Paul's Opposition to Torah

[ChazakEmunah]

So how does this apply that Peter new it was unlawful to mingle with gentiles?

Marc
Perhaps because Shimon was still keeping that minhag as though it were halakha, even though he was no longer obligated once he left Beit Shammai.

[GerTzedek]

So how does this apply that Peter new it was unlawful to mingle with gentiles?

Marc
During this short period of time, Bet Shammai ruled the Sanhedron. I believe that this fact provides ample background for many of the recorded debates between Yeshua and some of the Pharisees.

However, your point is still well taken -- given that with the exception of remmarriage, Yeshua's teaching are all bet Hillel, a person would have to wonder what Shimon was thinking.

[simchat_torah]

Yep, Paul talked quite a bit about this "false Gospel." When I was a Messianic defending Paul, I thought it was some obscure reference to C*hristianity. Now that I know better, it is quite obvious that his distaste for the Torah was showing through here.Really? I don't see that at all.

[GerTzedek]

Really? I don't see that at all.
Neither do I. There were several false gospels which Paul addressed. Gnosticism was one of them. Another mixed up group taught that gentiles had to become part of Israel and take up Israel's covenant in order to be saved.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

No, it is only your belief that Paul wrote while under inspiration. *His opposition to Torah clearly speaks otherwise.


*Yes, I am sure that at one point Paul was an observant Jew, but at some point he decided to turn his back on Judaism. Paul was speaking of the Mosaic laws, not God's commandment laws. Don't forget, Joshua also copied Moses laws on to stone.
Joshua 8:32. There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he had written.
2 Corinthians 3:7. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8. will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9. If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10. For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

#1. God's commanment laws. #2. Moses laws. God's commandments have not been done away with in the New Covenant.

[ChazakEmunah]

Paul was speaking of the Mosaic laws, not God's commandment laws. Don't forget, Joshua also copied Moses laws on to stone.
Joshua 8:32. There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he had written.
2 Corinthians 3:7. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8. will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9. If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10. For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
Nope you're wrong. There is no separation between "G-d's Law" and "Moshe's Law." Anyone who wishes to separate the two is in error.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Nope you're wrong. There is no separation between "G-d's Law" and "Moshe's Law." Anyone who wishes to separate the two is in error. Your opinion is based upon what? Example please.

[ChazakEmunah]

Your opinion is based upon what? Example please.
I kept my response brief on purpose. This thread is about Paul's opposition to Torah, not anything else. It's gone off on so many sidebars, that many have found it difficult to follow the debate. If you would like to discuss what constitutes the Torah, please feel free to create another thread and I will reply there.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I kept my response brief on purpose. This thread is about Paul's opposition to Torah, not anything else. It's gone off on so many sidebars, that many have found it difficult to follow the debate. If you would like to discuss what constitutes the Torah, please feel free to create another thread and I will reply there.The question is not a derailment, it is in direct relationship to the subject. Paul was opposed to the Mosaic laws. Do I need to show you more scripture? Paul and all of the other disciples preached the keeping of God's commandments.

[muffler dragon]

Paul was opposed to the Mosaic laws.

Case settled. Paul is opposed to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Thank you, MTAA. :D

[ChazakEmunah]

Case settled. Paul is opposed to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Thank you, MTAA. :D
Yeah, he pretty much made my point. I think I will thank him for that.

Thank you Michael! :thumbsup:

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Yeah, he pretty much made my point. I think I will thank him for that.

Thank you Michael! :thumbsup: If you are correct in saying that there is only Moses laws, then what Yahwah says here is not true. Jeremiah 31:31. "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

32. It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them, "
declares the LORD.

33. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. By your traditions, you have caused Yahwahs name to be blasphemed among the nations.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Case settled. Paul is opposed to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Thank you, MTAA. :DHow many books of Moses is there?

[mpossoff]

Yeah, he pretty much made my point. I think I will thank him for that.

Thank you Michael! :thumbsup:

LOL! ChazakEmunah.

You are going to declare that your pont was made because you now have someone that agrees with your false premise?

It's a shame really.

You know what? The burden of proof is on you to prove Paul's opposition to Torah or that he was an apostate(if that's where you are going).


The key to understanding anything in the Bible is an awareness of the CONTEXT of the Scripture you're reading. Paul's epistle to the Galatians is no exception. We have to remember that this text is a letter that Paul wrote to try and correct a problem that was occurring in Galatia. However, we only have ONE side of the discussion. We don't know what information Paul had received from the Galatians and was responding to. In effect, it's like listening in on a telephone conversation we're not directly involved in. We can't hear what the other party is saying, so we have to try and determine what was said through the answers given by the one we can hear.

ChazakEmunah I'm suprised you take the Chrsitian view Most Christians believe that "works of the law" is a reference to observing the Law of Moses. They interpret Paul's words here to mean that obedience to the Torah is no longer required. In fact, some take Paul's statement to mean that obedience to the Law demonstrates a lack of faith. Seems like you are siding with Chrsitian interpretations.

However, this interpretation is unjustified based on Paul's prior comments to Peter. Peter was NOT following the Law of Moses when he separated himself from the Gentiles. Rather, he was adhering to traditions found in the Oral Law. Could it be that Paul's use of the phrase "works of the law" was intended to refer to something other than the Law of Moses?

This has got to make you stand up and say "Wait a minute!"

Paul often teaches about lawlessness doesn't he? Lawlessness equals Torahlessness.

With all due respect ChazakEmunah you refuse to even try to put the pieces together and side with common Chrsitian theology and beliefs.

The question is: Are you even willing to try to put the pieces together or do you just want to believe what appears to be contradictions. I don't mean that there is contradictions, I mean there 'appears' to be contradictions and scriptute CANNOT contradict itself. But are you

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

LOL! ChazakEmunah.

You are going to declare that your point was made because you now have someone that agrees with your false premise?
I have had numerous people come in here and agree. In fact, some have even made my point for me. And yet you (or anyone else) have not demonstrated that my premise is false. In fact, instead of dealing with the long post I submitted that details Paul's anti-Torah attitude in numerous places in several different books, you (and others) have avoided it. The question I have to ask is why?


You know what? The burden of proof is on you to prove Paul's opposition to Torah or that he was an apostate(if that's where you are going).
It's already been proven. See my previous posts. Further, both Steve and yourself agree with Paul's premise that observance of the Torah is not required to merit a place in Olam HaBa. Instead, you both agree with Paul that one needs to believe in Je*us. You both said so. You have already proven my point. Paul took the emunah of the Torah and replaced it with a "belief" in Je*us. And you both AGREE! I just don't see why you want to keep arguing once you've already agreed.


[/size]ChazakEmunah I'm suprised you take the Chrsitian view [/size]Seems like you are siding with Chrsitian interpretations.
I don't even need an interpretation. All I need is Paul's own words as recorded. In fact, I didn't even use a Greek source. I used a translation of the Aramaic Peshitto. I have no problem with digging up the Greek texts though, I am sure there will not be much difference in translation. I compared the text of the translation I posted with the NASB and they were very similar. There is no need to say that I am siding with the C*hristians, it just so happens that they tend to agree with me and continue to make my point for me.


Paul often teaches about lawlessness doesn't he? Lawlessness equals Torahlessness.
Yes it does. I see to remember the Greek word being anomia. But guess what, IF in fact Paul did not teach against the Torah, then why oh why did he say the things he did? There is no good reason. He disparaged the Torah time and again, because as a Hellenist, he couldn't stand it.


With all due respect ChazakEmunah you refuse to even try to put the pieces together and side with common Chrsitian theology and beliefs.
And with all due respect Marc, I've already put the pieces together. You forget, you've only been at this for about 2 years now. I studied the works of Paul and learned about him for 27yrs. I think I have a one-up on you there my friend.


The question is: Are you even willing to try to put the pieces together or do you just want to believe what appears to be contradictions. I don't mean that there is contradictions, I mean there 'appears' to be contradictions and scriptute CANNOT contradict itself. But are you

Marc
You're right, Scripture can't contradict itself, but even R. Y'hoshua and the Netzarim NEVER had any other Scripture than the Tanakh. What you might want to ask yourself, is why the C*hristians felt the need to add to the Scriptures by creating the NT.

[ChazakEmunah]

If you are correct in saying that there is only Moses laws, then what Yahwah says here is not true. Jeremiah 31:31. "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

32. It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them, "
declares the LORD.

33. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. By your traditions, you have caused Yahwahs name to be blasphemed among the nations.
Man, I love it when people try to quote Yirmeyahu haNavi. This should be in another thread, but I will answer you briefly. Look at the bigger context. Have the conditions been met for the "New Covenant?" Looks to me like they haven't been met yet. So I would say that your point is moot.

[mpossoff]

It's already been proven. See my previous posts. Further, both Steve and yourself agree with Paul's premise that observance of the Torah is not required to merit a place in Olam HaBa. Instead, you both agree with Paul that one needs to believe in Je*us. You both said so. You have already proven my point. Paul took the emunah of the Torah and replaced it with a "belief" in Je*us. And you both AGREE! I just don't see why you want to keep arguing once you've already agreed.

First like many Christians you seem to be mixing up righteousness. Paul refers to righteousness in a different way than James does. Is it possible Paul and James are talking about righteousness in a different way?

You have twisted my posts around. With all due respect you are either not accepting what the Apostolic say pertaining to inclusion of Gentiles or...? It's evident what the debate is.

Paul is not saying all you need to do is have faith. You refuse to believe that Torah was always about faith. In fact it's the greatest commandment correct. Don't we say it every Shabbat. What you are accusing Paul is all you need is faith and that's it, you can throw Torah out the window. Boy are you wrong and are painting the same picture as Christianity but on a different basis.

Let me re-phrase it in the context of what the Apostolic scriptures say:

Is it necessary for a Gentile to become Jewish(By the works of the law AKA circumcision) to merit a place in Olam HaBa?

OR

Is a man justified by his ethnic identity or his faith in God?

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" You are only looking a verses and not complete contexts. Of course this would appear to be saying something that it is not if NOT taken in context of the preceding and even proceding verses. To para-phrase again: Is justifcation gained through becoming a Jew? Is being declared righteous like Abraham gained through a ritual conversion to become a Jew?

You seem to not be able to address this. You say "Well currently that is not halacha". I'm not referring to today. Let's attack the text it's right there... "Unless you are circumcised..... to be saved(merit a place in Olam HaBa)".

This is what drove Paul to write what he wrote.

With that being said you are saying "That one must be circumcised to merit a place in Olam HaBa".

And with all due respect Marc, I've already put the pieces together. You forget, you've only been at this for about 2 years now. I studied the works of Paul and learned about him for 27yrs. I think I have a one-up on you there my friend.So time matters? Wow that's pretty, how can I say it, arrogant.

The key is Romans 10:4. Messiah is the end (telos: goal or objective) of the Torah. Messiah, Himself, said, "All of Torah speaks of and points toward Me!" (John 5:39). So, He is our righteousness and our goal is to live in obedience and worship of Him not to become His servants but because we are His servants. Torah is not our righteousness it causes us to recognize our need for His righteousness. It doesn't demonstrate how good we are, it shows us how good we ain't therefore driving us to the mercy of God through the Messiah.

So why do I even try to live in obedience to Torah? Paul said that in everything we do, in word or deed, do it all to the glory of God in the name of the Messiah. Every time I perform a mitzvah, every time I get it right, it is to say, "I love you." Every time I fail and miss the mark of obedience, it is to say, "You still love me." It is not about our being good. It's all about Him being so great.

Marc

[muffler dragon]

How many books of Moses is there?

There are five; however only Leviticus and Deuteronomy have Mosaic laws in them. ;) Hence, my statement.

[muffler dragon]

So time matters? Wow that's pretty, how can I say it, arrogant.

Comment: how is that arrogant when it's simple fact? An analogous situation would an Associates Degree v. a Doctorate. Rhetorical Question: If person A has an Associates Degree and person B has a Doctorate in the same field; then does the certificate render the Doctor "arrogant"?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Man, I love it when people try to quote Yirmeyahu haNavi. This should be in another thread, but I will answer you briefly. Look at the bigger context. Have the conditions been met for the "New Covenant?" Looks to me like they haven't been met yet. So I would say that your point is moot. Deuteronomy 10:4. The LORD wrote on these tablets what he had written before, the Ten Commandments he had proclaimed to you on the mountain, out of the fire, on the day of the assembly. And the LORD gave them to me. 5. Then I came back down the mountain and put the tablets in the ark I had made, as the LORD commanded me, and they are there now.
Deuteronomy 31:24. After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, 25. he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD : 26. "Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.

Two sets of laws: Jeremiah 31:31. "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

32. It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them, "
declares the LORD.

33. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

There are five; however only Leviticus and Deuteronomy have Mosaic laws in them. ;) Hence, my statement. There are four books of Moses, Deuteronomy is a copy. It is believed that Deuteronomy was written by King David.

[muffler dragon]

There are four books of Moses, Deuteronomy is a copy.

Based on what?

It is believed that Deuteronomy was written by King David.

That makes no sense whatsoever, but I'm willing to read your substantiation.

[muffler dragon]

Deuteronomy
<snip>

Congratulations on spamming Scripture. It does nothing to help your case though. Jeremiah 31 hasn't been fulfilled; therefore, you've got no case.

[Steve Petersen]

Marc,

I came to the conlcusion a while ago tha Chazak really doesn't seem interested in doing digging into the historical/cultural context of the passages he cited. This really isn't a debate but a proof-text exercise. He seems to have no interest in going beneath the texts, but simply adopts the tradtional Christian understanding of the them. I think you are wasting your time trying to engage him at a deeper level.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Congratulations on spamming Scripture. It does nothing to help your case though. Jeremiah 31 hasn't been fulfilled; therefore, you've got no case.So you say. Show me some scripture. All I have been getting from you is lots of opinions. Is that the best you can do?

[muffler dragon]

So you say. Show me some scripture.

From my post on this duplicate situation:

Let's look through the entire passage, shall we?

30. Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.

The houses of Judah and Israel are still separated at this point in time. Unfulfilled.

31. Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.

Since Israel and Judah are still separate; then there is no reNEWed covenant amongst the two. Unfulfilled.

32. For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people.

The Torah has NOT been inscribed upon peoples hearts. Unfulfilled.

33. And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.

The Torah is still taught. Unfulfilled.

34. So said the Lord, Who gives the sun to illuminate by day, the laws of the moon and the stars to illuminate at night, Who stirs up the sea and its waves roar, the Lord of Hosts is His name.
35. If these laws depart from before Me, says the Lord, so will the seed of Israel cease being a nation before Me for all time.
36. So said the Lord: If the heavens above will be measured and the foundations of the earth below will be fathomed, I too will reject all the seed of Israel because of all they did, says the Lord.


It's evident that this passage is an UNFULFILLED prophesy.


All I have been getting from you is lots of opinions. Is that the best you can do?

Here's something for you to digest: just posting a verse or passage from Scripture does NOT present a position or a point. You're just spamming. If that makes you feel all great about yourself; then congratulations. For those of us who investigate/dissect/substantiate, it takes a LOT more than just spam.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

From my post on this duplicate situation:





Here's something for you to digest: just posting a verse or passage from Scripture does NOT present a position or a point. You're just spamming. If that makes you feel all great about yourself; then congratulations. For those of us who investigate/dissect/substantiate, it takes a LOT more than just spam.Scripture often speaks of past, present, and future together in the same chapter. And don't forget, the bible is loaded with parables. Just because you can't see the wind, does not mean that it is not there.

[muffler dragon]

Scripture often speaks of past, present, and future together in the same chapter. And don't forget, the bible is loaded with parables. Just because you can't see the wind, does not mean that it is not there.

Hey Chazak:

Feel free to carry on with your points from before. This trolling eisegesist doesn't have an argument in his "arsenal".

[mpossoff]

Marc,

I came to the conlcusion a while ago tha Chazak really doesn't seem interested in doing digging into the historical/cultural context of the passages he cited. This really isn't a debate but a proof-text exercise. He seems to have no interest in going beneath the texts, but simply adopts the tradtional Christian understanding of the them. I think you are wasting your time trying to engage him at a deeper level.

Yeah thanks Steve as I said in another post he seems to adopt the common Christian understanding of them.

Marc

[muffler dragon]

Yeah thanks Steve as I said in another post he seems to adopt the common Christian understanding of them.

Marc

Then I would suggest that you (and/or Steve) provide substantiation to your POV that the "common Christian understanding" is flawed. At face value, much of Paul's words strike a stark contrast to what is mentioned in the Tanakh regarding the Torah. If there is something "beneath" the surface that you feel is theologically sound AND substantiatable; then I suggest you post it. Otherwise, it's just a matter of both sides needing to "agree to disagree".

Personally, I couldn't care less what you guys think of Paul. If he's the greatest thing since sliced bread; then wonderful. He's a non-entity to me. But when you start deriding Chazak it's get duplicitous due to the fact that you fall prey to very claim you make against him.

[mpossoff]

Hi all,

This is a quote


After his introduction, the first thing Paul mentioned in his letter to the Galatians was:
Galatians 1:6-9 - Imarvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Messiah unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Messiah. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
This topic is the subject matter throughout the book of Galatians. The real question in the book of Galatians isn't whether or not we should keep the Torah. The real question is this: What is the "true good news" that Yahushua wants us to proclaim? Does the true "good news" mean that we receive salvation after we have been circumcised and kept the law? Does the true "good news" proclaim salvation through abolishing the law so that our sins are taken away? Or does the true good news simply proclaim that we can receive forgiveness for transgressing that law if we repent and believe in Yahushua...nothing added?


Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Yeah thanks Steve as I said in another post he seems to adopt the common Christian understanding of them.

Marc
And yet neither one of you has provided substantial evidence to support your position.

Marc, you base your entire premise off of one argument. And that argument does nothing to explain Paul's writings that the Torah has been done away with and replaced with faith in Je*us. I even used an Aramaic source text. How much more original do you want to get?


Steve, if you want to argue historical context, I welcome it. Please do so. I just don't think it will explain away Paul's words that the Torah has been replaced.

Here's the bottom line guys, I don't think any amount of maneuvering will be able to get around the fact that Paul clearly stated many times in many different letters, that he believes the Torah has been replaced with faith in Je*us and is therefore no longer necessary for righteousness.

[mpossoff]

Good News of 'the Circumcision'

Repent and accept Yahushua
Get circumcised / Learn all of the Torah and obey it
THEN YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED AND ARE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS

The True Good News

Repent and accept Yahushua (Acts 2:38)
YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED AND ARE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS
Start learning Torah as Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath

Just to re-iterate the prior post.

Marc

[mpossoff]

And yet neither one of you has provided substantial evidence to support your position.

Marc, you base your entire premise off of one argument. And that argument does nothing to explain Paul's writings that the Torah has been done away with and replaced with faith in Je*us. I even used an Aramaic source text. How much more original do you want to get?


Steve, if you want to argue historical context, I welcome it. Please do so. I just don't think it will explain away Paul's words that the Torah has been replaced.

Here's the bottom line guys, I don't think any amount of maneuvering will be able to get around the fact that Paul clearly stated many times in many different letters, that he believes the Torah has been replaced with faith in Je*us and is therefore no longer necessary for righteousness.

Sorry ChazakEmunah read my most recent post.

It seems like you preach the 'Good News' of the circumcision.

Marc

[muffler dragon]

Marc:

Your Galatians quote is a non-starter.

What is the "true good news" that Yahushua wants us to proclaim? Does the true "good news" mean that we receive salvation after we have been circumcised and kept the law? Does the true "good news" proclaim salvation through abolishing the law so that our sins are taken away? Or does the true good news simply proclaim that we can receive forgiveness for transgressing that law if we repent and believe in Yahushua...nothing added?

1) This doesn't address from what people need salvation?
2) Circumcision and salvation are two unrelated topics.
3) Repentance and belief in a man for forgiveness is counter to the understanding of sin => repentance => forgiveness in the Torah.

Therefore, your quote is actually a False Dilemna, because NONE of the options fit.

[simchat_torah]

Weeee.... 30 pages later and no clear winner. :D

[simchat_torah]

That's why I'm a fan of laying out ground rules and making debates "formal".

[muffler dragon]

Sorry ChazakEmunah read my most recent post.

It seems like you preach the 'Good News' of the circumcision.

Marc

Actually, CE, is following the doctrine established in Jewish tradition: following the commandments of G-d provides for a good life for Jews here on earth.

Deuteronomy 4
40"(A)So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that (B)it may go well with you and with your children after you, and (C)that you may live long on the land which the LORD your God is giving you for all time."

Deuteronomy 8
1"All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do, that you (A)may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to give to your forefathers.

Deuteronomy 30
16in that I command you today (A)to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you (B)may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.

[muffler dragon]

Weeee.... 30 pages later and no clear winner. :D

That's why I'm a fan of laying out ground rules and making debates "formal".

This thing was almost a cluster from the jump.

My suggestion is that one of the two options below be performed:

1) Drop the discussion. Agree to disagree.
2) Restart with more structure. Presumptions, points of support, resolution.

[simchat_torah]

Restart with more structure. Presumptions, points of support, resolution.That would probably be best. Most likely 20 out of 30 of these pages are people saying:
"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

Points of support would be fabulous ;) There is some here in this thread, just very little imo. I would, however, like to see some of this flushed out in a formal debate.


*ahem* just without my involvement :)

[mpossoff]

Actually, CE, is following the doctrine established in Jewish tradition: following the commandments of G-d provides for a good life for Jews here on earth.

Deuteronomy 4
40"(A)So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that (B)it may go well with you and with your children after you, and (C)that you may live long on the land which the LORD your God is giving you for all time."

Deuteronomy 8
1"All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do, that you (A)may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to give to your forefathers.

Deuteronomy 30
16in that I command you today (A)to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you (B)may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.

muffler you must read carefully. Who ever said or taught against Torah? Paul certaintly didn't.

Good News of 'the Circumcision'

Repent and accept Yahushua
Get circumcised / Learn all of the Torah and obey it
THEN YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED AND ARE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS

The True Good News

Repent and accept Yahushua (Acts 2:38)
YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED AND ARE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS
Start learning Torah as Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath

muffler as you can see the 'true good news' which Paul teaches isn't against Torah at all.

The difference is that the 'good new of the circumcision' said you must get circumcised before you even start and that you are not justified before God until you get circumcised and keep Torah compared to when you accept the God of Israel and repent you are justified before God and then you start learning to keep Torah.

A slight but important difference and Galatians can prove that.

Marc

[mpossoff]

Marc:

Your Galatians quote is a non-starter.



1) This doesn't address from what people need salvation?
2) Circumcision and salvation are two unrelated topics.
3) Repentance and belief in a man for forgiveness is counter to the understanding of sin => repentance => forgiveness in the Torah.

Therefore, your quote is actually a False Dilemna, because NONE of the options fit.

LOL muffler the options certaintly fit.

May I out it another way?

What is the "true good news"? Does the true "good news" mean that we receive salvation after we have been circumcised and kept the law? Does the true "good news" proclaim salvation through abolishing the law so that our sins are taken away? Or does the true good news simply proclaim that we can receive forgiveness for transgressing that law if we repent and believe in the God of Israel...nothing added?

Marc

[Steve Petersen]

Hi all,

This is a quote

[/B]


Marc


From who?

[muffler dragon]

muffler you must read carefully.

Marc:

Don't patronize me with these sorts of phrases. They're demeaning and unbecoming.

Who ever said or taught against Torah? Paul certaintly didn't.

That is your belief. I believe otherwise. Is it worth it to prove out our assertions? I don't know.

Good News of 'the Circumcision'

Repent and accept Yahushua
Get circumcised / Learn all of the Torah and obey it
THEN YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED AND ARE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS

I request that you drop this "Good News of such and such". Your understanding is fine for you, but it's distasteful to me.

The True Good News

Repent and accept Yahushua (Acts 2:38)
YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED AND ARE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS
Start learning Torah as Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath

muffler as you can see the 'true good news' which Paul teaches isn't against Torah at all.

I disagree. Acceptance of Jesus has nothing to do with Torah. If it's a matter of "salvation"; then it's definitely against Torah as there is no need for a mediator. Furthermore, Gentiles are not called to observe Torah; therefore, depending upon Paul's audience this is also potentially wrong.

The difference is that the 'good new of the circumcision' said you must get circumcised before you even start and that you are not justified before God until you get circumcised and keep Torah compared to when you accept the God of Israel and repent you are justified before God and then you start learning to keep Torah.

Wrong. I, as an uncircumcised Gentile, can be justified before G-d. And my viewpoint is compatible with Torah. Furthermore, I see that you are associating "accept the G-d of Israel" with your former statements of "accept Jesus". Thus, I stand firm that this is staunchly contradictory of Torah. Literal anthropomorphism is idolatrous from a Judaic POV. If this is your interpretation of Paul's words; then the premise that he is anti-Torah is confirmed.

A slight but important difference and Galatians can prove that.

Marc

I'm not only concerned with Galatians. There is very little I find redeeming in any of Paul's letters. Romans definitely comes to mind as being derogatory.

[muffler dragon]

LOL muffler the options certaintly fit.

May I out it another way?

What is the "true good news"? Does the true "good news" mean that we receive salvation after we have been circumcised and kept the law? Does the true "good news" proclaim salvation through abolishing the law so that our sins are taken away? Or does the true good news simply proclaim that we can receive forgiveness for transgressing that law if we repent and believe in the God of Israel...nothing added?

Marc

You didn't answer my question regarding from what we need salvation.

Once you do, then I'll return to this paragraph that you end with. Note: it's interesting that you change "we repent and believe in Yahushua...nothing added?" to "we repent and believe in the G-d of Israel... nothing added?"

As long as you equate Jesus to HaShem, you're never going to promote a pro-Torah stance of Paul. If that's the way you interpret his words, then it's incompatible.

[ChazakEmunah]

This thing was almost a cluster from the jump.
I know, it was already that way by the time I found this thread here.


My suggestion is that one of the two options below be performed:

1) Drop the discussion. Agree to disagree.
I'm willing to take this route. I don't think the two sides will reach any other type of agreement.


2) Restart with more structure. Presumptions, points of support, resolution.
I'd also be willing to go this route if others are interested in continuing this debate in a more structured environment.

[ChazakEmunah]

Good News of 'the Circumcision'

Repent and accept Yahushua
Get circumcised / Learn all of the Torah and obey it
THEN YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED AND ARE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS

The True Good News

Repent and accept Yahushua (Acts 2:38)
YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED AND ARE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS
Start learning Torah as Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath

Just to re-iterate the prior post.

Marc



Actually, I have a completely different take on the "Good News." But... that's neither here nor there.

[ChazakEmunah]

Sorry ChazakEmunah read my most recent post.

It seems like you preach the 'Good News' of the circumcision.

Marc
I did read it. I just don't agree with either premise, as my belief mentions nothing about needing to accept anyone as the Mashiakh in order to be considered righteous before HaShem

[ChazakEmunah]

Actually, CE, is following the doctrine established in Jewish tradition: following the commandments of G-d provides for a good life for Jews here on earth.

Deuteronomy 4
40"(A)So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that (B)it may go well with you and with your children after you, and (C)that you may live long on the land which the LORD your God is giving you for all time."

Deuteronomy 8
1"All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do, that you (A)may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to give to your forefathers.

Deuteronomy 30
16in that I command you today (A)to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you (B)may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.
Exactly.

{For everyone else here} And just as I stated earlier, all that halakha requires is that one maintain a belief that Mashiakh will come. It does not require one to believe in any one particular person as the Mashiakh. Therefore, belief that someone is the Mashiakh has absolutely nothing to do with righteousness.....


OY VEY! How on earth did we get here? This was supposed to be a simple debate. Was Paul opposed to Torah or not?

[mpossoff]

Exactly.

{For everyone else here} And just as I stated earlier, all that halakha requires is that one maintain a belief that Mashiakh will come. It does not require one to believe in any one particular person as the Mashiakh. Therefore, belief that someone is the Mashiakh has absolutely nothing to do with righteousness.....


OY VEY! How on earth did we get here? This was supposed to be a simple debate. Was Paul opposed to Torah or not?

ChazakEmunah Acts 15 is a good start. Why? Because it's important to see what Paul was facing.

Fact #1In Acts 15 they were a sect of the Pharisee's. They believed that one cannot have salvation unless they are first circumcised and/or keep the Torah. They were also vigorous in their belief that they would argued with Paul and Barnabas over it, and even approach the apostles and elders about it.

So fact #1 Paul was facing 'you cannot have salvation unless you are first circumcised'.

Galatians 2:15-16We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Yahushua Messiah, even we have believed in Yahushua Messiah, that we might be justified by the faith of Messiah, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

With Fact #1 in mind We, Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith OR we know very well that we are not justifiedby works of the law, but by faith.

Paul was just teaching a simple truth that none of us are able to be justified through the law of God.

In Yeshua, all we need to do is repent, turn away from sin and toward righteousness, and God will purify our hearts by faith, giving us the grace to learn His commandments, at a pace that we can bear without fear of condemnation.



Marc

[mpossoff]

edit

[mpossoff]

Originally Posted by muffler dragon http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=40336925#post40336925)
Marc:

Your Galatians quote is a non-starter.



1) This doesn't address from what people need salvation? It assumes they are already saved
2) Circumcision and salvation are two unrelated topics. Not according to those that said "you must be circumcised.... to be saved'
3) Repentance and belief in a man for forgiveness is counter to the understanding of sin => repentance => forgiveness in the Torah. It’s important to understand what the Shema really means.

As it pertains to the ‘nature’ of our Creator is:

The God-head made manifest in an ABSOLUTE One?

Or a plural One?

Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our Elohim, YHWH is one

Isn't the primary emphasis of the Shema for God's people to HEAR Him? Another topic.

Therefore, your quote is actually a False Dilemna, because NONE of the options fit. It would be a false delemna if it wasn't brought up, 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved' It would be be false if It didn't appear in the text and I was just creating 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved'

Marc

[muffler dragon]

It assumes they are already saved

From what? I don't care about the "assumption". I'm asking about FROM WHAT are people supposedly in need of salvation.

Not according to those that said "you must be circumcised.... to be saved'

I don't know of a single Jew who has said this. because this is predicated on the FROM WHAT portion of my post above.

3) Repentance and belief in a man for forgiveness is counter to the understanding of sin => repentance => forgiveness in the Torah.

It’s important to understand what the Shema really means.

As it pertains to the ‘nature’ of our Creator is:

The God-head made manifest in an ABSOLUTE One?

Or a plural One?

Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our Elohim, YHWH is one

Isn't the primary emphasis of the Shema for God's people to HEAR Him? Another topic.

My sin/repentance/forgiveness statement has NOTHING to do with the Shema. It predates the Shema. Therefore, this is a red herring.

It would be a false delemna if it wasn't brought up, 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved' It would be be false if It didn't appear in the text and I was just creating 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved'

You're going to have to do two things in order to have any validation to this train of thought:

1) answer my FROM WHAT statement.
2) show from Judaic sources that Jews believe they must be circumcised in order to be saved from the answer to #1.

Otherwise, you've got a False Dilemna and no argument.

[mpossoff]

From what? I don't care about the "assumption". I'm asking about FROM WHAT are people supposedly in need of salvation. muffler you fail to consider what the Apostolic scriptures say. It's not an assumption it's right there in the text



I don't know of a single Jew who has said this. because this is predicated on the FROM WHAT portion of my post above. Acts 15:1 says it muffler. Again you fail to consider what the Apostolic scriptures say. Again 'unless you are circumcised... you cannot be saved'. This is predicated from the Apostolic scriptures. So obviously there were Jews who said this. If you don't consider the Apostolic scriptures then you need to stay out of the discussion.



My sin/repentance/forgiveness statement has NOTHING to do with the Shema. It predates the Shema. Therefore, this is a red herring. You are the one who brought it up not me. As i said another topic



You're going to have to do two things in order to have any validation to this train of thought:

1) answer my FROM WHAT statement.
2) show from Judaic sources that Jews believe they must be circumcised in order to be saved from the answer to #1.Again it's in the text in the Apostolic scriptures

Otherwise, you've got a False Dilemna and no argument.Nope that a false delemna because I'm basing it on scripture which you fail to consider

Marc

[muffler dragon]

muffler you fail to consider what the Apostolic scriptures say. It's not an assumption it's right there in the text

Marc:

This discussion is about Paul and Torah. Therefore, I'm asking you FROM WHAT is Paul saying we need salvation from that would be compatible with Torah? Can you just answer this simple question? FROM WHAT do we need salvation?

I don't know of a single Jew who has said this. because this is predicated on the FROM WHAT portion of my post above. Acts 15:1 says it muffler. Again you fail to consider what the Apostolic scriptures say. Again 'unless you are circumcised... you cannot be saved'. This is predicated from the Apostolic scriptures. So obviously there were Jews who said this. If you don't consider the Apostolic scriptures then you need to stay out of the discussion.

I don't need to stay out of the conversation. If my questions/discussion is too much for you; then feel free to bow out yourself.

The Apostolic Scriptures have no authority in Judaic circles. Thus, if you want your "predicated" assumption to have any weight, then it would behoove you to substantiate this supposed statement from authorized Judaic sources. Please feel free to show me from the Tanakh or Talmud where a Jew has ever said, "you must be circumcised... to be saved". Which brings me back to the "salvation from what" aspect which you keep avoiding.

You are the one who brought it up not me. As i said another topic

No, Marc, that's not how my statement came up. My sin/repentance/forgiveness statement came up in reply to a post of yours (see #286 below) *the emboldened emphasis is mine:

Marc:

Your Galatians quote is a non-starter.

What is the "true good news" that Yahushua wants us to proclaim? Does the true "good news" mean that we receive salvation after we have been circumcised and kept the law? Does the true "good news" proclaim salvation through abolishing the law so that our sins are taken away? Or does the true good news simply proclaim that we can receive forgiveness for transgressing that law if we repent and believe in Yahushua...nothing added?

1) This doesn't address from what people need salvation?
2) Circumcision and salvation are two unrelated topics.
3) Repentance and belief in a man for forgiveness is counter to the understanding of sin => repentance => forgiveness in the Torah.

Therefore, your quote is actually a False Dilemna, because NONE of the options fit.


According to the Torah, one does NOT need a mediator for forgiveness. IF believe that Paul says that we need to believe in Jesus; then this belief stands contradictory to Torah and thus Paul is in opposition to Torah. Thus, my statement is not tangential. Furthermore, you will note that I didn't say a word about the Shema nor echad. You brought that up and that's what is a red herring, because it has NOTHING to do with sin/repentance/forgiveness.

You're going to have to do two things in order to have any validation to this train of thought:

1) answer my FROM WHAT statement.
2) show from Judaic sources that Jews believe they must be circumcised in order to be saved from the answer to #1.

Again it's in the text in the Apostolic scriptures

Then you should have no problem whatsoever substantiating it from the Torah since you're the one claiming compatibility.

Nope that a false delemna because I'm basing it on scripture which you fail to consider

Either your POV is compatible with the Torah or it isn't. It doesn't matter what you consider authoritative in Scripture, because NOTHING can supercede Torah. If you believe it can or if you believe that Paul says that it can; then you have proven the case for the opposition. Like it or not, you have to prove your case from the Torah.

[mpossoff]

Marc:

This discussion is about Paul and Torah. Therefore, I'm asking you FROM WHAT is Paul saying we need salvation from that would be compatible with Torah? Can you just answer this simple question? FROM WHAT do we need salvation?



I don't need to stay out of the conversation. If my questions/discussion is too much for you; then feel free to bow out yourself. No muffler you don't give the scriptures any authority(both Torah and Apostolic scriptures) so therefore yes you should stay out of the discussion. You fail to exergise the text in hand. May I ask why?

The Apostolic Scriptures have no authority in Judaic circles. Thus, if you want your "predicated" assumption to have any weight, then it would behoove you to substantiate this supposed statement from authorized Judaic sources. Please feel free to show me from the Tanakh or Talmud where a Jew has ever said, "you must be circumcised... to be saved". Which brings me back to the "salvation from what" aspect which you keep avoiding. muffler my authority is scripture if you can't accept it then sorry



No, Marc, that's not how my statement came up. My sin/repentance/forgiveness statement came up in reply to a post of yours (see #286 below) *the emboldened emphasis is mine:



According to the Torah, one does NOT need a mediator for forgiveness. IF believe that Paul says that we need to believe in Jesus; then this belief stands contradictory to Torah and thus Paul is in opposition to Torah. Thus, my statement is not tangential. Furthermore, you will note that I didn't say a word about the Shema nor echad. You brought that up and that's what is a red herring, because it has NOTHING to do with sin/repentance/forgiveness. Again what does the Shema really mean which is another topic. Because you are implying that Jesus is 'another God'.





Then you should have no problem whatsoever substantiating it from the Torah since you're the one claiming compatibility. I don't claim compatibilty scripture claims compatibailty. Do you think that I'm making it up? No I'm deriving it right from the text. Don't shoot the messanger. I didn't write 'unless you are circumcised.... you cannot be saved'. But you can't even exergise the text. Seems like you are dancing around the question. Let me ask you them... Does one have to be circumcised to be justified before God?



Either your POV is compatible with the Torah or it isn't. It doesn't matter what you consider authoritative in Scripture, because NOTHING can supercede Torah. If you believe it can or if you believe that Paul says that it can; then you have proven the case for the opposition. Like it or not, you have to prove your case from the Torah.Exactly! Does the sect that said 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved' in line with Torah or not?

Marc

[simchat_torah]

and yet the thread continues....

lol.

[mpossoff]

and yet the thread continues....

lol.

LOL is right. People just can't accept the fact that scripture says what it says.

Marc

[muffler dragon]

This discussion is about Paul and Torah. Therefore, I'm asking you FROM WHAT is Paul saying we need salvation from that would be compatible with Torah? Can you just answer this simple question? FROM WHAT do we need salvation?

You can't answer this question, can you? Is it fear?

No muffler you don't give the scriptures any authority(both Torah and Apostolic scriptures) so therefore yes you should stay out of the discussion. You fail to exergise the text in hand. May I ask why?

I believe in the authority of the Torah, the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim. Where you got the idea otherwise is beyond me. As for my lack of belief in the authority of the Christian testament, it's because it's contradictory to the Tanakh.

muffler my authority is scripture if you can't accept it then sorry

Marc:

I'm going to make this very easy for you.

Just admit that you cannot substantiate your point of view from the Torah and we'll call it a game. It's obvious that you place the Christian Scriptures above the Torah. That's your prerogative. However, it removes you from being able to say that Paul was not anti-Torah. You simply can't argue your point.

Again what does the Shema really mean which is another topic. Because you are implying that Jesus is 'another God'.

I'm not implying that Jesus is "another G-d" and I'm not going to dignify your red herring by answering your question. This has NOTHING to do with the Shema. As for Jesus, he isn't another G-d in my eyes. He isn't a god at all. He's a human being who holds no importance in my life.

I don't claim compatibilty scripture claims compatibailty. Do you think that I'm making it up? No I'm deriving it right from the text. Don't shoot the messanger. I didn't write 'unless you are circumcised.... you cannot be saved'.

Do you or do you not believe that Paul is pro-Torah? That is the issue at hand here; not some supposed statement by a sect of Jews that don't exist outside of the Christian Scriptures.

But you can't even exergise the text. Seems like you are dancing around the question. Let me ask you them... Does one have to be circumcised to be justified before God?

Nope. It's the same as it has always been. Jewish tradition doesn't hold that one must be circumcised to be justified before G-d. It's the Christian Scriptures that state as such, and you can't substantiate from traditional Jewish sources. That's the crux of the issue. Your argument has no support outside of a the documents that aren't authoritative for Jews.

Exactly! Does the sect that said 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved' in line with Torah or not?

That "sect" doesn't exist in Judaism. Therefore, it's a False Dilemna.

[muffler dragon]

and yet the thread continues....

lol.

I'm just looking for someone to substantiate a point of view. ;)

LOL is right. People just can't accept the fact that scripture says what it says.

Marc

That's not the issue at hand, Marc. The argument is whether the words of Paul are anti-Torah or not. You've yet to substantiate that Paul is pro-Torah due to the scene of the times. It's no one else's fault that the Christian Scriptures don't support a true picture of first century Judaism. Thus, you need to build your case from those documents that do. The best way for you to do that would be to answer the question you've avoided REPEATEDLY, and show something from traditional Jewish sources that shows a sect of Judaism that preaches "circumcision justification/salvation".

[mpossoff]

I'm just looking for someone to substantiate a point of view. ;)



That's not the issue at hand, Marc. The argument is whether the words of Paul are anti-Torah or not. You've yet to substantiate that Paul is pro-Torah due to the scene of the times. It's no one else's fault that the Christian Scriptures don't support a true picture of first century Judaism. Thus, you need to build your case from those documents that do. The best way for you to do that would be to answer the question you've avoided REPEATEDLY, and show something from traditional Jewish sources that shows a sect of Judaism that preaches "circumcision justification/salvation".Sure it's the issue muffler. You can't acceptt the fact that there was a sect of Judaism that preached 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved. Therefore if you don't 'believe' in the Apostolic scriptures you need to stay out of this discussion.Because if you don't believe the Apostolic scriptures how can you believe that there was a sect of Judaism that preached that? Do you want to exergise the text or not? Because if you do believe in the Apostolic scriptures therefore you would believe that there was a sect of Judaim that preached that therefore which is obvious why Paul wrote what he wrote. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to have a discussion with you, yes you in particular.
Sorry to be so harsh but you are being rediculous.

Marc

[simchat_torah]

LOL is right. People just can't accept the fact that scripture says what it says.

MarcWhile I tend to agree with your overall conclusion Marc, I think the other side has presented some valid points as well. But overall, this debate didn't have a foundation to start with... and it has been quite chaotic since. It would be best to require "proof" from both sides, as well as require that each point be addressed one by one. Right now, its just a free for all mess.

I would suggest starting a new thread and pulling your top 10 points from this thread into a formal debate. From there you can continue to pull more points out and force the other side to respond... but to continue piling point upon point without letting each other have time to address what has been stated is messy. As well, both sides are guilty of providing little evidence and lots of accusations about Paul.

Just my 2 cents.

[mpossoff]

I'm just looking for someone to substantiate a point of view. ;)



That's not the issue at hand, Marc. The argument is whether the words of Paul are anti-Torah or not. You've yet to substantiate that Paul is pro-Torah due to the scene of the times. It's no one else's fault that the Christian Scriptures don't support a true picture of first century Judaism. Thus, you need to build your case from those documents that do. The best way for you to do that would be to answer the question you've avoided REPEATEDLY, and show something from traditional Jewish sources that shows a sect of Judaism that preaches "circumcision justification/salvation".

And Paul's reaction if you will is the reaction of the people from Judea who said 'unless you are circumcised....you cannot be saved'.

No where in the Torah does it say that anyone is justified by being circumcised and/or nowhere in the Torah that says one is justified for becoming a Jew(conversion). This is what Paul taught. What sense is it to post scriptural referances if you don't believe scripture? Pual even referances this sect in His epistles.

No unless you believe that one is justified by circumcision after the manner of Moses?

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

I don't have time to respond to everything, but I will say that I don't believe in the authority of the NT either. So according to your criteria Marc, that would leave me out of the debate as well.

[mpossoff]

It's interesting that there was a belief that 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved' in the Apostolic scriptures. Or a belief that 'do you know that it is unlawful to mingle with Gentile'.

It's evident that there was according to the Apostolic scriptures. And I believe is the reason why many here don't regard the Apostolic scriptures, especially ethnic Jews like myself because it makes Judaism look bad. I don't mean bad in a bad way, if you know what I mean. I hear people here saying this and that, show me outside sources and the like. It's really a shame IMHO that people have seemed to be led away.

Here's an example from a commentary 'What was abolished on the cross:

Hi first you have to consider something. God said in the Old Testament that His Torah was "eternal" "neverending" and for ALL generations. God also said that any teacher or prophet who tought people to disobey the Torah was a false prophet and should be stoned. Therefore, we should be very careful in what we understand Paul to say. If Paul taught that the Torah is abolished (which he doesnt) then he was a false prophet and not a prophet of God, and as such we are found to be disobedient and rebelling against God and following the words of false prophets. Now none of this is the case, which we will shortly see, but it is amazing how that people think that Paul "trumps" God when it comes to commandments. God does not change and His Torah is eternal, end of story. We have greatly misunderstood Paul because we have failed to realize this.

Something most certainly was abolished, but it certainly was not the written Torah. Jesus said plainly in Matt 5:17 that He did NOT come to abolish the Torah of Moses. It says that what was abolished was the "Law of commandments contained in ordinances (greek "dogma")". What is interesting about that usage of the word Dogma is that the greek word dogma always reffers to decrees or commandments of MEN and NEVER the commandments of God. Thus, "law contained in dogma" is most certainly talking about a Torah being abolished, but it is NOT the written Torah of Moses, it is the Oral Torah, or the "seperating fence" which Paul mentioned in the last verse so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.There was a distinction between the written Torah and Oral Torah, and Paul is very clear here that he is talking about the one which is the commandments of men, the Oral Torah, the Tradition of the Elders, the Seperating fence.

so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
And again, this destruction of the Oral Torah was that which brought peace between the Jews and Gentiles. The 2 were made into "one new man" sanctified by the blood of Yeshua and called to live in obedience to the Torah of God, having forsaken the Torah of men which seperated Jew and Gentile.

So while this passage is often used to suggest that the Torah has been abolished, it is plain to anyone that this is an impossible understanding. God has corrected the mistakes of man. God gave His Torah to mankind to be instructions in righteousness, and man perverted it. Thus Yeshua in His flesh corrected what man had distorted, and restored the Torah of God as the instructions for all mankind.

Marc

[visionary]

For centuries, Jewish boys have regularly been circumcised when they are eight days old (Genesis 17:12). An unusual challenge to circumcision developed, however, in the Hellenistic period (after about 133 B.C.E*). Hellenistic and Roman societies widely practiced public nakedness. But they abhorred baring the tip of the penis, called the glans. To expose the glans was considered vulgarly humorous, indecent or both. This combination of attitudes could be—and often was—devastating for circumcised Jews. Enjoying oneself in a Greek gymnasium or Roman bath, where nudity was de rigueur, was a popular and stylish pastime. Here politics was discussed and business deals concluded. Athletic contests and exhibitions were also conducted in the nude. Participation in athletics was often a prerequisite for social advancement. Yet a circumcised penis effectively precluded this participation.

Consequently, for hundreds of years some Jews underwent a surgical procedure known as epispasm—an operation that "corrected" a circumcised penis. Some might call it circumcision in reverse. From references and allusions to the procedure in classical and rabbinical literature, it appears that epispasm [CIRP Note: επισπασμοσ, epispasmos] reached its peak of popularity in the first century C.E.

The New Testament reveals bitter conflicts over circumcision among the followers of Jesus, conflicts expressed also in attitudes towards epispasm practiced by Jews. Paul, who thinks circumcision useless, nevertheless forbids epispasm: "Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision," he advises the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:18).

http://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/

[visionary]

The brit is considered the most important commandment. As stated in the Talmud, circumcision comes before all other commandments in the Torah, and no changes from this biblical law are permitted. http://www.mohel.tv/pages/329785/index.htm

[visionary]

The post-Mishnaic minor tractate [of the Talmud] Gerim detailed a procedure for welcoming converts; provided regulations regarding circumcision, ritual baths, and sacrifices; defined the ger toshav; and reminded the Jews that they were to have a friendly attitude toward converts. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Conversion/HistoryConversion/Talmudichistory.htm#

[ChazakEmunah]

It's interesting that there was a belief that 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved' in the Apostolic scriptures. Or a belief that 'do you know that it is unlawful to mingle with Gentile'.

It's evident that there was according to the Apostolic scriptures. And I believe is the reason why many here don't regard the Apostolic scriptures, especially ethnic Jews like myself because it makes Judaism look bad. I don't mean bad in a bad way, if you know what I mean. I hear people here saying this and that, show me outside sources and the like. It's really a shame IMHO that people have seemed to be led away.

Here's an example from a commentary 'What was abolished on the cross:

Hi first you have to consider something. God said in the Old Testament that His Torah was "eternal" "neverending" and for ALL generations. God also said that any teacher or prophet who tought people to disobey the Torah was a false prophet and should be stoned. Therefore, we should be very careful in what we understand Paul to say. If Paul taught that the Torah is abolished (which he doesnt) then he was a false prophet and not a prophet of God, and as such we are found to be disobedient and rebelling against God and following the words of false prophets. Now none of this is the case, which we will shortly see, but it is amazing how that people think that Paul "trumps" God when it comes to commandments. God does not change and His Torah is eternal, end of story. We have greatly misunderstood Paul because we have failed to realize this.

Something most certainly was abolished, but it certainly was not the written Torah. Jesus said plainly in Matt 5:17 that He did NOT come to abolish the Torah of Moses. It says that what was abolished was the "Law of commandments contained in ordinances (greek "dogma")". What is interesting about that usage of the word Dogma is that the greek word dogma always reffers to decrees or commandments of MEN and NEVER the commandments of God. Thus, "law contained in dogma" is most certainly talking about a Torah being abolished, but it is NOT the written Torah of Moses, it is the Oral Torah, or the "seperating fence" which Paul mentioned in the last verse so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.There was a distinction between the written Torah and Oral Torah, and Paul is very clear here that he is talking about the one which is the commandments of men, the Oral Torah, the Tradition of the Elders, the Seperating fence.

so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
And again, this destruction of the Oral Torah was that which brought peace between the Jews and Gentiles. The 2 were made into "one new man" sanctified by the blood of Yeshua and called to live in obedience to the Torah of God, having forsaken the Torah of men which seperated Jew and Gentile.

So while this passage is often used to suggest that the Torah has been abolished, it is plain to anyone that this is an impossible understanding. God has corrected the mistakes of man. God gave His Torah to mankind to be instructions in righteousness, and man perverted it. Thus Yeshua in His flesh corrected what man had distorted, and restored the Torah of God as the instructions for all mankind.

Marc
Thank you Marc, for proving my entire premise. Paul had no regard for the Oral Torah, and you have just agreed with this. Therefore, since the Written and Oral Torot are inseparable, Paul was opposed to the Torah. I think we can finally bring this debate to a close. You may not agree that the Oral Torah is from shamayim, but you have just agreed that Paul opposed it.

[ChazakEmunah]

For centuries, Jewish boys have regularly been circumcised when they are eight days old (Genesis 17:12). An unusual challenge to circumcision developed, however, in the Hellenistic period (after about 133 B.C.E*). Hellenistic and Roman societies widely practiced public nakedness. But they abhorred baring the tip of the penis, called the glans. To expose the glans was considered vulgarly humorous, indecent or both. This combination of attitudes could be—and often was—devastating for circumcised Jews. Enjoying oneself in a Greek gymnasium or Roman bath, where nudity was de rigueur, was a popular and stylish pastime. Here politics was discussed and business deals concluded. Athletic contests and exhibitions were also conducted in the nude. Participation in athletics was often a prerequisite for social advancement. Yet a circumcised penis effectively precluded this participation.

Consequently, for hundreds of years some Jews underwent a surgical procedure known as epispasm—an operation that "corrected" a circumcised penis. Some might call it circumcision in reverse. From references and allusions to the procedure in classical and rabbinical literature, it appears that epispasm [CIRP Note: επισπασμοσ, epispasmos] reached its peak of popularity in the first century C.E.

The New Testament reveals bitter conflicts over circumcision among the followers of Jesus, conflicts expressed also in attitudes towards epispasm practiced by Jews. Paul, who thinks circumcision useless, nevertheless forbids epispasm: "Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision," he advises the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:18).

http://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/
Yep, kinda sick isn't it? It's no wonder that Hellenism was so fiercely opposed.

[visionary]

http://books.google.com/books?id=snFb-htfYmkC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=yebamot+46a&source=web&ots=MijHdrSi1Y&sig=3tynCIPR7Mzl1RPYaa2ZBvhuANE

Yebamot 46a-b, as well as other places in the Talmud, contains a discussion of the status of the convert

[mpossoff]

Thank you Marc, for proving my entire premise. Paul had no regard for the Oral Torah, and you have just agreed with this. Therefore, since the Written and Oral Torot are inseparable, Paul was opposed to the Torah. I think we can finally bring this debate to a close. You may not agree that the Oral Torah is from shamayim, but you have just agreed that Paul opposed it.

Chazak first you believe Paul now?

Second just because Paul opposed the Oral law pertaining to Jews and Gentiles are you saying that is against written Torah?

Hmmm I thought you said that there wasn't a belief that existed?

How can you believe that Paul opposed something that you believe never existed?

Marc

[mpossoff]

Thank you Marc, for proving my entire premise. Paul had no regard for the Oral Torah, and you have just agreed with this. Therefore, since the Written and Oral Torot are inseparable, Paul was opposed to the Torah. I think we can finally bring this debate to a close. You may not agree that the Oral Torah is from shamayim, but you have just agreed that Paul opposed it.

Well you call it what you want to call it.

Because to re-iterate you are for the separation of Jews and Gentiles. You are for Gentiles being excluded from the covenants of promise. You are against "the breaking down the barrier of the dividing wall". You are not for "abolishing the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances".

Yeshua did not question the rightful authority and preaching of the true word of those who "sit in Moses' seat," telling the people to "practice and observe what they tell you"

2The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do

So you said Paul was opposed to oral law that ...'you must be circumcised.... to be saved'; he opposed the oral law as you said that excluded Gentiles from the covenants of promise; etc. I thought you said there was no such oral laws but now you say there is because you said Paul opposed it?

Since you admit that there was this oral law and that Paul opposed the oral law pertaining to, I oppose it too.

ChazakEmunah do you oppose it as well? Or are you going to stick with the oral law that you said Paul opposed?

Like I said I oppose it. So if that's opposing the oral law then...?



Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Chazak first you believe Paul now?

Second just because Paul opposed the Oral law pertaining to Jews and Gentiles are you saying that is against written Torah?

Hmmm I thought you said that there wasn't a belief that existed?

How can you believe that Paul opposed something that you believe never existed?

Marc
I see that I am going to have to be very, very careful when quoting you.

THIS is what I was referring to when I thanked you for proving my point:
Something most certainly was abolished, but it certainly was not the written Torah. Jesus said plainly in Matt 5:17 that He did NOT come to abolish the Torah of Moses. It says that what was abolished was the "Law of commandments contained in ordinances (greek "dogma")". What is interesting about that usage of the word Dogma is that the greek word dogma always reffers to decrees or commandments of MEN and NEVER the commandments of God. Thus, "law contained in dogma" is most certainly talking about a Torah being abolished, but it is NOT the written Torah of Moses, it is the Oral Torah, or the "seperating fence" which Paul mentioned in the last verse so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.There was a distinction between the written Torah and Oral Torah, and Paul is very clear here that he is talking about the one which is the commandments of men, the Oral Torah, the Tradition of the Elders, theSeperating fence.

so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
And again, this destruction of the Oral Torah was that which brought peace between the Jews and Gentiles.
Now, re-read my comments as they pertain to the above highlighted portions. My contention all along is that Paul opposed the Oral Torah. By posting this piece, you have agreed with that premise. I am not here to talk about circumcision. We can leave that for the other thread. I am here to talk about whether or not Paul opposed the Oral Torah. I say he did, and you just said he did. So why are we still arguing after we've already agreed?

[mpossoff]

I see that I am going to have to be very, very careful when quoting you.

THIS is what I was referring to when I thanked you for proving my point:

Now, re-read my comments as they pertain to the above highlighted portions. My contention all along is that Paul opposed the Oral Torah. By posting this piece, you have agreed with that premise. I am not here to talk about circumcision. We can leave that for the other thread. I am here to talk about whether or not Paul opposed the Oral Torah. I say he did, and you just said he did. So why are we still arguing after we've already agreed?

Ummm ChazakEmunah why are we still debating?

Because for one you are the one that said this oral law didn't exist...

So how can you say that Paul opposed something that you said didn't exist?

So are you now saying.... 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved' is oral law and existed in that day?

We can only have a debate if all parties including yourself say that oral law(you must be circumcised.... to be saved) existed.

So why are we still arguing after we've already agreed? Because you haven't agreed that this was oral law, in fact you said you didn't hold the NT as authoritive. You are agreeing with something that you said didn't exist and/or question its existence. But now you don't...hmmm?

So are you agreeing that there were ordinances of men that said:

'you must be circumcised...to be saved'

Gentiles being excluded from the covenants of promise

etc?

Otherwise as some others have suggested it's like debating with a ghost.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Ummm ChazakEmunah why are we still debating?

Because for one you are the one that said this oral law didn't exist...
Wait a sec, I never for one second said that the Oral Torah did not exist. I did say that there is no written record (that I know of) outside of the NT of a halakha that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa. I did postulate that perhaps Beit Shammai would have held such a position, but I cannot give anything concrete as I haven't personally seen such evidence.


So how can you say that Paul opposed something that you said didn't exist?
Obviously it existed, it just may have been limited to either the Netzarim or Beit Shammai.


So are you now saying.... 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved' is oral law and existed in that day?
A minhag of a particular group only holds the status of halakha while one is a member of that group. So, if a particular group did believe this, it was their halakha. However, we don't have any record of who to attribute this to. Was it Beit Shammai or someone else? We don't know. I never said that it didn't exist, I just said that I have not seen any record of a particular group who held this belief.


We can only have a debate if all parties including yourself say that oral law(you must be circumcised.... to be saved) existed.
You're confusing the debates. This debate is only about whether or not Paul opposed the Oral Torah. Your last post (the one I quoted earlier) stated that Paul believed the Oral Torah was abolished.

The other debate about circumcision is a non-starter, for you will not find one Orthodox group today that believes a Goy must convert to Judaism in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa. Was there a group back then that believed this? It certainly seems so, or it would not have been mentioned. The fact that no-one believes this today is telling.


So why are we still arguing after we've already agreed? Because you haven't agreed that this was oral law, in fact you said you didn't hold the NT as authoritive. You are agreeing with something that you said didn't exist and/or question its existence. But now you don't...hmmm?
Oy yoy yoy.... Of course I don't view the NT as authoritative. Why would I? I rejected it as such a long time ago.

I don't know whether it was a halakha of a particular group or not. Paul is arguing against something where we don't know the source. It's as simple as that.


So are you agreeing that there were ordinances of men that said:

'you must be circumcised...to be saved'

Gentiles being excluded from the covenants of promise

etc?
Possibly. There could have been such a halakha if one were Beit Shammai, but I don't know for sure. I have never seen any evidence that records they held this position. But that is irrelevant for this thread. We can hash this out in your thread if you'd like.

[mpossoff]

Possibly. There could have been such a halakha if one were Beit Shammai, but I don't know for sure. I have never seen any evidence that records they held this position. But that is irrelevant for this thread. We can hash this out in your thread if you'd like.Of course it's relevant to this thread.

You admit that you are not sure.

So if you're not sure... how can Paul oppose something that you are not even sure of?

Doesn't make sense to debate something when one party is not sure.

Once we can agree that there was halacha pertaining to that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa then there can be a debate, otherise like simchat said it's like debating a ghost.

So let's say you agree that there was halacha pertaining to that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa.

My first question is: Is that halacha 'Biblical'? First if you can find evidence in the Torah that supports halacha pertaining to that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa then I possibly might concede.

Also is there evidence in the Torah to exclude Gentiles from the covenants of promise?

How about evidence in the Torah that 'it's unlawful to mingle with Gentiles'?

This is what Paul opposed.

Right now I'm not referring to oral law.

There must be support from the written Torah to support the halacha that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa.

Because if there isn't support from the written Torah to support the halacha specifically pertaining to what I just posted above...then there is obviously a 'problem', an apparent problem. Although Yeshua did keep most of the oral traditions, He challenged the Pharisee's about the oral traditions that trumped the true written word of God, like washing of hands as an example.

Marc

[muffler dragon]

That's not the issue at hand, Marc. The argument is whether the words of Paul are anti-Torah or not. You've yet to substantiate that Paul is pro-Torah due to the scene of the times. It's no one else's fault that the Christian Scriptures don't support a true picture of first century Judaism. Thus, you need to build your case from those documents that do. The best way for you to do that would be to answer the question you've avoided REPEATEDLY, and show something from traditional Jewish sources that shows a sect of Judaism that preaches "circumcision justification/salvation".

Sure it's the issue muffler. You can't acceptt the fact that there was a sect of Judaism that preached 'you must be circumcised.... to be saved. Therefore if you don't 'believe' in the Apostolic scriptures you need to stay out of this discussion.Because if you don't believe the Apostolic scriptures how can you believe that there was a sect of Judaism that preached that?

It's nice to see that you realize you can't substantiate your claim from traditional Jewish sources.

Do you want to exergise the text or not?

I've wanted you to answer the simple question of "from what do we need salvation?", and you can't even do that. We haven't even got to the point where we exergise (sic) a passage, because in exegesis, one must evaluate all that is available to us in order to determine the veracity of the text. You have not had an interest in doing that.

Because if you do believe in the Apostolic scriptures therefore you would believe that there was a sect of Judaim that preached that therefore which is obvious why Paul wrote what he wrote.

The Apostolic Scriptures could speak of unicorns and other mythical creatures, would you then believe it just because it's in there? Without proving that there was a Judaic sect that believed what you say it does; all you've got is conjecture and opining without substance.

Otherwise it doesn't make sense to have a discussion with you, yes you in particular.
Sorry to be so harsh but you are being rediculous.

Marc: you've always had more bark than bite. Your concept of my is something that doesn't even skim my conscience. Therefore, if you feel it's ridiculous; then so be it. I look at this discourse and realize that "rabbit trail" and obfuscate points all in the hope that others will forget the points we raise that you fail to acknowledge/answer.

Feel free to have the last word on our already ended discussion.

[simchat_torah]

lol, another thread with no debate foundation. and on the same topic to boot.

did i mention the whole thing started on a false premise?

lol... here we go again.

[mpossoff]

It's nice to see that you realize you can't substantiate your claim from traditional Jewish sources.



I've wanted you to answer the simple question of "from what do we need salvation?", and you can't even do that. We haven't even got to the point where we exergise (sic) a passage, because in exegesis, one must evaluate all that is available to us in order to determine the veracity of the text. You have not had an interest in doing that.



The Apostolic Scriptures could speak of unicorns and other mythical creatures, would you then believe it just because it's in there? Without proving that there was a Judaic sect that believed what you say it does; all you've got is conjecture and opining without substance.



Marc: you've always had more bark than bite. Your concept of my is something that doesn't even skim my conscience. Therefore, if you feel it's ridiculous; then so be it. I look at this discourse and realize that "rabbit trail" and obfuscate points all in the hope that others will forget the points we raise that you fail to acknowledge/answer.

Feel free to have the last word on our already ended discussion.

Actually it hasn't ended hopefully, maybe with you, because Chazak now admits that there is a possibility.

So I challenged him to some questions from his respomse:

I did postulate that perhaps Beit Shammai would have held such a position, but I cannot give anything concrete as I haven't personally seen such evidence.Obviously it existed, it just may have been limited to either the Netzarim or Beit Shammai.A minhag of a particular group only holds the status of halakha while one is a member of that group. So, if a particular group did believe this, it was their halakha. However, we don't have any record of who to attribute this to. Was it Beit Shammai or someone else? We don't know. I never said that it didn't exist, I just said that I have not seen any record of a particular group who held this belief.My questions:

So let's say you agree that there was halacha pertaining to that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa.

My first question is: Is that halacha 'Biblical'? First if you can find evidence in the Torah that supports halacha pertaining to that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa then I possibly might concede.

Also is there evidence in the Torah to exclude Gentiles from the covenants of promise?

How about evidence in the Torah that 'it's unlawful to mingle with Gentiles'?

This is what Paul opposed.

Right now I'm not referring to oral law.

There must be support from the written Torah to support the halacha that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa.

Because if there isn't support from the written Torah to support the halacha specifically pertaining to what I just posted above...then there is obviously a 'problem', an apparent problem. Although Yeshua did keep most of the oral traditions, He challenged the Pharisee's about the oral traditions that trumped the true written word of God, like washing of hands as an example.Marc

[mpossoff]

lol, another thread with no debate foundation. and on the same topic to boot.

did i mention the whole thing started on a false premise?

lol... here we go again.

simchat maybe you can help out? Here's some background.

Because the original topic was: Did Paul oppose Torah?

My debate was that Paul didn't oppose written Torah but opposed the traditions of:

'you must be circumcised.... to be saved'

Gentiles being excluded from the covenants of promise

'you know it is unlawful to mingle with Gentiles'

Chazak said "Obviously it existed, it just may have been limited to either the Netzarim or Beit Shammai."

So my response was:

Is that halacha 'Biblical'? First if you can find evidence in the Torah that supports halacha pertaining to that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa then I possibly might concede.

Also is there evidence in the Torah to exclude Gentiles from the covenants of promise?

How about evidence in the Torah that 'it's unlawful to mingle with Gentiles'?

This is what Paul opposed.

Right now I'm not referring to oral law.

There must be support from the written Torah to support the halacha that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa.

Because if there isn't support from the written Torah to support the halacha specifically pertaining to what I just posted above...then there is obviously a 'problem', an apparent problem. Although Yeshua did keep most of the oral traditions, He challenged the Pharisee's about the oral traditions that trumped the true written word of God, like washing of hands as an example.

And since Chazak and I agree "Obviously it existed, it just may have been limited to either the Netzarim or Beit Shammai" this is what drove Paul to write what he wrote.

simchat with your help, how would you introduce this?

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Marc,

What you did was introduce another debate right in the middle of mine. It only confused things. Let's try to stick with one at a time okay? You cannot defend Paul based on one premise. You still have all the places he wrote where he said that the Torah has been abolished and replaced with faith in Je*us. That, in and of itself, is contrary to Torah. I could care less whether Paul was arguing against conversion in ONE particular case. What I do care about is his words as a WHOLE.

Why do we keep coming back to circumcision argument after you have already agreed that 1) Paul opposed the Oral Torah, 2) Paul replaced following the mitzvot of Torah with belief in Je*us ?


I say we just drop it. I stated my premise, you agreed, that's it. If we don't we'll just keep going round and round in circles.

[Bananna]

1 Samuel 15:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=15&verse=22&version=31&context=verse)
But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

[Bananna]

Psalm 40:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=40&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced , ; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require.


Do not the Rabbis teach that the heart is the alter? Is not our obedience a proper sacrifice especially since there is no temple?

[ChazakEmunah]

Do not the Rabbis teach that the heart is the alter? Is not our obedience a proper sacrifice especially since there is no temple?
I must be missing something. What does that pasuk have to do with the topic?? :scratch:

[mpossoff]

Marc,

What you did was introduce another debate right in the middle of mine. It only confused things. Let's try to stick with one at a time okay? You cannot defend Paul based on one premise. You still have all the places he wrote where he said that the Torah has been abolished and replaced with faith in Je*us. That, in and of itself, is contrary to Torah. I could care less whether Paul was arguing against conversion in ONE particular case. What I do care about is his words as a WHOLE.

Why do we keep coming back to circumcision argument after you have already agreed that 1) Paul opposed the Oral Torah, 2) Paul replaced following the mitzvot of Torah with belief in Je*us ?


I say we just drop it. I stated my premise, you agreed, that's it. If we don't we'll just keep going round and round in circles.

No ChazakEmunah sorry but good try.

First Paul said that the Torah wasn't abolished.

Here's an example from a commentary 'What was abolished on the cross:

Hi first you have to consider something. God said in the Old Testament that His Torah was "eternal" "neverending" and for ALL generations. God also said that any teacher or prophet who tought people to disobey the Torah was a false prophet and should be stoned. Therefore, we should be very careful in what we understand Paul to say. If Paul taught that the Torah is abolished (which he doesnt) then he was a false prophet and not a prophet of God, and as such we are found to be disobedient and rebelling against God and following the words of false prophets. Now none of this is the case, which we will shortly see, but it is amazing how that people think that Paul "trumps" God when it comes to commandments. God does not change and His Torah is eternal, end of story. We have greatly misunderstood Paul because we have failed to realize this.

Something most certainly was abolished, but it certainly was not the written Torah. Jesus said plainly in Matt 5:17 that He did NOT come to abolish the Torah of Moses. It says that what was abolished was the "Law of commandments contained in ordinances (greek "dogma")". What is interesting about that usage of the word Dogma is that the greek word dogma always reffers to decrees or commandments of MEN and NEVER the commandments of God. Thus, "law contained in dogma" is most certainly talking about a Torah being abolished, but it is NOT the written Torah of Moses, it is the Oral Torah, or the "seperating fence" which Paul mentioned in the last verse so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.There was a distinction between the written Torah and Oral Torah, and Paul is very clear here that he is talking about the one which is the commandments of men, the Oral Torah, the Tradition of the Elders, the Seperating fence.

so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
And again, this destruction of the Oral Torah was that which brought peace between the Jews and Gentiles. The 2 were made into "one new man" sanctified by the blood of Yeshua and called to live in obedience to the Torah of God, having forsaken the Torah of men which seperated Jew and Gentile.

So while this passage is often used to suggest that the Torah has been abolished, it is plain to anyone that this is an impossible understanding. God has corrected the mistakes of man. God gave His Torah to mankind to be instructions in righteousness, and man perverted it. Thus Yeshua in His flesh corrected what man had distorted, and restored the Torah of God as the instructions for all mankind.Marc

[mpossoff]

Marc,

What you did was introduce another debate right in the middle of mine. It only confused things. Let's try to stick with one at a time okay? You cannot defend Paul based on one premise. You still have all the places he wrote where he said that the Torah has been abolished and replaced with faith in Je*us. That, in and of itself, is contrary to Torah. I could care less whether Paul was arguing against conversion in ONE particular case. What I do care about is his words as a WHOLE.

Why do we keep coming back to circumcision argument after you have already agreed that 1) Paul opposed the Oral Torah, 2) Paul replaced following the mitzvot of Torah with belief in Je*us ?


I say we just drop it. I stated my premise, you agreed, that's it. If we don't we'll just keep going round and round in circles.

So you believe in the oral law trumps the written Torah. Does the written Torah say that gentiles must be circumcised to be saved?

Sounds to me like you are defending and support the oral tradition that says: 'unless you are circumcised you cannot be saved'.

So let's say you agree that there was halacha pertaining to that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa.

We first have to establish of the oral law that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa is biblical or not based on the written Torah.

My first question is: Is that halacha 'Biblical'? First if you can find evidence in the Torah that supports halacha pertaining to that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa then I possibly might concede.

Also is there evidence in the Torah to exclude Gentiles from the covenants of promise?

How about evidence in the Torah that 'it's unlawful to mingle with Gentiles'?

This is what Paul opposed.

Right now I'm not referring to oral law.

There must be support from the written Torah to support the halacha that Goyim need to convert in order to obtain a portion in Olam HaBa.

Because if there isn't support from the written Torah to support the halacha specifically pertaining to what I just posted above...then there is obviously a 'problem', an apparent problem. Although Yeshua did keep most of the oral traditions, He challenged the Pharisee's about the oral traditions that trumped the true written word of God, like washing of hands as an example.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

No ChazakEmunah sorry but good try.

First Paul said that the Torah wasn't abolished.

Allow me to spell it out for you.

First, several pages back you agreed with Paul (as did Steve) that observance of the Torah does not grant a person righteousness, but belief in Je*us does instead. That, in and of itself, is contrary to Torah.

Second, I will highlight portions of this commentary you quoted stating that Paul believed the Oral Torah was abolished. Which by the way, happens to prove my entire case. If Paul believed that the Oral Torah was abolished, then he stood in opposition to the Torah as the Written and Oral Torot go hand in hand.


So here we go... again:

"Something most certainly was abolished, but it certainly was not the written Torah. Jesus said plainly in Matt 5:17 that He did NOT come to abolish the Torah of Moses. It says that what was abolished was the "Law of commandments contained in ordinances (greek "dogma")". What is interesting about that usage of the word Dogma is that the greek word dogma always reffers to decrees or commandments of MEN and NEVER the commandments of God. Thus, "law contained in dogma" is most certainly talking about a Torah being abolished, but it is NOT the written Torah of Moses, it is the Oral Torah, or the "seperating fence" which Paul mentioned in the last verse so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishingpeace.There was a distinction between the written Torah and Oral Torah, and Paul is very clear here that he is talking about the one which is the commandments of men, the Oral Torah, the Tradition of the Elders, the Seperating fence.

so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
And again, this destruction of the Oral Torah was that which brought peace between the Jews and Gentiles. The 2 were made into "one new man" sanctified by the blood of Yeshua and called to live in obedience to the Torah of God, having forsaken the Torah of men which seperated Jew and Gentile.

~snip"


As anyone can now clearly see, Paul believed the Oral Torah was abolished. Therefore, he opposed the Torah. It doesn't get more clear than this.

[simchat_torah]

As anyone can now clearly see, Paul believed the Oral Torah was abolished. Therefore, he opposed the Torah. Would you say the same of Karaites?

[ChazakEmunah]

Would you say the same of Karaites?
Yep.

[mpossoff]

Allow me to spell it out for you.

First, several pages back you agreed with Paul (as did Steve) that observance of the Torah does not grant a person righteousness, but belief in Je*us does instead. That, in and of itself, is contrary to Torah.

Second, I will highlight portions of this commentary you quoted stating that Paul believed the Oral Torah was abolished. Which by the way, happens to prove my entire case. If Paul believed that the Oral Torah was abolished, then he stood in opposition to the Torah as the Written and Oral Torot go hand in hand.


So here we go... again:

"Something most certainly was abolished, but it certainly was not the written Torah. Jesus said plainly in Matt 5:17 that He did NOT come to abolish the Torah of Moses. It says that what was abolished was the "Law of commandments contained in ordinances (greek "dogma")". What is interesting about that usage of the word Dogma is that the greek word dogma always reffers to decrees or commandments of MEN and NEVER the commandments of God. Thus, "law contained in dogma" is most certainly talking about a Torah being abolished, but it is NOT the written Torah of Moses, it is the Oral Torah, or the "seperating fence" which Paul mentioned in the last verse so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishingpeace.There was a distinction between the written Torah and Oral Torah, and Paul is very clear here that he is talking about the one which is the commandments of men, the Oral Torah, the Tradition of the Elders, the Seperating fence.

so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
And again, this destruction of the Oral Torah was that which brought peace between the Jews and Gentiles. The 2 were made into "one new man" sanctified by the blood of Yeshua and called to live in obedience to the Torah of God, having forsaken the Torah of men which seperated Jew and Gentile.

~snip"


As anyone can now clearly see, Paul believed the Oral Torah was abolished. Therefore, he opposed the Torah. It doesn't get more clear than this.

Chazak you didn't answer my question.

First Paul said that the whole oral traditions weren't abolished.

Second we have to establish if the oral traditions pertaining to Gentiles supports the written Torah. Is preaching to someone they need to be circumcised in order to be saved a contradiction to Torah?

If the traditions pertaining to Gentiles, the ones I specifically mentioned, support the written Torah then Paul did teach against written Torah.

If the traditions pertaining to Gentiles do not support the written Torah then Paul didn't teach against Torah. He therefore taught against the tradition that negated written Torah. He taught against traditions that were created by man that trumped the written Torah.

In other words using 'you must be circumcised to be saved' as an example, if this supports written Torah then Paul did teach against Torah. If it doesn't then he didn't. He taught against this man man creation of a tradition pertaining to Gentiles.

Marc

[mpossoff]

Okay, now that we're back to discussing Paul, I want to get this up here. I went through some of Paul's letters yesterday and picked up certain key verses that I believe show Paul's Hellenistic mentality and general hostility towards the Oral Torah.


--- All quotes use Murdock's Translation ---


The context: Paul is in a Synagogue in Antioch on Shabbat, and is finishing up a talk about Je*us.

Acts 13:39
"And every one that believeth in this man, is made just from all things, from which ye could not be m