Paul was the first Humanist

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by mee

i think his relatives would still have been in his former religion , and just because he became a christian does not mean that he would not greet his relatives.

The point I was making was that Paul's claim to be a Benjamite was false.

The Herodians were not a religion, and they were not Jews; they were the ruling family of the Herodian clan that ruled Judaea, named after King Herod.

The Herodians were not Benjamites but Edomites, descendants of Esau, the person whom God said He hated in the book of Malachi.

For a full discussion of Paul's family links to the Herodians, please read "Paul as Herodian" at http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

The point I was making was that Paul's claim to be a Benjamite was false.

The Herodians were not a religion, and they were not Jews; they were the ruling family of the Herodian clan that ruled Judaea, named after King Herod.

The Herodians were not Benjamites but Edomites, descendants of Esau, the person whom God said He hated in the book of Malachi.

For a full discussion of Paul's family links to the Herodians, please read "Paul as Herodian" at http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

Paul's claim to be a Benjamite are true. That is his ancestry. Paul's claim to be a Jew is true. That was his religious belief.

Paul's claim to be Herodian is also true. That was his familial link through his mother. (a Herodian jewess).

Paul's nationality was of the Kingdom of Judah (which consisted of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and part of Levi). The religion of the kingdom of Judah was Jewish.

v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

the twelve tribes were jostled as could be the disciples...could not Paul replace Judas if we intend to be litterally picky?

Why not? Stephen was chosen specifically to fill that specific purpose, to fill the place of Judas. The same Stephen that Paul "watched approvingly" as he was stoned to death.

What I find intriguing is the correlation of "the 12" with a Pagan coven.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excaliburton.

For a full discussion of Paul's family links to the Herodians, please read "Paul as Herodian" at http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

Wasn't Eisenman one of those pseudo-scholars that wrote Holy Blood, Holy Grail? I don't think I would take his brand of sensationalist "scholarship" too seriously. It's kinda like taking articles in the National Enquirer paper to heart.
Madonna can only marry Big Foot just so many times...

Given the choice between Eisenman and Paul, I'll stick with Paul, thanks.

The point I was making was that Paul's claim to be a Benjamite was false.

Traditionally and Biblically, Benjamin was one of the surviving tribes that composed Israel circa 1 AD.

The Herodians were not a religion, and they were not Jews; they were the ruling family of the Herodian clan that ruled Judaea, named after King Herod.

So what is the issue?

Even *if* Paul could be associated with the ruling party, it does not make him a criminal, and it does not lessen his ability to carry the Good News forward to the Gentiles. In fact, I can see practical reasons as to how this relationship could actually be beneficial.

The Herodians were not Benjamites but Edomites, descendants of Esau, the person whom God said He hated in the book of Malachi.

Ah yes...Good ol' Esau...the twin brother of Jacob. Considering the promises G-d made to Abraham and to Israel, I think I would be a bit cautious with the term "hated." Perhaps it would do well to consider the Strong's. I'll leave that for another, just going on faith at this moment.

Besides, there is another lineage being overlooked here. One to which Paul, I feel certain, has no relationship with. There are descendents of Cain, Kennites, who were "adopted" so to speak into the house of Judah, during the second building of the Temple in the Ezra / Nehemiah period. Initially they were brought in as grunt labor, but over time they worked their way into the Temple service, and by the time of Jesus held considerable rank within the Temple body politic.

Herodians as scapegoat??? Politically maybe, but spiritually that's a red herring, intended to throw the unsuspecting off the trail...It has absolutely nothing to do with Paul's abilities or place with G-d through Jesus' ministry.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Why not? Stephen was chosen specifically to fill that specific purpose, to fill the place of Judas. The same Stephen that Paul "watched approvingly" as he was stoned to death.

Um, wasn't Matthias the one chosen to take Judas Iscariot's place? (Acts 1) Stephen was one of seven appointed to oversee the distribution of food. (Acts 6)

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Paul's claim to be a Benjamite are true. That is his ancestry. Paul's claim to be a Jew is true. That was his religious belief.

Paul's claim to be Herodian is also true. That was his familial link through his mother. (a Herodian jewess).

Paul's nationality was of the Kingdom of Judah (which consisted of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and part of Levi). The religion of the kingdom of Judah was Jewish.

v/r

Q

A Herodian Jewess!? That's a contradiction in terms. The Herodians were not Jewish but were Idumeans.

I am very pleased to hear you admit Paul's mother was Herodian. But please tell me the name and/or lineage of Paul's Herodian mother and who she was. You may know more details than I do on this subject, so I am all ears!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

A Herodian Jewess!? That's a contradiction in terms. The Herodians were not Jewish but were Idumeans.

I am very pleased to hear you admit Paul's mother was Herodian. But please tell me the name and/or lineage of Paul's Herodian mother and who she was. You may know more details than I do on this subject, so I am all ears!

Converts to Judeasm out of convenience for most, sincerity for some...you really aught to read your history...

Why should I make it easy for you? read Shelley. Look up Paul's lineage, its right there on the internet. If I did it FOR YOU, you wouldn't believe me anyway...so my logic is intact.

v/r

Q

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Wasn't Eisenman one of those pseudo-scholars that wrote Holy Blood, Holy Grail? I don't think I would take his brand of sensationalist "scholarship" too seriously. It's kinda like taking articles in the National Enquirer paper to heart.
Madonna can only marry Big Foot just so many times...

Ah yes...Good ol' Esau...the twin brother of Jacob. Considering the promises G-d made to Abraham and to Israel, I think I would be a bit cautious with the term "hated." Perhaps it would do well to consider the Strong's. I'll leave that for another, just going on faith at this moment.

Besides, there is another lineage being overlooked here. One to which Paul, I feel certain, has no relationship with. There are descendants of Cain, Kennites, who were "adopted" so to speak into the house of Judah, during the second building of the Temple in the Ezra / Nehemiah period. Initially they were brought in as grunt labor, but over time they worked their way into the Temple service, and by the time of Jesus held considerable rank within the Temple body politic.

Herodians as scapegoat??? Politically maybe, but spiritually that's a red herring, intended to throw the unsuspecting off the trail...It has absolutely nothing to do with Paul's abilities or place with G-d through Jesus' ministry.

No, Eisenman was NOT the author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"? Michael Baigent was the author of that silly book.

Eisenman was the scholar who campaigned successfully for the public release of the Dead Sea Scrolls and is a professor of Antiquities at Cal State Long Beach. He wrote "James, Brother of Jesus" and a number of books relating to the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I am pleased to hear you are aware of the Canaanite 'strangers' (Nokriy') in the period of Nehemiah and Ezra. Actually the first of these 'strangers' infiltrated the camp of Israel during the time of Joshua. See Joshua 9 for the story of the Hivites who tricked Joshua into accepting them as wood choppers and water carriers!

But you should then also realize the Herodians were Edomites and were therefore comprised of many Canaanite tribes, most notably the Hittites and the Hivites, the tribes into whom Esau had married.

Isn't it ironic that the House of Judah was ruled by the Hittites and Hivites that YHWH had previously ordered the Israelites to destroy? No wonder Jesus had problems with the Herodians and no wonder the Herodians wanted Him dead!

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Converts to Judeasm out of convenience for most, sincerity for some...you really aught to read your history...

Why should I make it easy for you? read Shelley. Look up Paul's lineage, its right there on the internet. If I did it FOR YOU, you wouldn't believe me anyway...so my logic is intact.

v/r

Q

Herodians were Edomites and King Herod himself was not allowed to enter the Temple, and Edomites were only allowed into the congregation after 3 generations as per Deu 23:7. (and actually this verse may actually refer to Arameans rather than Edomites, but that is a topic for another thread. Since Edomites were actually comprised of Hittites and Hivites, they were prohibited from even joining the congregation as per Deu 7).

At least tell me the full name of this "Shelley" person so I can search for the document.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Herodians were Edomites and King Herod himself was not allowed to enter the Temple, and Edomites were only allowed into the congregation after 3 generations as per Deu 23:7. (and actually this verse may actually refer to Arameans rather than Edomites, but that is a topic for another thread. Since Edomites were actually comprised of Hittites and Hivites, they were prohibited from even joining the congregation as per Deu 7).

At least tell me the full name of this "Shelley" person so I can search for the document.

Wrong again Einstein. Herod was not allowed, but other members of his "family" were. And Paul's mother was one of them that was...not only that!, but she and her husband (a Roman) insisted that Saul be schooled and taught by the best, and learn Judeasm on all fronts...they spared nothing for Saul. Truly grand parents. And that, is how he became a Pharasee. Oh, there is something wrong with that picture, now isn't there...not if he was allowed to be one by birth right...and he was in fact one, so your arguements about his birth right are flawed.

Oh, sorry. Bruce L. Shelley. Title of book "Church History in plain language" is one.

Yeah, you gather correctly. I take particular issue with people coming here claiming to be so smart that the rest of us are like some ant colony.

I may sound stupid to the likes of you...until I'm not.

And I assure you, I am not stupid...neither are the rest of us.

Look at it this way (if you can). Let's say you are fifty years old, with oh 45 years of bible training under your belt. That is quite a lot. But considering there are over 500 Bible believing Christians here with say an average of 10 years of bible training under their belts, or even 2 years...that puts you in a position of overwhelming minority (if you wished to pit your knowledge against all of theirs)...because each one of them has learned something the others haven't, but combined, why that is almost 2000 years to your 45!

I believe that is something worth considering. See, I learn something new everyday (even from you). You should consider trying to learn something new as well, from us.

Is CR a hostile place? Hostile is as hostile does. We dialogue here. We don't 'disembowel'.

Hat in hand goes much farther than chip on shoulder...

See you around.

v/r

Q

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Wrong again Einstein. Herod was not allowed, but other members of his "family" were. And Paul's mother was one of them that was...not only that!, but she and her husband (a Roman) insisted that Saul be schooled and taught by the best, and learn Judeasm on all fronts...they spared nothing for Saul. Truly grand parents. And that, is how he became a Pharasee. Oh, there is something wrong with that picture, now isn't there...not if he was allowed to be one by birth right...and he was in fact one, so your arguments about his birth right are flawed.

Oh, sorry. Bruce L. Shelley. Title of book "Church History in plain language" is one.

Yeah, you gather correctly. I take particular issue with people coming here claiming to be so smart that the rest of us are like some ant colony.

I may sound stupid to the likes of you...until I'm not.

And I assure you, I am not stupid...neither are the rest of us.

Look at it this way (if you can). Let's say you are fifty years old, with oh 45 years of bible training under your belt. That is quite a lot. But considering there are over 500 Bible believing Christians here with say an average of 10 years of bible training under their belts, or even 2 years...that puts you in a position of overwhelming minority (if you wished to pit your knowledge against all of theirs)...because each one of them has learned something the others haven't, but combined, why that is almost 2000 years to your 45!

I believe that is something worth considering. See, I learn something new everyday (even from you). You should consider trying to learn something new as well, from us.

Is CR a hostile place? Hostile is as hostile does. We dialogue here. We don't 'disembowel'.

Hat in hand goes much farther than chip on shoulder...

See you around.

v/r

Q

I am glad you have learned some things from me, and I am hoping to learn some things from you, specifically at this point, I am trying to learn of your sources that Paul had a Herodian/Edomite [read as:Hittite] mother. I do agree with you that Paul's mother was a Herodianess.

The emotional tone of my posts has been meticulously neutral and devoid of condescending or abusive or sarcastic or defensive language as I have been a moderator on other forums and must be an example to others.

But please support your claims in this statement of yours:

Wrong again Einstein. Herod was not allowed, but other members of his "family" were. And Paul's mother was one of them that was...not only that!, but she and her husband (a Roman) insisted that Saul be schooled and taught by the best, and learn Judeasm on all fronts...they spared nothing for Saul. Truly grand parents. And that, is how he became a Pharasee. Oh, there is something wrong with that picture, now isn't there...not if he was allowed to be one by birth right...and he was in fact one, so your arguements about his birth right are flawed.

Or are you saying that all of the above is documented in this Bruce Shelley book? I may order this book if you are sure it asserts Paul's mother was an Herodianess.

Oh, sorry. Bruce L. Shelley. Title of book "Church History in plain language" is one.

Thank you!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

I am glad you have learned some things from me, and I am hoping to learn some things from you, specifically at this point, I am trying to learn of your sources that Paul had a Herodian/Edomite [read as:Hittite] mother. I do agree with you that Paul's mother was a Herodianess.

The emotional tone of my posts has been meticulously neutral and devoid of condescending or abusive or sarcastic or defensive language as I have been a moderator on other forums and must be an example to others.

But please support your claims in this statement of yours:



Or are you saying that all of the above is documented in this Bruce Shelley book? I may order this book if you are sure it asserts Paul's mother was an Herodianess.



Thank you!

Go find it on the web, or check into the local library, as I am not yours. I don't have to support anything...you have to prove me wrong...that is the way it goes. king's rook, to king's bishop three...check.

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Go find it on the web, or check into the local library, as I am not yours. I don't have to support anything...you have to prove me wrong...that is the way it goes. king's rook, to king's bishop three...check.

Actually I agree with what you're saying. . . that Paul had Edomite roots, but most mainstream Christians object to such an idea.

Realize that if Paul was part Edomite, that means he was part Hittite and part Hivite, the tribes the Israelites were commanded to destroy lest they be infected with their pagan idolatry.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Seattlegal!

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Um, wasn't Matthias the one chosen to take Judas Iscariot's place? (Acts 1) Stephen was one of seven appointed to oversee the distribution of food. (Acts 6)

I suppose, it has been a long time, I can make mistakes. The ol' memory isn't what it used to be. The point remains, a "replacement" for Judas was chosen. (still find it interesting...which came first, the collection of Jesus disciples, or the pagan coven?)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excaliburton!

Realize that if Paul was part Edomite, that means he was part Hittite and part Hivite, the tribes the Israelites were commanded to destroy lest they be infected with their pagan idolatry.

Just curious, do you believe we all are guilty of our father's crimes?

Seems to me the curse of the Ten Commandments was on those who hated G-d. For those who love G-d, that curse is removed, and blessings are showered. Are you trying to say there were, and are, those for whom there is no hope for redemption? Under any circumstances?

In other words, there is only one path up the mountain, and you know for a guaranteed fact you are on it, and anyone else is in deep doo-doo?

Just curious...