'You must be circumcised... to be saved'

[mpossoff]

Acts 15:1And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved

First: We can't negate the fact that this is in scripture. This is obvious a sect of Judaism in the 1st century that preached this.

Facts:

They were from Judea And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved
They were "sect of the Pharisees" But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
They claimed to be believers in Yeshua But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
They believed that one cannot have salvation unless they are first circumcised and/or keep the TorahAnd certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
They were vigorous in their belief to the point that they would argue with Paul and Barnabas over it, and even approach the apostles and elders about it

OK we first have to establish if unless you are circumcised..... you cannot be saved is counter or not to Torah. Before we even begin we have to establish this.

So the question is:

Does one have to get circumcised to be justified before God?

Marc

[simchat_torah]

I don't know of any Jew who believes salvation comes through circumcision. Woudn't this be an agument against a ghost since no one here believes the flipside of your debate?

[mpossoff]

I don't know of any Jew who believes salvation comes through circumcision. Woudn't this be an agument against a ghost since no one here believes the flipside of your debate?

simchat it's not really a ghost. There was a sect of the Pharisee's that preached this. So as a result this is what drove Paul to write what he wrote in his Epistles. He wasn't against or opposed to Torah but his writings were meant and written in a way to 'rebuke' the sect of Pharisee's that said 'unless you are circumcised... you cannot be saved'.

If we establish and agree that salvation doesn't come through circumcision then we can move on to Paul. And it we can establish this then you will see that Paul was not against the Torah in fact he established it.

Suppose there was a Gentile that lived 200 years before Messiah who came to the conviction that the God of Israel was the true God and he repented of his ways. Then, as he learned more about God's commandments he began to make a sincere effort walk in them. This being the case, at what point would such a man be received by God? Would it be after he observed 5 commandments? Or would it be after he observed 10? Or might it be the observance of 613 commandments were necessary for him to achieve salvation? The truth is God knows the hearts of all men and can meet them where they are.



Marc

[mpossoff]

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Yahushua the Messiah hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

simchat the above is a good example because it's a response to something. Why would Paul write this if he wasn't responding to a doctrine. Paul is mis-understood.

The Gentiles who turned their lives over God didn't receive the Holy Spirit because they had been keeping the law. They received the Holy Spirit because they repented and accepted the God of Israel.
In response to the false'doctrine(unless you are circumcised...) , Paul was reminding them that the Spirit was given as evidence of their immediate salvation.

Galatians 2:20 - I am crucified with Messiah: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Messiah liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of Elohim, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of Elohim: for if righteousness come by the law, then Messiah is dead in vain.

Looking at the context from which Paul was speaking, Paul is facing those who are presenting "another good news/gospel," the gospel of circumcision.

People who claim that Paul was opposed to Torah either are not willing to see the context or refuse to.

The Gentiles were not accepted by those who were "of the circumcision" because they believed that even though the Gentiles received the Spirit, that was not good enough. They believed that the Gentiles were not sons of Abraham and they were not saved until they were first circumcised and kept the Torah. This unscriptural method of receiving salvation was a threat . It was so dangerous that Paul said in the beginning of his letter:

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

So was Paul opposed to Torah so far? Absolute no. He was opposed to the They believed that the Gentiles were not saved until they were first circumcised and kept the Torah doctrine.

That's all for now.

Marc

[simchat_torah]

simchat it's not really a ghost. There was a sect of the Pharisee's that preached this. Yes, but this particular sect is not what developed into Judaism today. No Jew that I know of believes that salvation comes through circumcision.

My point is, maybe some from history believed this, but no one here in this forum believes it. Considering this is a debate section of a forum, and not a place to post "teachings" about historical sects and how they taught incorrect theology, you would be best off moving this to the main Messianic section of the forums.

No one here will debate you as no one here believes the flipside of your presentation. Thus you are debating a ghost.

This is especially true, as all those who may have taught this theology are dead. Thus you truly are debating ghosts in every sense of the word.

[mpossoff]

Yes, but this particular sect is not what developed into Judaism today. No Jew that I know of believes that salvation comes through circumcision.

My point is, maybe some from history believed this, but no one here in this forum believes it. Considering this is a debate section of a forum, and not a place to post "teachings" about historical sects and how they taught incorrect theology, you would be best off moving this to the main Messianic section of the forums.

No one here will debate you as no one here believes the flipside of your presentation. Thus you are debating a ghost.

This is especially true, as all those who may have taught this theology are dead. Thus you truly are debating ghosts in every sense of the word.

simchat I believe that since this is established we can now move on to Paul.

simchat can you agree that the sect existed in Paul's day? I mean it's evident.

This discussion is really about Paul.

Marc

[simchat_torah]

So what, exactly, is the flip side of your argument? I'm lost...

[mpossoff]

So what, exactly, is the flip side of your argument? I'm lost...

[quote=ChazakEmunah;39140483]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.

simchat to show that Paul wasn't opposed to Torah and didn't turn his back on Judaism.

But as you said people won't debate because

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

So there are those that don't believe that 'unless you are circumcised.... you cannot be saved' even existed.

But I didn't bring up the subject I just wanted to rebuke it. The subject was originally created by someone else. Unfortunately they don't want to consider scripture.

Marc

[mpossoff]

Yes, but this particular sect is not what developed into Judaism today. No Jew that I know of believes that salvation comes through circumcision.

My point is, maybe some from history believed this, but no one here in this forum believes it. Considering this is a debate section of a forum, and not a place to post "teachings" about historical sects and how they taught incorrect theology, you would be best off moving this to the main Messianic section of the forums.

No one here will debate you as no one here believes the flipside of your presentation. Thus you are debating a ghost.

This is especially true, as all those who may have taught this theology are dead. Thus you truly are debating ghosts in every sense of the word.

simchat I never implied that this particular sect is what developed into Judaism today.

As you said it was a sect. According to scripture a sect that 'had influence'? Because then why make such a big issue and debate over it at the Jerusalem Council?

I'm not referring to current beliefs or halacha. I'm referring to the beliefs and halacha of this sect in that day.


Marc

[simchat_torah]

But as you said people won't debate because
Actually, people won't argue because your stance is that salvation doesn't come through circumcision. No one believes that it does, so no one will argue you. Had you made a message that Paul did not oppose the Torah, then you'd probably have a debate.

[Steve Petersen]

I would really like to know if this was actual 'halakah' from the Sages (i.e. Sanhedrin) OR the minhag (custom) of SOME in the early Jesus movement.

I found this in the Talmud, but I do not know if it was actually halakah in the late Second Temple era:

Talmud, Yevamoth 46a Our Rabbis taught: ‘If a proselyte was circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution, R. Eliezer said, ‘Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that our forefathers were circumcised and had not performed ritual ablution’. If he performed the prescribed ablution but had not been circumcised, R. Joshua said, ‘Behold he is a proper proselyte;

Who are 'Our Rabbis' quoted here? and Eliezer? If this is Hyrcanus then we are talking about the period from after the destruction of the Temple. Correct?

I also found this in the Talmud, but forgot the reference. Perhaps a good soul could find that for me:

God addressed the proselytes1: ‘You have misgivings, because I disqualified you from the Passover celebration by commanding: THERE SHALL NO ALIEN EAT THEREOF. Why do you not ask the Gibeonites how kindly I treated them, though they were men who acted deceitfully out of fear and came to My children, so that they [the Israelites] swore to them [to preserve them]’? Think of what I did to Saul and his household who wished to slay them? [I brought it about] that they slew seven of his [Saul's] children’; as it says: But the king took the two sons of Rizpah.... and the five sons of Michal..., and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites (II Sam. XXI, 8 f.). God said: ‘If I received favourably the Gibeonites, who are Amorites, and out of fear wrought deceitfully with Israel, and I gave them satisfaction for their wrongs [by punishing] My children, shall I not receive favourably and also promote the proselytes who come to serve Me out of sheer love?’ Hence doth it say: ’Neither let the alien, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying: The Lord will surely separate me from his people.’3 That refers to the aliens who are circumcised; but the idolaters are uncircumcised of heart and these God disqualifies and brings down to Gehinnom, as it says: Son of man, wail for the multitude of Egypt and cast them down, etc. (Ezek. XXXII, 18). Isaiah also says: Therefore the netherworld hath enlarged her desire, and opened her mouth without measure (V, 14),-that is, for the heathen who despise the statute of circumcision, as it says: And He established it unto Jacob for a statute, to Israel for an everlasting covenant (Ps. CV, 10). No Israelite who is circumcised will go down to Gehinnom. R. Berekiah said: To stop the heretics and the wicked ones of Israel saying: ' We will not descend to Gehinnom because we are circumcised,’ what doth the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He sends an angel who stretches their foreskin4 and then they descend to Gehinnom;

There is also this interesting d'rash that may throw some light on Galatians 4:

Isaac and Ishmael were engaged in a controversy: the latter argued, ' I am more beloved than thou, because I was circumcised at the age of thirteen'; while the other retorted, `I am more beloved than thou, because I was circumcised at eight days.' Said Ishmael to him: `I am more beloved, because I could have protested, yet did not.' Genesis Rabbah 55:4

[mpossoff]

I would really like to know if this was actual 'halakah' from the Sages (i.e. Sanhedrin) OR the minhag (custom) of SOME in the early Jesus movement.

I found this in the Talmud, but I do not know if it was actually halakah in the late Second Temple era:

Talmud, Yevamoth 46a Our Rabbis taught: ‘If a proselyte was circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution, R. Eliezer said, ‘Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that our forefathers were circumcised and had not performed ritual ablution’. If he performed the prescribed ablution but had not been circumcised, R. Joshua said, ‘Behold he is a proper proselyte;

Who are 'Our Rabbis' quoted here? and Eliezer? If this is Hyrcanus then we are talking about the period from after the destruction of the Temple. Correct?

I also found this in the Talmud, but forgot the reference. Perhaps a good soul could find that for me:

God addressed the proselytes1: ‘You have misgivings, because I disqualified you from the Passover celebration by commanding: THERE SHALL NO ALIEN EAT THEREOF. Why do you not ask the Gibeonites how kindly I treated them, though they were men who acted deceitfully out of fear and came to My children, so that they [the Israelites] swore to them [to preserve them]’? Think of what I did to Saul and his household who wished to slay them? [I brought it about] that they slew seven of his [Saul's] children’; as it says: But the king took the two sons of Rizpah.... and the five sons of Michal..., and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites (II Sam. XXI, 8 f.). God said: ‘If I received favourably the Gibeonites, who are Amorites, and out of fear wrought deceitfully with Israel, and I gave them satisfaction for their wrongs [by punishing] My children, shall I not receive favourably and also promote the proselytes who come to serve Me out of sheer love?’ Hence doth it say: ’Neither let the alien, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying: The Lord will surely separate me from his people.’3 That refers to the aliens who are circumcised; but the idolaters are uncircumcised of heart and these God disqualifies and brings down to Gehinnom, as it says: Son of man, wail for the multitude of Egypt and cast them down, etc. (Ezek. XXXII, 18). Isaiah also says: Therefore the netherworld hath enlarged her desire, and opened her mouth without measure (V, 14),-that is, for the heathen who despise the statute of circumcision, as it says: And He established it unto Jacob for a statute, to Israel for an everlasting covenant (Ps. CV, 10). No Israelite who is circumcised will go down to Gehinnom. R. Berekiah said: To stop the heretics and the wicked ones of Israel saying: ' We will not descend to Gehinnom because we are circumcised,’ what doth the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He sends an angel who stretches their foreskin4 and then they descend to Gehinnom;

There is also this interesting d'rash that may throw some light on Galatians 4:

Isaac and Ishmael were engaged in a controversy: the latter argued, ' I am more beloved than thou, because I was circumcised at the age of thirteen'; while the other retorted, `I am more beloved than thou, because I was circumcised at eight days.' Said Ishmael to him: `I am more beloved, because I could have protested, yet did not.' Genesis Rabbah 55:4

Steve I'm not sure what you are implying...I would really like to know if this was actual 'halakah' from the Sages (i.e. Sanhedrin) OR the minhag (custom) of SOME in the early Jesus movement.

Marc

[Steve Petersen]

I am not implying anything. I am asking about clear demonstration that 'you must be circumcised to be saved' was actually ruled on by the Sanhedrin.

The other things I posted are the nearest things to an answer I could find. I am looking for something definitive OUTSIDE Acts.

[mpossoff]

I am not implying anything. I am asking about clear demonstration that 'you must be circumcised to be saved' was actually ruled on by the Sanhedrin.

The other things I posted are the nearest things to an answer I could find. I am looking for something definitive OUTSIDE Acts.

Is it possible that it was and not recorded?

Or is it possible that it wasn't but still a belief by a sect or else there wouldn't have been such a debate at the Jerusalem Council?

Marc

[simchat_torah]

Is it possible that it was and not recorded?
lol, no.

[mpossoff]

lol, no.

Well then what are you implying of the Apostolic scriptures?

Marc

[Steve Petersen]

Apostolic Scriptures do not say clearly that this was halakah.

What it indicates is that some people believed that 'You must be circumcised to be saved.'

Big difference.

[ChazakEmunah]

But I didn't bring up the subject I just wanted to rebuke it. The subject was originally created by someone else. Unfortunately they don't want to consider scripture.

Marc,

1) You just agreed in my thread that Paul opposed the Oral Torah. This is THE very thing I have contended all along! So there really is no longer any need to debate as you have already agreed with me.

2) A long time ago I used to consider the NT as Scripture. I even stopped considering it as such while I was still a Messianic. Today, the only Bible I use is the Tanakh. I am still willing to look at the NT from a historical POV, but certainly not from a Scriptural POV.

[ChazakEmunah]

Apostolic Scriptures do not say clearly that this was halakah.

What it indicates is that some people believed that 'You must be circumcised to be saved.'

Big difference.
If I were to bet on it, I would say that this idea possibly came from Beit Shammai; although I never heard of such a discussion recorded in the Talmud.

[simchat_torah]

Well then what are you implying of the Apostolic scriptures?
Nothing. You gave multiple possibilities. I clearly stated one of those possibilities is not the answer. The other possibilities exist. Maybe even a possibility you haven't explored yet could be the key ;)
But no, I am not implying anything about your christian scriptures.

[GerTzedek]

If I were to bet on it, I would say that this idea possibly came from Beit Shammai; although I never heard of such a discussion recorded in the Talmud.
True, there are no sources, but I agree with you -- it fits with the bet Shammai orientation. IOW, given what we DO know about bet Shammai, we can extrapolite what the school would say on this issue. You are a smart cookie.

But be careful! If you don't have internet sources, others will not only not take you seriously, but consider you arrogant. Intelligent extrapolation is not a valued skill here.

[GerTzedek]

Actually, people won't argue because your stance is that salvation doesn't come through circumcision. No one believes that it does, so no one will argue you. Had you made a message that Paul did not oppose the Torah, then you'd probably have a debate.
Really? Who in THIS FORUM believes that Paul opposed Torah?

[GerTzedek]

Acts 15:1And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved

First: We can't negate the fact that this is in scripture. This is obvious a sect of Judaism in the 1st century that preached this.

Facts:

They were from Judea And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved
They were "sect of the Pharisees" But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
They claimed to be believers in Yeshua But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
They believed that one cannot have salvation unless they are first circumcised and/or keep the TorahAnd certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
They were vigorous in their belief to the point that they would argue with Paul and Barnabas over it, and even approach the apostles and elders about it

OK we first have to establish if unless you are circumcised..... you cannot be saved is counter or not to Torah. Before we even begin we have to establish this.

So the question is:

Does one have to get circumcised to be justified before God?

Marc


Marc, the Council of Jerusalem was called specifically to rule on this issue. The results are right there in Acts 15. Read it for yourself.

[mpossoff]

edit

[ChazakEmunah]

True, there are no sources, but I agree with you -- it fits with the bet Shammai orientation. IOW, given what we DO know about bet Shammai, we can extrapolite what the school would say on this issue. You are a smart cookie.
Thanks! :)


But be careful! If you don't have internet sources, others will not only not take you seriously, but consider you arrogant. Intelligent extrapolation is not a valued skill here.
That's why I prefaced my statement by saying that it was no more than an educated guess. ;)

[ChazakEmunah]

Really? Who in THIS FORUM believes that Paul opposed Torah?
There are a couple of us... ;)

[GerTzedek]

There are a couple of us... ;)
Ahhh, dopey me. I didn't stop to take a mental tally of the rabbinical Jewish memebers. Do I feel sheepish? Ba-a-a-a-a

[Maranatha27]

Circumcision was given to Abraham. The reason it was given was esentially because the promise was to his seed through Sarah. When they had the Issac Abrahams seed past through the covanent into Sarahs womb. The Jewish men in the line of Christ were circumcised untill the promise was realized. I know Christ was circumcised maybe just custom..i have no idea. But with Christ all nations of the earth have been blessed and continues to be so. The Church started as a Jewish movement not a gentile movement. The heart needs to be circumcised now by being born again. Thats what the promised Seed said. The flesh profiteth nothing, but it is the Spirit that quickenth us........Maranatha

[ChazakEmunah]

Ahhh, dopey me. I didn't stop to take a mental tally of the rabbinical Jewish memebers. Do I feel sheepish? Ba-a-a-a-a
No worries. :thumbsup:

[simchat_torah]

Really? Who in THIS FORUM believes that Paul opposed Torah?Several do in fact. Not I. But some such as md, Chazzak, etc.
For reference, see the other debate thread regarding Paul.

[ChazakEmunah]

For reference, see the other debate thread regarding Paul.Be careful going in there. It's a mess!

[mpossoff]

Be careful going in there. It's a mess!

Chazak you didn't answer my question.

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

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

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

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

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

So does the written Torah support the Oral Torah in referance to 'you must be circumcised to be saved'?

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Chazak you didn't answer my question.
You sure about that? I thought I answered it earlier. My mistake.


First Paul said that the whole oral traditions weren't abolished.
First, let's clear something here, the Oral Torah is not merely tradition. It is TORAH. You cannot have the Written Torah without the Oral. The two go together.

Second, Yes, Paul did say that the Oral Torah was abolished many times and in many different places. Please refer back to my thread for reference.


Second we have to establish if the oral traditions pertaining to Gentiles supports the written Torah. Is preaching to someone they need to be circumcised in order to be saved a contradiction to Torah?
We've already covered this. There is no halakhic requirement for a Goy to convert to Judaism in order to obtain kipur. It's just not there. Goyim need to live according to the Sheva Mitzvot in order to merit a portion in Olam HaBa. That's it. Conversion is not necessary. Whatever group of people believed this back then were wrong.


If the traditions pertaining to Gentiles, the ones I specifically mentioned, support the written Torah then Paul did teach against written Torah.
And yet the Written Torah is not all that is at stake here. It is the Oral Torah as well. In fact, my leading premise was that Paul opposed the Oral Torah.


If the traditions pertaining to Gentiles do not support the written Torah then Paul didn't teach against Torah. He therefore taught against the tradition that negated written Torah. He taught against traditions that were created by man that trumped the written Torah.
You may not know this, but the Torah existed in oral form long before it was ever written down. I think we keep coming back to this because you're still trying to separate the Written Torah from the Oral. You can't do that; they both go together. So if Paul taught against the Oral Torah, then it is no grievous than if he were teaching against the Written Torah.


In other words using 'you must be circumcised to be saved' as an example, if this supports written Torah then Paul did teach against Torah. If it doesn't then he didn't. He taught against this man creation of a tradition pertaining to Gentiles.
But as we have shown, this was not the standard 1st Cent. halakha. It may have been the halakha for Beit Shammai, or even particular to certain Netzarim, but we don't know for sure. We have no written record (that I am aware of) that tells us who to attribute this to. IF in fact Paul was simply arguing against the minhag of another group that would've been fine. But he wasn't. One doesn't go around saying that the Torah has been abolished if they are trying to make a halakhic argument. That would be ludicrous. That would be like me saying, "Well, I disagree with the halakhic practice of x group, because the Torah has been done away with." It doesn't fit.

[GerTzedek]

Chazak:

Your interpretations of Paul's epistles fly in the face of what is recorded of his behavior in the book of Acts. Can I therefore assume you want to through out the book of Acts as a source of reliable history regarding Paul? And if you do so, why would its author, Luke, present Paul this way if it were not so?

[mpossoff]

You sure about that? I thought I answered it earlier. My mistake.


First, let's clear something here, the Oral Torah is not merely tradition. It is TORAH. You cannot have the Written Torah without the Oral. The two go together.

Second, Yes, Paul did say that the Oral Torah was abolished many times and in many different places. Please refer back to my thread for reference.


We've already covered this. There is no halakhic requirement for a Goy to convert to Judaism in order to obtain kipur. It's just not there. Goyim need to live according to the Sheva Mitzvot in order to merit a portion in Olam HaBa. That's it. Conversion is not necessary. Whatever group of people believed this back then were wrong. OK then you agree that the oral tradition doesn't support the written.


And yet the Written Torah is not all that is at stake here. It is the Oral Torah as well. In fact, my leading premise was that Paul opposed the Oral Torah. You already said that the group that believed this back then were wrong. You even said that there is halacha pertaining to certain groups. So are you agreeing that the oral tradition of this group was wrong and that the oral tradition doesn't support the written Torah? Well you already answered that above.


You may not know this, but the Torah existed in oral form long before it was ever written down. I think we keep coming back to this because you're still trying to separate the Written Torah from the Oral. You can't do that; they both go together. So if Paul taught against the Oral Torah, then it is no grievous than if he were teaching against the Written Torah. You already said that the tradition was wrong. So are you saying that although the tradition was wrong Paul should have still submitted to it? Is this what you are saying? That although the oral tradtion was wrong we are suppose to still submit to it?


But as we have shown, this was not the standard 1st Cent. halakha. It may have been the halakha for Beit Shammai, or even particular to certain Netzarim, but we don't know for sure. We have no written record (that I am aware of) that tells us who to attribute this to. IF in fact Paul was simply arguing against the minhag of another group that would've been fine. But he wasn't. One doesn't go around saying that the Torah has been abolished if they are trying to make a halakhic argument. That would be ludicrous. That would be like me saying, "Well, I disagree with the halakhic practice of x group, because the Torah has been done away with." It doesn't fit.Chazak which you fail to admit is that this halakha was an issue in fact a big issue or else it would not have been such a debate at the Jerusalem Council. You said it may have been the halacha of Beit Shammai. It doesn't matter who the halacha was from and you fail to even realize that. Whoever this group was they must have had alot of influence because this is evident in Paul's letter to the Galatians and pretty much his other letters. You even admit that it's wrong. You can't even accept the fact that Paul even said it was wrong by calling him an apostate(or did you). Paul NEVER said that the Torah was abolished. This is like those that say since since we are redeemed from the curse of the Torah that means we are redeemed from the Torah.
[/quote]

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Chazak:

Your interpretations of Paul's epistles fly in the face of what is recorded of his behavior in the book of Acts. Can I therefore assume you want to through out the book of Acts as a source of reliable history regarding Paul? And if you do so, why would its author, Luke, present Paul this way if it were not so?
Well first, we have to consider that Acts was not written by Paul, but by Luke (as you stated). Second, the strongest evidence is Paul's own words. They themselves stand as a testimony against him.

So why in Acts was he portrayed as saying that he was shomer-mitzvot? I really don't know. It could have either been due to the bias of the writer (as he was a friend of Paul), or the possibility that Paul was hoping for leniency in portraying himself as shomer-mitzvot. He may have, at one time, been shomer-mitzvot, but I think it is apparent that not only did he walk away from that path, he actively taught against it.

Now, one thing I think is interesting to note about Paul's trial, is why were there no Netzarim there to defend him? Why didn't Ya'akov haTzadik, the head of the Netzarim, who enjoyed relatively prominent status, come to his aid? Or any other of the Netzarim Dayanim for that matter? They were all conspicuously absent.

[mpossoff]

Well first, we have to consider that Acts was not written by Paul, but by Luke (as you stated). Second, the strongest evidence is Paul's own words. They themselves stand as a testimony against him.

So why in Acts was he portrayed as saying that he was shomer-mitzvot? I really don't know. It could have either been due to the bias of the writer (as he was a friend of Paul), or the possibility that Paul was hoping for leniency in portraying himself as shomer-mitzvot. He may have, at one time, been shomer-mitzvot, but I think it is apparent that not only did he walk away from that path, he actively taught against it. Yes He taught against the halacha that you admit was wrong. He taught against a tradition that trumped the written Torah. And you are equating him teaching against that halacha which was wrong as not shomer-mitzvot. Good for him, actually praise God.

Now, one thing I think is interesting to note about Paul's trial, is why were there no Netzarim there to defend him? Why didn't Ya'akov haTzadik, the head of the Netzarim, who enjoyed relatively prominent status, come to his aid? Or any other of the Netzarim Dayanim for that matter? They were all conspicuously absent.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

OK then you agree that the oral tradition doesn't support the written.
In this case I do not agree with this particular minhag, as I cannot find support for it within either the Written or the Oral Torah.

You already said that the group that believed this back then were wrong. You even said that there is halacha pertaining to certain groups. So are you agreeing that the oral tradition of this group was wrong and that the oral tradition doesn't support the written Torah? Well you already answered that above.
Yes, I did say that that group was wrong. But that does NOT resolve the issue of Paul's attitude and teachings against the Oral Torah as a WHOLE.

You already said that the tradition was wrong. So are you saying that although the tradition was wrong Paul should have still submitted to it? Is this what you are saying? That although the oral tradtion was wrong we are suppose to still submit to it?
There would be no reason for Paul, or anyone else for that matter, to submit to that minhag if they were not part of that group. And again, I tell you that if Paul were merely arguing against this minhag, he would NOT have said the Torah was abolished. You CANNOT get around this.


Chazak which you fail to admit is that this halakha was an issue in fact a big issue or else it would not have been such a debate at the Jerusalem Council.
I never said it wasn't an issue. What gave you that idea?


You said it may have been the halacha of Beit Shammai. It doesn't matter who the halacha was from and you fail to even realize that.
Of course it matters. Because if we knew what the source was for this teaching then we would know where it stems from.


Whoever this group was they must have had alot of influence because this is evident in Paul's letter to the Galatians and pretty much his other letters.
There are some problems with this. First, you are assuming that this is an all consuming issue, and that Paul devoted his time specifically to this issue. Second, it still does NOT explain away the fact that he said several times in several different letters that the Torah has been done away with. How do you get around this? Do you really believe a person who is shomer-mitzvot would say over and over that the Torah has been abolished?


You can't even accept the fact that Paul even said it was wrong by calling him an apostate(or did you).
The problem is that Paul never explicitly addressed this issue by saying it was wrong to make a Goy convert to Judaism. What he did do was call circumcision "mutilation." And what he did do was say that the Torah was abolished. And yes, I believe that Paul apostatized from Judaism and became a Hellenist.


Paul NEVER said that the Torah was abolished.
You might want to re-think this statement. Paul very clearly stated that the Torah was abolished. Don't think so? Go back and look at my thread. I think my post proving this was #155. Further, you even said so yourself. Why are you arguing with me?

[mpossoff]

In this case I do not agree with this particular minhag, as I cannot find support for it within either the Written or the Oral Torah.


Yes, I did say that that group was wrong. But that does NOT resolve the issue of Paul's attitude and teachings against the Oral Torah as a WHOLE.


There would be no reason for Paul, or anyone else for that matter, to submit to that minhag if they were not part of that group. And again, I tell you that if Paul were merely arguing against this minhag, he would NOT have said the Torah was abolished. You CANNOT get around this.


I never said it wasn't an issue. What gave you that idea?


Of course it matters. Because if we knew what the source was for this teaching then we would know where it stems from.


There are some problems with this. First, you are assuming that this is an all consuming issue, and that Paul devoted his time specifically to this issue. Second, it still does NOT explain away the fact that he said several times in several different letters that the Torah has been done away with. How do you get around this? Do you really believe a person who is shomer-mitzvot would say over and over that the Torah has been abolished?


The problem is that Paul never explicitly addressed this issue by saying it was wrong to make a Goy convert to Judaism. What he did do was call circumcision "mutilation." And what he did do was say that the Torah was abolished. And yes, I believe that Paul apostatized from Judaism and became a Hellenist.


You might want to re-think this statement. Paul very clearly stated that the Torah was abolished. Don't think so? Go back and look at my thread. I think my post proving this was #155. Further, you even said so yourself. Why are you arguing with me?


Paul clearly stated that the Torah was abolished?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Paul clearly stated that the Torah was abolished.

I said:

Something most certainly was abolished, but it certainly was not the written Torah. Jesus said plainly in Matt 5:17 that He did NOT come to abolish the Torah of Moses. It says that what was abolished was the "Law of commandments contained in ordinances (greek "dogma")"

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

Chazak I'm suprised you take mainstream Christianity's view that the Torah was abolished.

Marc

[mpossoff]

Acts 13:39
"And every one that believeth in this man, is made just from all things, from which ye could not be made just by the law of Moses."

Here Paul boldy proclaims that a person is made righteous by believing in Je*us, and they are not made righteous by adhering to the Torah.Chazak I'm suprised that you should know Jews rely on Gods grace..and not Obedience to the commandments to grant them salvation.

Even orthodox Jews believe in obeying the commandments are out of love for God and a covenant responsibility, but it is Gods grace and mercy alone that grants us his unconditional love and acceptance or salvation. Being obedient to the Torah is just our response to that love and his covenant with us.

So, christians see Messiah as the ultimate expression of Gods grace and so do Messianic Jews. Orthodox Jews whether they beleive the Messiah is a person or just simply an age of peace and justice or whatever, it is Gods grace that gets us to that person/or place/or point..not our deeds. Our deeds are simply a response.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Paul clearly stated that the Torah was abolished?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Paul clearly stated that the Torah was abolished.
Yep. He says it

Here: Romans 6:14-15
"And sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace ? Far be it."

Here: Romans 7:4
"And now, my brethren, ye also have become dead to the law, by the body of Messiah; that ye might be joined to another, [even] to him who arose from the dead; and might yield fruits unto God."

Here: Romans 7:6
"But now we are absolved from the law, and are dead to that which held us in its grasp: that we might henceforth serve in the newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Here: 2 Cor. 3:11
"For if that which is abolished was glorious, much more must that which abideth be glorious."

Here: 2 Cor. 3:13
"and are not like Moses, who threw a vail over his face, that the children of Israel might not behold the termination of that which was abolished."

And Here: 2 Cor. 3:14
"But they were blinded in their understanding; for until this day, when the old Testament is read, the same vail resteth upon them; nor is it manifest [to them], that it is abolished by the Messiah."



I said:

Something most certainly was abolished, but it certainly was not the written Torah. Jesus said plainly in Matt 5:17 that He did NOT come to abolish the Torah of Moses. It says that what was abolished was the "Law of commandments contained in ordinances (greek "dogma")"

So while this passage is often used to suggest that the Torah has been abolished, it is plain to anyone that this is an impossible understanding. God has corrected the mistakes of man. God gave His Torah to mankind to be instructions in righteousness, and man perverted it. Thus Yeshua in His flesh corrected what man had distorted, and restored the Torah of God as the instructions for all mankind.
Yes, and you also said this:
"Something most certainly was abolished, but it certainly was not the written Torah. Jesus said plainly in Matt 5:17 that He did NOT come to abolish the Torah of Moses. It says that what was abolished was the "Law of commandments contained in ordinances (greek "dogma")". What is interesting about that usage of the word Dogma is that the greek word dogma always reffers to decrees or commandments of MEN and NEVER the commandments of God. Thus, "law contained in dogma" is most certainly talking about a Torah being abolished, but it is NOT the written Torah of Moses, it is the Oral Torah, or the "seperating fence" which Paul mentioned in the last verse so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishingpeace.There was a distinction between the written Torah and Oral Torah, and Paul is very clear here that he is talking about the one which is the commandments of men, the Oral Torah, the Tradition of the Elders, the Seperating fence.

so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
And again, this destruction of the Oral Torah was that which brought peace between the Jews and Gentiles."

The words in bold print very clearly state that you believe Paul said the Oral Torah was abolished. What else is there to discuss? I say Paul said it was abolished, you say Paul believed it was abolished, what else is there?


Chazak I'm suprised you take mainstream Christianity's view that the Torah was abolished.
Of course I don't believe that the Torah was abolished. I just believe that Paul (mistakenly) thought it was.

[ChazakEmunah]

Chazak I'm suprised that you should know Jews rely on Gods grace..and not Obedience to the commandments to grant them salvation.
HaShem ONLY grants his mercy to those who commit to observe the mitzvot. So, yes, our observance of the mitzvot grants us both kipur and yeshuah (which are actually two separate things btw).


Even orthodox Jews believe in obeying the commandments are out of love for God and a covenant responsibility, but it is Gods grace and mercy alone that grants us his unconditional love and acceptance or salvation. Being obedient to the Torah is just our response to that love and his covenant with us.
FTR, *I* am an Orthodox Jew. Moving right along...

Yes, we should be observing the mitzvot with the proper kavannah of a sole desire to serve HaShem. I agree. And I also agree that we can only obtain kipur through HaShem's khesed, but yet HaShem's khein and khesed are ONLY granted if we commit to observing the mitzvot. We will not enjoy His khesed if we fail to commit ourselves to serving him completely.

Yes, we strive to keep the mitzvot for their own sake. Not for reward in this life or the next, but solely out of a desire to serve HaShem. Again, I agree. But that brings me back to my earlier point. We CANNOT expect to obtain his khesed if we fail to commit ourselves to observing the mitzvot.


So, christians see Messiah as the ultimate expression of Gods grace and so do Messianic Jews. Orthodox Jews whether they beleive the Messiah is a person or just simply an age of peace and justice or whatever, it is Gods grace that gets us to that person/or place/or point..not our deeds. Our deeds are simply a response.

Here is where I can see that you truly don't understand Orthodox Jews. For Orthodox Jews, there is not only a Messianic Age, but also a real, flesh and blood, human Mashiakh. The two beliefs are inseparable.

Now, you mentioned that our deeds do not earn us a place in Olam HaBa. This is not true. If we fail to commit ourselves to fully observing the Torah, we will NOT enjoy HaShem's khesed. And if we don't receive his khesed, we will NOT merit a place in Olam HaBa. It's really as simple as that.

[mpossoff]

Yep. He says it

Here: Romans 6:14-15
"And sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace ? Far be it."

Here: Romans 7:4
"And now, my brethren, ye also have become dead to the law, by the body of Messiah; that ye might be joined to another, [even] to him who arose from the dead; and might yield fruits unto God."

Here: Romans 7:6
"But now we are absolved from the law, and are dead to that which held us in its grasp: that we might henceforth serve in the newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Here: 2 Cor. 3:11
"For if that which is abolished was glorious, much more must that which abideth be glorious."

Here: 2 Cor. 3:13
"and are not like Moses, who threw a vail over his face, that the children of Israel might not behold the termination of that which was abolished."

And Here: 2 Cor. 3:14
"But they were blinded in their understanding; for until this day, when the old Testament is read, the same vail resteth upon them; nor is it manifest [to them], that it is abolished by the Messiah."



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

so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
And again, this destruction of the Oral Torah was that which brought peace between the Jews and Gentiles."

The words in bold print very clearly state that you believe Paul said the Oral Torah was abolished. What else is there to discuss? I say Paul said it was abolished, you say Paul believed it was abolished, what else is there?


Of course I don't believe that the Torah was abolished. I just believe that Paul (mistakenly) thought it was.

I believe that Paul not mistakenly said that the halacha was abolished pertaining to Gentiles, the separating fence.

Nowhere did I say or Paul say ALL.

There is a difference Chazak. Chazak with all due respect you have a habit of not reading the context. This is apparent in your exergese of some of the Romans scriptures.

Paul is very clear here that he is talking about the one which is the commandments of men, the Oral Torah, the Tradition of the Elders, the Seperating fence. As I said you are taking this WAY out of context.

The words in bold print very clearly state that you believe Paul said the Oral Torah was abolished. What else is there to discuss? I say Paul said it was abolished, you say Paul believed it was abolished, what else is there?Again you have a habit of taking things out of context. The bold says that the commandments of men which is the separating fence. This does not imply that all of oral Torah is a separating fence. This is pertaining to specific separating traditions such as 'you must be circumcised... to be saved'.

And as I said God has corrected the mistakes of man. God gave His Torah to mankind to be instructions in righteousness, and man perverted it. Thus Yeshua in His flesh corrected what man had distorted, and restored the Torah of God as the instructions for all mankind. It's apparent in the Apostolic scriptures that the Torah of God was not for ALL mankind, AKA separating fence. This does NOT imply that ALL of oral Torah God corrected.

Context, context, context!

Marc

[mpossoff]

Chazak I see you have a context problem. I've been there too but I've learned that CONTEXT is most important. That you just can't pick out a verse and say that it means this or it means that. I admit it's hard work and I don't have a complete handle myself but I seek context especially in the Apostolic scriptures. Historical, cultural, language contexts.

Let's start here:

Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

What law is it speaking of? It couldn’t be anything other than the Torah in context?

Hmmm I find it very ironic how Paul negatively speaks against the law that he would make this point? Could he be speaking about another law besides the Torah? Paul is saying that the Torah and faith are complimentary and not in conflict. There’s no such thing as law versus grace. Truthfully, that’s a lie. On the contrary, we establish the law through faith. Faith establishes the Torah. There is a direct connection between faith and the Torah as in Romans 7:7-25

First look at Romans 7:1 What law?
1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? Then he goes on how a woman if she’s married she is bound to her husband under the law until he dies. “And isn’t it a good thing you died to the law”. OK, that’s confusing after what he just told me that we establish the law through faith.


How about Romans 7:7-25. What law or laws is Paul referring too?
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”
8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.
9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.
16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Let’s look at Romans 7:21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. What law? Man made law? Torah? Principle? He’s talking about a principle. “I find this principle”.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. What law again? Inside he delights in the Torah.

Romans 7:23 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Now if you remember in the beginning of chapter 7 Paul is talking about being bound to a law and that you are freed by death. Which law is Paul speaking of? Because here Paul is saying he is being help captive by the law of sin which is in my members.

Romans 7:25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. I have been made dead to the law Paul says. . I have been made dead to the law in Romans 7:4
Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

What law have I died too? The law of sin and death. Through Yeshua I’ve died to the law of sin and death so I could be married to the law of God.

The point is the word nomos is flipping back and forth between a ‘good’ law(God’s Law) and a ‘bad’ law(the law of sin and death). How do you know which law Paul is speaking of? Sometimes it’s hard to figure out. You got to get the whole argument and context is very important.

Marc

[mpossoff]

HaShem ONLY grants his mercy to those who commit to observe the mitzvot. So, yes, our observance of the mitzvot grants us both kipur and yeshuah (which are actually two separate things btw).


FTR, *I* am an Orthodox Jew. Moving right along...

Yes, we should be observing the mitzvot with the proper kavannah of a sole desire to serve HaShem. I agree. And I also agree that we can only obtain kipur through HaShem's khesed, but yet HaShem's khein and khesed are ONLY granted if we commit to observing the mitzvot. We will not enjoy His khesed if we fail to commit ourselves to serving him completely.

Yes, we strive to keep the mitzvot for their own sake. Not for reward in this life or the next, but solely out of a desire to serve HaShem. Again, I agree. But that brings me back to my earlier point. We CANNOT expect to obtain his khesed if we fail to commit ourselves to observing the mitzvot.


Here is where I can see that you truly don't understand Orthodox Jews. For Orthodox Jews, there is not only a Messianic Age, but also a real, flesh and blood, human Mashiakh. The two beliefs are inseparable.

Now, you mentioned that our deeds do not earn us a place in Olam HaBa. This is not true. If we fail to commit ourselves to fully observing the Torah, we will NOT enjoy HaShem's khesed. And if we don't receive his khesed, we will NOT merit a place in Olam HaBa. It's really as simple as that.

Now, you mentioned that our deeds do not earn us a place in Olam HaBa. This is not true. If we fail to commit ourselves to fully observing the Torah, we will NOT enjoy HaShem's khesed. And if we don't receive his khesed, we will NOT merit a place in Olam HaBa. It's really as simple as that.

So are you saying, just for clarity that Torah is the entrance in the World to Come?

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

I believe that Paul not mistakenly said that the halacha was abolished pertaining to Gentiles, the separating fence.
So you do believe that the Oral Torah has been abolished. Goodness gracious man. Can we not just drop this perpetual merry-go-round?

Nowhere did I say or Paul say ALL.
Did you not read your own post?? You specifically said that you believe the Oral Torah was abolished. So does Paul. In fact, he said it several times.

There is a difference Chazak.
No there isn't. Let me illustrate an example. Paul's statement that the entire Oral Torah is abolished (because he disagreed with one minhag of one group) would be like me saying the entire US legal code is abolished because I don't agree with the speed limit on xyz street in Fort Worth, Texas. Now, wouldn't that be rather outlandish for me to say something like that?

Paul is very clear here that he is talking about the one which is the commandments of men, the Oral Torah...
Exactly what I've been saying all along. He says that the ENTIRE Oral Torah is abolished. And you have consistently agreed that he said it. Okay, tell you what. This is just getting silly. We both agree, so let's just let it go, okay?

...the Torah of God was not for ALL mankind
Not quite. The Sheva Mitzvot themselves are drawn from the Torah. So the Torah is for all, it's just that all are not obligated to observing all of it's mitzvot.

Chazak I see you have a context problem
Nope, not at all. The problem we have is that you have already agreed that Paul believed the Oral Torah was abolished, yet you still keep trying to come back and revisit this from the standpoint that he didn't. I truly don't understand it. Are you even reading what you're writing???

[ChazakEmunah]

Now, you mentioned that our deeds do not earn us a place in Olam HaBa. This is not true. If we fail to commit ourselves to fully observing the Torah, we will NOT enjoy HaShem's khesed. And if we don't receive his khesed, we will NOT merit a place in Olam HaBa. It's really as simple as that.

So are you saying, just for clarity that Torah is the entrance in the World to Come?

Marc

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[mpossoff]

So you do believe that the Oral Torah has been abolished. Goodness gracious man. Can we not just drop this perpetual merry-go-round? Chazak with all due respect you have a problem with context. As an example let's take the Constitution(this may not be a good example). When a law is amended in the Constitition it doesn't mean that the Constitution was abolished. Simple Chazak.


Did you not read your own post?? You specifically said that you believe the Oral Torah was abolished. So does Paul. In fact, he said it several times. He has said several times and myself that the separating fence was abolished. Do you not even regard that there was a separating fence? You have said that 'you must be circumcised...to be saved' was present. I agree it was a sect. Although a sect it apparently was a big enough issue for the Apostle's and believers to take in account. This is almost like saying that since the Temple is not present then the priesthood is not present, therefore since this is the case then the Torah is abolished. I'm suprised you take the mainstream 'Christian' view of Paul just at another angle.


No there isn't. Let me illustrate an example. Paul's statement that the entire Oral Torah is abolished (because he disagreed with one minhag of one group) would be like me saying the entire US legal code is abolished because I don't agree with the speed limit on xyz street in Fort Worth, Texas. Now, wouldn't that be rather outlandish for me to say something like that?


Exactly what I've been saying all along. He says that the ENTIRE Oral Torah is abolished. And you have consistently agreed that he said it. Okay, tell you what. This is just getting silly. We both agree, so let's just let it go, okay? Entire Oral Torah? I think not. I only see that the separating fence was abolished. Which the main battle is about in all the Apostolic scriptures, how gentiles will get in. The separating fence that prevented the gentiles is abolished with the blood of Messiah.


Not quite. The Sheva Mitzvot themselves are drawn from the Torah. So the Torah is for all, it's just that all are not obligated to observing all of it's mitzvot. I'm not going to argue whether one is obligated or not. The point is that there were gentiles that were kept out by the separating fence. The way to 'get in' was to get circumcised first. Which was:repent, get circumcised, then learn Torah. Paul taught: repent, then you are declared righteous, learn Torah. Did Paul teach against the mitzvot of circumcision? Of course not. He taught against circumcision as ritual conversion.


Nope, not at all. The problem we have is that you have already agreed that Paul believed the Oral Torah was abolished, yet you still keep trying to come back and revisit this from the standpoint that he didn't. I truly don't understand it. Are you even reading what you're writing??? Yes I am reading what I have wrote. But again I believe you have a context problem.

Marc

[Talmidah]

What is "the separating fence"?

(I apologize for the question, I'm just trying to follow your discussion and want to understand your terms)

[mpossoff]

What is "the separating fence"?

(I apologize for the question, I'm just trying to follow your discussion and want to understand your terms)

The separating fence in the 1st century was that gentiles had to get circumcised to become covenant members. They truly believed that a person was only saved when they became a son of Abraham through circumcision. I'm trying to describe it in laymans terms. Now don't take this wrong. In no way I am saying that circumcision isn't a mitzvot.

I'm not saying that all sects of Judaism's believed this. But it's apparent that this was a big issue.

Marc

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

But a NEW COVENANT has been established. Even though it is no longer required, it will continue until the eighth day. On that day, mankind will see God, face to face.

[ChazakEmunah]

Chazak with all due respect you have a problem with context. As an example let's take the Constitution(this may not be a good example). When a law is amended in the Constitition it doesn't mean that the Constitution was abolished. Simple Chazak.
And I have told you I do not have a problem with context, you have a problem understanding your own posts. Your example doesn't make any sense. We're not talking about an amendment, we're talking about throwing away the whole book because we want to change one word.

Let's recap your posts:

1) You have repeatedly called the entire Oral Torah a)man's traditions, b) a separating fence
2) You have repeatedly stated that Paul believed the Oral Torah, as defined as the "separating fence", was abolished
3) You have repeatedly stated that you agree that the Oral Torah, as defined as the "separating fence" was abolished


It seems to me that you are trying to reconcile Paul with Judaism and belief in the Oral Torah. You can't do it. You keep trying to separate one minhag of one group and try to say that this is all Paul was opposed to. But in fact, your posts say otherwise. Your posts equate the Oral Torah with this "separating fence." What you don't realize is that you have already figured out Paul. He opposed the Oral Torah, possibly on the grounds you postulate.



He has said several times and myself that the separating fence was abolished. Do you not even regard that there was a separating fence?
Exactly. And you have stated that you believe Paul equated this "separating fence" with the Oral Torah. No, I do not believe the Oral Torah is or was a "separating fence." Jews are not Goyim, and likewise Goyim are not Jews. We are both equal before HaShem, but we are separate. And there are halakha in place to preserve both unique distinctions.



I'm suprised you take the mainstream 'Christian' view of Paul just at another angle.
Well I'm in pretty good company. There have been many scholars and historians who have written books that agree with what I have already presented here.



Entire Oral Torah? I think not. I only see that the separating fence was abolished.
Which you yourself have equated with the ORAL TORAH.



Which the main battle is about in all the Apostolic scriptures, how gentiles will get in.
I don't think that's the main focus of the NT, but if you want to believe that, it's your prerogative.



The separating fence that prevented the gentiles is abolished with the blood of Messiah.
First, the Oral Torah is not abolished. It is still in force.
Second, there is no way that the death of anyone would abolish the Oral Torah.
Third, if this were the case, then why was Paul the only one who taught this? Why didn't the Netzarim stop adhering to the Oral Torah right after the death of their Rabbi?



I'm not going to argue whether one is obligated or not.
Good. We can save that for another debate. ;)



The point is that there were gentiles that were kept out by the separating fence.
And yet it is likely that this teaching was only coming from one group. They could just as well have gone to any number of other groups and found inclusion. There were several P'rushim sects at the time. Goyim would have had no problems with a sect that was Beit Hillel.



The way to 'get in' was to get circumcised first. Which was:repent, get circumcised, then learn Torah.
This is similiar to how conversions are done today.



Paul taught: repent, then you are declared righteous, learn Torah.
Yep, and Paul was wrong. A person cannot be declared righteous without first committing to observe the mitzvot obligated upon them.



Did Paul teach against the mitzvot of circumcision? Of course not. He taught against circumcision as ritual conversion.
I really don't want to drag this out much longer, but he did call circumcision 'mutilation.' I'd have to look up the reference though.