Paul.... Apostle or Apostate?

[ChazakEmunah]

Okay guys. I'm going to open this up. I'd like to see both sides of the debate. I want clear solid evidence for each side. And let's keep it clean.


Let the debate begin!

Chazak

[mpossoff]

Okay guys. I'm going to open this up. I'd like to see both sides of the debate. I want clear solid evidence for each side. And let's keep it clean.


Let the debate begin!

Chazak

You have to look at the issues of that day.

Today Paul would be called an apostate in Judaisms of today.

We hear all sorts of bad press by Paul especially those on the ‘Torah Movement’. They don’t like Paul like some of the things that Paul says or appears to say. Sadly enough they are believing Paul’s critics. Instead of believing what Paul says or trying to discover how it is that Paul the consemant Jewish rabbi could possibly claim at the end of Acts to be faithfull to the customs of our people, yet still say things they said he said. And on the same note this applies to those in ‘christianity’ as well. Many claim that this is what Paul says and means. Example would be ‘works of the law’ and how he uses circumcision and uncircumcision in his letters, but as Peter says:

2Peter 3:15-1715 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;

Paul must be understood in the context of the Torah, Prophets and Writings or he will be perverted. Paul doesn’t speak by himself. He quote’s the TaNaK again and again and again. His only authority that he ever claims is not even by revelation. The authority he claims is the authority of scripture. He claims his authority as coming from God and he claims it using scripture. Even his clain to be the Apostle to the Gentiles must be affirmed in his mind by the Jerusalem Council. He never claims to just take off on his own.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Today Paul would be called an apostate in Judaisms of today.

Can you define this some? What is it about Paul that makes you believe that he would be considered an apostate today?

[muffler dragon]

Point 1: No Pharisee would have been in the employ of the Sadducean High Priest.

[muffler dragon]

Point 2: No Pharisee would have quoted solely from the Septuagint.

[mpossoff]

Can you define this some? What is it about Paul that makes you believe that he would be considered an apostate today?

First we have to define apostate.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

MD... Agreed on both points.

Marc, I know how Judaism defines an apostate, but how would you define an apostate?

[muffler dragon]

FTR: I don't believe that Paul was an Apostle or an Apostate. I find him to be a non-entity with regard to Judaism.

[simchat_torah]

Point 2: No Pharisee would have quoted solely from the Septuagint.If the "NT" is to be taken as scripture, then you are absolutely right. However, if the NT is to be taken as letters written to commonfolk, you'd be wrong ;)

LXX was merely written for the commonfolk and was used highly in that manner by all sects (including pharisees). It was never used as parsha readings, in Yeshivah, or in other higher level circles. It was, however, used extensively amongst the commonfolk in everyday speech.

[mpossoff]

MD... Agreed on both points.

Marc, I know how Judaism defines an apostate, but how would you define an apostate?

I don't know that's why I asked we need to define it first before we can even debate it.

Marc

[muffler dragon]

If the "NT" is to be taken as scripture, then you are absolutely right. However, if the NT is to be taken as letters written to commonfolk, you'd be wrong ;)[/FONT]

LXX was merely written for the commonfolk and was used highly in that manner by all sects (including pharisees). It was never used as parsha readings, in Yeshivah, or in other higher level circles. It was, however, used extensively amongst the commonfolk in everyday speech.

I guess I'm arguing from the POV that many Christians consider Paul's letters to be midrashic in nature. If so, there is no history of midrash utilizing the Septuagint (aggadah or halacha).

[simchat_torah]

I guess I'm arguing from the POV that many Christians consider Paul's letters to be midrashic in nature. If so, there is no history of midrash utilizing the Septuagint (aggadah or halacha).Quite true.
However, I was replying to the comment that no Pharisee would quote from the LXX. ;)

[muffler dragon]

Quite true.
However, I was replying to the comment that no Pharisee would quote from the LXX. ;)[/FONT]

Fine. I should have been more descriptive. :P

[simchat_torah]

Actually, thinking about it... I'll need to look into whether the LXX was quoted in any Midrash. I never really questioned that before... but regardless, if Paul wrote the letters as a Midrash, then it would have still been to commonfolk, and not another Rabbi, or Beit Din, or Yeshivah, or...



;)


anyway, I'll get back to you later. I'll look into it.

[mpossoff]

Actually, thinking about it... I'll need to look into whether the LXX was quoted in any Midrash. I never really questioned that before... but regardless, if Paul wrote the letters as a Midrash, then it would have still been to commonfolk, and not another Rabbi, or Beit Din, or Yeshivah, or...



;)


anyway, I'll get back to you later. I'll look into it.

Did Paul quote the Septuagint?

Marc

[simchat_torah]

Yes, he certainly did. A little over 70% of the time he quoted from the LXX as opposed to the Masoratic texts (hebrew). We know this, not because of the language he wrote in (greek), but because of the discrepencies between the translations. He often reverted to the LXX when quoting scripture.

The rest of the time he was quoting from Masoratic texts, and on rare occasion from aramaic texts.

[muffler dragon]

Yes, he certainly did. A little over 70% of the time he quoted from the LXX as opposed to the Masoratic texts (hebrew). We know this, not because of the language he wrote in (greek), but because of the discrepencies between the translations. He often reverted to the LXX when quoting scripture.

The rest of the time he was quoting from Masoratic texts, and on rare occasion from aramaic texts.

Do you know of any particulars where he was quoting the MSS?

[simchat_torah]

I'm at work, and not off the top of my head... but there are interlinear bible books which detail from which manuscript the quote originates. There are a few websites which also give tallies, but none that I know of off the top of my head... I can look into this for you as well, its just hard with my library back in Illinois, and I'm in a hotel room in San Francisco ;)

[simchat_torah]

I just stumbled across this, not sure of its accuracy, so don't quote me here:
**** SOURCE DELETED***
I'm not sure if the information is accurate, removing for now. -simchat_torah-from: XXXX


I had read that Paul's writings quoted the LXX about 70% of the time, this guy claims "about half".

(post edited to remove possible dubious information)

[simchat_torah]

btw MD, I've mostly seen Masoratic texts abbreviated as MT, and rarely as MSS. MSS might cause confusion ;)
Just to clarify

[muffler dragon]

I had read that Paul's writings quoted the LXX about 70% of the time, this guy claims "about half".

When it comes to original languages, I don't believe a word Glenn Miller says.

[muffler dragon]

btw MD, I've mostly seen Masoratic texts abbreviated as MT, and rarely as MSS. MSS might cause confusion ;)
Just to clarify

You're right. I'm having a brain fart of a day.

[simchat_torah]

I have no idea who Glenn Miller is, I just did a quick google and that was the first hit. Like I said, I had no idea who it was or to its accuracy. It just happened to be the first thing I came across...

I'd be able to answer the questions more fully if I had my books with me ;)

But in the meantime, since there's some question by you as to the legitimate nature of what I posted, I'll go back and delete it so I don't mislead anyone.

-Yafet

[simchat_torah]

update: there, edited out. feel free to remove the link from your quote if you wish.

[ChazakEmunah]

I don't know that's why I asked we need to define it first before we can even debate it.

Marc
Marc, you said, "Today Paul would be called an apostate in Judaisms of today."

I would like to know why you hold this opinion. What was it about Paul that makes you think he would be considered an apostate? If you are not sure, then why the above statement? You're confusing me.

[GerTzedek]

Marc, you said, "Today Paul would be called an apostate in Judaisms of today."

I would like to know why you hold this opinion. What was it about Paul that makes you think he would be considered an apostate? If you are not sure, then why the above statement? You're confusing me.
With the exception of Messianic Judaism, all other Judaism sects consider belief in Yeshua to be one of the few issues which places a person in a state of Apostacy, meaning although a person is still Jewish, they may not even be counted for minyan. Thus, today, Rav Shaul would be considered by Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative sects to be apostate automatically, despite his observance. It's a no brainer.

I expect this to change.

[muffler dragon]

With the exception of Messianic Judaism, all other Judaism sects consider belief in Yeshua to be one of the few issues which places a person in a state of Apostacy, meaning although a person is still Jewish, they may not even be counted for minyan. Thus, today, Rav Shaul would be considered by Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative sects to be apostate automatically, despite his observance. It's a no brainer.

I expect this to change.

Of course, this is with the assumption that Paul was a Jew. ;) The "Rav" part, to me, is even more debatable; but neither here nor there.

[GerTzedek]

Of course, this is with the assumption that Paul was a Jew. ;) The "Rav" part, to me, is even more debatable; but neither here nor there.
Of course. It is also with the assumption that Yeshua existed, that God gave the Torah to Moshe, and that there is indeed a God.

I tend to go along with what is most probable. The odds of Paul not being a Jew are next to nothing, as the consensus of scholars (Jewish, Christian, and secular) shows.

[muffler dragon]

Of course. It is also with the assumption that Yeshua existed, that God gave the Torah to Moshe, and that there is indeed a God.

I tend to go along with what is most probable. The odds of Paul not being a Jew are next to nothing, as the consensus of scholars (Jewish, Christian, and secular) shows.

I was just making a jab. I should have used an emoticon to make that clear.

FTR, I don't doubt that Paul was a Jew. I doubt that he was born a Jew and his smicha. But those aren't what the thread is about.

[mpossoff]

Marc, you said, "Today Paul would be called an apostate in Judaisms of today."

I would like to know why you hold this opinion. What was it about Paul that makes you think he would be considered an apostate? If you are not sure, then why the above statement? You're confusing me.

Then after that post I asked that we need to define what an apostate before we even go further.

I was looking in the lines of the main battle between the sects which was 'how Gentiles would get in'. This was the reason for the stoning of Stephen, Paul and the other Apostle's. These were done by other sects of Jews. Why?

They were stoned because how The Way said Gentiles could get in compared to 'they must be circumcised' to convert and change their ethnicity. "How dare you"! Is where I'm coming from.

This is the way I see apostate and I could be wrong.

ChazakEmunah what is the definition of an apostate?

Marc

[mpossoff]

To further explain: is an apostate one that went against the prevailing halacha of the 1st century?

I wrote this in another sub forum a while back.

The historic problem of the 1st century was ethno centric Jewish exclusiveness. The Jews never thought they were made righteous by works but rather by the actions of being in covenant by a gracious God whom they were committed to behave righteously by observing the Law(Torah).

Back to ethno centric Jewish exclusiveness means that they believed they were righteous ones because they were Israelites. Not because of works but because of ethnicity. In other words you had to be a Jew. The thinking of the 1st century was ‘I don’t keep the Law(Torah) to earn salvation, I keep it because I’m already a covenant member’. ‘I keep the Law(Torah) because that is what is expected of a covenant member’or ‘I am covenantly bound to be faithful to God’.

But the main point is ‘I keep it because I’m already a covenant member’ which means in the tradition of the 1st century(and even today in Orthodox Judaism) being an Israelite. Ask an average Jew today why he keeps the Law(Torah) he won’t tell you to earn ‘salvation’ most likely he’ll respond to you because that’s what Jews do(emphasis added). This is like saying that you cannot keep the Law(Torah) until you become a covenant member.

Paul was writing in the 1st when this was the prevailing(emphasis added) halachtic view point. Jews and only Jews were covenant members. As Jews they kept the Law(Torah) because God said so because they were trying to keep the covenant and not because of legalism. What is legalism. It’s doing works to earn salvation. This is where the church today see’s those that keep and observe the Law(Torah). If I do XYZ God will except me might be a better description of legalism.

Unfortuantely the historic view of Judaism's of the 1st century and even today were and are says trying to 'do' in order to be covenant members. Compared to 'doing' because of being covenant members.

Paul was battling Jews who were boasting because of the thinking that we're God's Chosen and/or the Elect. Their works were done to show that they were God's covenant people and it wasn't to earn their salvation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was driving Paul it write the way he wrote was NOT a belief from a 1st century point of view that if I keep XYZ from the Law(Torah) I will become a covenant member.

Argon nomos(I think I spelled that right) which is translated most often as deeds of the law or works of the law is a technical phrase that the Judaism of Paul’s day used to speak of the halacha , the proper way a Jew is to walk out the Law(Torah).

What was the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism? The prevailing view of the sages was a belief that Israel and Israel alone shared a place in the ‘World to Come’. Israel meaning Jewish only Israel. So if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership was ethnicity. So it is a far teaching what most believe that ‘doing’ in order to become covenant members. They were teaching that because we are covenant members therefore the Law (Torah) is ours.

Paul used the circumcision and the conversion is his letters often because that is what marked you outwardly as a covenant member. Most of the time Paul isn’t talking about the surgical act of circumcision he’s really talking about Jewish identity in the conversion. Which means from the view of the 1st century you could think that you were born into the covenant as a Jew because you were circumcised on the 8th day. What did you have to do gain covenat membership? Not a thing. Your parents circumcised you and God graciously birthed you into the covenant. But the gentile who wasn’t born into the covenant had to go through the circumcision to become a Jew in order to gain membership into the covenant.

If you ask the Jewish community today who has the right to keep the Law(Torah) and they’ll tell you for Jews only.

Take a vote in ‘Christianity’ they’ll tell you it’s for the Jews and they'll also say we're not under anything.


The Law is for everyone who names the Name of Jesus.

Isn’t God both the God of both Jews and Gentiles?

Paul taught that you didn’t need to change your ethnicity before God could accept you.. Paul taught that the real change that takes place in a persons life is effected by the Holy Spirit. Because of Jesus sacrificial death the sinner takes on the status of righteousness. Paul also said that conversion added nothing to those wishing to be accounted as true Israelites.

Paul thoughts were that their genuine faith in the promise Word of the Lord as evidenced by the working of the Holy Spirit was all the indentity that they would need.

Paul is saying no one is justified before God by submission to a man-made ceremony as postulated by the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism which is?

Whenever you read Paul and see works or deeds of the law it will be ergon nomos in Greek. So whenever you see works or deeds of the law and ergon nomos just simply insert But that no one is justified before God by submission to a man-made ceremony as postulated by the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism. It will then make perfect sense.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Then after that post I asked that we need to define what an apostate before we even go further.

I was looking in the lines of the main battle between the sects which was 'how Gentiles would get in'. This was the reason for the stoning of Stephen, Paul and the other Apostle's. These were done by other sects of Jews. Why?

They were stoned because how The Way said Gentiles could get in compared to 'they must be circumcised' to convert and change their ethnicity. "How dare you"! Is where I'm coming from.

This is the way I see apostate and I could be wrong.

ChazakEmunah what is the definition of an apostate?

Marc
An apostate as defined by Judaism is someone who does not adhere to Torah and halakha.

[ChazakEmunah]

Perhaps some background is needed to show how the apostasy occurred and who exactly started it.


Historical records show that the apostasy away from Torah observance began in 62 CE. The same year that Ya'akov haTzadik was killed (certainly not a coincidence). And it began with a man whom the Netzarim called Toeivut. The strange thing is that there doesn't seem to be much written about 'Toeivut' other than the fact that he was not chosen to be the next Paqid of the Netzarim. The only reason for this seeming lack of documentation is that Toeivut was already well known and therefore no further elaboration was deemed necessary.

So who would have been well known, yet have been in a leadership position and therefore desire to become Paqid?

There was only one man in 62CE who was well known as a Netzari leader, yet was continually at odds with Paqid Ya'akov haTzadik and the other leaders. This man was also a strong advocate for Hellenism.

Paul was the only man who met all these conditions.

Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus, records that the Netzarim judged Sh'aul and excised him as an apostate. After that point, he is only referred to by his Hellenist name {Paul} and never called by his Hebrew name {Sh'aul} again.




Sources quoted:
[Eusebius, EH IV xxii]
[[Eusebius, EH III xxvii]
[Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews xx]




So, I think it's pretty well documented that Paul apostacized and was excised for it. I know people say he gets a bad rap, but the historical record is pretty clear that he was guilty of the charges against him. Personally, I think that Paul was a troubled man. The time he spent with the Kohein haResha enamored him of Hellenism. He later left that for a Pharisaic sect (or perhaps he was placed there?) and subsequently returned to Hellenism, at which point he was excised as an apostate.

[ChazakEmunah]

To further explain: is an apostate one that went against the prevailing halacha of the 1st century?

I wrote this in another sub forum a while back.

The historic problem of the 1st century was ethno centric Jewish exclusiveness. The Jews never thought they were made righteous by works but rather by the actions of being in covenant by a gracious God whom they were committed to behave righteously by observing the Law(Torah).

Back to ethno centric Jewish exclusiveness means that they believed they were righteous ones because they were Israelites. Not because of works but because of ethnicity. In other words you had to be a Jew. The thinking of the 1st century was ‘I don’t keep the Law(Torah) to earn salvation, I keep it because I’m already a covenant member’. ‘I keep the Law(Torah) because that is what is expected of a covenant member’or ‘I am covenantly bound to be faithful to God’.

But the main point is ‘I keep it because I’m already a covenant member’ which means in the tradition of the 1st century(and even today in Orthodox Judaism) being an Israelite. Ask an average Jew today why he keeps the Law(Torah) he won’t tell you to earn ‘salvation’ most likely he’ll respond to you because that’s what Jews do(emphasis added). This is like saying that you cannot keep the Law(Torah) until you become a covenant member.

Paul was writing in the 1st when this was the prevailing(emphasis added) halachtic view point. Jews and only Jews were covenant members. As Jews they kept the Law(Torah) because God said so because they were trying to keep the covenant and not because of legalism. What is legalism. It’s doing works to earn salvation. This is where the church today see’s those that keep and observe the Law(Torah). If I do XYZ God will except me might be a better description of legalism.

Unfortuantely the historic view of Judaism's of the 1st century and even today were and are says trying to 'do' in order to be covenant members. Compared to 'doing' because of being covenant members.

Paul was battling Jews who were boasting because of the thinking that we're God's Chosen and/or the Elect. Their works were done to show that they were God's covenant people and it wasn't to earn their salvation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was driving Paul it write the way he wrote was NOT a belief from a 1st century point of view that if I keep XYZ from the Law(Torah) I will become a covenant member.

Argon nomos(I think I spelled that right) which is translated most often as deeds of the law or works of the law is a technical phrase that the Judaism of Paul’s day used to speak of the halacha , the proper way a Jew is to walk out the Law(Torah).

What was the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism? The prevailing view of the sages was a belief that Israel and Israel alone shared a place in the ‘World to Come’. Israel meaning Jewish only Israel. So if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership was ethnicity. So it is a far teaching what most believe that ‘doing’ in order to become covenant members. They were teaching that because we are covenant members therefore the Law (Torah) is ours.

Paul used the circumcision and the conversion is his letters often because that is what marked you outwardly as a covenant member. Most of the time Paul isn’t talking about the surgical act of circumcision he’s really talking about Jewish identity in the conversion. Which means from the view of the 1st century you could think that you were born into the covenant as a Jew because you were circumcised on the 8th day. What did you have to do gain covenat membership? Not a thing. Your parents circumcised you and God graciously birthed you into the covenant. But the gentile who wasn’t born into the covenant had to go through the circumcision to become a Jew in order to gain membership into the covenant.

If you ask the Jewish community today who has the right to keep the Law(Torah) and they’ll tell you for Jews only.

Take a vote in ‘Christianity’ they’ll tell you it’s for the Jews and they'll also say we're not under anything.


The Law is for everyone who names the Name of Jesus.

Isn’t God both the God of both Jews and Gentiles?

Paul taught that you didn’t need to change your ethnicity before God could accept you.. Paul taught that the real change that takes place in a persons life is effected by the Holy Spirit. Because of Jesus sacrificial death the sinner takes on the status of righteousness. Paul also said that conversion added nothing to those wishing to be accounted as true Israelites.

Paul thoughts were that their genuine faith in the promise Word of the Lord as evidenced by the working of the Holy Spirit was all the indentity that they would need.

Paul is saying no one is justified before God by submission to a man-made ceremony as postulated by the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism which is?

Whenever you read Paul and see works or deeds of the law it will be ergon nomos in Greek. So whenever you see works or deeds of the law and ergon nomos just simply insert But that no one is justified before God by submission to a man-made ceremony as postulated by the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism. It will then make perfect sense.

Marc
You've just proven my point. "ergon nomos" in Greek could be translated as "halakha" in Hebrew. So by your own admission you've just proven that Paul was teaching Hellenism (ie... against halakha). This is the reason that he was excised as an apostate.

[mpossoff]

You've just proven my point. "ergon nomos" in Greek could be translated as "halakha" in Hebrew. So by your own admission you've just proven that Paul was teaching Hellenism (ie... against halakha). This is the reason that he was excised as an apostate.

No!

The prevailing halacha was wrong! Just because it was halacha doesn't mean it was right.

You just proved the point that you for the prevailing halacha that I posted, am I correct?

Do you believe:

What was the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism? The prevailing view of the sages was a belief that Israel and Israel alone shared a place in the ‘World to Come’. Israel meaning Jewish only Israel. So if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership was ethnicity.

Yes or no? Do you believe, Yes or No that the entry point into covenantal membership is ethnicity? That's against the Torah, BTW.

That's my point just because it was halacha doesn't make it correct!

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

With the exception of Messianic Judaism, all other Judaism sects consider belief in Yeshua to be one of the few issues which places a person in a state of Apostacy, meaning although a person is still Jewish, they may not even be counted for minyan. Thus, today, Rav Shaul would be considered by Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative sects to be apostate automatically, despite his observance. It's a no brainer.

I expect this to change.
Of course, because belief in "Yeshua" constitutes belief in another god. If one didn't believe that "Yeshua" was G-d or believe in him for salvation (ie... ascribing god-like qualities to him) and observed Torah and halakha, then I could see that they may be accepted as part of Judaism.


If you read my other post, Paul was actually excised for teaching Hellenism (in which xtianity is firmly rooted).

[mpossoff]

Of course, because belief in "Yeshua" constitutes belief in another god. If one didn't believe that "Yeshua" was G-d or believe in him for salvation (ie... ascribing god-like qualities to him) and observed Torah and halakha, then I could see that they may be accepted as part of Judaism.


If you read my other post, Paul was actually excised for teaching Hellenism (in which xtianity is firmly rooted).

You didn't answer my question.

I'll ask it again.


What was the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism? The prevailing view of the sages was a belief that Israel and Israel alone shared a place in the ‘World to Come’. Israel meaning Jewish only Israel. So if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership was ethnicity.

Yes or no? Do you believe, Yes or No that the entry point into covenantal membership is ethnicity? That's against the Torah, BTW.

That's my point just because it was halacha doesn't make it correct!

Marc

[mpossoff]

Do you believe Yes or No:

Paul is saying no one is justified before God by submission to a man-made ceremony as postulated by the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism the prevailing halacha of the 1st century?

Marc

[muffler dragon]

The prevailing halacha was wrong! Just because it was halacha doesn't mean it was right.

I'm afraid the circularity of what you're inferring is a bit too much.

[mpossoff]

I'm afraid the circularity of what you're inferring is a bit too much.

Why is it too much I asked a simple question.

Marc

[muffler dragon]

[B] What was the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism? The prevailing view of the sages was a belief that Israel and Israel alone shared a place in the ‘World to Come’.

I would be interested in seeing the source material for this consideration.

What's funny to me though, marc, is that you're going to have to rely on the validity of halacha to make your point above while denigrating it to suit your answer. (btw, that's the circularity I was speaking of).

[muffler dragon]

Why is it too much I asked a simple question.

Marc

see post #40.

[mpossoff]

I would be interested in seeing the source material for this consideration.

What's funny to me though, marc, is that you're going to have to rely on the validity of halacha to make your point above while denigrating it to suit your answer. (btw, that's the circularity I was speaking of).

The source of material is the New Testament.

Marc

[muffler dragon]

The source of material is the New Testament.

Marc

You're trying to tell me that you don't have a Jewish source for the belief that first century Judaism held " belief that Israel and Israel alone shared a place in the ‘World to Come’?

If that's the case; then you don't have a case. The Christian testament hardly deals with Jewish halacha at all (particularly with reference to the Jewish view of Gentiles).

[mpossoff]

You're trying to tell me that you don't have a Jewish source for the belief that first century Judaism held " belief that Israel and Israel alone shared a place in the ‘World to Come’?

If that's the case; then you don't have a case. The Christian testament hardly deals with Jewish halacha at all (particularly with reference to the Jewish view of Gentiles).

I have. Let me look it up in my online Talmud. Definatley there.

The New Testament deals with halacha alot, ergon nomos; works of the law.

Marc

[mpossoff]

You're trying to tell me that you don't have a Jewish source for the belief that first century Judaism held " belief that Israel and Israel alone shared a place in the ‘World to Come’?

If that's the case; then you don't have a case. The Christian testament hardly deals with Jewish halacha at all (particularly with reference to the Jewish view of Gentiles).

Galatians doesn't deal with the prevailing halacha? Sure does.

Nobody has answered my question.

I'll ask it again.


What was the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism? The prevailing view of the sages was a belief that Israel and Israel alone shared a place in the ‘World to Come’. Israel meaning Jewish only Israel. So if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership was ethnicity.

Yes or no? Do you believe, Yes or No that the entry point into covenantal membership is ethnicity?

Do you believe Yes or No: no one is justified before God by submission to a man-made ceremony as postulated by the prevailing halacha of 1st century?(if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership was ethnicity.)

Marc

[muffler dragon]

I have. Let me look it up in my online Talmud. Definatley there.

The New Testament deals with halacha alot, ergon nomos; works of the law.

Marc

I'll await your substantiation from the Talmud.

Speaking soley of my POV, the GT doesn't hold an ounce of water when dealing with first century Judaism. If you want to prove a point regarding first century Judaism; then I suggest you use a Judaic document that substantiates what you interpret the GT as saying.

[muffler dragon]

Galatians doesn't deal with the prevailing halacha? Sure does.

Galatians is a letter written to Gentiles. It has nothing to do with Jewish halacha.

Nobody has answered my question.

Nobody HAS to answer a question based on an unsubstantiated premise.

What was the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism? The prevailing view of the sages was a belief that Israel and Israel alone shared a place in the ‘World to Come’. Israel meaning Jewish only Israel. So if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership was ethnicity.

The emboldened is an unsubstantiated premise.

Do you believe that the entry point into covenantal membership is ethnicity?

To be a part of the nation of Israel, one must be a Jew.

Do you believe no one is justified before God by submission to a man-made ceremony as postulated by the prevailing halacha of 1st century?

What is your definition of "justified"?

if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership was ethnicity.)

G-d enters into relationships with people of all nationalities and ethnicities. They may differ, they may be similar.

[ChazakEmunah]

No!

The prevailing halacha was wrong! Just because it was halacha doesn't mean it was right.

You just proved the point that you for the prevailing halacha that I posted, am I correct?

Do you believe:

What was the prevailing halacha of 1st century Judaism? The prevailing view of the sages was a belief that Israel and Israel alone shared a place in the ‘World to Come’. Israel meaning Jewish only Israel. So if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership was ethnicity.

Yes or no?

That's my point just because it was halacha doesn't make it correct!

Marc
No, I do not believe that only Jews will inherit a portion in the World to Come. Current halakha states that a Gentile may have a share in the World to Come if they observe the minimum sheva mitzvot. True, there were some differing views in the 1st Cent., but the halakha of Beit Hillel and the Netzarim held that Gentiles are accepted into the World to Come if they adhere to the above mitzvot.

However, covenant membership is based on Judaism. One can only be in the covenant if they are a member of it. A Gentile can attach themselves to Israel, but they do not automatically become Israel. There is a difference.

[ChazakEmunah]

Galatians is a letter written to Gentiles. It has nothing to do with Jewish halacha.
Quite true. But it does show Paul's low opinion of halakha, does it not?

[muffler dragon]

Quite true. But it does show Paul's low opinion of halakha, does it not?

I guess so. If an opinion of a person without smicha holds any value in a halachic discussion; then I guess it would fit the bill. Know what I'm saying? :)

[ChazakEmunah]

I guess so. If an opinion of a person without smicha holds any value in a halachic discussion; then I guess it would fit the bill. Know what I'm saying? :)
I hear ya.

[mpossoff]

I guess so. If an opinion of a person without smicha holds any value in a halachic discussion; then I guess it would fit the bill. Know what I'm saying? :)

Eh eh not so fast, I asked a question and have not gotten an answer. Why are you dancing around the question. You have tried to turn the tables on me and I almost fell for it.

OK let's say that there is sources. Let's say there isn't sources. Whether there's sources or not in the New Testament this is a fact.

Why won't you answer the question? It's a simple question. The issue isn't whether or not there are sources. A simple question.

By not answering it and dancing around I and others may assume you do believe in it? Let me phrase it another way.

I'll ask it again.


Do you believe that Israel and Israel alone shares a place in the ‘World to Come’. Israel meaning Jewish only Israel. So if a non-Jew wishes to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person has to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership is ethnicity?

Yes or no? Do you believe, Yes or No that the entry point into covenantal membership is ethnicity?

Do you believe one is justified before God by submission to a man-made ceremony ?(if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person has to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership is ethnicity.)

Marc

[muffler dragon]

Eh eh not so fast, I asked a question and have not gotten an answer. Why are you dancing around the question. You have tried to turn the tables on me and I almost fell for it.

Whatever, marc. I've asked you for substantiation and received none. I've answered your questions in spite of that.

OK let's say that there is sources. Let's say there isn't sources. Whether there's sources or not in the New Testament this is a fact.

Sorry. Your un-Judaic opinion doesn't suffice for substantiation.

Why won't you answer the question? It's a simple question. The issue isn't whether or not there are sources. A simple question.

By not answering it and dancing around I and others may assume you do believe in it? Let me phrase it another way.

I'll ask it again.

I did answer it!

Here's the entire set AGAIN:

Do you believe that the entry point into covenantal membership is ethnicity?

To be a part of the nation of Israel, one must be a Jew.

Do you believe no one is justified before God by submission to a man-made ceremony as postulated by the prevailing halacha of 1st century?

What is your definition of "justified"?

if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership was ethnicity.)

G-d enters into relationships with people of all nationalities and ethnicities. They may differ, they may be similar.

If you don't like my answers or my question about justification; then you're just going to have to wallow in disappointment. I'm not pulling any fast ones, and I'm not playing games. You have repeated ad nauseum that the first century Jews were "such and such" way. When asked for substantiation, you present bopkess. It's a quid pro quo. You want something, you've got to pony up. Don't expect me to answer another hair-brained question WITHOUT YOU SUBSTANTIATING YOUR OPINION ON FIRST CENTURY JUDAISM.

[GerTzedek]

Marc:

muffler states he is a Noachide. That means he's not a Jew. He's a righteous gentile, abiding by G-d's covenant with Noah. That knowledge all by itself should answer your question.

[ChazakEmunah]

I should probably tell you guys that Marc is relatively new to learning everything. Sometimes his questions seem all over the place, but keep in mind that he's still trying to figure things out.

[muffler dragon]

Marc:

muffler states he is a Noachide. That means he's not a Jew. He's a righteous gentile, abiding by G-d's covenant with Noah. That knowledge all by itself should answer your question.

Very true, GT. Thank you very much. :thumbsup:

[muffler dragon]

I should probably tell you guys that Marc is relatively new to learning everything. Sometimes his questions seem all over the place, but keep in mind that he's still trying to figure things out.

Okay. I shall.

[mpossoff]

1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?
2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

Paul is asking did you receive the Spirit by becoming a proselyte(works of the Law, ergon nomos) or by believing what you heard?

So I ask you the same. Did you receive the Spirit by converting to Judaism or believing in what you heard? Did you receive the Spirit on what you did or are doing?

I have never spoke against circumcision as Paul never did. But Paul taught not for the wrong reasons. To change your ethnicity to become Jewish is for the wrong reason. Is circumcision a Torah command, sure it it. But what is the sign of circumcision mean? What good is circumcision in the flesh if your heart isn't circumcised? This is what Paul taught and you seem to misunderstand Paul. Is it because you listen to his critics and don't even take to time to find out for yourself?

You don't even need a Talmud to discover the issue of conversion to Judaism. It's plain and clear in the scriptures.

Doesn't the Talmud state that all Israel and Israel alone has a share in the Olam Ha-Ba? I know the Talmud says this and I know what Judaism says about this. Am I anti-Jewish? God forbid. I am a Jew myself! Yes or no please. Now if the answer is yes then what does this mean? Does it mean that you have to be Jewish is the first question.

The second question is: Is it about a Gentile becoming Jewish or is it about what the sign of circumcision is? This is a fine line.

You see this can't be a debate with you because for one you don't even regard the New Testament as scripture. Two you have misunderstood Paul because you believe the critics.

Now many will say this is a requirement for the Jewish people alone because that is their sign between them and their God, and, as Christians, we are not required to do that anymore. What we are not required to do is to circumcise our flesh before we understand the nature of the covenant that we are entering into. It's not about being changing your ethnicity. The children of Israel is comprised of both ethnic Jews and Gentiles. We are not to tell Gentiles to become Jewish. Circumcision of the heart(being born again) the entry point into covenant membership.

And no I'm not necessarily new to this at all.

And I ask you another question what is The Mystery of the Gospel?

Marc

[Talmidah]

Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Moslems worship the same G-d that we do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d.

Contrary to popular belief, Judaism does not maintain that Jews are better than other people. Although we refer to ourselves as G-d's chosen people, we do not believe that G-d chose the Jews because of any inherent superiority. According to the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2b), G-d offered the Torah to all the nations of the earth, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it. The story goes on to say that the Jews were offered the Torah last, and accepted it only because G-d held a mountain over their heads! (In Ex. 19:17, the words generally translated as "at the foot of the mountain" literally mean "underneath the mountain"!) Another traditional story suggests that G-d chose the Jewish nation because they were the lowliest of nations, and their success would be attributed to G-d's might rather than their own ability. Clearly, these are not the ideas of a people who think they are better than other nations.
Jewish Attitudes Toward Non-Jews (http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm)


One of the main differences that separates Judaism from the other major monotheistic religions - Christianity and Islam – is the matter of exclusivity. The rabbis of the Talmud long ago reiterated the traditional Jewish position that “the righteous of the nations of the world all have a share in the World to Come.” This meant immortality of the soul and heavenly reward once one passes on from this life.

One need not be Jewish to gain holiness, immortality and heavenly eternal reward.Exclusivity and Tolerance (http://www.rabbiwein.com/Jerusalem-Post/2006/11/173.html)

Set up righteous and honest courts and apply fair justice in judging offenders.
The Talmud says: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a). Any person who lives according to these laws is known as "the righteous among the gentiles". Maimonides states that this refers to those who have acquired knowledge of God and act in accordance with the Noahide laws. Bnai Noach (http://www.milechai.com/judaism/bnai-noach.html)

The Torah maintains that the righteous Gentiles of all nations have a place in the World to Come. ... To be considered a good and righteous person in the eyes of God, a non-Jew need only follow the seven Noahic commandments, whereas a Jew has to follow all 613 commandments given in the Torah. Mechon-Mamre (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm)

Judaism has never taught that one has to be jewish in order to be saved. In contrast to medieval Christianity, which held that there was no salvation outside the Church, the rabbis believed that "the righteous of all the nations of the world have a portion in the world-to-come" (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2) Biblical Literacy, Joseph Telushkin

[muffler dragon]

What a splendid post, Tal!!! :Thumbsup:

Someone please spread some Reputation around.

[ChazakEmunah]

Yes, I agree. A great post Talmidah!

[mpossoff]

Jewish Attitudes Toward Non-Jews (http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm)

Exclusivity and Tolerance (http://www.rabbiwein.com/Jerusalem-Post/2006/11/173.html)

Bnai Noach (http://www.milechai.com/judaism/bnai-noach.html)

Mechon-Mamre (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm)

Biblical Literacy, Joseph Telushkin

I'm not understanding muffler said that one must be a Jew to be apart of Israel, is that correct?

And your quotes say that One of the main differences that separates Judaism from the other major monotheistic religions - Christianity and Islam – is the matter of exclusivity. The rabbis of the Talmud long ago reiterated the traditional Jewish position that “the righteous of the nations of the world all have a share in the World to Come.” This meant immortality of the soul and heavenly reward once one passes on from this life.

One need not be Jewish to gain holiness, immortality and heavenly eternal reward.

What's the difference?

One can remain a righteous Gentile To be considered a good and righteous person in the eyes of God, a non-Jew need only follow the seven Noahic commandments.

So where does that leave a righteous Gentile in referance to covenant status? And what covenant status are you referring to?

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

I'm not understanding muffler said that one must be a Jew to be apart of Israel, is that correct?

And your quotes say that

[/size][/color][/font]What's the difference?

One can remain a righteous Gentile To be considered a good and righteous person in the eyes of God, a non-Jew need only follow the seven Noahic commandments.

So where does that leave a righteous Gentile in referance to covenant status? And what covenant status are you referring to?

Marc
Marc, a Righteous Gentile is under the Noachic covenant. And yes, one must be a Jew to be part of Israel. There is no two ways around this, as the two terms have been synonymous since the Babylonian exile.

[muffler dragon]

I'm not understanding muffler said that one must be a Jew to be apart of Israel, is that correct?

And your quotes say that

What's the difference?

One can remain a righteous Gentile To be considered a good and righteous person in the eyes of God, a non-Jew need only follow the seven Noahic commandments.

So where does that leave a righteous Gentile in referance to covenant status? And what covenant status are you referring to?

Marc

A Noachide is not a part of the Mosaic covenant. A Noachide is not obligated to be Torah observant.

I assure you that NOTHING that Talmidah presented is contrary to what I have written.

[mpossoff]

A Noachide is not a part of the Mosaic covenant. A Noachide is not obligated to be Torah observant.

I assure you that NOTHING that Talmidah presented is contrary to what I have written.

So since you are not apart of Israel, what does that mean in the now and the Olam Haba?

Marc

[simchat_torah]

So since you are not apart of Israel, what does that mean in the now and the Olam Haba?All righteous have a part in Olam HaBa.
(this includes those who abide by the 7 laws of Noah, and respect the Torah's divine authority)

It is during this life that the Jewish people have specific responsibilities to uphold.

[muffler dragon]

what does that mean in the now

I try to follow the Seven Laws of Noach to the best of my ability.

and the Olam Haba?

Marc

Not concerned about it.

[GerTzedek]

Marc, a Righteous Gentile is under the Noachic covenant. And yes, one must be a Jew to be part of Israel. There is no two ways around this, as the two terms have been synonymous since the Babylonian exile.
Marc, folks have been repeating this to you over and over. I'm trying to figure out what is the difficulty with understanding this, the underlying issue. Did you think that a gentile had to become Israel to achieve salvation? Not so. It was never so.

All humanity is bound by God's covenant with Noah, aka the Noachide Covenant. This is what muffler refers to when he states he is Noachide.

Within humanity, G-d reached in and set apart Israel, and established a separate additional Covenant at Sinai with the Jews. It does not bind gentiles. They have never been required to follow it or to convert to Israel in order to be saved, not then, not now.

The decision of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 simply affirms standard Jewish thinking as explained here.

I don't think it can be explained more clearly or plainly than this. If you still don't get it, I throw up my hands.

[stranger]

That this theme comes up over and over is simply a r4eflection of the division of religion ,both within and between both Christianity and Judaism ... but the scripture is not divided , the NT rests on the OT completely , the new covenant is given in the OT [Jer 31:31-34] as the forgiveness of BOTH Houses [kingdoms] of yet-still-divided Israel...

Now Jesus came only for the House of Israel, the non-Jewish descendanmts of Jacob, he said so , and sent the twelve Jewish apostles on the same mission, for it to be pursued until his return, generation on generation of saints searchin amongst the gentiles for the OT lost sheep of the House of Israel :-

Matthew 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
...
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

--- BUT Paul is NOT [primarily] sent to the House of Israel amongst the gentiles ,like the other apostels , he is however sent to the gentiles themselves !

Thus Paul's task is to explain to the gentiles why God has chosen Israel to be first [so that Israel can serve in the redemption of the many AFTERWARD in the kingdom of God come to all men ... where the kingdom now only resides in the hearts and minds of the few saints under grace of the new covenant with the two Houses of divided Israel [Heb 8:8-12] who are thus now FORGIVEN although they do NOT merit it [hence by grace, unmerited forgivness of their new covenant through their messiah , new king, Jesus]

Paul then is most terribly misunderstood as offering salvation to the gentiles now, when he cannot do that at all... all must be perfected in love by trial of the ONE faith given by God BEFORE salvation by translation to spirit ... the salvation of most sinners is thus after death frees them from sin, not before death :-

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Thus it is only the few that God requires as priests and kings in His kingdom who NEED grace now, to be perfected in love before their death and before Jesus' return...

The many then are saved after the few, by the broad way that Jesus confirmed is to salvation AFTER the firstfruits of TRIBAL Israel [Rev 7:3-10]

Why then Israel if they do not DESERVE it, do nor merit grace ?

Simplt because God has said that He will SHOW the power of His truth to TAKE EVEN rebellious Israel as His perfected servants , that God's truth can change the will of men from the sill to continue sinning to the will to be as perfect in love as God Himself :-

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

--- One can see then how thoroughly Paul's message has been tuned upside down in Christianity , and caused the Jews in particular to not find truth in Christianity ... well one cannot deny it is DIVIDED right down to individual level, so it cannot be the truth, something which consulting scriptuer as a WHOLE confirms... the message of Paul went wrong in the hands of sinners, who now preach that sinners can be taken by Jesus at his return despite that Jesus explicitly states that he will say never even knew any sinner , at his return :-

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

One cannot then adjudge Paul without first understanding what task God sought to accomplish through his teaching the gentiles things which they simply could NEVER UNDERSTAND !

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The saints indeed can and do understand God as ONE with Him and Jesus, but those who remain sinners until death [almost all men] simply cannot nderstand God, and the divided religion of men just PROVES it LOGICALLY...

The point then is that Jesus PROMISED ALL TRUTH in life to those who FOLLOW him :-

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

It is very clear that MOST men die WITHOUT knowing all truth, and so are not baptised of the holy spirit, else they would know before death all truth of God !

Thus divided religio of both Judaism and Cristianity has a DIFFERENT purpose for God than is claimed by its priests , it is not about salvation now at all, but about the humbling of Sata by giving him power in THIS world over all the world bar the FEW God reserves for priests in His kingdom AFTERWARD [Rev 13:3-8]

Thus few find the strait narrow way of saints following Jesus in this world , but we know the many who go by the broad way are saved AFTER, because Jesus says so [Rev 7:9-10]

Without knowing ALL the scripture then, to understand the DIFFERENT purposes of the twelve and Paul , one is never even going to begin to see why Paul seems such an enigma... Gd's purpose in him is to reveal teh salvation of the gentiles, but God is very aware that this message will be corrupted by gentile sinners acting in place of the perefect priests that He will establish only in his kingdom after the death of all sinners FOR SIN ...

The only way to escape death for sin is by pervfecting love in life, and one cannot do this without spirit baptism, one NEEDS ALL TRUTH of God to be ABLE to defeat Satan's wiles and love perfectly without sinning, as Jesus did ... the saints indeed were sinners, but thus have to give up sin in order to be taken...

We know however that MOST of Israel died as sinners [and did not even believe Jesus was the messiah, the christ, the king come to re-unite Israel into a nation of holy perfect priests and kings [Exodus 19:6] ] ... thus we know most of Israel cannot be saved until after the second resurrection , yet we also KNOW that all Israel will be saved [then] :-

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Since Israel are the nation who form the perfect priesthood ministering in God's kingdom, then we know that the many are saved AFTER Israel , else how could they minister as priests !!

Thus we know that God's promise to baptise all men [Jel 2:28] is not fulfilled until after the second resurrection [yet obviously it has to be before judgment day] ... thus the many gentiles live righteously , as saints, perfecting their love in order to be saved IN THE NEW EARTH kingdom of God :-

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

--- That then is why Jesus emphasises that he WILL NOT RULE in THIS earth [John 18:36] , but the kings over whom he rules as 'king of kings, DO rule on the earth :-

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

-- Again it proves from scripture that the kingdom of God comes to the many in the new earth [whereas in this earth it resides only in the hearts and minds of the saints]

Paul's message then , which is mostly only repeating the OT scriptures and expounding them anyway, is lost to both Judaism and Christianity of today, being understood only by the saints [to whom, it is actually for the most part addressed !]

The consistency of Paul's message with the rest of scripture is thus the only test which sinners can apply, there is no point at all in comparing his teachings to judaism or Christianity of sinners - since it is very differenet from them and that only shows the apostacy of religion, not of Paul...

[ChazakEmunah]

[Paul's message then , which is mostly only repeating the OT scriptures and expounding them anyway, is lost to both Judaism and Christianity of today, being understood only by the saints [to whom, it is actually for the most part addressed !]
Please show evidence for your case that Paul was properly interpreting the Tanakh.


The consistency of Paul's message with the rest of scripture is thus the only test which sinners can apply, there is no point at all in comparing his teachings to judaism or Christianity of sinners - since it is very differenet from them and that only shows the apostacy of religion, not of Paul...
Oh, so now Judaism is an apostasy? Please state your evidence for such a fallacious presumption.

[stranger]

Oh, so now Judaism is an apostasy? Please state your evidence for such a fallacious presumption.That is trivially easy... Judaism is divided right down to the individual level ... to such an extent that is is a standing humour to remak that every Jew thinks differenently about his religion...

Clearly though God's actual truth is but one truth, NOT subject to ANY interpretation by men [despite that it is subjected to interpretation by almost all men] :-

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[Peter was of course a Jew , who wrote this ... ]

[stranger]

Please show evidence for your case that Paul was properly interpreting the Tanakh.

We can take a few points here if you like , what would you like to discuss ... clearly there is not room for it all at once...

Paul was indeed a Benjamite Jew ,and unusually well-schooled in the scriptures of the time and Jewish Law ... it seems unlikely that he violated anything from God, but there is evidence i scripture from Jesus/Yeshua, also a Jew , that the Jewish hierarchy already celebrated Passover on the wrong day [jesus ate Passover the day before the Jews in Jerusalem, the Passover Lamb of God was slaughtered unjustly on the true [annual] sabbath ... the Jews thought it was the 'day of preparation' ... but jesus came to eat the Passover in his last meal with his Jewish apostles...

[muffler dragon]

Point of suggestion: when you make statements, it might be of benefit to substantiate them. I've noticed through most of your posts that you just pontificate. This is meaningless in the debate forum.

Paul was indeed a Benjamite Jew,

Only according to his mouth. Nothing else can be used as evidence; especially considering one who was raised in the Mithraic capitol of Tarsus.

and unusually well-schooled in the scriptures of the time and Jewish Law

Far from it. He rarely quotes the Hebrew sources, and his references to the Torah are (oftentimes) abhorrent. It's evident that he was NOT a Pharisee, and that he was not a student of Gamaliel.

it seems unlikely that he violated anything from God, but there is evidence i scripture from Jesus/Yeshua, also a Jew , that the Jewish hierarchy already celebrated Passover on the wrong day [jesus ate Passover the day before the Jews in Jerusalem, the Passover Lamb of God was slaughtered unjustly on the true [annual] sabbath ... the Jews thought it was the 'day of preparation' ... but jesus came to eat the Passover in his last meal with his Jewish apostles...

Before you make blanket statements like this, it would be of benefit for your to study when the different sects celebrated what. Furthermore, when you say, "Jewish Hierarchy"... what do you mean?

[stranger]

when you say, "Jewish Hierarchy"... what do you mean?
Pharisees and Sadducees and local rabbis , who administered Judaism as an institutional structure ...

[stranger]

Far from it. He rarely quotes the Hebrew sources, and his references to the Torah are (oftentimes) abhorrent.Perhaps you would like to begin with a single example of this blanket statement ... since to my eyes much of what Paul writes is just as the OT scriptures he takes it from... not least the new covenant with Israel's two Houses Heb 8:8-12 which is the same as Jer 31:31-34 , perhaps the most important and most misunderstood scripture there is ... Paul gets it exactly right, both divided nations , whose fathers broke the old covenant , now have a new covenant with God in which they are simply taken as His people and forgiven [without conditions ]

Paul also teaches the true gospel that Jesus/Yeshua is the messiah [christ, annointed king] of Israel which rather shows conclusively that it is modern religion that is apostate, not him ... a point substantiated by Jesus, as for instance in :-

Mark 14:9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

[note that the annointing of the messiah is not taught in most christianity or in much 'messianic judaism' , yet it was given as the sign of the true gospel by the messiah himself , since it is a formal ritual for kingship in Israel, and clearly would not have been performed by the Jewish hierarchy of the time, who simply wanted this man killed and out of their way ]

[muffler dragon]

Pharisees and Sadducees and local rabbis , who administered Judaism as an institutional structure ...

1) The Pharisees ARE the Rabbis.
2) The Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes all had different dates for the observance of Holidays; therefore, you were incorrect in stating:

the Jewish hierarchy already celebrated Passover on the wrong day

[muffler dragon]

Perhaps you would like to begin with a single example of this blanket statement ... since to my eyes much of what Paul writes is just as the OT scriptures he takes it from...

Are you fluent in Hebrew, Greek and/or Aramaic?

not least the new covenant with Israel's two Houses Heb 8:8-12 which is the same as Jer 31:31-34 , perhaps the most important and most misunderstood scripture there is ... Paul gets it exactly right, both divided nations , whose fathers broke the old covenant , now have a new covenant with God in which they are simply taken as His people and forgiven [without conditions ]

Who said Paul was the author of the Letter to the Hebrews? If you want to hold to this belief; then this makes my job even easier as the author of said Letter was dumber than a box of rocks when it comes to context and Jewish interpretation and tradition. Are you wanting to hold onto said belief?

Paul also teaches the true gospel that Jesus/Yeshua is the messiah [christ, annointed king] of Israel which rather shows conclusively that it is modern religion that is apostate, not him ... a point substantiated by Jesus,

Unfortunately for you and Paul, Jesus was a failure (at best) and a false messiah (at worst). Please show me where Jesus fulfilled the following Messianic criteria:

He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)

He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)

He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)

He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)

Btw, when you attempt to default to a second coming, please be aware that you will have just admitted to failure. ;)

[note that the annointing of the messiah is not taught in most christianity or in much 'messianic judaism' , yet it was given as the sign of the true gospel by the messiah himself , since it is a formal ritual for kingship in Israel, and clearly would not have been performed by the Jewish hierarchy of the time, who simply wanted this man killed and out of their way ]

So, you admit that Jesus was NEVER anointed as King? Once again, he isn't messiah material.

[stranger]

Please show me where Jesus fulfilled the following Messianic criteria:

He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)

Jesus began this work with the House of Israel , sending out his Jewish apostles to continue it after his death ... but Jesus' kingdom is not on this earth, but in the new earth, where Israel will be the holy nation of priests ministering as kings and priests to billions ... thus you need a little more patience, God will do everything He has said in due course and at the prophesuied time, not to suit your ideas...

He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)

Again Jesus said that he had not come [this time] to bring peace [now] ... peace is only established after the humbling of manlind and Satan... in the new earth kingdom

He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)

Again patience my friend, jesus has said that he will gather only 144,000 of Israel FIRST [in this earth] -Rev 7:3-8 ... so you are simply in too much of a hurry ... most of israel died sinners [not saints], in unbelief in Jesus as the messiah or before Jesus even came, so they cannot live again until after the second resurrection, over a thousand years in the future... you simply have to learn ALL God's plan to pt things in His time frame... find out what He prophesies first before demanding immediate reclamation of Israel, God never promised that ...

He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)

Again, not on this earth, but most m,en will unite in a false religion in this earth... a false messiah ['antichrist', one in place of the messiah] will rule most men and dictate religion ...

[ChazakEmunah]

That is trivially easy... Judaism is divided right down to the individual level ... to such an extent that is is a standing humour to remak that every Jew thinks differenently about his religion...

Clearly though God's actual truth is but one truth, NOT subject to ANY interpretation by men [despite that it is subjected to interpretation by almost all men] :-

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[Peter was of course a Jew , who wrote this ... ]
I don't know who finds it humorous to call Judaism an apostasy, but I sure don't. Orthodox Judaism has always maintained the same standards throughout the centuries. Certain people have broken off from us and followed after their own hearts, but that certainly does not make it an apostasy.

On the other hand, C*hristianity, with all of the Greek Hellenism that it adopted (thank you Paul et all) is clearly an apostasy of Judaism.

[ChazakEmunah]

We can take a few points here if you like , what would you like to discuss ... clearly there is not room for it all at once...

Well, pick one example and we'll start there.

[muffler dragon]

Jesus began this work with the House of Israel , sending out his Jewish apostles to continue it after his death ... but Jesus' kingdom is not on this earth, but in the new earth, where Israel will be the holy nation of priests ministering as kings and priests to billions ... thus you need a little more patience, God will do everything He has said in due course and at the prophesuied time, not to suit your ideas...



Again Jesus said that he had not come [this time] to bring peace [now] ... peace is only established after the humbling of manlind and Satan... in the new earth kingdom



Again patience my friend, jesus has said that he will gather only 144,000 of Israel FIRST [in this earth] -Rev 7:3-8 ... so you are simply in too much of a hurry ... most of israel died sinners [not saints], in unbelief in Jesus as the messiah or before Jesus even came, so they cannot live again until after the second resurrection, over a thousand years in the future... you simply have to learn ALL God's plan to pt things in His time frame... find out what He prophesies first before demanding immediate reclamation of Israel, God never promised that ...



Again, not on this earth, but most m,en will unite in a false religion in this earth... a false messiah ['antichrist', one in place of the messiah] will rule most men and dictate religion ...

It's not a matter of patience nor a "spiritualizing" of something happening in another dimension. The criteria that I provided you are concrete, and are meant to occur in ONE lifetime. Do you realize that there have been dozens (if not hundreds) of Jews who have made the same claim as Jesus? All these "messiahs" have failed or been false. Couple that with the fact that they are all dead, and you find nothing of completion.

Furthermore, it might be of benefit for you to find tangible considerations that you can utilize in defense of your beliefs. When you speak of "other worlds"; then it becomes as debatable as the belief that I am the king of the seventh dimension.

[muffler dragon]

Well, pick one example and we'll start there.

Be prepared for a "non-starter" as it's becoming apparent one needs a great deal of "patience" to talk about things occurring in different dimensions and worlds.

[Steve Petersen]

Point of suggestion: when you make statements, it might be of benefit to substantiate them. I've noticed through most of your posts that you just pontificate. This is meaningless in the debate forum.



Only according to his mouth. Nothing else can be used as evidence; especially considering one who was raised in the Mithraic capitol of Tarsus.



Far from it. He rarely quotes the Hebrew sources, and his references to the Torah are (oftentimes) abhorrent. It's evident that he was NOT a Pharisee, and that he was not a student of Gamaliel.



Before you make blanket statements like this, it would be of benefit for your to study when the different sects celebrated what. Furthermore, when you say, "Jewish Hierarchy"... what do you mean?
In Acts Paul is 22:3 Paul claims to be a student of Gamaliel (the Elder.)

About half of Gamaliel's students were taught Hellenism in order to be able to interact with government officials

But is Greek philosophy forbidden? Behold Rab Judah declared that Samuel said in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, What means that which is written: Mine eye affecteth my soul, because of all the daughters of my city? There were a thousand pupils in my father's house; five hundred studied Torah and five hundred studied Greek wisdom, and of these there remained only I here and the son of my father's brother in Assia! _ It was different with the household of Rabban Gamaliel because they had close associations with the Government; for it has been taught: To trim the hair in front is of the ways of the Amorites; but they permitted Abtilus b. Reuben to trim his hair in front because he had close associations with the Government. Similarly they permitted the household of Rabban Gamaliel to study Greek wisdom because they had close associations with the Government. Talmud Bavli, Sotah 49b

In the course of everyday life of Jews in the Diaspora, the Lingua Franca of the world was Greek. In the synagogues of Diaspora, the Torah was read in Hebrew and a meturgemen (translator) translated into the local language. Read Sanders, et al for the details.)

[muffler dragon]

In Acts Paul is 22:3 Paul claims to be a student of Gamaliel (the Elder.)

About half of Gamaliel's students were taught Hellenism in order to be able to interact with government officials

But is Greek philosophy forbidden? Behold Rab Judah declared that Samuel said in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, What means that which is written: Mine eye affecteth my soul, because of all the daughters of my city? There were a thousand pupils in my father's house; five hundred studied Torah and five hundred studied Greek wisdom, and of these there remained only I here and the son of my father's brother in Assia! _ It was different with the household of Rabban Gamaliel because they had close associations with the Government; for it has been taught: To trim the hair in front is of the ways of the Amorites; but they permitted Abtilus b. Reuben to trim his hair in front because he had close associations with the Government. Similarly they permitted the household of Rabban Gamaliel to study Greek wisdom because they had close associations with the Government. Talmud Bavli, Sotah 49b

In the course of everyday life of Jews in the Diaspora, the Lingua Franca of the world was Greek. In the synagogues of Diaspora, the Torah was read in Hebrew and a meturgemen (translator) translated into the local language. Read Sanders, et al for the details.)

Steve:

I'm not seeing how this refutes/rebuts what I have stated to stranger. Studying Hellenism is one thing; yet, adopting it, embracing it and introducing foreign concepts is another. What am I missing within your post?

[Steve Petersen]

Steve:

I'm not seeing how this refutes/rebuts what I have stated to stranger. Studying Hellenism is one thing; yet, adopting it, embracing it and introducing foreign concepts is another. What am I missing within your post?
Nothing. I missed your point. Sorry.

I don't see Paul pushing Helleninsm on anyone in the NT. Where do you see it?

[Steve Petersen]

If you read the Talmud you will note that is full of stories about Jewish teachers interacting with Roman government officials.

Next, pick of a copy Philo of Alexandria. He and Paul say nearly identical things.

[ChazakEmunah]

Nothing. I missed your point. Sorry.

I don't see Paul pushing Helleninsm on anyone in the NT. Where do you see it?
Part of Hellenism is an extreme disregard for the Oral Torah. Although he claimed to the contrary, Paul consistently taught against it. It's all over his letters. In fact, this was the source for his constant dispute with the leadership in Yerushalayim. In fact, I don't think you will even find many Messianics who believe that he didn't teach against the Oral Torah.

[ChazakEmunah]

If you read the Talmud you will note that is full of stories about Jewish teachers interacting with Roman government officials.

Next, pick of a copy Philo of Alexandria. He and Paul say nearly identical things.
Which is precisely the point. Philo was a known Hellenist. That his writings are quite similar to Paul's should be of no surprise.

[Steve Petersen]

I think we need to get back to the OP. This could be a really interesting debate, but we need definition of terms:

Apostle of/to whom?
Apostate from who/what?

[Steve Petersen]

Having Hellenist influence is not the same as being a Hellenist. Being a Hellenist would seem to me to be a promoter of Hellenist practices (including polytheism.) Against this criteria neither Paul nor Philo could be considered true Hellenists.

[ChazakEmunah]

I think we need to get back to the OP. This could be a really interesting debate, but we need definition of terms:

Apostle of/to whom?
Apostate from who/what?
I kinda wanted to leave it open and let people draw their own conclusions... Unfortunately only a couple people have come in and responded... Where's all the ardent Paul defenders?? C'mon people... I don't bite! ;)

To answer your question, the idea behind the OP is to debate whether or not Paul was an apostate from Judaism. Was he a talmid of R. Y'hoshua and stay within the boundaries of Judaism? OR Did he apostatize from Judaism and become a Hellenist?

[Steve Petersen]

I kinda wanted to leave it open and let people draw their own conclusions... Unfortunately only a couple people have come in and responded... Where's all the ardent Paul defenders?? C'mon people... I don't bite! ;)

To answer your question, the idea behind the OP is to debate whether or not Paul was an apostate from Judaism. Was he a talmid of R. Y'hoshua and stay within the boundaries of Judaism? OR Did he apostatize from Judaism and become a Hellenist?
He claims he never spoke against the Law of the Jews:

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

This was near the end of his life.

[muffler dragon]

He claims he never spoke against the Law of the Jews:

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

This was near the end of his life.

Which leaves us with a number of possible considerations:

1) Paul is perpetually "misunderstood" or "difficult to understand" which is a downward spiral of circularity.
2) He's ignorant of what he actually wrote.
3) His perspective is such that it spins both ways.
etc.

Personally, I take Paul's own words with a grain of salt. Too many times have I found his words self-contradictory OR his actions have contradicted his words. I think he had serious mental issues.

[Bananna]

I took the time to study where he got his ideas and the greek wording and alternate wording I find him funny.

Head coverings issue starts with a command to keep the Tradtions as given to them.

Juxtaposition it reads like out of talmudic arguments.

He scolds the men for leading prayer with their head down and says for the women to pray totally veiled and head down yet he is still talking of praying in leadership. IE How do the sabbath Prayers get said by men and women at the home.

Then the english takes both the root words and says that men should not be veiled but women should and yet how many Christians do yo see do this? IMO every English version totolly misses conveying what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 11. Especially the part about keeping the Traditions.

Head covering and manner of prayer is not a Torah observant issue until Paul himself made it one by the command of Christ.

Put a token on your head women or be shorn. Tie up your hair men or you are not part of the Ekklesia of God.

There are three statements of oral juxtaposition in the passage alone.

Paul is easily misunderstood when you don't study Shemia and Hillel. Before you can begin to actually follow Paul you have to have a basis in the oral teachings.

Half the time he is talking tongue-in-cheek saying something obsurd enough to shock you or make you laugh if you understood how they lived.and then clarifying. If you aren't versed in oral law, you will miss it. You may miss it anyway without the Holy Spirit and a strong desire to study the issue.

bananna

[ChazakEmunah]

He claims he never spoke against the Law of the Jews:

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

This was near the end of his life.
Right.. And on another occasion he said that he kept the 'traditions of the Fathers.' (a vauge reference to halakha)

So why then did he 1)consistently teach against the Oral Torah, and why was he 2) run out of Batei Knesset in the Diaspora, 3) at odds with Shimon, 4) at odds with the Beit Din in Yerushalayim?

He seems to have been a very deceptive person. At times saying (and apparently doing) according to halakha, and at other times was adamantly opposed to it. It is hard to tell where he learned this from. Perhaps after learning Hellenism, perhaps after being employed by the Kohen haResha... Who really knows?

[ChazakEmunah]

I took the time to study where he got his ideas and the greek wording and alternate wording I find him funny.
I actually find him to be quite duplicitous.

Head coverings issue starts with a command to keep the Tradtions as given to them.

Juxtaposition it reads like out of talmudic arguments.
I am not trying to insult you nor your intelligence, but have you ever sat down with a Chavruta and studied Talmud? It is really quite stimulating, and certainly quite different from trying to understand Paul's letters.


Paul is easily misunderstood when you don't study Shemia and Hillel. Before you can begin to actually follow Paul you have to have a basis in the oral teachings.
That's the thing. The mainstream Messianic position is that Paul is misunderstood. How can one misunderstand this? "Circumcision means nothing to me." He basically takes the Hellenist position and rejects his covenantal status as a Jew. And to make it worse, he attacks others for holding on to that status.

Half the time he is talking tongue-in-cheek saying something obsurd enough to shock you or make you laugh if you understood how they lived.and then clarifying. If you aren't versed in oral law, you will miss it. You may miss it anyway without the Holy Spirit and a strong desire to study the issue.

Couple of things here...

First as an Orthodox Jew, I can't say that I know everything, but I have a pretty good grasp on halakha. And that which I am unsure of, I can look up easily enough. And I can tell you that Paul's teachings are not consistent with halakha.

Second, if one does not have the Divine Spirit, then they can not properly observe the mitzvot. This has absolutely nothing to do with the C*hristian concept of "being led by the 'Holy Spirit.'"


Last, I hope I didn't come across mean..... :wave:

[Bananna]

I actually find him to be quite duplicitous.


I am not trying to insult you nor your intelligence, but have you ever sat down with a Chavruta and studied Talmud? It is really quite stimulating, and certainly quite different from trying to understand Paul's letters.


That's the thing. The mainstream Messianic position is that Paul is misunderstood. How can one misunderstand this? "Circumcision means nothing to me." He basically takes the Hellenist position and rejects his covenantal status as a Jew. And to make it worse, he attacks others for holding on to that status.


Couple of things here...

First as an Orthodox Jew, I can't say that I know everything, but I have a pretty good grasp on halakha. And that which I am unsure of, I can look up easily enough. And I can tell you that Paul's teachings are not consistent with halakha.

Second, if one does not have the Divine Spirit, then they can not properly observe the mitzvot. This has absolutely nothing to do with the C*hristian concept of "being led by the 'Holy Spirit.'"


Last, I hope I didn't come across mean..... :wave:Your point of view does not surprise me and no it did not come across mean.

How much of Paul do you study in Greek?

I can't yet study Talmud in the Hebrew so I have to rely on the English traslations, so I work with what I have. I find it gives me greater discernment like studying the Proverbs. It gives me greater respect for those who have differing views. Not many women like to debate Talmud issues, but My and one of the elders at the congregation really bounced off each others quotes last night...in torah study and Talmud commentaries/arguments.

Some of it IMO makes me want to puke, but it does give quite a bit of understanding on issues that truly puzzle conservative Christians.

I believe the quote is "circumcision is nothing" "uncircumcision is nothing"

Basically "To obey is better than sacrifice"

Disobedient Jews have no advantage over gentiles. Neither are Gentiles free to practise whatever they please without consequence.

Anyhow.

It took me twenty-eight pages of Talmud, traditional stories, I think one from Mishna and scriptures from genesis to Revelation to pick out what Paul was saying in 10 verses, Really came to light when I started translating it myself. Maybe I'm dilusional, but a man that walks five paces without his head covered is not a man that would have been respected in Paul's day.

bananna

[muffler dragon]

I believe the quote is "circumcision is nothing" "uncircumcision is nothing"

Basically "To obey is better than sacrifice"

Please feel free to elucidate how you came to this conclusion. I'd be interested in reading it.

Disobedient Jews have no advantage over gentiles.

What sort of advantage do observant Jews have over Gentiles?

It took me twenty-eight pages of Talmud, traditional stories, I think one from Mishna and scriptures from genesis to Revelation to pick out what Paul was saying in 10 verses, Really came to light when I started translating it myself.

I commend you on your studies and investigation. Btw, do you believe that Paul wrote in Greek?

Maybe I'm dilusional, but a man that walks five paces without his head covered is not a man that would have been respected in Paul's day.

bananna

I don't know what you mean by this statement. Would you clarify for me?

[stranger]

The criteria that I provided you are concrete, and are meant to occur in ONE lifetime. .

The bible says nothing about it occuring in one lifetime, quite the opposite in fact ... your criterion itself is non-scriptural Jesus had two lifetimes and stated that his kingdom was NOT of THIS earth

People cannot get to the righteous [loving] new earth except through translation or death.!

[ChazakEmunah]

The bible says nothing about it occuring in one lifetime, quite the opposite in fact ... your criterion itself is non-scriptural Jesus had two lifetimes and stated that his kingdom was NOT of THIS earth

People cannot get to the righteous [loving] new earth except through translation or death.!
Gotta love that good old-fashioned Hellenism...

[ChazakEmunah]

Your point of view does not surprise me and no it did not come across mean.
Okay good. :thumbsup:

How much of Paul do you study in Greek?
I don't read Greek, so I tend to rely on accepted translations.

I can't yet study Talmud in the Hebrew so I have to rely on the English traslations, so I work with what I have. I find it gives me greater discernment like studying the Proverbs. It gives me greater respect for those who have differing views. Not many women like to debate Talmud issues, but My and one of the elders at the congregation really bounced off each others quotes last night...in torah study and Talmud commentaries/arguments.
What translation are you using. And are you studying it with someone who went to a Bais Ya'akov yeshiva? If not, then you are missing out.

Some of it IMO makes me want to puke, but it does give quite a bit of understanding on issues that truly puzzle conservative Christians.
Why does it make you want to puke? You do know that halakha in the Talmud is mostly based on hypothetical legal cases right?

Basically "To obey is better than sacrifice"
I don't see that there at all.. With that one statement made by Paul, he is saying that being part of the covenant means nothing.

Disobedient Jews have no advantage over gentiles. Neither are Gentiles free to practise whatever they please without consequence.
Not quite sure where you're going with this... Could you elaborate more?

Maybe I'm dilusional, but a man that walks five paces without his head covered is not a man that would have been respected in Paul's day.

Okay, so my understanding is that you are trying to say that Paul supported halakha. Right?

[Steve Petersen]

Right.. And on another occasion he said that he kept the 'traditions of the Fathers.' (a vauge reference to halakha)

So why then did he 1)consistently teach against the Oral Torah, and why was he 2) run out of Batei Knesset in the Diaspora, 3) at odds with Shimon, 4) at odds with the Beit Din in Yerushalayim?

He seems to have been a very deceptive person. At times saying (and apparently doing) according to halakha, and at other times was adamantly opposed to it. It is hard to tell where he learned this from. Perhaps after learning Hellenism, perhaps after being employed by the Kohen haResha... Who really knows?
Paul, I think, uses the word circumcision as shorthand for 'conversion. to Judaism' Conversion halakah required circumcison, immersion, and sacrifice. I think he rolls the whole process under the word conversion.

So what he is saying is that entrance into the world to come is by faith and not by becoming Jewish. Recall the passage where he says that: 1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

He couldn't have been so dense to forget that circumcision is a commandment When he uses the word circumcision here he must have been talking about conversion to Judaism. That puts the passage in a completely different light.

There seems to be debate in the scholarly community about how developed and widespread halakah of the Pharisees was in the 1st century.

[muffler dragon]

The bible says nothing about it occuring in one lifetime, quite the opposite in fact ... your criterion itself is non-scriptural Jesus had two lifetimes and stated that his kingdom was NOT of THIS earth

ROTFLOOL!!!

Well then, I guess we've got a few hundreds messianic personas to wade through as time passes.

People cannot get to the righteous [loving] new earth except through translation or death.!

I beg to differ.

[muffler dragon]

So what he is saying is that entrance into the world to come is by faith and not by becoming Jewish.

There seems to be debate in the scholarly community about how developed and widespread halakah of the Pharisees was in the 1st century.

I don't know of a single halacha that says that the entire world needs to convert. Therefore, I don't know what Paul would have been railing against if I look at it from your POV.