Paul's Opposition to Torah

[ChazakEmunah]

Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who cannot lie, glady wrote "Yeshua" in a language other than Hebrew, namely Iesou, the Greek. This means that the name Jesus can be spoken, written and thought of in any vernacular. The English "Jesus", the Greek "Iesou", or the Latin, Bulgarian, Chinese, or whatever, all refer to the same person, and that person is not contained to the spoken words of men.
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.

[visionary]

How many people think Paul was in opposition to Torah?

[HadassahSukkot]

Not I said the little red hen....

[Steve Petersen]

Nor I. Most of his apparent anti-Torah arguments turn out not to be after doing a lot of historical/cultural digging.

[cyberlizard]

there is absolutely no evidence that Paul wrote Yeshua's name in Greek.

Not unless we find an original manuscript that is. All we have are copies. Judging from the text of the book of Acts, Paul often taught in Hebrew (it says so) but his words are recorded in greek. Therefore the argument is pointless.

although some people claim Paul turned his back on Judaism I just cannot see it... I see a lot of misunderstanding of his words. even Peter said, people twisted them to make it look like they were turning their backs on Judaism. Most people cite Galatians a lot but this does not really hold water. Paul was an observant Jew otherwise he would have been stoned for not upholding the commands.

but all this is my opinion and I cannot convince anyone of what they choose to believe for themselves.


Steve

(Paul the most misused and abused of the 'apostles')

[muffler dragon]

How many people think Paul was in opposition to Torah?

I do.

[visionary]

I do.Explain please.

[Wags]

Paul called the Torah "holy, just and good". Hardly sounds like he was in opposition to it.

[mpossoff]

Nor I. Most of his apparent anti-Torah arguments turn out not to be after doing a lot of historical/cultural digging.

I agree it's not easy work. First personally it's the Spirit that moves and guides me to dig. Because if Paul is in contradiction it makes me say "Wait a minute something isn't right, I need to dig."

And it's neat when you start to discover that Paul is often misunderstood.

Marc

[visionary]

For 2000 years, mainstream christianity has taught that the Torah/law of God has been abolished. Most of the scripture that is used to support this view comes from the writings of Paul. In fact, were it not for Paul.. Christians would have almost nothing to stand on to support this particular view.

[visionary]

2Peter 3:15 - and consider that the longsuffering of our Master is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
Interesting that Peter relates this to what Paul has often written "even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you"

Paul's writings are full of wisdom in this matter of what God has done and how it relates to us

[visionary]

Paul is often misunderstood and Peter knew that well ....

2Pet 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; "...in which are some things hard to be understood,"

[visionary]

According to Peter, His writings can easily be twisted/wrested/turned around/perverted/distorted by those who are "unlearned and unstable".

" which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

[visionary]

This scripture says it is 'those who are unlearned' who twist Paul's words. One who knows and believes in keeping the Torah are the ones who are 'learned' and know His will according to Paul himself



Romans 2:17 - Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of Elohim,


Romans 2:18 - And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

[visionary]

Paul himself believed in keeping the Law:


Acts 25:8 - While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all. and
Acts 18:21 - But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus. and Romans 7:25 - Thanks be to God through Yeshua the Messiah our Saviour. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

[visionary]

Paul says that the doers of the Law will be justified and those who break it will be judged


Romans 2:12 - For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;


Romans 2:13 - (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

[ChazakEmunah]

For 2000 years, mainstream christianity has taught that the Torah/law of God has been abolished. Most of the scripture that is used to support this view comes from the writings of Paul. In fact, were it not for Paul.. Christians would have almost nothing to stand on to support this particular view.
This is quite true. If it weren't for Paul, C*hristianity would likely not exist today.

[muffler dragon]

Explain please.

In short, I believe that Pauline theology is in stark contradiction to Psalm 119. Paul disparages the Torah.

[muffler dragon]

Paul is often misunderstood and Peter knew that well ....

According to Peter, His writings can easily be twisted/wrested/turned around/perverted/distorted by those who are "unlearned and unstable".

Peter's consideration of Paul is an operation of circularity. If Paul is difficult to understand; then it's a free-for-all as to who can "understand" him.

This scripture says it is 'those who are unlearned' who twist Paul's words. One who knows and believes in keeping the Torah are the ones who are 'learned' and know His will according to Paul himself

And this type of argument is a logical fallacy. One can pick either an ad hominem or a poisoning of the well.

However, what's important is whether Paul stands when confronted with the Torah. To me, his halacha subverts the Torah. But I also feel that he had many issues besides this.

[Bananna]

How many people think Paul was in opposition to Torah?

He upheld it more than anyone according to himself. By practise he helped others complete their nazarite vow and then took a vow himself to prove the accusation that he spoke against Torah was false. He rejoiced when the saints lay hold of the Torah with all zeal including the gentiles. Paul simply did not believe in putting on gentiles a mature belief that would have come with many years of study for the Jew. If I adopted an infant they would have 13 years to learn observance. If I adopt an adult why would I expect instant conversions and conformity and knowledge of all our household rules? Some adults absorb more quickly and some less. It makes no sense to expect them to absorb it all more quickly than a child born into it.

Paul therefore gave them milk and expected they would learn to eat meat... Or did anyone think Paul the type to tolerate continually telling people the elementary teachings?

bananna

[PastorJoey]

Nor I. Most of his apparent anti-Torah arguments turn out not to be after doing a lot of historical/cultural digging.

It would take a lot of work with an added agenda to turn Pauls arguments about the law into a "Torah friendly Paul" who wanted nothing more for christians than for them to observe Jewish customs.:D

Paul certainly was not "anti torah". He had much good to say about the law and its purpose even in the new testament. example: "Is the law sinful, God forbid....I had not known sin had the law not said thou shalt not...". Notice he goes right into God's moral laws and not customs or other observances of the law?

[PastorJoey]

For 2000 years, mainstream christianity has taught that the Torah/law of God has been abolished. Most of the scripture that is used to support this view comes from the writings of Paul. In fact, were it not for Paul.. Christians would have almost nothing to stand on to support this particular view.
Well the fact that most of christians views on the law have to do with Pauls writtings alone would not be a point to criticize, seeing that without Pauls writtings there practically wouldnt even be a New Testament!

He wrote over three fourths of the New Testament. God chose him for this purpose.

[PastorJoey]

He upheld it more than anyone according to himself. By practise he helped others complete their nazarite vow and then took a vow himself to prove the accusation that he spoke against Torah was false. [QUOTE]It could be argued that Paul was simply "becoming all things to all men" He was dealing with young converts who still held to Jewish customs. Paul chose his battles wisely. Whats more important, telling them to scrap their customs they have built their life upon? Nothing Paul said further about Christ would be received then. Notice Pauls approach when converting others to christianity...
1Co 2:2 KJV
(2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

When you read the context further you see that Pauls observance to the law served him no purpose at all. He was arrested before he got a chance to speak. So he shaved his head for nothing. Think of it this way, if Paul shaved his head to prove that the statements about him not observing the law were false, then why hadnt Paul already prepared and been compliant to the law beforehand?


My opinion is that Paul gave in to the pressure that others placed upon him and he compromised by going directly against what he had been already been teaching and knew to be true. When you read it, there is no indication that this is what God wanted him to do. He yielded to the pressure and intimidation of the people who feared for his life.

On the other hand if Paul was being led of God in this matter, then as I stated, he did it solely because he knew that they would not receive anything he had to say to them otherwise. He was made "all things to all men so that some may be saved".

[ChazakEmunah]

He upheld it more than anyone according to himself.
If in fact he was Beit Shammai, this is eclipsed by the fact that he later apostatized and became a Hellenist.

By practise he helped others complete their nazarite vow
Actually, if you look at the account closely, he was essentially ordered to pay for the expenses of 4 men. (This would have been a costly thing to do, I wonder where he got the money?)

and then took a vow himself to prove the accusation that he spoke against Torah was false.
Not true. The text only states that he paid for their expenses, not that he took a vow himself.

He rejoiced when the saints lay hold of the Torah with all zeal including the gentiles.
What saints?

Paul simply did not believe in putting on gentiles a mature belief that would have come with many years of study for the Jew. If I adopted an infant they would have 13 years to learn observance. If I adopt an adult why would I expect instant conversions and conformity and knowledge of all our household rules? Some adults absorb more quickly and some less. It makes no sense to expect them to absorb it all more quickly than a child born into it.
I think what you are trying to argue here is that Paul was trying to only obligate them to minimal observance, ie... the Noachide Laws. However, we see many times in Paul's letters where he is speaking against it completely. It was only the intervention of the Beit Din that established Gentiles were to observe the Noachide Laws and certainly nothing that came from the hand of Paul.

[ChazakEmunah]

Well the fact that most of christians views on the law have to do with Pauls writtings alone would not be a point to criticize, seeing that without Pauls writtings there practically wouldnt even be a New Testament!

He wrote over three fourths of the New Testament. God chose him for this purpose.
Yep, an apostate Hellenist wrote more than half of the NT. That was reason enough for me to reject it completely.

I really doubt that HaShem chose him for that purpose though.

[ChazakEmunah]

Paul certainly was not "anti torah". He had much good to say about the law and its purpose even in the new testament. example: "Is the law sinful, God forbid....I had not known sin had the law not said thou shalt not...". Notice he goes right into God's moral laws and not customs or other observances of the law?
Sure he did. And in the next breath he said that the Torah was bondage. It just depended on who his audience was.

[A_Pioneer]

For myself, I think Sha'ul had a straight face when he said; "Be imitators of me, as I am of Moshiach."

If he is a bald face liar, then half of the NT is Lies!
Check out Universal Torah Network, w/ Sam Peak, Joe Good and Rabbi Chiam Richman.

Shalom

[Steve Petersen]

Yep, an apostate Hellenist wrote more than half of the NT. That was reason enough for me to reject it completely.

I really doubt that HaShem chose him for that purpose though.


This would be a much more productive conversation if you would cite specific passages which you believe are ant-Torah. As I have said in other threads (and you probably know to be true) is that there is a subtext to Paul's letters that are missed reading at face value. Those subtext form the context of his arguments.

[Bananna]

I agree it's not easy work. First personally it's the Spirit that moves and guides me to dig. Because if Paul is in contradiction it makes me say "Wait a minute something isn't right, I need to dig."

And it's neat when you start to discover that Paul is often misunderstood.

Marc
Yes I have had a lot of fun digging up info at Chabad.org that explains exactly what Paul was saying... LOL

Ah well I figure if I want to understand a Jewish teaching ask a Jew.

bananna

[PastorJoey]

[/quote]
Originally Posted by ChazakEmunah http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=39410228#post39410228)
Yep, an apostate Hellenist wrote more than half of the NT. That was reason enough for me to reject it completely.

I really doubt that HaShem chose him for that purpose though.
...And in the next breath he said that the Torah was bondage. It just depended on who his audience was.
These statements of Paul have to be kept in their proper context. He applauded the law in its effectiveness in convincing the sinner of their transgresson. Yet he denounced the law in its ability to justify men. So it was not really the law he denounced, but its ability to justify.

Chazak with all love and sincerity, I am fearful that you dont have much if any ground to stand on. It would not be a good bet based purely on speculation or opinion, to scrap the Epistles of Paul. Please reconsider before tossing out the new covenant revelation that the Blood of Christ was shed to afford you.

[muffler dragon]

These statements of Paul have to be kept in their proper context.

Which context would that be? The context of things that are "difficult to understand" per Peter, or the context of explicit statements? Furthermore, it's far easier to prove that Paul's statements do NOT fit a Judaic context than it is to prove an affirmative.

If you want to argue that Paul's context was un-Judaic; then I fully support you. If you want to argue otherwise; then I say game on.

He applauded the law in its effectiveness in convincing the sinner of their transgresson. Yet he denounced the law in its ability to justify men. So it was not really the law he denounced, but its ability to justify.

What context does this fit into? By the way, the emboldened shows your misunderstanding of the Torah from a Judaic perspective. It is explicitly written in the Tanakh just what the Torah does, and "justification" is definitely one of the implied terms.

Chazak with all love and sincerity, I am fearful that you dont have much if any ground to stand on.

Are you serious? Praytell, what exactly have you presented thus far that rebuts/refutes a single thing that Chazak has stated? All I've seen is an opinion regarding context.

It would not be a good bet based purely on speculation or opinion, to scrap the Epistles of Paul.

I assure you, Pastor, that very few of us have scrapped the Epistles because of vacuous speculation and/or opinion. Try not to "poison the well" of those who don't agree with you simply because we don't have a theological title.

Please reconsider before tossing out the new covenant revelation that the Blood of Christ was shed to afford you.

And I'll respond in kind by requesting that you please take the time to read up on what exactly the Jewish Messiah is supposed to do. Vicarious personal atonement is not one of them.

[ChazakEmunah]

For myself, I think Sha'ul had a straight face when he said; "Be imitators of me, as I am of Moshiach."

If he is a bald face liar, then half of the NT is Lies!
Check out Universal Torah Network, w/ Sam Peak, Joe Good and Rabbi Chiam Richman.

Shalom

Yep, this is why I ultimately rejected the NT.

[ChazakEmunah]

This would be a much more productive conversation if you would cite specific passages which you believe are ant-Torah. As I have said in other threads (and you probably know to be true) is that there is a subtext to Paul's letters that are missed reading at face value. Those subtext form the context of his arguments.
Pick any one of his letters. Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians....

Oh, and let's not forget the small fact that he insulted Shimon to his face, a man who was a member of the Beit Din in Yerushalayim, and one of the original talmidim.

[ChazakEmunah]

This would be a much more productive conversation if you would cite specific passages which you believe are ant-Torah. As I have said in other threads (and you probably know to be true) is that there is a subtext to Paul's letters that are missed reading at face value. Those subtext form the context of his arguments.
If we had the whole story of what was going on when he wrote his letters, we would probably have a better picture. As it stands, his own words testify against him.

[ChazakEmunah]

Yes I have had a lot of fun digging up info at Chabad.org that explains exactly what Paul was saying... LOL

Ah well I figure if I want to understand a Jewish teaching ask a Jew.

bananna
*Not sarcastic* Would you mind sharing this insight?

[ChazakEmunah]

These statements of Paul have to be kept in their proper context.
First, the context you refer to depends on the audience he was addressing. When he was talking to Jews he made statements in support of the Torah (both Written and Oral). When he was talking to Goyim, he made statements against both the Written and Oral Torah. He was very duplicitous. For crying out loud, he had to be brought to account to Yerushalayim for his actions not once, but twice.

He applauded the law in its effectiveness in convincing the sinner of their transgresson. Yet he denounced the law in its ability to justify men. So it was not really the law he denounced, but its ability to justify.
Again, this is a good example of how he taught against the Torah. When one accepts the Torah, they accept it all. They are not free to pick and choose what they want to keep and what they want to discard (the very reason why the Reform are not a legitimate Judaism). Are we justified by the Torah? King David seemed to think so. Tehillim are the strongest argument against Paul's statements.

Chazak with all love and sincerity, I am fearful that you dont have much if any ground to stand on.
Are you sure about that? My feet are embedded in the foundation rock of the Torah. It doesn't get any more solid than that.

It would not be a good bet based purely on speculation or opinion, to scrap the Epistles of Paul.
Oh trust me, I stopped believing that the NT was reliable quite some time ago. I'm not at any sort of critical juncture where I'm trying to figure it out, I'm already past that point.

Please reconsider before tossing out the new covenant revelation that the Blood of Christ was shed to afford you.
Well, considering that the 'New Covenant' spoken of by Yirmeyahu haNavi hasn't even happened yet, I don't think the NT has a leg to stand on. As far as the 'Blood of C*hrist' goes, I don't believe in Je*us, so it doesn't affect me. Anything done by any sort of mythical man-god has no effect on my beliefs in any way, shape, or form.

[muffler dragon]

He was very duplicitous.

:D

[PastorJoey]

Are you serious? Praytell, what exactly have you presented thus far that rebuts/refutes a single thing that Chazak has stated? All I've seen is an opinion regarding context.

I assure you, Pastor, that very few of us have scrapped the Epistles because of vacuous speculation and/or opinion. Try not to "poison the well" of those who don't agree with you simply because we don't have a theological title....quote]

Please stop with the accusations. I undertand that it is easy to look over posts and you obviously have not read the posts from Chazak that I responded to. My post was not directed to anyone except him. Here is his quote referring to Paul the Apostle:

[quote=ChazakEmunah;39410228]Yep, an apostate Hellenist wrote more than half of the NT. That was reason enough for me to reject it completely.



Also read his comments in post #36 posted today.

So please tell me what have I said or insinuated that has "poisoned the well"? I havent spoken with anyone else on this forum that agrees with his statement, most I am aware of disagree.
Joey

[muffler dragon]

Please stop with the accusations. I undertand that it is easy to look over posts and you obviously have not read the posts from Chazak that I responded to. My post was not directed to anyone except him.

1) I've read the entire thread.
2) I'm not making an "accusation". I'm making a blunt observation. You haven't presented one iota of substantiation to your opinions and point of view.

Here is his quote referring to Paul the Apostle:



Also read his comments in post #36 posted today.

I find there to be absolutely nothing wrong with what Chazak has presented. Of course, this is in part due to my agreement. There is much reason as to why a person, with a Judaic perspective, would view Paul as an apostate and to reject the Christian testament on Paul's account. If you really want to discuss this; then let me know. Up to this point, it has appeared that you don't want to get into details.

So please tell me what have I said or insinuated that has "poisoned the well"? I havent spoken with anyone else on this forum that agrees with his statement, most I am aware of disagree.
Joey

When you stated that Chazak didn't have a "leg to stand on", I presumed that you meant theologically. If this is the case; then you're attempt at poisoning the well comes from your title or supposed theological education.

Here is an excerpt regarding "Poisoning the Well".

Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Tell me exactly how your no "leg to stand on" doesn't fit this description.

Lastly, do you have any interest in addressing the other points I raised to you in my post?

[visionary]

Pastor Joey.. word of advise... you can not argue from christian perspective,... hasn't worked in 2000 years. Approach this from the hebrew perspective as Yeshua did and the rest of the disciples and you will have better luck... Remember they only used OT for scripture.

[ChazakEmunah]

Pastor Joey.. word of advise... you can not argue from christian perspective,... hasn't worked in 2000 years. Approach this from the hebrew perspective as Yeshua did and the rest of the disciples and you will have better luck... Remember they only used OT for scripture.
Yet another reason why I ultimately rejected the NT.. but now I'm de-railing my own thread.... ;)

[Steve Petersen]

There are scholars that sees Paul in completely the opposite light than the thread title suggests.

Brad Young: Paul the Jewish Theologian

Mark Nanos: The Irony of Galatians; The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context. Nanos is Jewish.

Chazak, you are the author of this thread. Perhaps you could give specific verses that concern you. Then we can talk about them.

[PastorJoey]

1) I've read the entire thread.
2) I'm not making an "accusation". I'm making a blunt observation. You haven't presented one iota of substantiation to your opinions and point of view.
Forgive me for my misunderstanding. I assumed you thought I was "poisoning the well" by falsly accusing Cheezsak of denouncing Pauls writtings and discrediting the NT. However now
I see you fully agree with him. You are right I havent theologically tried to prove Paul's inspiration, neither do I care to. My post of "caution" to him was not an attempt to debate the matter. I assumed that everyone in this forum was Christian Messianics and surprised to find out otherwise.


I find there to be absolutely nothing wrong with what Chazak has presented. Of course, this is in part due to my agreement. There is much reason as to why a person, with a Judaic perspective, would view Paul as an apostate and to reject the Christian testament on Paul's account. If you really want to discuss this; then let me know. Up to this point, it has appeared that you don't want to get into details.

I dont have the time or the care. You just go right on earning your way into a share of the Heavenly kingdom. I'll enter in by Grace alone.

When you stated that Chazak didn't have a "leg to stand on", I presumed that you meant theologically. If this is the case; then you're attempt at poisoning the well comes from your title or supposed theological education.

Here is an excerpt regarding "Poisoning the Well".

Tell me exactly how your no "leg to stand on" doesn't fit this description.
Again it was just a word of caution. I was surprised to see Orthodox Judiasm in here and it didnt sink in that that was what I was facing before I posted. If Messiah comes in our life time, which I believe will be His second coming, then the church age will come to an end and Daniels 70th week will pick back up from where it left off and the Jewish nation will accept Christ as a whole. They will single handedly evangelize the world during the tribulation period. What an honor!
Lastly, do you have any interest in addressing the other points I raised to you in my post?
Respectfully no I dont, but please next time let Chazak fight his battles, hes a big boy.;)

[PastorJoey]

Pastor Joey.. word of advise... you can not argue from christian perspective,... hasn't worked in 2000 years. Approach this from the hebrew perspective as Yeshua did and the rest of the disciples and you will have better luck... Remember they only used OT for scripture.
Thank you for the advice and wisdom, but I am not touching this. Its not what I am here for.

[PastorJoey]

There is are scholars that sees Paul in completely the opposite light than the thread title suggests.

Brad Young: Paul the Jewish Theologian

Mark Nanos: The Irony of Galatians; The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context. Nanos is Jewish.

Chazak, you are the author of this thread. Perhaps you could give specific verses that concern you. Then we can talk about them.
Now I may be interested in this. The burden of proof is always on the OP.

[muffler dragon]

Brad Young: Paul the Jewish Theologian

I owned this one, and I found the scholarship to be skewed by his Christian beliefs.

[muffler dragon]

Respectfully no I dont, but please next time let Chazak fight his battles, hes a big boy.;)

Very few of my points had anything to do with Chazak. If you're not here to debate/discuss different points of view; then what, praytell, is your purpose here?

[muffler dragon]

Now I may be interested in this. The burden of proof is always on the OP.

And when proof is presented, what are you going to do then? Revert to your context argument that you haven't substantiated? Just tell us we don't have a leg to stand upon? Or actually enter into a substantiated argument?

[Steve Petersen]

As to Paul being a Hellenist, we have evidence from the NT that he was a pupil of Gamaliel the Elder. We have evidence from the Talmud that the school of his son Simeon specifically taught some students Hellenism in order to deal with the government:

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

[muffler dragon]

As to Paul being a Hellenist, we have evidence from the NT that he was a pupil of Gamaliel the Elder.

We are also led to believe that he grew up in Tarsus, which was the western capital of Mithraism.

Considering there is no Jewish reference that Paul was ever a Rabbi (let alone a student of Gamaliel), I would say that we can call this claim spurious on two accounts:

1) His actions follow the Sadducean way before his supposed conversion.
2) His words rarely (if ever) mirror Pharisaic thought.

We have evidence from the Talmud that the school of his son Simeon specifically taught some students Hellenism in order to deal with the government:

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

There is a difference between studying and becoming. Studiers don't always voice agreement or spread the message that they are studying. Oftentimes, studying is for investigation for disagreement; not for acceptance. Whereas, converts (those who are becoming or have become) are adherents to that which was studying and promote it in word and deed. Paul promoted Hellenism in his words. Show me where Hillel's students were told to promote Hellenism and you might have an argument.

[Steve Petersen]

Considering there is no Jewish reference that Paul was ever a Rabbi (let alone a student of Gamaliel), I would say that we can call this claim spurious on two accounts:

1) His actions follow the Sadducean way before his supposed conversion.
2) His words rarely (if ever) mirror Pharisaic thought.

There is no Jewish reference that Philo of Alexandria ever existed as far as I know. Yet we know he did by his writings. He is not considered and apostate. His use of Hellenist concepts is as heavy as Paul's and more. What sect would Philo belong to? Pharisees or Sadducees?

Paul's work among Gentiles in the Hellenic world required that he use Hellenistic forms of discussion and reasoning to persuade them ('all things to all men.') That doesn't me he became a Hellenist in practice. In fact in the only existing accounts of Paul's life we find him participating in Temple life. His own testimony before Festus was that he never offended against the Temple, the Law or Caesar.

I don't think you can ignore Hellenistic influences on Judaism either.

[muffler dragon]

There is no Jewish reference that Philo of Alexandria ever existed as far as I know.

Red herring. I haven't made a statement about Paul's existence.

Yet we know he did by his writings. He is not considered and apostate. His use of Hellenist concepts is as heavy as Paul's and more. What sect would Philo belong to? Pharisees or Sadducees?

Yet again, a red herring. Philo didn't start a new religion. ;)

Paul's work among Gentiles in the Hellenic world required that he use Hellenistic forms of discussion and reasoning to persuade them ('all things to all men.') That doesn't me he became a Hellenist in practice. In fact in the only existing accounts of Paul's life we find him participating in Temple life. His own testimony before Festus was that he never offended against the Temple, the Law or Caesar.

I don't think you can ignore Hellenistic influences on Judaism either.

Thank you for completely NOT addressing the two points that you quoted me on. Makes my lack of a response all the easier.

[Steve Petersen]

Red herring. I haven't made a statement about Paul's existence.

Not a red herring. Because Jewish sources do not mention Paul being a rabbi does not mean that he was not, just as the lack of Jewish sources on Philo does not mean that he did not exist.



Yet again, a red herring. Philo didn't start a new religion. ;)


Neither did Paul. That is your perception. ;)

Thank you for completely NOT addressing the two points that you quoted me on. Makes my lack of a response all the easier. Your lack of civility as well I see.:sigh:

[muffler dragon]

Not a red herring. Because Jewish sources do not mention Paul being a rabbi does not mean that he was not, just as the lack of Jewish sources on Philo does not mean that he did not exist.

Steve:

Christian sources don't even call Paul a Rabbi nor Sage. It's only his pen.

Neither did Paul. That is your perception. ;)

The tenets of Christianity come predominantly from the Pauline Epistles. It's not a perception. Without Paul, Christianity would not have been birthed.

Your lack of civility as well I see.:sigh:

And your lack of attention is astounding. How you can get irritated with me when you didn't even address my points about Paul's Sadducean tendencies in word and aciton is amazing (and to be honest, quite telling).

[Steve Petersen]

Steve:

Christian sources don't even call Paul a Rabbi nor Sage. It's only his pen.

Why is Paul's autobiography less credible than any other historical figure's?

The tenets of Christianity come predominantly from the Pauline Epistles. It's not a perception. Without Paul, Christianity would not have been birthed.

Can I help it if later Church fathers misread Paul? Even in his own day people were twisting his words, according to Peter. Because the Church became a certain entity does not mean that was Paul's intention.

How you can get irritated with me when you didn't even address my points about Paul's Sadducean tendencies in word and aciton is amazing (and to be honest, quite telling).

Because you merely asserted it. You gave no evidence.

[muffler dragon]

Why is Paul's autobiography less credible than any other historical figure's?

Because of the very points I presented. Paul's words and actions betray his very hope to be a Pharisee.

Can I help it if later Church fathers misread Paul? Even in his own day people were twisting his words, according to Peter. Because the Church became a certain entity does not mean that was Paul's intention.

This is a circular argument as it's impossible to determine who can understand Paul and who can't.

Because you merely asserted it. You gave no evidence.

Action: he carried letters written by the Sadducean High Priest to imprison Jews. Thus, he was in the employ of the High Priest. A Pharisee would NEVER do this.
Words: Paul disparages the Oral Torah throughout his letters. A Pharisee would NEVER do this.

Evidence given.

[Steve Petersen]

Action: he carried letters written by the Sadducean High Priest to imprison Jews. Thus, he was in the employ of the High Priest. A Pharisee would NEVER do this.
Words: Paul disparages the Oral Torah throughout his letters. A Pharisee would NEVER do this.

Evidence given.


Is that it? Perhaps you could point us to other scholars who hold that Paul was a Sadducee.

[muffler dragon]

Is that it? Perhaps you could point us to other scholars who hold that Paul was a Sadducee.

Steve:

Stop jumping to conclusions. I never said Paul was a Sadducee. I said that he had Sadducean tendencies which would thus preclude him from being a Pharisee (let alone a student of Gamaliel).

A student of Gamaliel would NEVER work for the Sadducean High Priest nor would a student of Gamaliel disparage the Oral Torah. I would concentrate on attempting to rebut/refute these two points before you starting asking, "Is that it?"

[PastorJoey]

Pastor Joey.. word of advise... you can not argue from christian perspective,... hasn't worked in 2000 years. Approach this from the hebrew perspective as Yeshua did and the rest of the disciples and you will have better luck... Remember they only used OT for scripture.

I would like to comment on something else that your post reminded me of concerning Yeshua and the disciples use of the OT when appealing to Jews:

The New Testament scriptures tell us that...
Jas 4:6 KJV
(6) But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

James was quoting from the OT...

Pro 3:34 KJV
(34) Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly.

Point being: Yeshua didnt go about trying to convince the proud and hard hearted that He was the Messiah. Neither did the disciples.

He also said in,
Mat 7:6 KJV

(6) Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Jesus was referencing this same book in the OT scriptures...

Pro 9:7-9 KJV
(7) He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.
(8) Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
(9) Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

What was Yeshua's response to the proud in heart?

Mat 15:14 KJV
(14) Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Mat 23:24 KJV
(24) Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

[muffler dragon]

Rotflmaool!

[ChazakEmunah]

There are scholars that sees Paul in completely the opposite light than the thread title suggests.

Brad Young: Paul the Jewish Theologian

Mark Nanos: The Irony of Galatians; The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context. Nanos is Jewish.

Chazak, you are the author of this thread. Perhaps you could give specific verses that concern you. Then we can talk about them.
Verses? I'm talking whole books here. Tell you what. Let me gather everything together and then I'll come back and make a lengthy post. Cool?

[ChazakEmunah]

As to Paul being a Hellenist, we have evidence from the NT that he was a pupil of Gamaliel the Elder.
Let's look at some additional facts:
1) Hellenists were opposed to the Oral Torah
2) The Sadducees were Hellenists, as they opposed the Oral Torah
3) Paul worked for the worst of all the Sadducees, the Kohen haResha
4) Paul's letters indicate time and time again that he opposed the Oral Torah

Conclusion: Paul was a Hellenist.

Historical sources testify that the Pharisees and Sadducees violently opposed one another. Namely, as the Sadducees were in bed with the Romans, they were the ones killing off the Pharisaic opposition. No Pharisee in his right mind would have worked for, much less co-operated with, the Kohen haResha.


We have evidence from the Talmud that the school of his son Simeon specifically taught some students Hellenism in order to deal with the government:

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

[muffler dragon]

Let's look at some additional facts:
1) Hellenists were opposed to the Oral Torah
2) The Sadducees were Hellenists, as they opposed the Oral Torah
3) Paul worked for the worst of all the Sadducees, the Kohen haResha
4) Paul's letters indicate time and time again that he opposed the Oral Torah

Conclusion: Paul was a Hellenist.

Historical sources testify that the Pharisees and Sadducees violently opposed one another. Namely, as the Sadducees were in bed with the Romans, they were the ones killing off the Pharisaic opposition. No Pharisee in his right mind would have worked for, much less co-operated with, the Kohen haResha.



I understand that. But it is one thing to learn something so that you can know your opponent better. It is another thing altogether to completely adopt those teachings.

Clear. Concise. And I completely agree. :thumbsup:

[ChazakEmunah]

Why is Paul's autobiography less credible than any other historical figure's?
There is no indication in any of his writings (or those of Luke) that he was ever called a Rabbi. This doesn't go against his credibility, it just goes to show that he likely never received s'mikha.

Can I help it if later Church fathers misread Paul? Even in his own day people were twisting his words, according to Peter.
No, it's not your fault if they mis-interpreted him. But I really don't think they mis-interpreted him. Historical records, passed down through Acts and later as written by Hegesippus and Eusebius, state that most people believed he was anti-Oral Torah. For goodness sakes, the Netzarim Beit Din called him to Yerushalayim TWICE to account for his actions. This alone proves that this was no minor issue. To be called to account before a Beit Din once is bad enough, but if a person is called more than once, it is indicative of a problem.

Because the Church became a certain entity does not mean that was Paul's intention.
I can't say whether he intended it or not. However, that is what happened as a direct result of his actions.

[HaNotsri]

My personal opinion is that Paul wrote and spoke to gentiles in a way that they could understand. Of course, he didn't want to make it burdensome for those gentiles to join the faithful which is why He spoke against Jewish proselytizers (even though it's forbidden nowadays, there is a well documented history of Jewish proselytization and even forced conversions in ancient times) among the Christians stating the gentiles had to have a bris and be shomer mitsvos. I think a big part of Paul's writing is context, especially the "Who is Paul talking too..." context.

Michael

[muffler dragon]

My personal opinion is that Paul wrote and spoke to gentiles in a way that they could understand.

Quite possibly. However, from his very own mouth, he became all things to all men. This leads to a duplicitous form of existence for a supposedly Torah-observant Pharisee.

Of course, he didn't want to make it burdensome for those gentiles to join the faithful which is why He spoke against Jewish proselytizers (even though it's forbidden nowadays, there is a well documented history of Jewish proselytization and even forced conversions in ancient times) among the Christians stating the gentiles had to have a bris and be shomer mitsvos. I think a big part of Paul's writing is context, especially the "Who is Paul talking too..." context.

Michael

I agree that Paul's writing could include a contextual issue; however, this doesn't overcome his staunch anti-Oral Torah presentation (which is what the OP is initially discussing) which undermines any supposed pro-Torah presentation that Paul attempts to explain.

[HaNotsri]

I agree that Paul's writing [u]could[u] include a contextual issue; however, this doesn't overcome his staunch anti-Oral Torah presentation (which is what the OP is initially discussing) which undermines any supposed pro-Torah presentation that Paul attempts to explain.

I should read the OP from now on. I just saw the title

[ChazakEmunah]

I should read the OP from now on. I just saw the title
No worries. ;)

[muffler dragon]

I should read the OP from now on. I just saw the title

I wasn't coming down on you. Just bringing it back full circle to the OP.

[simchat_torah]

I've got no will to argue in this debate, so I'll merely make a statement. You can refute if you wish, but I most likely won't defend my position beyond making my initial statement.


I agree with Steve. Paul was not anti-Torah. The problem is that we are attempting to read his writings with a perspective of 20th century, horrendous translations, and little understanding of 1st century Judaism.

The main point of contention comes from Galations. Galations was a book heavily embedded in Essene language. Paul argued heavily against the Qumranic community, as is evidenced in Hebrews (where he railed against those who refused Temple participation) and Galations was a general rebuttal against Essene teachings. It had nothing to do with the Torah as interpretted by Christian scholars of today. We know this to be true as Paul used MANY Jewish idioms that were soley used by Essene groups scattered in the diaspora and in Qumran. We can especailly see this with the phrase works of the law [ergon nomou]. Paul's use of Hillel's style, his references to the Talmud, his advocating the applicaiton of Torah as a daily lifestyle, etc... all of these things point away from an anti-torah paul.

When taking this mindset under consideration, no where can an anti-torah stance be found within Paul's writings. In fact, he is often an advocate of more than just the written Torah, but the Oral law as well.

I will say, however, that the Paul that is painted by the church today is quite heavily anti-torah. IT is this Paul that I will agree has done much to create what we see as Christianity today. But this paul was not the historic paul that existed 2k years ago.

I may choose to provide more support for my perspective later, but I have little interest in debating the topic :)
I thought I would just cheat a little and toss out a statement which I will kindly bow out of defending. ;)

peace,
Yafet

[muffler dragon]

Paul argued heavily against the Qumranic community, as is evidenced in Hebrews (where he railed against those who refused Temple participation)

Since you don't want to debate, I'll just make one comment.

Personally, if you think Paul was the author of Hebrews; then I can't help but think that Paul was the dumbest Jewish eisegist in the world. The slaughtering of textual context coupled with gnostic ideas is astounding to me in that book. But alas, a topic for a different time and place and people. :D

[simchat_torah]

Personally, if you think Paul was the author of Hebrews; then I can't help but think that Paul was the dumbest Jewish eisegist in the world. The slaughtering of textual context coupled with gnostic ideas is astounding to me in that book. But alas, a topic for a different time and place and people.Hebrews is commentary on Psalms 110, following quite strictly the 7 rules of Hillel (is it any surprise? He was trained by Gameliel after all).

Part of the cynical nature many Messianics have treated the book of Hebrews with comes from a lack of understanding regarding Hillel's 7 rules.

But we could discuss this in another place if you wish ;)

[ChazakEmunah]

Hebrews is commentary on Psalms 110, following quite strictly the 7 rules of Hillel (is it any surprise? He was trained by Gameliel after all).

Part of the cynical nature many Messianics have treated the book of Hebrews with comes from a lack of understanding regarding Hillel's 7 rules.

But we could discuss this in another place if you wish ;)
Hmm... You were quite involved with James Trimm's group huh? They were very into defending Paul by this same argument.

[simchat_torah]

Hmm... You were quite involved with James Trimm's group huh? They were very into defending Paul by this same argument.Nope. This scholarship started with John Lightfoot in the 1600's, and still continues today in Princeton and Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

James Trimm is a master at stealing other people's ideas and labeling them as his own.

[ChazakEmunah]

Nope. This scholarship started with John Lightfoot in the 1600's, and still continues today in Princeton and Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Very interesting. I did not know that.

James Trimm is a master at stealing other people's ideas and labeling them as his own.
This I know all too well. We actually left his group a few years ago after I saw first-hand the mis-management of his "Bibles." Though I later found out that most of his "new" ideas were really "borrowed" ones.

[HaNotsri]

James Trimm is a deceiver and a liar

[ChazakEmunah]

James Trimm is a deceiver and a liar
You won't find me in disagreement there.

[simchat_torah]

James Trimm is a deceiver and a liar
From my experiences.... That's putting it lightly.

after I saw first-hand the mis-management of his "Bibles." For the record, they were not "his" translations. The HRV is plagiarism at the highest degree. While some may enjoy the translation, it is not his.

(This isn't even touching upon his degree mill doctorates, the FBI fraud investigations, the stolen moneis, etc.)

[Steve Petersen]

I agree with Steve. Paul was not anti-Torah. The problem is that we are attempting to read his writings with a perspective of 20th century, horrendous translations, and little understanding of 1st century Judaism.


Thud.....(the sound of me falling to the floor)

[Steve Petersen]

Let's look at some additional facts:
1) Hellenists were opposed to the Oral Torah
2) The Sadducees were Hellenists, as they opposed the Oral Torah
3) Paul worked for the worst of all the Sadducees, the Kohen haResha
4) Paul's letters indicate time and time again that he opposed the Oral Torah

Hillel and Shammai often differed over Oral Torah. Both were Pharisees. Are you rather saying that Paul opposed some legal rulings of the Sanhedrin derived from Oral Torah?

The Essenes were so disgusted with the Pharisees Oral Torah that they split the scene altogether. They called the Pharisees 'seekers after smooth things.'

None of these groups are considered outside Judaism of its day, but as sects of Judaism.

I think it would be useful to explore the actual extent of halakah in the late Second Temple period. How much was actually established by this time? That is another thread.

As far as Paul's cooperation with the chief priests: the fact that he would cross party lines demonstrates the depths of Paul's hatred for followers of Jesus. He himself acknowleges the depth of that hatred.

Acts 26:10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.
11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

I don't think this makes him duplicitous. At one time he hated them, after his conversion he did not.

[simchat_torah]

Thud.....(the sound of me falling to the floor)Before your recent posts lately, I almost always agreed with you ;)

Have most always enjoyed your posts and presence on the forums.

[Steve Petersen]

Before your recent posts lately, I almost always agreed with you ;)

Have most always enjoyed your posts and presence on the forums.


The feeling is mutual.

It is nearly impossible to 'connect' with a person in this type of venue. There aren't enough smilies to reflect a persons frame of mind when posting.

[simchat_torah]

Also to note: simply because I disagree, or even take a strong stance against a particular post, does not indicate that I despise someone ;)

Opposing a particular post does not indicate my "liking" of someone. Merely my disagreement with what they have to say at the time.

In fact, the vast majority of what you've posted on this forum I've appreciated. I've appreciated the sensible nature and reasonable discussions you provide.

[Steve Petersen]

Again, this is not aimed at you, but religious people in general. Why can't we use more words like 'maybe', 'possibly', 'perhaps', 'in my opinion', 'seems' etc.

So many sentences are stark declaratives, as if there is no room for disagreement. We have all been wrong about something at one time or another. We are all learning if our minds are open.

[debi b]

How many people think Paul was in opposition to Torah?


not me ;)

[visionary]

me neither.

[PastorJoey]

Not I:thumbsup:

[A_Pioneer]

Not me!

Shalom

[LadyGarnetRose]

I think a quick passing view at what Paul has written can be wrongly interpreted as an objection to Torah.

Which is the major problem I have with Paul. He wrote mostly for Hebrews. Then you have all these Gentiles interpreting what he said hundreds/thousands of years after the fact...

[debi b]

In addition to that - I see no Torah foundation in their understanding for scripture in general. If you try to use the NT to define itself you come to very different conclusions IMO.

When Paul was talking to Felix
Acts 24:14
...according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the Elohim (God) of our fathers, BELIEVING ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN THE TORAH AND THE PROPHETS.

Acts 24:25
...he reasoned about righteousness, self-control and the judgement to come...

When he was talking to Agippa
Acts 26:20
...decalred...that they should repent, turn to Elohim, and do works befitting repentance.

Acts 17:31
because He (Elohim) has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness...

[Steve Petersen]

The origanal poster has the burden of proof. As yet there have been no specific passages cited to show Paul's supposed opposition to the Torah, just generalizations.

It has also been alleged that Paul was opposed to the Oral Torah. In another thread The Rabbi has pointed out that only passages in the Mishnah where the phrase 'but the sages say' can be considered legal rulings by the Sanhedrin. If you can show that Paul urged people to violate one of these rulings then you can say that Paul was against the Oral Law. Otherwise his opposition to traditions has to fall into the category of sectarian differences. There was disagreement between schools of the Pharisees regarding tradition, but this did not make them opponents of the Oral Law.

[ChazakEmunah]

In addition to that - I see no Torah foundation in their understanding for scripture in general. If you try to use the NT to define itself you come to very different conclusions IMO.
This could fall under another topic, but it is an accurate assessment. The words and testimony of Paul not only contradict himself, but also contradict the teachings of R. Y'hoshua and the Netzarim Dayanim.


When Paul was talking to Felix
Acts 24:14
...according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the Elohim (God) of our fathers, BELIEVING ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN THE TORAH AND THE PROPHETS.

Acts 24:25
...he reasoned about righteousness, self-control and the judgement to come...

When he was talking to Agippa
Acts 26:20
...decalred...that they should repent, turn to Elohim, and do works befitting repentance.

Acts 17:31
because He (Elohim) has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness...
Now contrast these statements with his letters. Either he was for the Torah or against it. Which was it?

[ChazakEmunah]

The original poster has the burden of proof. As yet there have been no specific passages cited to show Paul's supposed opposition to the Torah, just generalizations.
I'm workin on it. Give me some time... Sheesh... ;) Maybe I'll get a chance to put something together over the weekend.


It has also been alleged that Paul was opposed to the Oral Torah. In another thread The Rabbi has pointed out that only passages in the Mishnah where the phrase 'but the sages say' can be considered legal rulings by the Sanhedrin. If you can show that Paul urged people to violate one of these rulings then you can say that Paul was against the Oral Law. Otherwise his opposition to traditions has to fall into the category of sectarian differences. There was disagreement between schools of the Pharisees regarding tradition, but this did not make them opponents of the Oral Law.
Sorry, but he has yet to prove that he is actually a Rabbi. Until that point in time, he is just another poster whose words I take with a grain of salt.


Getting back to the specific passages thing for a sec... I posted earlier on that there are whole books (ostensibly written by his own hand) that speak in opposition to the Torah. How about Galatians for starters?

[Steve Petersen]

... I posted earlier on that there are whole books (ostensibly written by his own hand) that speak in opposition to the Torah. How about Galatians for starters?

Begin in Galatians 1. What there supports your position?

[ChazakEmunah]

Begin in Galatians 1. What there supports your position?
There are a lot of subtle problems with Ch.1, but nothing overt, so let's move on to Ch. 2.

We see in Ch. 2, Paul writes about his chutzpah in PUBLICLY rebuking one of the Netzarim Dayanim, Shimon. And as a result, several things are revealed.

Let's start with line 16:
"because we know that a man is not made just by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus the Messiah; even we have believed in Jesus the Messiah, in order to be made just by faith in the Messiah, and not by the works of the law: for, by the deeds of the law, no flesh is made just." [Murdock Translation]

Immediately I see several problems with this statement.

1)Paul's claim that a person's faith is NOT justified by observing the Torah.
- This contradicts the entire Tanakh. {See Tehillim 119 for a good example}

2) Paul's claim that a person's faith IS justified by faith in Je*us.
- Again, this is contradictory to Judaism. Judaism teaches that a person is only justified by observing the Torah, not by believing in another created being.


Now let's look at line 17:
"For I, by the law, have become dead to the law, that I might live to God; and I am crucified with the Messiah. "

Hmm... Something's not right here. Why would any shomer-Torah Jew say that they are "dead to the Torah" when such a statement is contradictory to the Tanakh? ... Answer: THEY WOULDN'T!

So, let's move on to line 21and then I'll pick this back up tomorrow if I get a chance (if not, maybe after Shabbos).

21" I do not spurn the grace of God. For if righteousness is by means of the law, the Messiah died in vain."

"If righteousness is by means of the law..."? No shomer-Torah Jew would ever, ever say that righteousness does not come from observance of the Torah especially when it is very clear in the Tanakh that righteousness IS imparted by observing the Torah.

[muffler dragon]

I think a quick passing view at what Paul has written can be wrongly interpreted as an objection to Torah.

Begs the question of who can "rightly" interpret* Paul?

*Please refrain from any Holy Spirit speak.

Which is the major problem I have with Paul. He wrote mostly for Hebrews. Then you have all these Gentiles interpreting what he said hundreds/thousands of years after the fact...

What makes you think he wrote for "mostly Hebrews"?

[simchat_torah]

I'm workin on it. Give me some time... Sheesh...No offense Chazzak, but Steve is right... it has been 10 pages already and nothing but generalizations presented so far.

Sorry, but he has yet to prove that he is actually a Rabbi. Until that point in time, he is just another poster whose words I take with a grain of salt.
Having been fully immersed in MJ'ism in my past, I was his harshest critic. I would say either you believe him or you don't at this point. To continue baselessly toss off what he says for nothing...???

contradict the teachings of R. Y'hoshua and the Netzarim Dayanim.Yes Yes.... blah blah blah... more baseless generalizations. Please bring some meat to the table to discuss.

I'm not even really here in this thread to debate, but 10 pages and all you can do is continue generalizing??? Nothing to present so far? This is the debate section, I was hoping for some actual healthy debate.

[muffler dragon]

No offense Chazzak, but Steve is right... it has been 10 pages already and nothing but generalizations presented so far.

Having been fully immersed in MJ'ism in my past, I was his harshest critic. I would say either you believe him or you don't at this point. To continue baselessly toss off what he says for nothing...???

Yes Yes.... blah blah blah... more baseless generalizations. Please bring some meat to the table to discuss.

I'm not even really here in this thread to debate, but 10 pages and all you can do is continue generalizing??? Nothing to present so far? This is the debate section, I was hoping for some actual healthy debate.

Dang gone. Did some use your Cheerios as litter this morning? :P

j/k

[ChazakEmunah]

No offense Chazzak, but Steve is right... it has been 10 pages already and nothing but generalizations presented so far.
And for some apparent reason you didn't read post #95...

Having been fully immersed in MJ'ism in my past, I was his harshest critic. I would say either you believe him or you don't at this point. To continue baselessly toss off what he says for nothing...???
I guess I just don't believe him. He claims to be an Orthodox Rabbi yet refuses to show proof. Add that to the fact that many of his statements here just seem a bit odd.... for an Orthodox Rabbi.

Yes Yes.... blah blah blah... more baseless generalizations. Please bring some meat to the table to discuss.
Read post #95, then get back to me.

I'm not even really here in this thread to debate, but 10 pages and all you can do is continue generalizing??? Nothing to present so far? This is the debate section, I was hoping for some actual healthy debate.
And yet you still haven't read post #95. Oh yeah, that's just the tip of the iceberg my friend. Paul's own writings betray him and I have now shown proof.

Where is the proof that he wasn't opposed to the Torah?? You say he was only refuting the Essenes, and I say that it sounds good and all... but I don't buy into it. No one, so far has been able to prove that he was not in opposition to the Torah. If he were shomer-Torah, then there would be proof. As it stands, all that's been proven is that he pretended to be {Acts 22:3} in order to win converts to his new religion. {I Cor. 9:20}

[simchat_torah]

My bad... 95 posts and 10 pages later, you do provide a sliver of meat for the discussion.


Seriously bro, nothin against you, I like you a lot, but I'm dying to see something of substance. If there's something to sway my opinion, I'm honest to goodness dying to see it. So far, I have seen lots of people who make the same claims you do, but never any substantial evidence. In fact, Paul goes to great lengths to proclaim his Rabbinical heritage, and no where in the texts is this questioned.

As far as Galations, on a whole level, I have yet to see anything to refute the theory that Paul was addressing an Essene community. Never have I seen this refuted, the theory seems to stand on solid ground in my eyes. Addressing anything other than Galations would be beneficial, or providing some other perspective for Galations itself would be nice. But so far, I see Galations as a very intricate theological work opposing the Essenic tradition.


C'mon now. I know that if you believe so strongly that Paul was so against the Torah you surely have something of substance to provide. I would seriously love to see it...

Really, I would.
-Yafet

[Steve Petersen]

Where is the proof that he wasn't opposed to the Torah?? ... No one, so far has been able to prove that he was not in opposition to the Torah.

You started this thread with the thesis that Paul was against the Torah, Oral and Written. The onus is on you to demonstrate that thesis. You can't throw it back to us and say 'prove that he wasn't.' How do you prove a negative?


If he were shomer-Torah, then there would be proof.

If he is living the status quo more or less, it probably would be assumed he was shomer Torah so it wouldn't get coverage.

I would think that if he weren't shomer-Torah his enemies would have proclaimed it loud and long. Yet as some have pointed out, Jewish sources are completely silent about him.

[simchat_torah]

How do you prove a negative?Exactly. Not 10 pages of general unsubstantiated claims.

If such "proof" exists, especially by Paul's own hand, I'd love to see it addressed. It might actually change my concept of his role in defining Christianity as it came to be. But so far, I'm quite convinced he was Jewish to his very core, and fully immersed in the Torah... as clearly evidenced in his writings and what others wrote about him.

I have seen a complete lack of understanding regarding Paul by later generations (ideas espoused by Christian theologians, defining "pauline theology"), interpretting him as some anti-Torah crusader, but I see nothing to support this. I see Paul as someone who very closely used the 7 rules of Hillel, expounded on theology similar to Gameliel, and proclaimed himself to be a Pharisee among Pharisees.

Of course, being a Jew I can completely dismiss his writings as they are not necessary to my faith, but that doesn't negate his own Jewish expression. He simply followed the Netzarim expression of Judaism. I personally have no relation or attachment to the Netzarim way in my life today.

[Steve Petersen]

Maybe it would be better to go back and try to lay some background for Galatians. Before we can get a good handle on Paul we should do the best we can to reconstruct the historical/cultural context of his letter to the Galatians.

Judaism was very popular amongst the Gentiles of Asia Minor long before Paul showed up:

From the Encyclopaedia Judaica article titled Asia Minor: Jewish customs became popular throughout the towns of Asia Minor. Josephus reports that the kindling of Sabbath lights was customary among Gentiles. Many attended synagogues on Sabbaths and festivals. A movement of worshipers of the Supreme God, “God fearers” (sebomenoi, foboumenoi) was very popular throughout Asia Minor, and many groups of pagans practiced the cult of the “Supreme God” without renouncing their own religions. The fact that Jews were also conspicuously active in municipal government attests to their firm economic and social standing in Asia Minor.

Imagine a synagogue in the Diaspora. It would have natural Jews, converts (Sons of Abraham), and God-fearers in it. Paul comes along and preaches there, and some of all three of these groups become believers in Yeshua. This synagogue now has six factions. Later Paul writes to these synagogues after hearing of some troubles. What are the issues and for whom? How many of these groups is Paul addressing? What is the controversy? To compound this, you might find any of these groups with Hellenist, Essene, Hillelite, Shammaite, Herodian or other sympathies. Synagogues in the Diaspora were also sometimes for certain classes of Jewish society such as various guilds, and also freedmen.

Acts 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.


I hope you can see that there are MANY issues that could affect how Paul is to be read. We are forced to sift through his letters for clues on the issues being addresed but then we have to lay those clues against the extra-biblical situation.

[ChazakEmunah]

My bad... 95 posts and 10 pages later, you do provide a sliver of meat for the discussion.
Hey, I didn't create this topic in the first place... Another mod did in response to a statement I made in another thread. And sorry for not posting anything sooner, but life tends to get in the way sometimes.

As far as Galations, on a whole level, I have yet to see anything to refute the theory that Paul was addressing an Essene community. Never have I seen this refuted, the theory seems to stand on solid ground in my eyes. Addressing anything other than Galations would be beneficial, or providing some other perspective for Galations itself would be nice. But so far, I see Galations as a very intricate theological work opposing the Essenic tradition.
I would be curious to know how you arrived at this conclusion. In the very chapter I posted about, he was addressing Shimon Kefa, a NETZARI Dayan... Not an Essene. If he had never addressed Shimon, I might be inclined to think in that direction, but he did. But, as there is still some doubt; in order to further build my case, I will post more of Paul's statements from other books.

C'mon now. I know that if you believe so strongly that Paul was so against the Torah you surely have something of substance to provide. I would seriously love to see it...

Really, I would.
-Yafet
Wait a sec, so those three references contain no substantial proof? Oh well. I can be patient. Paul makes his own case. Like I said, I'll post some references from his other books.

[LadyGarnetRose]

Begs the question of who can "rightly" interpret* Paul?

*Please refrain from any Holy Spirit speak.


Those who actually read the Tanakh. What I mean by this. If you sit, and study the Tanakh, and then read Paul, he makes a lot more sense. Much of HOW he wrote becomes clearer.




What makes you think he wrote for "mostly Hebrews"?

How he wrote. There is a very great amount of sarcasm within his writing, a great amount of Hebraic poetry and culture.

[mpossoff]

Those who actually read the Tanakh. What I mean by this. If you sit, and study the Tanakh, and then read Paul, he makes a lot more sense. Much of HOW he wrote becomes clearer.



How he wrote. There is a very great amount of sarcasm within his writing, a great amount of Hebraic poetry and culture.

He sounds like a 'Rabbi', a Pharisee.

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

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

In other words if you have a difficutly understanding the Torah, Prophets and Writings or what people call the 'Old Testament' you will twist Paul as well as the Gospels and Hebrews. If you don’t understand the TaNaK you will twist Paul. People like Marciyon that you take that Paul’s words and throw that quote ‘old testament away’ you are going to have a perverted religion. In other words Paul must be understood in the context of the Torah, Prophets and Writings or he will be perverted. Paul doesn’t speak by himself. He quote’s the TaNaK again and again and again. His only authority that he ever claims is not even by revelation. The authority he claims is the authority of scripture. He claims his authority as coming from God and he claims it using scripture. Even his claim to be the Apostle to the Gentiles must be affirmed in his mind by the Jerusalem Council. He never claims to just take off on his own.


Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

He sounds like a 'Rabbi', a Pharisee.
What Rabbi would ever tell you that righteous is not imparted through observance of the mitzvot?

In other words if you have a difficutly understanding the Torah, Prophets and Writings or what people call the 'Old Testament' you will twist Paul as well as the Gospels and Hebrews. If you don’t understand the TaNaK you will twist Paul.
Take a step back and think about what you are suggesting for a moment here. What you are telling me is that you think that Rabbis Skobac, and Maccoby, as well as myself (though I am certainly not on their level) don't really understand the Tanakh. Is that what you are really trying to convey? That we are unlearned men? Do you have any idea how much learning a man must undertake in order to become an Orthodox Rabbi? Before a man can even apply for yeshiva he MUST be shomer-Torah, which in itself requires a vast amount of knowledge of Torah and halakha.

Paul doesn’t speak by himself. He quotes the TaNaK again and again and again.
Not entirely true. He was quite fond of quoting the Greek Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew Tanakh.

[quote=mpossoff] His only authority that he ever claims is not even by revelation.
Sure it is. Haven't you read his account in Acts?

[mpossoff]

What Rabbi would ever tell you that righteous is not imparted through observance of the mitzvot?


Take a step back and think about what you are suggesting for a moment here. What you are telling me is that you think that Rabbis Skobac, and Maccoby, as well as myself (though I am certainly not on their level) don't really understand the Tanakh. Is that what you are really trying to convey? That we are unlearned men? Do you have any idea how much learning a man must undertake in order to become an Orthodox Rabbi? Before a man can even apply for yeshiva he MUST be shomer-Torah, which in itself requires a vast amount of knowledge of Torah and halakha.

[quote=mpossoff]Paul doesn’t speak by himself. He quotes the TaNaK again and again and again.
Not entirely true. He was quite fond of quoting the Greek Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew Tanakh.


Sure it is. Haven't you read his account in Acts?

Didn't Paul say that circimcision meant nothing but all that matters is keeping the Torah?

Marc

[mpossoff]

What Rabbi would ever tell you that righteous is not imparted through observance of the mitzvot?


Take a step back and think about what you are suggesting for a moment here. What you are telling me is that you think that Rabbis Skobac, and Maccoby, as well as myself (though I am certainly not on their level) don't really understand the Tanakh. Is that what you are really trying to convey? That we are unlearned men? Do you have any idea how much learning a man must undertake in order to become an Orthodox Rabbi? Before a man can even apply for yeshiva he MUST be shomer-Torah, which in itself requires a vast amount of knowledge of Torah and halakha.

[quote=mpossoff]Paul doesn’t speak by himself. He quotes the TaNaK again and again and again.
Not entirely true. He was quite fond of quoting the Greek Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew Tanakh.


Sure it is. Haven't you read his account in Acts?

Please read the entirety of what I posted.

Here's what you forgot to post and left out.

He claims his authority as coming from God and he claims it using scripture. Even his claim to be the Apostle to the Gentiles must be affirmed in his mind by the Jerusalem Council. He never claims to just take off on his own.

So do you out the Jerusalem Council in the same 'catagory' as Paul? That they claimed their own authority and claimed their own authority not by scripture? That Paul and the Council took off on their own with no regards to scripture to create a 'new religion'?

Marc

[mpossoff]

What Rabbi would ever tell you that righteous is not imparted through observance of the mitzvot?


Take a step back and think about what you are suggesting for a moment here. What you are telling me is that you think that Rabbis Skobac, and Maccoby, as well as myself (though I am certainly not on their level) don't really understand the Tanakh. Is that what you are really trying to convey? That we are unlearned men? Do you have any idea how much learning a man must undertake in order to become an Orthodox Rabbi? Before a man can even apply for yeshiva he MUST be shomer-Torah, which in itself requires a vast amount of knowledge of Torah and halakha.

[quote=mpossoff]Paul doesn’t speak by himself. He quotes the TaNaK again and again and again.
Not entirely true. He was quite fond of quoting the Greek Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew Tanakh.


Sure it is. Haven't you read his account in Acts?

What I'm saying is you don't understand Paul.

Marc

[GerTzedek]

It is dissengenuous if a person is composing a letter in Greek to insinuate they do not respect the Tenakh simply because they quote from the Septuagint. Honestly!!!!! That's like saying YOU don't respect the Tenakh because you post translations of it in English here in the forum!! What fallaceous reasoning.

[muffler dragon]

Those who actually read the Tanakh. What I mean by this. If you sit, and study the Tanakh, and then read Paul, he makes a lot more sense. Much of HOW he wrote becomes clearer.

Guess that depends on the reader. Out of all the times that I read the entire Christian Bible (and multiple translations), I never once got this impression.

How he wrote. There is a very great amount of sarcasm within his writing, a great amount of Hebraic poetry and culture.

Since sarcasm is often an intonation, I would like to know how you come to this conclusion.

Furthermore, please feel free to show me his use of Hebraic poetry.

[muffler dragon]

It is dissengenuous if a person is composing a letter in Greek to insinuate they do not respect the Tenakh simply because they quote from the Septuagint. Honestly!!!!! That's like saying YOU don't respect the Tenakh because you post translations of it in English here in the forum!! What fallaceous reasoning.

Actually, it isn't fallacious in the slightest. It's an investigation into the core of Paul's autobiographical claims: that he was a Pharisee and a student of Gamaliel.

Furthermore, it IS a fallacy on your part to bring this full circle onto CE when he doesn't make the claim of being a Pharisee nor a student in someone's yeshiva.

[Steve Petersen]

This is quite true. If it weren't for Paul, C*hristianity would likely not exist today.

Paul disparages the Torah.

However, what's important is whether Paul stands when confronted with the Torah. To me, his halacha subverts the Torah. But I also feel that he had many issues besides this.

If in fact he was Beit Shammai, this is eclipsed by the fact that he later apostatized and became a Hellenist..

Yep, an apostate Hellenist wrote more than half of the NT. That was reason enough for me to reject it completely.

Sure he did. And in the next breath he said that the Torah was bondage. It just depended on who his audience was.

Yep, this is why I ultimately rejected the NT.

Pick any one of his letters. Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians....

Oh, and let's not forget the small fact that he insulted Shimon to his face, a man who was a member of the Beit Din in Yerushalayim, and one of the original talmidim.

If we had the whole story of what was going on when he wrote his letters, we would probably have a better picture. As it stands, his own words testify against him.

First, the context you refer to depends on the audience he was addressing. When he was talking to Jews he made statements in support of the Torah (both Written and Oral). When he was talking to Goyim, he made statements against both the Written and Oral Torah. He was very duplicitous. For crying out loud, he had to be brought to account to Yerushalayim for his actions not once, but twice.
Again, this is a good example of how he taught against the Torah. When one accepts the Torah, they accept it all. They are not free to pick and choose what they want to keep and what they want to discard (the very reason why the Reform are not a legitimate Judaism). Are we justified by the Torah? King David seemed to think so. Tehillim are the strongest argument against Paul's statements.

Oh trust me, I stopped believing that the NT was reliable quite some time ago. I'm not at any sort of critical juncture where I'm trying to figure it out, I'm already past that point.

Well, considering that the 'New Covenant' spoken of by Yirmeyahu haNavi hasn't even happened yet, I don't think the NT has a leg to stand on. As far as the 'Blood of C*hrist' goes, I don't believe in Je*us, so it doesn't affect me. Anything done by any sort of mythical man-god has no effect on my beliefs in any way, shape, or form.

Yet another reason why I ultimately rejected the NT.. but now I'm de-railing my own thread.... ;)

We are also led to believe that he grew up in Tarsus, which was the western capital of Mithraism.

Considering there is no Jewish reference that Paul was ever a Rabbi (let alone a student of Gamaliel), I would say that we can call this claim spurious on two accounts:

1) His actions follow the Sadducean way before his supposed conversion.
2) His words rarely (if ever) mirror Pharisaic thought.

There is a difference between studying and becoming. Studiers don't always voice agreement or spread the message that they are studying. Oftentimes, studying is for investigation for disagreement; not for acceptance. Whereas, converts (those who are becoming or have become) are adherents to that which was studying and promote it in word and deed. Paul promoted Hellenism in his words. Show me where Hillel's students were told to promote Hellenism and you might have an argument.

Because of the very points I presented. Paul's words and actions betray his very hope to be a Pharisee.

Action: he carried letters written by the Sadducean High Priest to imprison Jews. Thus, he was in the employ of the High Priest. A Pharisee would NEVER do this.
Words: Paul disparages the Oral Torah throughout his letters. A Pharisee would NEVER do this.

Evidence given.

Steve:

A student of Gamaliel would NEVER work for the Sadducean High Priest nor would a student of Gamaliel disparage the Oral Torah. I would concentrate on attempting to rebut/refute these two points before you starting asking, "Is that it?"

Verses? I'm talking whole books here. Tell you what. Let me gather everything together and then I'll come back and make a lengthy post. Cool?

Let's look at some additional facts:
1) Hellenists were opposed to the Oral Torah
2) The Sadducees were Hellenists, as they opposed the Oral Torah
3) Paul worked for the worst of all the Sadducees, the Kohen haResha
4) Paul's letters indicate time and time again that he opposed the Oral Torah

Conclusion: Paul was a Hellenist.

Historical sources testify that the Pharisees and Sadducees violently opposed one another. Namely, as the Sadducees were in bed with the Romans, they were the ones killing off the Pharisaic opposition. No Pharisee in his right mind would have worked for, much less co-operated with, the Kohen haResha.

But it is one thing to learn something so that you can know your opponent better. It is another thing altogether to completely adopt those teachings.

There is no indication in any of his writings (or those of Luke) that he was ever called a Rabbi. This doesn't go against his credibility, it just goes to show that he likely never received s'mikha.

No, it's not your fault if they mis-interpreted him. But I really don't think they mis-interpreted him. Historical records, passed down through Acts and later as written by Hegesippus and Eusebius, state that most people believed he was anti-Oral Torah. For goodness sakes, the Netzarim Beit Din called him to Yerushalayim TWICE to account for his actions. This alone proves that this was no minor issue. To be called to account before a Beit Din once is bad enough, but if a person is called more than once, it is indicative of a problem.


from his very own mouth, he became all things to all men. This leads to a duplicitous form of existence for a supposedly Torah-observant Pharisee.

I agree that Paul's writing could include a contextual issue; however, this doesn't overcome his staunch anti-Oral Torah presentation (which is what the OP is initially discussing) which undermines any supposed pro-Torah presentation that Paul attempts to explain.

Does this really sound like a debate? Lots of assertions and inferences but no meat. The little textual evidence that has been presented so far is a face-value, literal reading of the text without reference to the world around that text.

[mpossoff]

I believe if you look at the 'battle' Paul and the believers and see Paul in this light it can make a difference.

What was the main 'battle' in the 1st century? Now before you ask for extra proofs, all we need is the Apostolic scriptures as the proof texts.

What was the main battle in the 1st century. It wasn't Yeshua. It was 'how Gentiles would get in'.

“Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Acts 15:1

This is what drove Paul to write what he wrote.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Didn't Paul say that circumcision meant nothing but all that matters is keeping the Torah?

Marc
You do know that circumcision is a required part of the Torah right?

[ChazakEmunah]

So do you out the Jerusalem Council in the same 'catagory' as Paul? That they claimed their own authority and claimed their own authority not by scripture? That Paul and the Council took off on their own with no regards to scripture to create a 'new religion'?

Marc
I've discussed this elsewhere, but there was never a Jewish entity called the "Jerusalem Council." There was a Netzari Beit Din, but it most certainly was not some sort of Ecumenical Council. The Netzari Beit Din had the implicit approval of the Beit Din haGadol. If they hadn't had that approval, then their halakhic decisions wouldn't have held any weight, and the Netzarim would have been labeled as apostates. I've never stated that the Netzarim had any intent to form a new religion. I don't think Paul even wanted to form a new religion, it appears that he wanted to change Judaism, to make it blend with Hellenism. Now did Paul have his authority from the Netzarim Beit Din? Initially, yes. But it does appear that at some point he was considered an apostate and excised from the Netzarim.

[ChazakEmunah]

What I'm saying is you don't understand Paul.

Okay, that would be fine if you had not prefaced that with the statement that only the one who does not understand the Tanakh will not understand Paul. What I was trying to point out is that such a position is quite ridiculous given the amount of training a Rabbi (two of which I happen to agree with) must undergo in order to receive s'mikha.

[ChazakEmunah]

It is dissengenuous if a person is composing a letter in Greek to insinuate they do not respect the Tenakh simply because they quote from the Septuagint. Honestly!!!!! That's like saying YOU don't respect the Tenakh because you post translations of it in English here in the forum!! What fallaceous reasoning.
It's not fallacious at all. It simply tells us more about Paul. In all instances when he quotes from the Tanakh, he uses the Greek Septuagint translation. Not once does he quote from a Hebrew or Aramaic translation. Maybe this is because his readers primarily used Greek. I don't know. It seems to me however, that if he was familiar with the Hebrew Tanakh he would have used it. The fact that he does not is telling.

[ChazakEmunah]

Does this really sound like a debate? Lots of assertions and inferences but no meat. The little textual evidence that has been presented so far is a face-value, literal reading of the text without reference to the world around that text.
I guess the real question is... Why haven't you responded to that post (#95) instead of continuing to make assertions about how this is not a real debate? Second, if there is a reference to the world around the text in Galatians 2, which simply appears to be Paul arguing against Shimon, then please post it so that it can be discussed. Lastly, I will make some time today to post more references from Paul's other books demonstrating his line of reasoning against the Torah.

[mpossoff]

You do know that circumcision is a required part of the Torah right?

Yes but there were those that said you have to be circumcised FIRST.

Paul said circumcision means nothing, but keeping the commandments of God means everything. So Paul is referring to circumcision.

What some believers wanted as the prevailing 'halcha' was that one must be go through a ritual conversion before they even consider.

The Jerusalem Council and Paul said otherwise. Why? Because for one it was evidenced by the Holy Spirit falling upon Gentiles that were not circumcised.

Does this mean that the law for circumcision is invalid?

Of course not.

Let's go back in time....

Take a Jew who was circumcised on the 8th according to the commandment and was raised in keeping the commandments starting at the age of 5 years old(could be wrong on the age).

Take a gentile who JUST came into faith of the God of Israel through Messiah.

"Oooops sorry dude you got to be circumcised FIRST/ go through a ritual conversion FIRST before you even start."

This is why you misunderstand Paul and the Apostolic scriptures that they taught against the Torah. Not even the case. In fact nonsense.

In 1st century context if a non-Jew wished to enter into God’s blessings and promises such a person had to convert to Judaism first. So the entry point into covenantal membership was ethnicity. So it is a far teaching what most believe that ‘doing’ in order to become covenant members. They were teaching that because we are covenant members therefore the Law (Torah) is ours.

The prevailing halacha of the 1st century was ethno centric Jewish exclusiveness.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeshua even said unquote "Don't think because Abraham is your father that gives you a ticket out of Gehennah"

Marc

[Steve Petersen]

You do know that circumcision is a required part of the Torah right?
So did Paul. Any five year old knows. 'Circumcision' is Paul's shorthand for conversion.

[ChazakEmunah]

So did Paul. Any five year old knows. 'Circumcision' is Paul's shorthand for conversion.
Umm... Marc didn't grow up in an observant home and only converted to C*hristianity a couple of years ago. That's why I asked.

[Steve Petersen]

We see in Ch. 2, Paul writes about his chutzpah in PUBLICLY rebuking one of the Netzarim Dayanim, Shimon. And as a result, several things are revealed.

The thread is about Paul being anti-Torah, not about his relationship to Peter.

Let's start with line 16: "because we know that a man is not made just by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus the Messiah; even we have believed in Jesus the Messiah, in order to be made just by faith in the Messiah, and not by the works of the law: for, by the deeds of the law, no flesh is made just."

Immediately I see several problems with this statement.

1)Paul's claim that a person's faith is NOT justified by observing the Torah.
- This contradicts the entire Tanakh. {See Tehillim 119 for a good example}

2) Paul's claim that a person's faith IS justified by faith in Je*us.
- Again, this is contradictory to Judaism. Judaism teaches that a person is only justified by observing the Torah, not by believing in another created being.

From The Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, by Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green, article Justification:

In the Tanak (Old Testament), it [justification] designates fulfillment of the obligations of the covenant on the part of Israel and God. For example, Genesis 15:6 describes Abraham's response to God's promises: "And he believed in God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Daniel 12:3 promises eschatological reward to the wise "who make many righteous" (the hiphil [causative form] of the verb tzakak, NRSV "lead many to righteousness"; cf Isa. 53:11). The same verb is used to describe God's vindication (salvation) of his servant in Isaiah 50:8.

Let's look at those two verses:

Isa 50:8 He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand together: who is mine adversary? let him come near to me.

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

The article goes on to state the idea that justification cannot be earned by human merit is a particular emphasis of Paul. It continues:

Paul interprets the death and resurrection of Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish hopes that God would "demonstrate his righteousness", namely the he would act decisively to restore his creation to himself. He argues that justification of the individual sinner, which is part of the general restoration of creation to God, is a divine gift which one receives by having faith that God has acted in Christ.

Now let's look at line 17 For I, by the law, have become dead to the law, that I might live to God; and I am crucified with the Messiah."

Hmm... Something's not right here. Why would any shomer-Torah Jew say that they are "dead to the Torah"

What does that phrase mean? In Romans 7 he uses the same phrase. In that passage Paul refers to sin's ability to change the law into an instrument of death rather than life. He goes on in that passage to say that the law is 'holy, just, and good.' His problem is not with the law, per se, but with our inability to resist sin, and the corresponding punishment the law requires for those sins.

[A_Pioneer]

Just a side note; Circumcision is a sign of the covenant of "LAND."
If you are not claiming Eretz Israel, circumcision is not a pre-requisite.
Claiming faith in the God of Israel, doesn't require conversion to Judaism.

Shalom

[mpossoff]

Umm... Marc didn't grow up in an observant home and only converted to C*hristianity a couple of years ago. That's why I asked.

Ummm, why do you insinuate I converted to Christianity?

Marc

[mpossoff]

So did Paul. Any five year old knows. 'Circumcision' is Paul's shorthand for conversion.

Right as per the Apostolic scriptures that's how it is used.

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

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Right as per the Apostolic scriptures that's how it is used.

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

Marc
Okay, so your contention is that Paul was only opposing the prevailing halakha regarding conversion, right? If that were only the case, then feel free to explain what he wrote in Galatians, specifically what I referenced in post #95.

[mpossoff]

Okay, so your contention is that Paul was only opposing the prevailing halakha regarding conversion, right? If that were only the case, then feel free to explain what he wrote in Galatians, specifically what I referenced in post #95.

There were Jews and prostelytes who believed in the prevailing halacha which resorted into what Paul wrote in Galatians.

You must always keep the prevailing halacha in mind when you read Paul then he can be better understood.

The Galatians thought they would be justified if they went through a ritual conversion. Jews and prostelytes must have been telling them so.

Marc

[mpossoff]

There are a lot of subtle problems with Ch.1, but nothing overt, so let's move on to Ch. 2.

We see in Ch. 2, Paul writes about his chutzpah in PUBLICLY rebuking one of the Netzarim Dayanim, Shimon. And as a result, several things are revealed.

Let's start with line 16:
&quo