Paul the False Apostle

[nightlight]

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Dead-Rober ... 1578840007
Robert M. Price
Jesus Is Dead

Description
Product Description
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

From the Inside Flap
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

it's just a rehash of rehash until there is nothing left. In general, Men such as that author are incredibly bias and controlled by their own twisted minds. Laughable.

When you can’t debate the subject, attack the source. We all do it.

No one said this guy was a prophet or a saint. What he is, however, is a perspective outside of this particular mindset quoting early sources with reasoning. You can draw your own conclusions.

Recognizing the source's desire to destroy the very idea of Christ is not "attacking" the source. It is a recognition that in order to destroy the divinity of Christ, that they have to knock down one of the large walls surrounding hte divinity of Christ and they do so through attempting to attack character of Paul - rather than attack his teachings, they seek to attack his character mostly through unfounded rumor and again the pre-supposition that he was deceitful. Most of the people you quote seem to focus on 1) letter Paul wrote, rather than looking at the whole of his letters. If I were to judge you by using only a single letter or e-mail you've written, I'm sure I would come way with some very wrong views.

If I were to say your source was an idiot that would be a logical fallacy, but to recognize that your source again only desires to deny that Christ came in the flesh (the Spirit of the anti-Christ according to John) and they admit it is not a fallacy. It is a necessary fact in order to determine bias of the source. All sources have biases, but I'm guessing you aren't even googling/duck duck going responses to these things because you want so badly for Paul to be a false apostle regardless of how poor the scholarship is of your sources- if you want to know truth, actual truth, look at responses and see all the data, not just one side. It's like me learning about Martin Luther from the Catholic church while he was hammering up his views. Or learning about John Wycliffe. Their whole goal is to "prove" is based on the presupposition that Christ either 1) never existed or 2) wasn't divine and never had any real atonement. So that is why it is so is necessary to undertstand that this person really isn't "quoting outside sources with reasoning" There are books upon books and histories upon histories showing that Christ at the very least was a historical figure. To me it more demonstrates how someone can put blinders on and say they can see in a 360 view. It's like me placing blinders on my horse and getting mad at them when they don't see the bear coming at them from behind. If you were actually searching for truth, you would be looking at more than just anti-christ propoganda thinking you are finding truth when reality your just learning about John Wycliffe from the Catholics during his trial, but hey at least the Catholics are "reasoned.'

"Why are you judging this man by his fruits!!!! He is just a fresh pair of eyes.... His conclusions of a fake Jesus & the fraudulent 4 gospels should not have any bearing on his understanding of Paul!!! "

[John Tavner]

it's just a rehash of rehash until there is nothing left. In general, Men such as that author are incredibly bias and controlled by their own twisted minds. Laughable.

When you can’t debate the subject, attack the source. We all do it.

No one said this guy was a prophet or a saint. What he is, however, is a perspective outside of this particular mindset quoting early sources with reasoning. You can draw your own conclusions.

Recognizing the source's desire to destroy the very idea of Christ is not "attacking" the source. It is a recognition that in order to destroy the divinity of Christ, that they have to knock down one of the large walls surrounding hte divinity of Christ and they do so through attempting to attack character of Paul - rather than attack his teachings, they seek to attack his character mostly through unfounded rumor and again the pre-supposition that he was deceitful. Most of the people you quote seem to focus on 1) letter Paul wrote, rather than looking at the whole of his letters. If I were to judge you by using only a single letter or e-mail you've written, I'm sure I would come way with some very wrong views.

If I were to say your source was an idiot that would be a logical fallacy, but to recognize that your source again only desires to deny that Christ came in the flesh (the Spirit of the anti-Christ according to John) and they admit it is not a fallacy. It is a necessary fact in order to determine bias of the source. All sources have biases, but I'm guessing you aren't even googling/duck duck going responses to these things because you want so badly for Paul to be a false apostle regardless of how poor the scholarship is of your sources- if you want to know truth, actual truth, look at responses and see all the data, not just one side. It's like me learning about Martin Luther from the Catholic church while he was hammering up his views. Or learning about John Wycliffe. Their whole goal is to "prove" is based on the presupposition that Christ either 1) never existed or 2) wasn't divine and never had any real atonement. So that is why it is so is necessary to undertstand that this person really isn't "quoting outside sources with reasoning" There are books upon books and histories upon histories showing that Christ at the very least was a historical figure. To me it more demonstrates how someone can put blinders on and say they can see in a 360 view. It's like me placing blinders on my horse and getting mad at them when they don't see the bear coming at them from behind. If you were actually searching for truth, you would be looking at more than just anti-christ propoganda thinking you are finding truth when reality your just learning about John Wycliffe from the Catholics during his trial, but hey at least the Catholics are "reasoned.'

So Epiphanius, the defender of orthodoxy, is an acceptable source for you? Should I accept you as having a valid opinion, given that you don’t believe the majority of LDS scripture? Why should you have a say in this thread?

Epiphanius was telling us what Ebionites believed and calling them heretics... and Ebionites did not believe in the divinity of Christ - they only really believed in the gospel of Matthew, removing any show of divinity from Christ. It was not Epiphanius' testimony that Paul was who you think he is. Your research is sloppy. Do better research - it would be one thing if you presented both sides of the argument, but you focus so much of your disdain for Paul that you would accept Stalin, Mao, and Hitler as character witnesses in exchange for how you would believe that they didn't commit mass genocide all for a "testimony" for how Paul was terrible. (Yes, I'm being hyperbolic)

[nightlight]

Jesus explained what the higher law is.... And you just breeze past HIS ACTUAL WORDS. Lol

WHAT DID HE OUTLINE WHEN HE EXPLAINED THE HIGHER LAW????

Jesus did not give the people a higher law. He RESTORED the law to an apostate people. If you read the Old Testament you’ll notice that there was always a call to internalize the law - it is not a NT thing.

Did Jesus not explain to Peter that He made all things clean....so eat?

Is that what that dream of his meant? That it was ok to eat swine? Or was it now ok to preach to the Gentiles who had always been depicted as swine in prophetic teaching?
How did the Atonement change swine’s flesh from unclean to clean?
How were the dietary laws done away with in Christ?

Did Jesus not explain to Mormon that circumcision is done away?

How are we to take this one witness, especially since he was speaking of the baptism of infants? Was this comment inserted? How does baptism of infants have anything whatever to do with circumcision? This is in contradiction to the Book of Jubilees and other sources.

Jesus : Behold, it is written by them of old time,................BUT I SAY UNTO YOU ____

If you look at the Greek, it is actually “You have heard that it was said” - where does the “old time” come from?

Jesus was a restorer and a renewer. He fulfilled some things and has yet to fulfill other things. He is the Law.

You keep saying He is the Law....but then you go on to show that you do not know what that means

Does it make me unclean if I eat pork?

So, then, you would have to demonstrate how my use of Jesus as the Law shows I don’t know what it means.

I honestly don’t understand the why’s and wherefores of pork consumption. The book of Jubilees talks about how the commandment to not eat blood with the meat will never be revoked and how we will return again to break that law in the last days. There are special practices by skilled butchers that were implemented to remove the blood from the meat in order to satisfy that commandment. We are obviously ignorant of these things, as well as the observations of things like new moons.

Dead works

You look to dead works like any average LDS person...but you take it to a new level like the Jews of old.

All scriptures I've used to show you that you're completely wrong, you just breeze bye, "well...it's wrong" , or "it was translated incorrectly"..... Lol

It's pointless to even quote scripture to you these days, lol you just deny them and quote some Ivy League clowns

[TheChristian]

Ethiopian Christians won't touch pork. One or two small churches too.

Theres a good reason for the Jew or or any ancient people not eating pig flesh, and its a health reason, in those days , especially so in warmer climes pigs were riddled with tapeworm, whoms eggs can only be killed by thorough cooking.
In one Pharoughs mummy they found a 21 foot tapeworm, this must of caused him constant problems, I feel the Jewish Code of what to eat and not to eat was the finest health code of its day.
The Romans when they first came apon Judea marvelled at the health and vitality of the Jews. No doubt it was because of the Law of Moses concerning what was forbidden to eat.

[Pazooka]

When you can’t debate the subject, attack the source. We all do it.

No one said this guy was a prophet or a saint. What he is, however, is a perspective outside of this particular mindset quoting early sources with reasoning. You can draw your own conclusions.

Recognizing the source's desire to destroy the very idea of Christ is not "attacking" the source. It is a recognition that in order to destroy the divinity of Christ, that they have to knock down one of the large walls surrounding hte divinity of Christ and they do so through attempting to attack character of Paul - rather than attack his teachings, they seek to attack his character mostly through unfounded rumor and again the pre-supposition that he was deceitful. Most of the people you quote seem to focus on 1) letter Paul wrote, rather than looking at the whole of his letters. If I were to judge you by using only a single letter or e-mail you've written, I'm sure I would come way with some very wrong views.

If I were to say your source was an idiot that would be a logical fallacy, but to recognize that your source again only desires to deny that Christ came in the flesh (the Spirit of the anti-Christ according to John) and they admit it is not a fallacy. It is a necessary fact in order to determine bias of the source. All sources have biases, but I'm guessing you aren't even googling/duck duck going responses to these things because you want so badly for Paul to be a false apostle regardless of how poor the scholarship is of your sources- if you want to know truth, actual truth, look at responses and see all the data, not just one side. It's like me learning about Martin Luther from the Catholic church while he was hammering up his views. Or learning about John Wycliffe. Their whole goal is to "prove" is based on the presupposition that Christ either 1) never existed or 2) wasn't divine and never had any real atonement. So that is why it is so is necessary to undertstand that this person really isn't "quoting outside sources with reasoning" There are books upon books and histories upon histories showing that Christ at the very least was a historical figure. To me it more demonstrates how someone can put blinders on and say they can see in a 360 view. It's like me placing blinders on my horse and getting mad at them when they don't see the bear coming at them from behind. If you were actually searching for truth, you would be looking at more than just anti-christ propoganda thinking you are finding truth when reality your just learning about John Wycliffe from the Catholics during his trial, but hey at least the Catholics are "reasoned.'

So Epiphanius, the defender of orthodoxy, is an acceptable source for you? Should I accept you as having a valid opinion, given that you don’t believe the majority of LDS scripture? Why should you have a say in this thread?

Epiphanius was telling us what Ebionites believed and calling them heretics... and Ebionites did not believe in the divinity of Christ - they only really believed in the gospel of Matthew, removing any show of divinity from Christ. It was not Epiphanius' testimony that Paul was who you think he is. Your research is sloppy. Do better research - it would be one thing if you presented both sides of the argument, but you focus so much of your disdain for Paul that you would accept Stalin, Mao, and Hitler as character witnesses in exchange for how you would believe that they didn't commit mass genocide all for a "testimony" for how Paul was terrible. (Yes, I'm being hyperbolic)

Not true. But there is such a thing as apologetic bias.

I really want to know what happened.

[Niemand]

Ethiopian Christians won't touch pork. One or two small churches too.

Theres a good reason for the Jew or or any ancient people not eating pig flesh, and its a health reason, in those days , especially so in warmer climes pigs were riddled with tapeworm, whoms eggs can only be killed by thorough cooking.
In one Pharoughs mummy they found a 21 foot tapeworm, this must of caused him constant problems, I feel the Jewish Code of what to eat and not to eat was the finest health code of its day.
The Romans when they first came apon Judea marvelled at the health and vitality of the Jews. No doubt it was because of the Law of Moses concerning what was forbidden to eat.

Pigs certainly carry a lot of nasty parasites. I once knew someone who used to teach in Thailand and one or two of his students developed headaches and fits from what turned out to be tapeworm cysts in the brain... nasty! But that seems to be more common in warm places.

Kosher rules are good for hot climates. Shellfish and pig are probably a bad thing to eat there. Crows and buzzards too. I've been wary of shellfish in recent times myself but I enjoy a "full" breakfast now and then. If I was in a Third World country I wouldn't eat fish unless I'd seen it being caught in front of me. But I would happily eat rabbit, kangaroo and a whole load of other things which are not-kosher. I used to catch a lot of rabbits for the pot when I was younger.

The Romans seem to have been like the Chinese and would eat just about anything.

[FrankOne]

Recognizing the source's desire to destroy the very idea of Christ is not "attacking" the source. It is a recognition that in order to destroy the divinity of Christ, that they have to knock down one of the large walls surrounding hte divinity of Christ and they do so through attempting to attack character of Paul - rather than attack his teachings, they seek to attack his character mostly through unfounded rumor and again the pre-supposition that he was deceitful. Most of the people you quote seem to focus on 1) letter Paul wrote, rather than looking at the whole of his letters. If I were to judge you by using only a single letter or e-mail you've written, I'm sure I would come way with some very wrong views.

If I were to say your source was an idiot that would be a logical fallacy, but to recognize that your source again only desires to deny that Christ came in the flesh (the Spirit of the anti-Christ according to John) and they admit it is not a fallacy. It is a necessary fact in order to determine bias of the source. All sources have biases, but I'm guessing you aren't even googling/duck duck going responses to these things because you want so badly for Paul to be a false apostle regardless of how poor the scholarship is of your sources- if you want to know truth, actual truth, look at responses and see all the data, not just one side. It's like me learning about Martin Luther from the Catholic church while he was hammering up his views. Or learning about John Wycliffe. Their whole goal is to "prove" is based on the presupposition that Christ either 1) never existed or 2) wasn't divine and never had any real atonement. So that is why it is so is necessary to undertstand that this person really isn't "quoting outside sources with reasoning" There are books upon books and histories upon histories showing that Christ at the very least was a historical figure. To me it more demonstrates how someone can put blinders on and say they can see in a 360 view. It's like me placing blinders on my horse and getting mad at them when they don't see the bear coming at them from behind. If you were actually searching for truth, you would be looking at more than just anti-christ propoganda thinking you are finding truth when reality your just learning about John Wycliffe from the Catholics during his trial, but hey at least the Catholics are "reasoned.'

So Epiphanius, the defender of orthodoxy, is an acceptable source for you? Should I accept you as having a valid opinion, given that you don’t believe the majority of LDS scripture? Why should you have a say in this thread?

Epiphanius was telling us what Ebionites believed and calling them heretics... and Ebionites did not believe in the divinity of Christ - they only really believed in the gospel of Matthew, removing any show of divinity from Christ. It was not Epiphanius' testimony that Paul was who you think he is. Your research is sloppy. Do better research - it would be one thing if you presented both sides of the argument, but you focus so much of your disdain for Paul that you would accept Stalin, Mao, and Hitler as character witnesses in exchange for how you would believe that they didn't commit mass genocide all for a "testimony" for how Paul was terrible. (Yes, I'm being hyperbolic)

Not true. But there is such a thing as apologetic bias.

I really want to know what happened.

on this point ^ i totally agree.

history can be 'proven' to mean anything a researcher wants it to mean. such as anthropology; it the most bias science of all if it even can be called a science.

#1 - there is no way we can trust the original source itself due to the bias of the individual. That individual is going to skew the facts to his own perception of how it 'SHOULD' be. You've made a great case of Paul being an overzealous rebel. No doubt that he was compromised by bias.

#2- there is no way to determine if the original greek and hebrew copies we use of the bible are accurate. The hebrew narrative was passed on mouth to ear for at least a few hundred YEARS before being put to pen.

#3 - the books we now have in the cannon is 66. there were at least 1500 scrolls to choose from when the roman emporer, constantine called the counsel of Nice to determine the doctrine of a STATE controlled religion. I wonder if there was any bias in choosing those 66? laughable subject really.

conclusion. As far as facts, we know almost nothing.

[FrankOne]

Ethiopian Christians won't touch pork. One or two small churches too.

Theres a good reason for the Jew or or any ancient people not eating pig flesh, and its a health reason, in those days , especially so in warmer climes pigs were riddled with tapeworm, whoms eggs can only be killed by thorough cooking.
In one Pharoughs mummy they found a 21 foot tapeworm, this must of caused him constant problems, I feel the Jewish Code of what to eat and not to eat was the finest health code of its day.
The Romans when they first came apon Judea marvelled at the health and vitality of the Jews. No doubt it was because of the Law of Moses concerning what was forbidden to eat.

Pigs certainly carry a lot of nasty parasites. I once knew someone who used to teach in Thailand and one or two of his students developed headaches and fits from what turned out to be tapeworm cysts in the brain... nasty! But that seems to be more common in warm places.

Kosher rules are good for hot climates. Shellfish and pig are probably a bad thing to eat there. Crows and buzzards too. I've been wary of shellfish in recent times myself but I enjoy a "full" breakfast now and then. If I was in a Third World country I wouldn't eat fish unless I'd seen it being caught in front of me. But I would happily eat rabbit, kangaroo and a whole load of other things which are not-kosher. I used to catch a lot of rabbits for the pot when I was younger.

The Romans seem to have been like the Chinese and would eat just about anything.

when a buddy of mine returned from working on a fish boat and told me how they scanned fish with a black light for parasites and all the beasties that they pulled out... i lost my desire for fish for quite a few years. i went back to pretending they are all fine. i do like to smoke salmon....sort of a weakness i have.

shellfish, of course are the worst. cook well.

[Niemand]

when a buddy of mine returned from working on a fish boat and told me how they scanned fish with a black light for parasites and all the beasties that they pulled out... i lost my desire for fish for quite a few years. i went back to pretending they are all fine. i do like to smoke salmon....sort of a weakness i have.

shellfish, of course are the worst. cook well.

Food should be prepared properly. I think the trouble is that we (me included) have let others prepare our food for us.

One of my friends bought shellfish from the reduced section of the supermarket and ended up clearing my insides out for a week. I'm very wary of them these days. He invited me over on another occasion and he had left mussels (or whatever they were) lying around in the sun on a windowsill. I had to flat out refuse to have them when I saw that.

[Niemand]

There are a lot of unusual things about Paul:

* He was late on the scene.
* He appears to have come from a privileged background and travelled fairly freely which few did back then.
* He studied under Rabbi Gamaliel who is still highly regarded by modern Jews.
* He appears to have been heavily helllenised and aware of some Greek traditions.
* He was not a Judaean.
* He was a Roman citizen, which would have been unusual for Jews. The comment about men cutting their hair short is more in line with Roman styles than Jewish ones.
* He was a Pharisee. (This may explain his legalism but not his rejection of many Jewish traditions)
* His name change from Saul to Paul is reminscent of Simon to Peter.

The New Testament is disproportionately Paul's, and may contain more from him than directly from Jesus.

[Pazooka]

There are a lot of unusual things about Paul:

* He was late on the scene.
* He appears to have come from a privileged background and travelled fairly freely which few did back then.
* He studied under Rabbi Gamaliel who is still highly regarded by modern Jews.
* He appears to have been heavily helllenised and aware of some Greek traditions.
* He was not a Judaean.
* He was a Roman citizen, which would have been unusual for Jews. The comment about men cutting their hair short is more in line with Roman styles than Jewish ones.
* He was a Pharisee. (This may explain his legalism but not his rejection of many Jewish traditions)
* His name change from Saul to Paul is reminscent of Simon to Peter.

The New Testament is disproportionately Paul's, and may contain more from him than directly from Jesus.

And *was* he a Pharisee or did he just live like a Pharisee for a while?

He was a foreign elite…possibly Herodean. Did he compromise Christianity into total corruption with what seem like political concessions?

[TheChristian]

The Apostles that walked daily with the Saviour were for the most part poor men, whoms only wealth was their faith, unlearned men, Gallilean peasants and fishermen.
So they would of been unlikely to have written much if anything at all by their own hand.. Our Lord told them that what He had taught them the Holy Ghost would bring to their rememberance and lead them into all truth after He ascended into Heaven.
And this would be the way that all the Lords disciples from that day onwards would remember the sayings and teachings of Jesus, by the Holy Ghost.
And so not too much needed to be written down as was the case of the Law of Moses, for the Israelites under said Mosiac Law did not have the promised Holy ghost to bring all things to their rememberance.
Paul rightly taught the Gospel, the way of the Spirit, which liberates mankind, leading them by the indwelling Spirit of God.
Hence being led by said Spirit, there is no need for a list of does and donts, endless writings.
For we now live in the age of the dispensation of the promised Holy Spirit were Gods laws are no longer written apon stone or paper but are penned and engraven apon mens hearts and minds by the Spirit of the living God!
We live in a day were men can have a direct relationship with God Himself, were it is between God and the individual. No mortal man, nor angel from on high stand in between them. For Christ is the Father to whom all must come unto and Christ is the Son of whom all must have faith in, so that he can reveal Himself as the Father they must worship in Spirit and in truth.

As the Scripture says....
"In the last days the Lord will pour out His Spirit apon all flesh"

And ...
"For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord.
I will put My laws in their minds and inscribe them on their hearts.
And I will be their God, and they will be My people.
No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest.

[Niemand]

There are a lot of unusual things about Paul:

* He was late on the scene.
* He appears to have come from a privileged background and travelled fairly freely which few did back then.
* He studied under Rabbi Gamaliel who is still highly regarded by modern Jews.
* He appears to have been heavily helllenised and aware of some Greek traditions.
* He was not a Judaean.
* He was a Roman citizen, which would have been unusual for Jews. The comment about men cutting their hair short is more in line with Roman styles than Jewish ones.
* He was a Pharisee. (This may explain his legalism but not his rejection of many Jewish traditions)
* His name change from Saul to Paul is reminscent of Simon to Peter.

The New Testament is disproportionately Paul's, and may contain more from him than directly from Jesus.

And *was* he a Pharisee or did he just live like a Pharisee for a while?

He was a foreign elite…possibly Herodean. Did he compromise Christianity into total corruption with what seem like political concessions?

To be fair, even within the Pharisees there were factions and I think we forget sometimes that there were some decent Pharisees such as Nicodemus.

As I've said above, my suspicion is that Paul's fame and dominance of the canon is probably down to the fact he was focussed towards Greece and Rome, the two poles of the Christian churches (which became the hubs of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism). The Koran doesn't even mention Paul, even though a lot of Arabs were Christian pre-Mohammed. Maybe the Arabs weren't much interested in some man who went to preach way out west and died there, he would have had little bearing on their early conversion.

[Niemand]

Here is an interesting hint that Paul was working from a slightly different canon to the NT.

Notice that 1 Corinthians says "as it is written"... but where? Paul would have met people who knew Jesus in the flesh but he is quoting a writing here.

1 Corinthians 2:9
“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”

This turns up in the Gospel of Thomas. Are Paul and the writer of Thomas quoting the same book or is Paul quoting the Gospel of Thomas?

The Gospel of Thomas verse 17
Jesus said, “I will give you what your eyes have not seen, what your ears have not heard, what your hands have not touched, what the human heart has not felt.”

[FrankOne]

Here is an interesting hint that Paul was working from a slightly different canon to the NT.

Notice that 1 Corinthians says "as it is written"... but where? Paul would have met people who knew Jesus in the flesh but he is quoting a writing here.

1 Corinthians 2:9
“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”

This turns up in the Gospel of Thomas. Are Paul and the writer of Thomas quoting the same book or is Paul quoting the Gospel of Thomas?

The Gospel of Thomas verse 17
Jesus said, “I will give you what your eyes have not seen, what your ears have not heard, what your hands have not touched, what the human heart has not felt.”

excellent observation. thanks. The book of Thomas is a favorite of mine.

considering how Gnostics were considered blasphemers by the Roman Church aka christian, lol, this would put Paul on shaky ground. My personal take has been that the Gnostics were closer to the original teachings of Christ than NT gospels. Reading the book of Romans with a Gnostic perspective gives it a completely different meaning than the current interpretations.

[Niemand]

Here is an interesting hint that Paul was working from a slightly different canon to the NT.

Notice that 1 Corinthians says "as it is written"... but where? Paul would have met people who knew Jesus in the flesh but he is quoting a writing here.

1 Corinthians 2:9
“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”

This turns up in the Gospel of Thomas. Are Paul and the writer of Thomas quoting the same book or is Paul quoting the Gospel of Thomas?

The Gospel of Thomas verse 17
Jesus said, “I will give you what your eyes have not seen, what your ears have not heard, what your hands have not touched, what the human heart has not felt.”

excellent observation. thanks. The book of Thomas is a favorite of mine.

considering how Gnostics were considered blasphemers by the Roman Church aka christian, lol, this would put Paul on shaky ground. My personal take has been that the Gnostics were closer to the original teachings of Christ than NT gospels. Reading the book of Romans with a Gnostic perspective gives it a completely different meaning than the current interpretations.

My reading of Gnostic material suggests it often contradicts each other and that the various groups disagreed with each other a lot. Gnosticism seems to be heavily influenced by the east e.g. Dharmic religions and Persian ones such as Zoroastrianism and Manichaeanism.

Some of it is that it suggests the creator is evil, whereas I believe the creation has become corrupted which is quite different.

My current take on Thomas is that the book may represent a combination of real material with additions and error. I think that can make it dangerous, but yes I do believe some of these quotes from Jesus may be real. I suspect the staying I quoted above is authentic.

[FrankOne]

Here is an interesting hint that Paul was working from a slightly different canon to the NT.

Notice that 1 Corinthians says "as it is written"... but where? Paul would have met people who knew Jesus in the flesh but he is quoting a writing here.

1 Corinthians 2:9
“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”

This turns up in the Gospel of Thomas. Are Paul and the writer of Thomas quoting the same book or is Paul quoting the Gospel of Thomas?

The Gospel of Thomas verse 17
Jesus said, “I will give you what your eyes have not seen, what your ears have not heard, what your hands have not touched, what the human heart has not felt.”

excellent observation. thanks. The book of Thomas is a favorite of mine.

considering how Gnostics were considered blasphemers by the Roman Church aka christian, lol, this would put Paul on shaky ground. My personal take has been that the Gnostics were closer to the original teachings of Christ than NT gospels. Reading the book of Romans with a Gnostic perspective gives it a completely different meaning than the current interpretations.

My reading of Gnostic material suggests it often contradicts each other and that the various groups disagreed with each other a lot. Gnosticism seems to be heavily influenced by the east e.g. Dharmic religions and Persian ones such as Zoroastrianism and Manichaeanism.

Some of it is that it suggests the creator is evil, whereas I believe the creation has become corrupted which is quite different.

My current take on Thomas is that the book may represent a combination of real material with additions and error. I think that can make it dangerous, but yes I do believe some of these quotes from Jesus may be real. I suspect the staying I quoted above is authentic.

Yes, I have noted the contradictions myself, but as you mentioned, there were various sects with differing teachings which is not unlike today's Christian churches. As you have likely noticed, my understanding of the teachings of Christ are unorthodox in a way that unifies ancient eastern teachings with western thought forms. In other words, a westerner sees things more in black and white, where ancient east teachings are esoteric and difficult to 'nail down' into a solid doctrine. Westerners want definition so they can judge, qualify, and quantify all the ingredients and this modus was embodied by the ancient Hebrews. (stiff neck jews).

As you likely know, Gnosticism was an outgrowth of the more ancient 'way' of Gnosis. From what I have gleaned from my studies is that Gnosis (to know) was the unification of west and east. To go within for all the answers, never following men, in order to gain pure knowledge from God. To only seek revelation and avoid organized indoctrination. It may be termed as "a school of the prophets". These types of practices are unknown today in any organized fashion. Who would actually dedicate their daily existence to knowing God? Gnosticism seems to be discordant because each man had interpreted their own 'revelations' which later became 'doctrine' . For me, Gnosis was the pure way and Gnosticism was the result of trying to make a church or body of doctrine out of what was being learned by many sages.

Much later, a revival of this occurred in the Catholic Church (circa 1500-1650ad). . It was known as "the Alumbrados". This group was teaching that God could be known directly and that unification was possible in this mortal life. They faced inquisition and convicted of heresy (3 times). It seems that this same thread continues today in the LDS church. The truth is always hated by organizations of men. Freedom is the enemy to the corporate body. Gotta kill or minimize anyone that claims to receive revelation...right? da pope = da profit

I've read some of the writings of the Alumbrados and find them to be fascinating. The practice became known as 'Quietism'


snippets:

"The Alumbrados held that the human soul can reach such a degree of perfection that it can even in the present life contemplate the essence of God and comprehend the mystery of the Trinity"

"The Alumbrados came primarily from among the reformed Franciscans and the Jesuits, but their doctrines seem to have influenced all classes of people. The extravagant claims made for their visions and revelations caused them to be relentlessly persecuted. The Inquisition issued edicts against them on three occasions (1568, 1574, and 1623).

[Pazooka]

The Apostles that walked daily with the Saviour were for the most part poor men, whoms only wealth was their faith, unlearned men, Gallilean peasants and fishermen.
So they would of been unlikely to have written much if anything at all by their own hand.. Our Lord told them that what He had taught them the Holy Ghost would bring to their rememberance and lead them into all truth after He ascended into Heaven.
And this would be the way that all the Lords disciples from that day onwards would remember the sayings and teachings of Jesus, by the Holy Ghost.
And so not too much needed to be written down as was the case of the Law of Moses, for the Israelites under said Mosiac Law did not have the promised Holy ghost to bring all things to their rememberance.
Paul rightly taught the Gospel, the way of the Spirit, which liberates mankind, leading them by the indwelling Spirit of God.
Hence being led by said Spirit, there is no need for a list of does and donts, endless writings.
For we now live in the age of the dispensation of the promised Holy Spirit were Gods laws are no longer written apon stone or paper but are penned and engraven apon mens hearts and minds by the Spirit of the living God!
We live in a day were men can have a direct relationship with God Himself, were it is between God and the individual. No mortal man, nor angel from on high stand in between them. For Christ is the Father to whom all must come unto and Christ is the Son of whom all must have faith in, so that he can reveal Himself as the Father they must worship in Spirit and in truth.

As the Scripture says....
"In the last days the Lord will pour out His Spirit apon all flesh"

And ...
"For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord.
I will put My laws in their minds and inscribe them on their hearts.
And I will be their God, and they will be My people.
No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest.

Where do we get the teaching that the Israelites did not have the Holy Spirit? Is that Pauline Christianity?

If aporroia is a word for the Holy Spirit in relation to God, it also suggests other scriptural descriptions of the Spirit that speak of the Spirit’s relation to humanity. There is a conceptual continuity between the Trinitarian word aporroia and other soteriological descriptions of the Spirit: this continuity turns upon the common type of imagery used for the Holy Spirit, namely fluidity. The use of fluid – water – imagery for the Spirit is ubiquitous in the Old Testament...

Then they shall know that I am the LORD their God because I sent them into exile among the nations, and then gathered them into their own land. I will leave none of them remaining among the nations any more; and I will not hide my face any more from them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, says the
Lord GOD. Ez. 39:28-29...

Some recent scholars, notably Menzes, have documented the elimination of previous references to the Spirit of God in texts edited or translated during the late Second Temple period of Judaism. It is the judgment of such scholars that in late Second Temple Judaism the action of the divine spirit is understood by Jews to be principally that of indwelling and prophecy.

https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/spiritus.pdf

The author of the above article refers constantly to “Paul’s pneumatology” (ie Paul’s ideas about the Spirit) - maybe because it was just that...his own creation.

Edit to add: BUT...I will read the whole article to see what this person has found out about how Paul’s pneumatology relates to Old Testament and other pneumatologies...lest I be hasty.

[Pazooka]

The Apostles that walked daily with the Saviour were for the most part poor men, whoms only wealth was their faith, unlearned men, Gallilean peasants and fishermen.
So they would of been unlikely to have written much if anything at all by their own hand.. Our Lord told them that what He had taught them the Holy Ghost would bring to their rememberance and lead them into all truth after He ascended into Heaven.
And this would be the way that all the Lords disciples from that day onwards would remember the sayings and teachings of Jesus, by the Holy Ghost.
And so not too much needed to be written down as was the case of the Law of Moses, for the Israelites under said Mosiac Law did not have the promised Holy ghost to bring all things to their rememberance.
Paul rightly taught the Gospel, the way of the Spirit, which liberates mankind, leading them by the indwelling Spirit of God.
Hence being led by said Spirit, there is no need for a list of does and donts, endless writings.
For we now live in the age of the dispensation of the promised Holy Spirit were Gods laws are no longer written apon stone or paper but are penned and engraven apon mens hearts and minds by the Spirit of the living God!
We live in a day were men can have a direct relationship with God Himself, were it is between God and the individual. No mortal man, nor angel from on high stand in between them. For Christ is the Father to whom all must come unto and Christ is the Son of whom all must have faith in, so that he can reveal Himself as the Father they must worship in Spirit and in truth.

As the Scripture says....
"In the last days the Lord will pour out His Spirit apon all flesh"

And ...
"For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord.
I will put My laws in their minds and inscribe them on their hearts.
And I will be their God, and they will be My people.
No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest.

Where do we get the teaching that the Israelites did not have the Holy Spirit? Is that Pauline Christianity?

If aporroia is a word for the Holy Spirit in relation to God, it also suggests other scriptural descriptions of the Spirit that speak of the Spirit’s relation to humanity. There is a conceptual continuity between the Trinitarian word aporroia and other soteriological descriptions of the Spirit: this continuity turns upon the common type of imagery used for the Holy Spirit, namely fluidity. The use of fluid – water – imagery for the Spirit is ubiquitous in the Old Testament...

Then they shall know that I am the LORD their God because I sent them into exile among the nations, and then gathered them into their own land. I will leave none of them remaining among the nations any more; and I will not hide my face any more from them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, says the
Lord GOD. Ez. 39:28-29...

Some recent scholars, notably Menzes, have documented the elimination of previous references to the Spirit of God in texts edited or translated during the late Second Temple period of Judaism. It is the judgment of such scholars that in late Second Temple Judaism the action of the divine spirit is understood by Jews to be principally that of indwelling and prophecy.

https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/spiritus.pdf

The author of the above article refers constantly to “Paul’s pneumatology” (ie Paul’s ideas about the Spirit) - maybe because it was just that...his own creation.

Edit to add: BUT...I will read the whole article to see what this person has found out about how Paul’s pneumatology relates to Old Testament and other pneumatologies...lest I be hasty.

I’m looking for the basis of the idea that the followers of the original covenant in the Old Testament times did not enjoy an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and can only find things like this from...Paul’s teachings:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. ~ Hebrews 8:6-7

Just going to put this here also, from the BofM and the year 550 b.c.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.~ 2 Nephi 31:13

[nightlight]

The Apostles that walked daily with the Saviour were for the most part poor men, whoms only wealth was their faith, unlearned men, Gallilean peasants and fishermen.
So they would of been unlikely to have written much if anything at all by their own hand.. Our Lord told them that what He had taught them the Holy Ghost would bring to their rememberance and lead them into all truth after He ascended into Heaven.
And this would be the way that all the Lords disciples from that day onwards would remember the sayings and teachings of Jesus, by the Holy Ghost.
And so not too much needed to be written down as was the case of the Law of Moses, for the Israelites under said Mosiac Law did not have the promised Holy ghost to bring all things to their rememberance.
Paul rightly taught the Gospel, the way of the Spirit, which liberates mankind, leading them by the indwelling Spirit of God.
Hence being led by said Spirit, there is no need for a list of does and donts, endless writings.
For we now live in the age of the dispensation of the promised Holy Spirit were Gods laws are no longer written apon stone or paper but are penned and engraven apon mens hearts and minds by the Spirit of the living God!
We live in a day were men can have a direct relationship with God Himself, were it is between God and the individual. No mortal man, nor angel from on high stand in between them. For Christ is the Father to whom all must come unto and Christ is the Son of whom all must have faith in, so that he can reveal Himself as the Father they must worship in Spirit and in truth.

As the Scripture says....
"In the last days the Lord will pour out His Spirit apon all flesh"

And ...
"For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord.
I will put My laws in their minds and inscribe them on their hearts.
And I will be their God, and they will be My people.
No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest.

Where do we get the teaching that the Israelites did not have the Holy Spirit? Is that Pauline Christianity?

If aporroia is a word for the Holy Spirit in relation to God, it also suggests other scriptural descriptions of the Spirit that speak of the Spirit’s relation to humanity. There is a conceptual continuity between the Trinitarian word aporroia and other soteriological descriptions of the Spirit: this continuity turns upon the common type of imagery used for the Holy Spirit, namely fluidity. The use of fluid – water – imagery for the Spirit is ubiquitous in the Old Testament...

Then they shall know that I am the LORD their God because I sent them into exile among the nations, and then gathered them into their own land. I will leave none of them remaining among the nations any more; and I will not hide my face any more from them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, says the
Lord GOD. Ez. 39:28-29...

Some recent scholars, notably Menzes, have documented the elimination of previous references to the Spirit of God in texts edited or translated during the late Second Temple period of Judaism. It is the judgment of such scholars that in late Second Temple Judaism the action of the divine spirit is understood by Jews to be principally that of indwelling and prophecy.

https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/spiritus.pdf

The author of the above article refers constantly to “Paul’s pneumatology” (ie Paul’s ideas about the Spirit) - maybe because it was just that...his own creation.

Edit to add: BUT...I will read the whole article to see what this person has found out about how Paul’s pneumatology relates to Old Testament and other pneumatologies...lest I be hasty.

I’m looking for the basis of the idea that the followers of the original covenant in the Old Testament times did not enjoy an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and can only find things like this from...Paul’s teachings:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. ~ Hebrews 8:6-7

Just going to put this here also, from the BofM and the year 550 b.c.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.~ 2 Nephi 31:13

There is a reason why they call it the HIGHER LAW....... To make the laws equal is intellectually dishonest.

There is a difference between the people of Moses and the people of Nephi.

The Nephites only observed the Law of Moses but looked forward to the coming of Christ.The people of Moses did not..(hence Nephi not learning about Jesus from his time in Jerusalem or from his dad )

2nd Nephi

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.

28 And now behold, my people, ye are a stiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall stand as a testimony against you; for they are sufficient to teach any man the right way; for the right way is to believe in Christ and deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets and the law.

29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

30 And, inasmuch as it shall be expedient, ye must keep the performances and ordinances of God until the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto Moses.
----------------


Mosiah
27 And now ye have said that salvation cometh by the law of Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses.

28 And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.

29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;

30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.

31 But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come.
--------------------

SO......

What is The difference in someone's life who Christ has manifest himself to???

Look

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
-----------------------------


"But what the hEcK pAuL!!!"

[Pazooka]

There is a reason why they call it the HIGHER LAW....... To make the laws equal is intellectually dishonest.

Did Jesus create a higher law or did He restore the original law given to Adam in the beginning? Did you notice that Jesus never says “higher law”?

There is a difference between the people of Moses and the people of Nephi.

The Nephites only observed the Law of Moses but looked forward to the coming of Christ.The people of Moses did not..(hence Nephi not learning about Jesus from his time in Jerusalem or from his dad )

Do you think that maybe the editors of the Old Testament would have had a reason to remove anything explicit regarding the Law of Moses pointing to the coming of Christ? And yet, residue survives. They obviously believed in the coming of a Messiah (Anointed One). Whereas the BofM had to be buried in the earth (in what Martin Harris called an “ark,” if memory serves) for it not to be tampered with to the extent that Hebrew scripture was.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Was it because the Bridegroom was physically present with them at the time? There was the Holy Ghost prior to His ministry as fully evident in the Old Testament, even in the capacity of “indwelling” the faithful. The fact that you believe otherwise I can only imagine would be because of the influence of men like Paul, who created the illusion of complete disharmony between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. It is an illusion that doesn’t serve.

[nightlight]

There is a reason why they call it the HIGHER LAW....... To make the laws equal is intellectually dishonest.

Did Jesus create a higher law or did He restore the original law given to Adam in the beginning? Did you notice that Jesus never says “higher law”?

There is a difference between the people of Moses and the people of Nephi.

The Nephites only observed the Law of Moses but looked forward to the coming of Christ.The people of Moses did not..(hence Nephi not learning about Jesus from his time in Jerusalem or from his dad )

Do you think that maybe the editors of the Old Testament would have had a reason to remove anything explicit regarding the Law of Moses pointing to the coming of Christ? And yet, residue survives. They obviously believed in the coming of a Messiah (Anointed One). Whereas the BofM had to be buried in the earth (in what Martin Harris called an “ark,” if memory serves) for it not to be tampered with to the extent that Hebrew scripture was.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Was it because the Bridegroom was physically present with them at the time? There was the Holy Ghost prior to His ministry as fully evident in the Old Testament, even in the capacity of “indwelling” the faithful. The fact that you believe otherwise I can only imagine would be because of the influence of men like Paul, who created the illusion of complete disharmony between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. It is an illusion that doesn’t serve.

I see what you did there lol

[nightlight]

The Apostles that walked daily with the Saviour were for the most part poor men, whoms only wealth was their faith, unlearned men, Gallilean peasants and fishermen.
So they would of been unlikely to have written much if anything at all by their own hand.. Our Lord told them that what He had taught them the Holy Ghost would bring to their rememberance and lead them into all truth after He ascended into Heaven.
And this would be the way that all the Lords disciples from that day onwards would remember the sayings and teachings of Jesus, by the Holy Ghost.
And so not too much needed to be written down as was the case of the Law of Moses, for the Israelites under said Mosiac Law did not have the promised Holy ghost to bring all things to their rememberance.
Paul rightly taught the Gospel, the way of the Spirit, which liberates mankind, leading them by the indwelling Spirit of God.
Hence being led by said Spirit, there is no need for a list of does and donts, endless writings.
For we now live in the age of the dispensation of the promised Holy Spirit were Gods laws are no longer written apon stone or paper but are penned and engraven apon mens hearts and minds by the Spirit of the living God!
We live in a day were men can have a direct relationship with God Himself, were it is between God and the individual. No mortal man, nor angel from on high stand in between them. For Christ is the Father to whom all must come unto and Christ is the Son of whom all must have faith in, so that he can reveal Himself as the Father they must worship in Spirit and in truth.

As the Scripture says....
"In the last days the Lord will pour out His Spirit apon all flesh"

And ...
"For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord.
I will put My laws in their minds and inscribe them on their hearts.
And I will be their God, and they will be My people.
No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest.

Where do we get the teaching that the Israelites did not have the Holy Spirit? Is that Pauline Christianity?

If aporroia is a word for the Holy Spirit in relation to God, it also suggests other scriptural descriptions of the Spirit that speak of the Spirit’s relation to humanity. There is a conceptual continuity between the Trinitarian word aporroia and other soteriological descriptions of the Spirit: this continuity turns upon the common type of imagery used for the Holy Spirit, namely fluidity. The use of fluid – water – imagery for the Spirit is ubiquitous in the Old Testament...

Then they shall know that I am the LORD their God because I sent them into exile among the nations, and then gathered them into their own land. I will leave none of them remaining among the nations any more; and I will not hide my face any more from them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, says the
Lord GOD. Ez. 39:28-29...

Some recent scholars, notably Menzes, have documented the elimination of previous references to the Spirit of God in texts edited or translated during the late Second Temple period of Judaism. It is the judgment of such scholars that in late Second Temple Judaism the action of the divine spirit is understood by Jews to be principally that of indwelling and prophecy.

https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/spiritus.pdf

The author of the above article refers constantly to “Paul’s pneumatology” (ie Paul’s ideas about the Spirit) - maybe because it was just that...his own creation.

Edit to add: BUT...I will read the whole article to see what this person has found out about how Paul’s pneumatology relates to Old Testament and other pneumatologies...lest I be hasty.

I’m looking for the basis of the idea that the followers of the original covenant in the Old Testament times did not enjoy an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and can only find things like this from...Paul’s teachings:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. ~ Hebrews 8:6-7

Just going to put this here also, from the BofM and the year 550 b.c.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.~ 2 Nephi 31:13

There is a reason why they call it the HIGHER LAW....... To make the laws equal is intellectually dishonest.

There is a difference between the people of Moses and the people of Nephi.

The Nephites only observed the Law of Moses but looked forward to the coming of Christ.The people of Moses did not..(hence Nephi not learning about Jesus from his time in Jerusalem or from his dad )

2nd Nephi

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.

28 And now behold, my people, ye are a stiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall stand as a testimony against you; for they are sufficient to teach any man the right way; for the right way is to believe in Christ and deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets and the law.

29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

30 And, inasmuch as it shall be expedient, ye must keep the performances and ordinances of God until the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto Moses.
----------------


Mosiah
27 And now ye have said that salvation cometh by the law of Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses.

28 And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.

29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;

30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.

31 But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come.
--------------------

SO......

What is The difference in someone's life who Christ has manifest himself to???

Look

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
-----------------------------


"But what the hEcK pAuL!!!"

Let keep this whole post whole

[Pazooka]

Where do we get the teaching that the Israelites did not have the Holy Spirit? Is that Pauline Christianity?



https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/spiritus.pdf

The author of the above article refers constantly to “Paul’s pneumatology” (ie Paul’s ideas about the Spirit) - maybe because it was just that...his own creation.

Edit to add: BUT...I will read the whole article to see what this person has found out about how Paul’s pneumatology relates to Old Testament and other pneumatologies...lest I be hasty.

I’m looking for the basis of the idea that the followers of the original covenant in the Old Testament times did not enjoy an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and can only find things like this from...Paul’s teachings:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. ~ Hebrews 8:6-7

Just going to put this here also, from the BofM and the year 550 b.c.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.~ 2 Nephi 31:13

There is a reason why they call it the HIGHER LAW....... To make the laws equal is intellectually dishonest.

There is a difference between the people of Moses and the people of Nephi.

The Nephites only observed the Law of Moses but looked forward to the coming of Christ.The people of Moses did not..(hence Nephi not learning about Jesus from his time in Jerusalem or from his dad )

2nd Nephi

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.

28 And now behold, my people, ye are a stiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall stand as a testimony against you; for they are sufficient to teach any man the right way; for the right way is to believe in Christ and deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets and the law.

29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

30 And, inasmuch as it shall be expedient, ye must keep the performances and ordinances of God until the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto Moses.
----------------


Mosiah
27 And now ye have said that salvation cometh by the law of Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses.

28 And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.

29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;

30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.

31 But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come.
--------------------

SO......

What is The difference in someone's life who Christ has manifest himself to???

Look

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
-----------------------------


"But what the hEcK pAuL!!!"

Let keep this whole post whole

That post is anything but “whole”

[nightlight]

I’m looking for the basis of the idea that the followers of the original covenant in the Old Testament times did not enjoy an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and can only find things like this from...Paul’s teachings:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. ~ Hebrews 8:6-7

Just going to put this here also, from the BofM and the year 550 b.c.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.~ 2 Nephi 31:13

There is a reason why they call it the HIGHER LAW....... To make the laws equal is intellectually dishonest.

There is a difference between the people of Moses and the people of Nephi.

The Nephites only observed the Law of Moses but looked forward to the coming of Christ.The people of Moses did not..(hence Nephi not learning about Jesus from his time in Jerusalem or from his dad )

2nd Nephi

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.

28 And now behold, my people, ye are a stiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall stand as a testimony against you; for they are sufficient to teach any man the right way; for the right way is to believe in Christ and deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets and the law.

29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

30 And, inasmuch as it shall be expedient, ye must keep the performances and ordinances of God until the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto Moses.
----------------


Mosiah
27 And now ye have said that salvation cometh by the law of Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses.

28 And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.

29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;

30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.

31 But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come.
--------------------

SO......

What is The difference in someone's life who Christ has manifest himself to???

Look

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
-----------------------------


"But what the hEcK pAuL!!!"

Let keep this whole post whole

That post is anything but “whole”