept.

8. Which is simpy untrue, where does he say that? The women deacon was in a Church filled With men, there we're various women in leadership roles in the NT.

10. What do you mean not as often as I think ???? How often do you think I think? I just said way more than paul, read what my OP says.

11. Evidence that it was illigal to be a christian before Nero????

12. The ESV is a good bible, you just need to read it without Your ideological presuppositions (i.e. right wing).

13. Paul? Paul was an aposlte to the nations .... not in Jerusalem .... There were no jewish preists in Asia Minor or greece.

14. Again, have you ever read any Critical scholarship on the historical Jesus?

i had the response typed out and this thing messed up.

so i will summerize. the only one applying any kind of ideology here is you. all your wealth distribution nonsense has already been proven false. giving of your own free will and sharing what you have is not wealth redistribution. charity and giving of your own free will is not wealth redistribution.

no where in the bible does it say take from someone that has to much and give it to someone else. no where did christ preach this and no where in the bible is this acceptable.
the money changers in the temple weren't charging interest they are steal from people through exchange rates. do you not read?

the great commission is every bit a part of historic Jesus. He sent his disciples to the entire world not just Israel. Christ was not there just for the Jews but for everyone.
i don't know where you are getting your information but it is highly flawed on some of these things.

when paul became an apostile he was kicked out of the temple. so he would have had to pick up a secondary skill. he used most of his money traveling if it was not seized by the temple. he was also supported by other churches. in fact he gets on to the church at corinth for not giving half of what they could compared to other churches that give most of what they have.

I have read more on Jesus than you have evidently.

RGacky3 · May 12, 2014

ludin said:
i had the response typed out and this thing messed up.

1. so i will summerize. the only one applying any kind of ideology here is you. all your wealth distribution nonsense has already been proven false. giving of your own free will and sharing what you have is not wealth redistribution. charity and giving of your own free will is not wealth redistribution.

2. no where in the bible does it say take from someone that has to much and give it to someone else. no where did christ preach this and no where in the bible is this acceptable.
the money changers in the temple weren't charging interest they are steal from people through exchange rates. do you not read?

3. the great commission is every bit a part of historic Jesus. He sent his disciples to the entire world not just Israel. Christ was not there just for the Jews but for everyone.
i don't know where you are getting your information but it is highly flawed on some of these things.

when paul became an apostile he was kicked out of the temple. so he would have had to pick up a secondary skill. he used most of his money traveling if it was not seized by the temple. he was also supported by other churches. in fact he gets on to the church at corinth for not giving half of what they could compared to other churches that give most of what they have.

I have read more on Jesus than you have evidently.

1. That is NOT what I'm doing, at all, I'm Reading the scriptures in their own context, and what they would mean to the People Reading it at the time, even the Word "charity" you read that in a 21st Century context, I don't, charity is a translation of the Word Agape, it has NOTHING to do With philanthropy, it's an attitude, a way of looking at People. Jesus had a social Message, the Kingdom of God, the good year of the lord, and all these Things were not just something to do With heaven later, it had to do With the social order.

2. I did read, but again, charging interest was a sin, changing coin's was not a sin, charging interest was ... making a profit from it was.

3. I'm getting it from historical Jesus studies, N.t. Wright, John Meier, Craig Evans, and so on, have you ever read actual historical Jesus studies?

4. Paul NEVER WORKED IN THE TEMPLE, he wasn't a priest!!!