Paul and Torah

[Hix]

Galations 2:21 - "If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Romans 10:4 - "For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Romans 3:20 - "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin."

Romans 7:4 - "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto G-d. [5] For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. [6] But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter."


A few (there are more) examples that have me puzzled. Why do "observant" messianics accept the writings of Paul as scripture, when not only does he contradict himself, he contradicts the enduring themes of the Torah and Tanakh as a whole?

Not only is the Tanakh clear that righteousness DOES come from Torah and that it is to be followed forever, but also G-d doesn't (and wouldn't) change.

Of all the problems facing the messianic movement, the vast majority of them are through paganistic, early-church, reforms concieved by Paul that have no bearing whatsoever to Judaism.

I don't want to start a row, I'd just like to hear some opinions as to why he is taken on board at all.

Shalom and G-d Bless
~Hix~

[muffler dragon]

Hix?!!! is that you?

It's been a long time. I hope you're well. My time spent here is dwindling, but I will look you up when I stop by.

[Hix]

Hix?!!! is that you?

It's been a long time. I hope you're well. My time spent here is dwindling, but I will look you up when I stop by.

It has been FAR too long! Good to see you, even if you aren't around much. Have you been well?

It's a shame to see this topic isn't obtaining any interest, in Judaism it is actively encouraged for you to challenge your beliefs, as the answers are always in Torah. So why the hesitation?

I just have a hard time believing that people who claim to understand and accept the importance and centrality of the Torah to the Jewish faith and the unchanging nature of HaShem, could still allow the blatantly un-scriptural writings of someone intent on making the faith more appealing to gentiles, undermine them. :scratch:

[muffler dragon]

It has been FAR too long! Good to see you, even if you aren't around much. Have you been well?

I have been quite well. Since we last spoke, I've moved from NC to OR, and love living in the Pacific Northwest.

My wife is pregnant with our second and is due to give birth next month. We have our five-year-old daughter, and this one's going to be a son.

It's a shame to see this topic isn't obtaining any interest, in Judaism it is actively encouraged for you to challenge your beliefs, as the answers are always in Torah. So why the hesitation?

To be honest, I believe there's a LONG storyline to answer that question. In short, I wouldn't expect too much of a response. It's similar to my Psalm 119 thread that I started months ago. Just didn't get much play.

I just have a hard time believing that people who claim to understand and accept the importance and centrality of the Torah to the Jewish faith and the unchanging nature of HaShem, could still allow the blatantly un-scriptural writings of someone intent on making the faith more appealing to gentiles, undermine them. :scratch:

In truth, one can believe anything that one wants to. Oftentimes, this is regardless of what may or may not be empirically shown.

[Hix]

Oh I know I'm probably expecting too much, just seems sad to me there are a distinct lack of Messianics willing to challenge and stand up for what they believe. One thing about Judaism that always hit home with me was how it was never afraid to confront every single difficult question that could be thrown at it. Why is the same not true here?

Regardless, this thread has been worth it just to hear from you. Mazel Tov on the new arival and as always HaShem bless and keep you.

Shalom and G-d Bless
~Hix~

[Steve Petersen]

Oh I know I'm probably expecting too much, just seems sad to me there are a distinct lack of Messianics willing to challenge and stand up for what they believe. One thing about Judaism that always hit home with me was how it was never afraid to confront every single difficult question that could be thrown at it. Why is the same not true here?

Regardless, this thread has been worth it just to hear from you. Mazel Tov on the new arival and as always HaShem bless and keep you.

Shalom and G-d Bless
~Hix~

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Don't be suprised if nobody takes you up on a debate as it would probably be a waste of time.

We have had many other Star of David types come in here and throw down the same challenge. Paul and Torah have been done to death here. If you are just going to lob old Christian dogma about Paul around you won't find any takers. Historical/cultural perspectives on Paul clear up most of what appear to be anti-Torah statements.

[Lulav]

Galations 2:21 - "If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Romans 10:4 - "For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Romans 3:20 - "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin."

Romans 7:4 - "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto G-d. [5] For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. [6] But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter."


A few (there are more) examples that have me puzzled. Why do "observant" messianics accept the writings of Paul as scripture, when not only does he contradict himself, he contradicts the enduring themes of the Torah and Tanakh as a whole?

Not only is the Tanakh clear that righteousness DOES come from Torah and that it is to be followed forever, but also G-d doesn't (and wouldn't) change.

Of all the problems facing the messianic movement, the vast majority of them are through paganistic, early-church, reforms concieved by Paul that have no bearing whatsoever to Judaism.

I don't want to start a row, I'd just like to hear some opinions as to why he is taken on board at all.

Shalom and G-d Bless
~Hix~
Are you saying that you think Galatians and Romans were also written for Jewish believers? I have always viewed these as being written to gentiles, as Paul is self proclaimed apostle to the gentiles. I think he had given up on any speaking to Jews before he wrote these.

[Hix]

Bovine Scatology. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Don't be suprised if nobody takes you up on a debate as it would probably be a waste of time.

We have had many other Star of David types come in here and throw down the same challenge. Paul and Torah have been done to death here. If you are just going to lob old Christian dogma about Paul around you won't find any takers. Historical/cultural perspectives on Paul clear up most of what appear to be anti-Torah statements.
Excuse me? How rude, I didn't know they allowed personal attacks on the terms of service here.

As for my OP, I think you will find instead of christian arguements, I posted text from your Brit Chadasha. Text that clearly contradicts the messages from the Tanakh.

Perhaps I should mention that as someone who has a Messianic Rabbi for a father and has been studying the movement for a long time I don't have any malice, I only asked a question. It is sad that instead of being able to answer, you can only resort to abuse and avoiding the point.

Here's a hint: It reflects REEEEEEEEEALLY badly on Messianic Judaism as a whole.

[Hix]

Are you saying that you think Galatians and Romans were also written for Jewish believers? I have always viewed these as being written to gentiles, as Paul is self proclaimed apostle to the gentiles. I think he had given up on any speaking to Jews before he wrote these.
As I say in a later post, Galatians and Romans were indeed written primarily to attract Gentiles. Judaism was always very popular, the concept of monotheism especially, but certain things and in particular Torah Observance put gentiles off.

I am not debating who or what it was for, but Paul is pretty blatant about discounting Torah not JUST for Gentiles, but for Jews also. This is clearly not biblically based. What I am asking is why, despite this, Messianics still hold his words as divinely inspired scripture.

I have my own theory (it being another aspect of Christianity the movement is unable to leave behind), but I'd like to hear actual Messianic's opinions.

[Steve Petersen]

Excuse me? How rude, I didn't know they allowed personal attacks on the terms of service here.

As for my OP, I think you will find instead of christian arguements, I posted text from your Brit Chadasha. Text that clearly contradicts the messages from the Tanakh.

Perhaps I should mention that as someone who has a Messianic Rabbi for a father and has been studying the movement for a long time I don't have any malice, I only asked a question. It is sad that instead of being able to answer, you can only resort to abuse and avoiding the point.

Here's a hint: It reflects REEEEEEEEEALLY badly on Messianic Judaism as a whole.

I am not debating who or what it was for, but Paul is pretty blatant about discounting Torah not JUST for Gentiles, but for Jews also. This is clearly not biblically based. What I am asking is why, despite this, Messianics still hold his words as divinely inspired scripture.


Rude is coming in here and accusing Messianic of turing a blind eye to Paul's 'so-called' anti-Torah idea.

[Hix]

Rude is coming in here and accusing Messianic of turing a blind eye to Paul's 'so-called' anti-Torah idea.
Is it really that hard to actually stay on topic and answer my questions? This is the Messianic Debate forum, if you find a particular topic offensive because it happens to be a theological challenge then you are probably better staying out.

Really now, it's not too hard. I post scripture showing Paul making clear arguements against the following of Torah. Messianic Jews claim to appreciate the importance and centrality of the Torah to G-d's divine plan. All I want to know is why they can accept Paul's views when they stand so clearly in defiance of the Tanakh.

If you cannot answer the OP and/or have nothing nice/constructive to say, might I suggest you go sulk elsewere?

[Steve Petersen]

Is it really that hard to actually stay on topic and answer my questions? This is the Messianic Debate forum, if you find a particular topic offensive because it happens to be a theological challenge then you are probably better staying out.

Really now, it's not too hard. I post scripture showing Paul making clear arguements against the following of Torah. Messianic Jews claim to appreciate the importance and centrality of the Torah to G-d's divine plan. All I want to know is why they can accept Paul's views when they stand so clearly in defiance of the Tanakh.

If you cannot answer the OP and/or have nothing nice/constructive to say, might I suggest you go sulk elsewere?

As I said, this has been done to death. This only the most recent of the attacks on Paul.

http://christianforums.com/t6164242-pauls-opposition-to-torah.html

I expect that, like the other thread starter, you will stick to your bias based solely on proof-texting. There will be no discussion of the historical/cultural contexts of Paul's letters.

BTW, you mentioned that your father was a Messianic rabbi and I note that you sport a Star of David. Are you yourself a former MJ, perhaps lately converted to Judaism (like the other thread starter)?

[Hix]

Regardless of whether this has been covered or not (and realistically speaking, it really hasn't been covered enough given the importance of the topic), a clear and polite answer would do wonders to your side of the arguement.

Try as you might to make the passages quoted disappear, they just won't. I have yet to meet anyone with an open mind, of ANY religion who has denied that Paul at the very very least brought about major theological changes and attributed them to Yeshua. This in itself provides serious problems for Messianic Jews as they are faced with conceding G-d changed, which is blatantly anti-Tanakh.

Anyway, that is all besides the point, what I want to know is why (rhetoric aside) Messianic Jews struggle so hard to cover up for the fact that Paul was unashamedly anti-Torah and trying to sell his beliefs to a Gentile audience by painting it that way?

Corinthians 9:20-22 - To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law; though not being myself under the law; that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law; not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ; that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.


EDIT: Just caught your edits there, so I'll try and answer them for you.

1. I am open to debate on the historical and cultural influences at the time. I have done some study on this and am aware of Paul's mission, the desires and interests of the Gentiles at the time and what reasons he might have for denying the Torah's relevance. If you have any different info on that, I'd like to hear it.

2. An informed question, something like that you could say. I was somewhat caught up in Messianic Judaism for a while a few years back (especially with the influences around) but found alot of aspects rather difficult to get around. After some personal study and soul searching, G-d led me back to Torah Judaism (where I was before). I am still very interested in study regarding Messianic Judaism however as many of its participants are very genuine in their beliefs, but very mistaken regarding central aspects of scripture (primarily due to christian influence). :)

[Steve Petersen]

Regardless of whether this has been covered or not (and realistically speaking, it really hasn't been covered enough given the importance of the topic), a clear and polite answer would do wonders to your side of the arguement.

Try as you might to make the passages quoted disappear, they just won't. I have yet to meet anyone with an open mind, of ANY religion who has denied that Paul at the very very least brought about major theological changes and attributed them to Yeshua. This in itself provides serious problems for Messianic Jews as they are faced with conceding G-d changed, which is blatantly anti-Tanakh.

Anyway, that is all besides the point, what I want to know is why (rhetoric aside) Messianic Jews struggle so hard to cover up for the fact that Paul was unashamedly anti-Torah and trying to sell his beliefs to a Gentile audience by painting it that way?

Corinthians 9:20-22 - To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law; though not being myself under the law; that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law; not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ; that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.


EDIT: Just caught your edits there, so I'll try and answer them for you.

1. I am open to debate on the historical and cultural influences at the time. I have done some study on this and am aware of Paul's mission, the desires and interests of the Gentiles at the time and what reasons he might have for denying the Torah's relevance. If you have any different info on that, I'd like to hear it.

2. An informed question, something like that you could say. I was somewhat caught up in Messianic Judaism for a while a few years back (especially with the influences around) but found alot of aspects rather difficult to get around. After some personal study and soul searching, G-d led me back to Torah Judaism (where I was before). I am still very interested in study regarding Messianic Judaism however as many of its participants are very genuine in their beliefs, but very mistaken regarding central aspects of scripture (primarily due to christian influence). :)

I would refer you the the writings of Mark Nanos, a Reform Jewish professor who taught at the University of Edinburgh:

The Irony of Galatians

The Mystery of Romans


Here is his website:

http://www.marknanos.com/

[muffler dragon]

Is it really that hard to actually stay on topic and answer my questions? This is the Messianic Debate forum, if you find a particular topic offensive because it happens to be a theological challenge then you are probably better staying out.

Really now, it's not too hard. I post scripture showing Paul making clear arguements against the following of Torah. Messianic Jews claim to appreciate the importance and centrality of the Torah to G-d's divine plan. All I want to know is why they can accept Paul's views when they stand so clearly in defiance of the Tanakh.

If you cannot answer the OP and/or have nothing nice/constructive to say, might I suggest you go sulk elsewere?

One word: obfuscation.

Hix:

As you'll come to find out, the normal process is much like this:

1) Claim is made by person arguing from your POV.
2) Opponent asks for substantiation.
3) Person from your POV substantiates original claim.
4) Substantiation is either ignored, re-directed, or strawmanned into something that may appear to be connected yet is not at all.

In short, those that actually maintain a decorum of respectable debate/discussion are few and far between. You're never going to get anything in return that comes close to matching the amount of effort that you'll have performed.

As you'll note, the topic at hand has already led into a discussion as to your background. This place isn't anything like what it used to be.

[Steve Petersen]

Then you have those who prefer sniping from the sidelines instead of bringing substance to the discussion. You will see the same thing on the thread link I posted.

[Bananna]

Please refrain from posting rude remarks.
Those of you who made rude remarks please edit imediately. Those who cannot speak peaceably please do not post at all.
Be kind, others are made in God's image.

[ContraMundum]

Oh I know I'm probably expecting too much, just seems sad to me there are a distinct lack of Messianics willing to challenge and stand up for what they believe. One thing about Judaism that always hit home with me was how it was never afraid to confront every single difficult question that could be thrown at it. Why is the same not true here?

We can easily debate and easily win any points you care to bring up- but why would we bother? Are you intending to convert to Christianity or are you just going to be another poster who thinks this forum is a place to air grievences and attack the Christian faith under the guise of "debate"?

[Hix]

Then you have muffler dragon sniping from the sidelines instead of bringing substance to the discussion. You will see the same thing on the thread link I posted.

As it happens, he has still contributed more to this thread than you have.

A direct answer is what I am looking for, not linking to the personal page of a Reform Jew who happens to think Paul might have been misunderstood and is possibly the first Reform Jew in History, advocating their stance of pick-and-choose Torah Observance.
As you said earlier, there is actually little debate about the content of the letters themselves but supposed historical and cultural contexts of them. In doing so he seems to ignore the texts entirely, leading to a complete void of any form of conclusion at all. Does Paul advocate following Torah? Does Paul believe following Torah can make you Righteous? Seems Mark Nanos doesn't have an opinion on that.

This is because there is very little that can be changed by examining the backround of the letters, Paul was extremely specific about his dislike for Torah Observance and because of this (and other statements, like I showed earlier from Corinthians) it isn't too much of a leap to suggest that the talking down of Torah observance was to satisfy one of the primary problems that Gentiles always had with the Jewish Faith to begin with.

Regardless of this, his comment (I posted in the OP) from Galatians is possibly the most telling. I'd like to hear some opinion if I could on whether people think it was a good idea of him to put Yeshua in contest with the Torah. I can provide plenty of scripture showing the Torah can indeed make you righteous, if need be :)

Shalom and G-d Bless
~Hix~

[Hix]

We can easily debate and easily win any points you care to bring up- but why would we bother? Are you intending to convert to Christianity or are you just going to be another poster who thinks this forum is a place to air grievences and attack the Christian faith under the guise of "debate"?
Because its a public forum intended for debate? There is no rule here about having to convert to Christianity to ask questions regarding it, though if I was going to convert you are certainly not painting the faith in a favorable light. Perhaps you would do well to learn from Paul.

[ContraMundum]

Because its a public forum intended for debate? There is no rule here about having to convert to Christianity to ask questions regarding it, though if I was going to convert you are certainly not painting the faith in a favorable light. Perhaps you would do well to learn from Paul.

You missed the point. This isn't about rules, it's about effort. Why would we want to debate someone when we don't know their true intentions? Why spend precious time to someone who has no genuine interest in our religion?

[Hix]

You missed the point. This isn't about rules, it's about effort. Why would we want to debate someone when we don't know their true intentions? Why spend precious time to someone who has no genuine interest in our religion?

I have already stated I have a genuine interest in your religion and it's ties to christianity, not to forget genuine links to people in it as well.

Regardless it seems to me like theres a head-in-the-sand mentality around here. If your religion is so important to you and you are so assured of it then you should have no problem answering my questions. I already have heard some round-about explainations as to why Paul found it necessary to give off about Torah observance over 10 times more than any other subject (such as Idol worship, gnosticism) etc. But here I have yet to read one viable explaination that looks on Paul in the light of the Tanakh, not the other way round.

[ContraMundum]

I have already stated I have a genuine interest in your religion and it's ties to christianity, not to forget genuine links to people in it as well.

OK. Why are you interested in our religion?

Regardless it seems to me like theres a head-in-the-sand mentality around here. If your religion is so important to you and you are so assured of it then you should have no problem answering my questions. I already have heard some round-about explainations as to why Paul found it necessary to give off about Torah observance over 10 times more than any other subject (such as Idol worship, gnosticism) etc. But here I have yet to read one viable explaination that looks on Paul in the light of the Tanakh, not the other way round.

Well, you won't get a precise answer to that because we don't believe in your assesment of Paul. You're asking us to give account for something we don't believe. It's like asking us to play soccer with you but you won't let us have a ball, and then you claim that we can't play soccer. :)

Perhaps you could re-phrase your question in line with what Christians believe? How about asking "what do Christians belive about ______ ?" or something like that? I don't know, up to you, but really, that would help.

[ContraMundum]

As it happens, he has still contributed more to this thread than you have.

I don't think so. MDs posts have been largely socialising in this thread.

Steve gave you some links to a page- have you checked them out and what are your comments about them?

[Hix]

OK. Why are you interested in our religion?

Good question, I suppose for a number of reasons. That's for another topic though.


Well, you won't get a precise answer to that because we don't believe in your assesment of Paul.

Actually, a large amount of Messianics do believe Paul speaks out against following Torah and that righteousness can be gained from it.

My OP was directed to the more traditional Messianics who struggle to come to terms with the conflicting messages between Paul and the Torah, Tanakh and Talmud.


Perhaps you could re-phrase your question in line with what Christians believe? How about asking "what do Christians belive about ______ ?" or something like that? I don't know, up to you, but really, that would help.

That would, as I mentioned, probably not help as my question targets only a small select group and not the larger mainstream of Christianity and Messianic Judaism.

The questions raised will probably never be answered correctly and using non-contradicting scriptural evidence (as can be used to prove Paul was Anti-Torah, such as is shown in Acts to use another example). This is primarily because alot of Messianic theological necessities come from Paul, such as "grafted in" etc.

[Hix]

Steve gave you some links to a page- have you checked them out and what are your comments about them?

The link to the previous debate on this subject or the link to the Reform Jew?

The previous debate was very incomplete and seemed to have more dodging and ducking the point than this. Infact the responses from the Messianics in it, quite like that of the Reform Jew, seemed to deal more with what Paul himself did and proving he himself was Torah Observant.

As questionable as this is (He claims to be a Pharisee, but if his Biblical records are to be believed, he most certainly was not), it is all entirely besides the point anyway. I am not necessarily interested in Paul the man, but rather what Paul has left in his legacy.

Paul essentially put a distinction between Judaism and early day Messianics, by stating that if righteousness could be obtained by following Torah, then Yeshua died in vain. If righteousness cannot be obtained by following Torah, then either the Torah itself is flawed and wrong, or G-d changed.

Just one example, if I may:

Ezekiel 18:5 - But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, [6] And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, [7] And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; [8] He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, [9] Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord G-d.

I can provide many more quotes and examples, if needed, but the point is there. Follow the Torah and you will be Just/Righteous. Righteousness comes from the Torah.

Regardless, I haven't really found a serious or genuine arguement to this. Seeing I am very open to accepting scripture from your own Bible, it should be a very easy thing to prove me wrong on my opinion of Paul as a pariah that advocated anti-Torah ideals in particular for Gentiles despite the grafted in ideal.

I'm only looking for personal thoughts on this, as to me it seems incomprehensible that observant messianics would consider his writings to be scriptural at all. :scratch:

[ContraMundum]

Good question, I suppose for a number of reasons. That's for another topic though.

It would be of interest to me.

Actually, a large amount of Messianics do believe Paul speaks out against following Torah and that righteousness can be gained from it.

My OP was directed to the more traditional Messianics who struggle to come to terms with the conflicting messages between Paul and the Torah, Tanakh and Talmud.

Let me put this out there for you- I don't fit into that mould. My theology is generally informed by ancient ecumenical consensus and its commentary on the scriptures. This theology has never seen a contrast between the Paul and the earlier revelation, and would take the position that if one sees a contradiction between them, then one is mis-interpreting Paul.

Christianity inherited the tradition of manifold commentaries on the scriptures, and Peter himself said that Paul's writings were often difficult- hence, we would argue that without a proper approach to Paul's writings one will most certainly get confused about them- so if you have come across Messianics who struggle with this, it is not the fault of the religion, but the fault of the interpretation of those individuals. Just as no one studies Rabbinical Judiasm without a commentary or two, likewise often we need help to study the writings of Paul.

That would, as I mentioned, probably not help as my question targets only a small select group and not the larger mainstream of Christianity and Messianic Judaism.

The questions raised will probably never be answered correctly and using non-contradicting scriptural evidence (as can be used to prove Paul was Anti-Torah, such as is shown in Acts to use another example). This is primarily because alot of Messianic theological necessities come from Paul, such as "grafted in" etc.

One important thing to remember about Christianity is that we believe that God has progressively revealed His will for us over the centuries- each revelation bringing more light to the earlier ones. (eg.The most clear revelation about the Tanach we believe comes from the NT). This progression of revelation is of course seen clearly in the Tanach and even more blatantly claimed in the writings of the Rabbis to this day. Therefore, the theological "necessities" you mention coming from Paul are considered by Christians to be part of God's greater revelation, which defines and clarifies the earlier revelation of the Tanach. It does not over-rule it (unless one is mis-interpreting it- and many have, esp in the modern churches), but it brings it to its full meaning.

What this means to your OP is this: we would argue that perhaps your take on Paul is wrong to begin with, and in my dealings with others in the past, this is usually the case. If you wished to go through it one point at a time, then perhaps we could help you grasp his writings and see him in a better light than his critics position him.

I don't for a minute expect to satisfy your curiosity, because experience has shown me that people such as yourself don't want to discuss this because you want answers in your journey, but I would be happy if I could demonstrate at least that Christianity is not a hapless, dull religion invented by idiots for idiots- which has been the mission of many posters of other religions on this forum of late.

[ContraMundum]

The link to the previous debate on this subject or the link to the Reform Jew?

Either/or or both/and.

Paul essentially put a distinction between Judaism and early day Messianics, by stating that if righteousness could be obtained by following Torah, then Yeshua died in vain. If righteousness cannot be obtained by following Torah, then either the Torah itself is flawed and wrong, or G-d changed.

Just one example, if I may:

Ezekiel 18:5 - But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, [6] And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, [7] And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; [8] He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, [9] Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord G-d.

I can provide many more quotes and examples, if needed, but the point is there. Follow the Torah and you will be Just/Righteous. Righteousness comes from the Torah.

The Torah also says that righteousness comes from God- eg. that God is our righteouesness. Likewise, the Tanach says in many places that all men are unrighteous etc. The issue for Christianity is not righteousness itself, but whether deeds alone make one righteous. Let's not forget that Judaism taught, and still does teach, that Gentiles can be righteous too, yet they do so without keeping the full Torah. Christianity is a consistant system in this respect.

The problem here is not that Paul says that man cannot be justified by the Torah, but rather Paul is saying that the Torah itself has always taught that one is justified by faith- indeed, he uses Abraham as the example to prove this. Righteousness comes from God, not from us, but we can access it by a sanctified (righteous) life, however, without faith, we cannot please God and our righteousness becomes as filthy rags. This of course is consistant with Judaism in his day (and in some circles even now).

Regardless, I haven't really found a serious or genuine arguement to this. Seeing I am very open to accepting scripture from your own Bible, it should be a very easy thing to prove me wrong on my opinion of Paul as a pariah that advocated anti-Torah ideals in particular for Gentiles despite the grafted in ideal.

To be fair, one should label Rabbinic Judaism as "anti-Torah for Gentiles", so I don't see much profit in using Paul as an opponent of that, but rather, an advocate of such and a kindred spirit. Like the Rabbis today, Paul never insisted that Gentiles need keep Shabbos or circumcision, and in fact the Rabbis today are probably more vocal against it than he appears to be.

I'm only looking for personal thoughts on this, as to me it seems incomprehensible that observant messianics would consider his writings to be scriptural at all. :scratch:

As an observant Messianic, I have found his writings ot be very consistant with 1stC Pharisaic thought. What I find perplexing is modern-day followers of Rabbinic Judaism seem to forget that the Judaisms of that era were quite different to the Judaisms of today and continually asses 1stC documents in the light of Judaism after Maimonides, which makes no sense to me.

Anyway, perhaps you could bring up (again) some texts of Paul that you find difficult to reconcile with your understanding of the Tanach and we could address them one at a time.

[muffler dragon]

obfuscate according to www.m-w.com

1 a: darken b: to make obscure <obfuscate the issue>
2: confuse <obfuscate the reader>
intransitive verb
: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing
— ob·fus·ca·tion \ˌäb-(ˌ)fəs-ˈkā-shən\ noun
— ob·fus·ca·to·ry \äb-ˈfəs-kə-ˌtȯr-ē, əb-\ adjective

Hix:

See any corollary to your responses and definition #2?

Let's enumerate just for fun:

1) Your background.
2) Your interest in MJ.
3) The ease with which your arguments would be dismissed.
4) Why exert the effort?
5) Posting links instead of personal substantiation.

Etc.

Unfortunately, it's something you'll have to get used to should you decide to try to have dialogue/debate. The title of this subforum is a bit farcical.

[Steve Petersen]

I'm only looking for personal thoughts on this, as to me it seems incomprehensible that observant messianics would consider his writings to be scriptural at all. :scratch:

Here's another good book that supports Paul as observant and not advocating abolition of Torah.

Paul the Jewish Theologian by Brad Young.

I would also recommend The Letter Writer by Tim Hegg.

There is new thinking about Paul that has been taking place in the scholarly community over the last few years. Have you read any of these?

[Steve Petersen]

Roman 10:4

The word translated 'end' is telos in the Greek. It is from a primary root tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit.

Here is another verse from Romans in which Paul uses 'telos.'

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Surely Paul is not saying that the promise is terminated!

Another verse. This one lines also talks about 'the end of the commandment' but it is obvious that he does not mean 'termination', but rather 'purpose' or 'goal.'

1 Tim 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

'Telos' is also used in one of Peter's epistles:

1 Pet 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

Again it is obvious that the word is not used in the sense of 'termination' but of 'goal or purpose.'

To read Romans 10:4 as 'termination' is a rendering affected by a preconceived notion. It does not always mean 'termination'. To read it that way is to artificially create a conflict within Paul's writings. This passage does not facilitate that conflict.

[muffler dragon]

Here's another good book that supports Paul as observant and not advocating abolition of Torah.

Paul the Jewish Theologian by Brad Young.

I owned this and Jesus the Jewish Theologian. I even had a short discourse with Brad via email a long time ago. The only thing going for him was being Flusser's student. Overall, the books were weak and spoke only to the genre that wanted to believe them. Funny enough, I did at the time.

[Steve Petersen]

In Romans 7 Paul speaks at length about the Law and his inability to keep it perfectly. Late in the chapter he refers to 'another law', the 'law of sin and death.'

Rom 7:23 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.

So, whenever we run into statements about the 'law' in his writings we need to determine exactly which law he is referring to.

[Hix]

Let me put this out there for you- I don't fit into that mould. My theology is generally informed by ancient ecumenical consensus and its commentary on the scriptures. This theology has never seen a contrast between the Paul and the earlier revelation, and would take the position that if one sees a contradiction between them, then one is mis-interpreting Paul.

This I can definetly understand, but only to a point. For you see not just "anyone" can do a commentary and/or consensus for it to be sensical. If this were the case it would be fairly easy to twist the scriptures to mean just about anything to keep consistant with the commentator's core beliefs.

There are literally hundreds of different views on scripture out there, evidenced in the hundreds of different brands of christianity. Commentry on Paul's writings by christian scholars has been equally as varied, everything from simple, straight, advocation of the "end of the law" to Torah being important but not enough so as to make a person righteous.
I have several Biblical commentaries of my own that attest to the former, some from Messianics also. Which side carries the most weight however?

Well, the answer is...neither. The Tanakh is clear that commentry was to be made by the Jewish Sages/Rabbis of the time. The Jewish people themselves were (as Isaiah 42:6 tells us) a Light unto the Nations/Gentiles. The Talmud even goes as far as to say that Torah was given to the Jews because HaShem trusts only us to properly interperate it to the Nations. You could say this is the Jewish cause and purpose in this world.

Anyway, getting a little carried away here, moving on :D


One important thing to remember about Christianity is that we believe that God has progressively revealed His will for us over the centuries- each revelation bringing more light to the earlier ones. (eg.The most clear revelation about the Tanach we believe comes from the NT).

This is something I understand, the Christian perspective has always been backwards to the Jewish. The example of this is in our Tanakh. The arrangement of our books is Torah >> The Prophets >> The Writings.
In this arrangement, a reading from start to finish sees the doom and gloom of the Prophets, finishing with the hope and promise of the writings (if you return to the first and most important part, the Torah).

The christian arrangement switches the last two, so you get the doom and gloom of the Prophets and straight into the New Testament.

From this it's easy to see that traditionally, christians view the Torah in the light of the New Testament, while Jews view all of their scripture in the light of the Torah.



Therefore, the theological "necessities" you mention coming from Paul are considered by Christians to be part of God's greater revelation, which defines and clarifies the earlier revelation of the Tanach. It does not over-rule it (unless one is mis-interpreting it- and many have, esp in the modern churches), but it brings it to its full meaning.

I can somewhat understand this point, however I see little evidence of it. Paul's statements all seem fairly clear and contradictory to what was already known. But I would very much like to hear this greater revelation.


What this means to your OP is this: we would argue that perhaps your take on Paul is wrong to begin with, and in my dealings with others in the past, this is usually the case. If you wished to go through it one point at a time, then perhaps we could help you grasp his writings and see him in a better light than his critics position him.

That would be great :)

I would like some clarification on what you think Paul's stance on Torah Observance is and how this ties in to his letters and indeed to his arguements with the Jerusalem "church" in Acts.


I don't for a minute expect to satisfy your curiosity, because experience has shown me that people such as yourself don't want to discuss this because you want answers in your journey, but I would be happy if I could demonstrate at least that Christianity is not a hapless, dull religion invented by idiots for idiots- which has been the mission of many posters of other religions on this forum of late.

Far from it, I have no qualms about christianity at all and have a respect for its many participants who show a genuine zeal for their faith.

[Hix]

The Torah also says that righteousness comes from God- eg. that God is our righteouesness. Likewise, the Tanach says in many places that all men are unrighteous etc. The issue for Christianity is not righteousness itself, but whether deeds alone make one righteous. Let's not forget that Judaism taught, and still does teach, that Gentiles can be righteous too, yet they do so without keeping the full Torah. Christianity is a consistant system in this respect.

I think you misunderstand, when a Jew talks about the Torah he is not simply talking just about physical deeds. Indeed the first and most important part of the "law" is to trust in and love G-d. It's easy to lose sight of this, however the Torah advocated a loving and personal relationship with G-d from the very start.

Of course this also applies to Gentiles too, as you say. They are not expected to follow the full Torah because G-d has different (yet equal) expectations. I could go further into this, but its off the point.



The problem here is not that Paul says that man cannot be justified by the Torah, but rather Paul is saying that the Torah itself has always taught that one is justified by faith- indeed, he uses Abraham as the example to prove this.

This is problematic, the quote Paul uses regarding Abraham is debatable, especially given he leaves out that Abraham did "good deeds" along with that faith to be considered righteous, as is mentioned in the Torah.

Leaving aside the example of Abraham that was misused, it has never been a Jewish principle that one is justified through pure faith, that would only be a half of the Torah, after all.


Righteousness comes from God, not from us, but we can access it by a sanctified (righteous) life, however, without faith, we cannot please God and our righteousness becomes as filthy rags. This of course is consistant with Judaism in his day (and in some circles even now).

I'd like to see some evidence of this, if possible.


To be fair, one should label Rabbinic Judaism as "anti-Torah for Gentiles", so I don't see much profit in using Paul as an opponent of that, but rather, an advocate of such and a kindred spirit.

I don't think the problem was necessarily anti-torah for Gentiles, but anti-torah for everyone. Take it consideration that it is Paul's belief that through Yeshua's sacrifice Gentiles and Jews are equal, Gentiles are grafted in, there is no distinction. Whats good for the goose...etc


As an observant Messianic, I have found his writings ot be very consistant with 1stC Pharisaic thought.

The issue of Paul as a Pharisee is very complex.

For a start, he was supposed to have come from Tarsus, about as far away from Jerusalem (the hub of Pharisaic study) as you could possibly get at the time. It's still relatively possible, but other things tend to reflect badly also.

According to Acts (I think chapter 22?) Paul was supposed to be a student of Rabbi Gamaliel (though he never mentions this himself). We know quite a bit more about Gamaliel from the Misnah and he was always a very historically respected Rabbi and the leading sage of his time (Rabban). Yet there is never any real concrete mention of him by Paul, nor does Gamaliel ever allude to Paul being a student.

Add that to his many non-pharisaic actions, like his advocation of the stoning of Stephen (seen to this day as a vessel to convey a message of evil and spiteful Jews) and possibly even more telling that he acted on behalf of the High Priest. The High Priest, was of course, a Sadducee, not a Pharisee.

I could go further into this regarding his trip to Damascus, but yeah...its off topic again lol :D


What I find perplexing is modern-day followers of Rabbinic Judaism seem to forget that the Judaisms of that era were quite different to the Judaisms of today and continually asses 1stC documents in the light of Judaism after Maimonides, which makes no sense to me.

Not necessarily so, there is quite a bit of evidence regarding the Judaism of that time (Josephus etc). Also don't forget that the exile caused many Jewish communities to spend thousands of years cut off from other Jewish contact, yet still retain the same basic belief systems over the years.


Anyway, perhaps you could bring up (again) some texts of Paul that you find difficult to reconcile with your understanding of the Tanach and we could address them one at a time.

Sure thing, one at a time is probably better XD

Corinthians 9:20-22 - To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.

[Hix]

To read Romans 10:4 as 'termination' is a rendering affected by a preconceived notion. It does not always mean 'termination'. To read it that way is to artificially create a conflict within Paul's writings. This passage does not facilitate that conflict.

Given the context of his writings and in particular Romans (said to be his most important) there are many other such comments that would point to an end to Torah observance.

Also don't forget that this would be an essential for Paul to present, otherwise people are just going to go on following Torah, believing nothing different from their ancestors at Sinai.

[Hix]

In Romans 7 Paul speaks at length about the Law and his inability to keep it perfectly. Late in the chapter he refers to 'another law', the 'law of sin and death.'

Rom 7:23 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.

So, whenever we run into statements about the 'law' in his writings we need to determine exactly which law he is referring to.

Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. 5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: [B]That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I think it is fairly plain to see which law is being talked of here.

The latter bolded part is the basic tenant of the Christian faith. All it takes is believing and saying Jesus is Lord. No Torah required, for anyone.

EDIT: Should probably clarify a little,

One example I really like is Ezekial 33:10-20 (apologies about the length :D)

10 Therefore, O thou son of man, say unto the house of Israel: Thus ye speak, saying: Our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we pine away in them; how then can we live?

11 Say unto them: As I live, saith the L-rd GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

12 And thou, son of man, say unto the children of thy people: The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not stumble thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall he that is righteous be able to live thereby in the day that he sinneth.

13 When I say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his righteousness, and commit iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, for it shall he die.

14 Again, when I say unto the wicked: Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;

15 if the wicked restore the pledge, give back that which he had taken by robbery, walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.

16 None of his sins that he hath committed shall be remembered against him; he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

17 Yet the children of thy people say: The way of the L-rd is not equal; but as for them, their way is not equal.

18 When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.

19 And when the wicked turneth from his wickedness, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.

20 Yet ye say: The way of the L-rd is not equal. O house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.'

This is talking about what will happen while we are in exile.

There are several such passages in the Tanakh and I would be happy to share them.

[Steve Petersen]

Given the context of his writings and in particular Romans (said to be his most important) there are many other such comments that would point to an end to Torah observance.

Also don't forget that this would be an essential for Paul to present, otherwise people are just going to go on following Torah, believing nothing different from their ancestors at Sinai.

If you are conceding that 10:4 doesn't have to mean 'termination' let's agree to take this particuar verse off the table as 'proof' that Paul was anti-Torah.

Do you agree to that?

[Hix]

If you are conceding that 10:4 doesn't have to mean 'termination' let's agree to take this particuar verse off the table as 'proof' that Paul was anti-Torah.

Do you agree to that?

Actually, I didn't say that at all. Being anti-Torah doesn't have to mean he advocated its termination either, advocating a lesser role for it would be considered anti-torah in the light of scriptural evidence also.

That said, for the sake of arguement, I shall agree to that.

[ContraMundum]

Overall, the books were weak and spoke only to the genre that wanted to believe them.

Can you give a clear example of this claim?

[ContraMundum]

This I can definetly understand, but only to a point. For you see not just "anyone" can do a commentary and/or consensus for it to be sensical. If this were the case it would be fairly easy to twist the scriptures to mean just about anything to keep consistant with the commentator's core beliefs.

Of course, I agree with that. As I mentioned, my theology is ecumenical and consential.

There are literally hundreds of different views on scripture out there, evidenced in the hundreds of different brands of christianity. Commentry on Paul's writings by christian scholars has been equally as varied, everything from simple, straight, advocation of the "end of the law" to Torah being important but not enough so as to make a person righteous.
I have several Biblical commentaries of my own that attest to the former, some from Messianics also. Which side carries the most weight however?

I don't stand up for the other theologies- I will only give account of my own and let others figure out which is the best.

Well, the answer is...neither. The Tanakh is clear that commentry was to be made by the Jewish Sages/Rabbis of the time. The Jewish people themselves were (as Isaiah 42:6 tells us) a Light unto the Nations/Gentiles. The Talmud even goes as far as to say that Torah was given to the Jews because HaShem trusts only us to properly interperate it to the Nations. You could say this is the Jewish cause and purpose in this world.

Anyway, getting a little carried away here, moving on :D

This is agreeable with Christianity, which continues this tradition. We would say that the authority to interpret the scriptures in found in the community of Church- not in individuals alone- although individuals are free to interpret, their interpretations should always be tested by the consensus of the church.

As for the Jews being the only interpreters of the Tanach, this we would dispute, as is obvious and a topic for another forum.

This is something I understand, the Christian perspective has always been backwards to the Jewish. The example of this is in our Tanakh. The arrangement of our books is Torah >> The Prophets >> The Writings.
In this arrangement, a reading from start to finish sees the doom and gloom of the Prophets, finishing with the hope and promise of the writings (if you return to the first and most important part, the Torah).

The christian arrangement switches the last two, so you get the doom and gloom of the Prophets and straight into the New Testament.

The arrangement of the books has nothing to do with Christian theology- it doesn't matter.

From this it's easy to see that traditionally, christians view the Torah in the light of the New Testament, while Jews view all of their scripture in the light of the Torah.

OK as a generalisation, I suppose. I wouldn't say much else.

I would like some clarification on what you think Paul's stance on Torah Observance is and how this ties in to his letters and indeed to his arguements with the Jerusalem "church" in Acts.

You've already done an excellent job of explaning on my behalf how I see Paul's stance on Torah observance. I'll quote you- "Of course this also applies to Gentiles too, as you say. They are not expected to follow the full Torah because G-d has different (yet equal) expectations. "

Far from it, I have no qualms about christianity at all and have a respect for its many participants who show a genuine zeal for their faith.

OK.

[ContraMundum]

I think you misunderstand, when a Jew talks about the Torah he is not simply talking just about physical deeds. Indeed the first and most important part of the "law" is to trust in and love G-d. It's easy to lose sight of this, however the Torah advocated a loving and personal relationship with G-d from the very start.

This is exactly what we believe also.

Of course this also applies to Gentiles too, as you say. They are not expected to follow the full Torah because G-d has different (yet equal) expectations. I could go further into this, but its off the point.

This also is exactly what we believe and what we belive Paul teaches.

This is problematic, the quote Paul uses regarding Abraham is debatable, especially given he leaves out that Abraham did "good deeds" along with that faith to be considered righteous, as is mentioned in the Torah.

Leaving aside the example of Abraham that was misused, it has never been a Jewish principle that one is justified through pure faith, that would only be a half of the Torah, after all.


Again, Christianity agrees with this 100% (though I would argue that Christianity does a far better and more thorough job at elucidating it).

Only if one misinterprets Paul could one come to another conclusion. Not one Christian theology of any decent status would ever claim that faith is true without accompanying works. A prominent Reformer once put it this way- "..it is impossible to separate works from faith, just as impossible as it is to separate the power to burn and shine from fire". Paul agrees that true faith is demonstrated by works, as seen elsewhere in Eph. 2:10 etc.

What people may think when they read the 4th Chapter of Romans is that Paul is declaring a saving faith based on mere rational assent. This is not the case, as this chapter is not written to demonstrate such a doctrine, but rather to address the question as to whether or not Gentiles can be saved. After discussing Abraham and David (4:1-8) Pauls asks the question "Is this blessedness then on the circumcision only, or on the uncircumcision also?" (v.9). Paul then explains that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised (v. 10-12) and also before the Mosaic Law was given (v. 13-17) and thus Gentiles can be justified by faith without circumcision or the keeping the full Mosaic law (certainly the moral teachings of the Torah are binding on all mankind as it taught throughout the NT.)

So, in Romans 4 Paul is addressing only the justification by grace through faith of the Gentiles, and is not touching on the subject of the relationship between faith and works. That is discussed elsewhere in our scriptures.

We should be careful not to look for teachings where they are not being taught. This has been one of the great problems in dealing with any scriptures, as I'm sure you would also agree.

I'd like to see some evidence of this, if possible.

Which part?

I don't think the problem was necessarily anti-torah for Gentiles, but anti-torah for everyone. Take it consideration that it is Paul's belief that through Yeshua's sacrifice Gentiles and Jews are equal, Gentiles are grafted in, there is no distinction. Whats good for the goose...etc

Well, like you said "Of course this also applies to Gentiles too, as you say. They are not expected to follow the full Torah because G-d has different (yet equal) expectations." Ever considered that Paul was saying essentially the same thing (but with more detail?)?

Let's not forget that being "grafted in" to Israel means not that the Gentiles become Jews, but that they share in the salvific plan of God and His abundant blessings of grace. They become part of the spiritual Israel- God's righteous Jews. Still, Jews remain Jews and Gentiles remain Gentiles.

This goes also for there being "no distinction" between Jews and Gentiles. Clearly Paul taught that Jews must be Jewish (as he circumcised Timothy- Acts 16:1-3) yet at the same time Gentiles need not be Jewish (as he told the Gentile congregation at Galatia not to be circumcised). So obviously this idea of "no distinction" between peoples relates only to the effects of salvation and grace. We are all "sons of God by faith" (Gal. 3:26) and partakers in His promises.

The issue of Paul as a Pharisee is very complex.

Yep. Better to focus on other things first.

Add that to his many non-pharisaic actions, like his advocation of the stoning of Stephen (seen to this day as a vessel to convey a message of evil and spiteful Jews)

Stoning is part of Jewish law and history. No sense us denying it happened. Therefore, this should not make Paul evil per se, because it is commanded in the Torah, but after his conversion from sinner to tzaddik by Mashiach revealing Himself to him clearly he could never have advocated killing anyone (another topic totally).

Not necessarily so, there is quite a bit of evidence regarding the Judaism of that time (Josephus etc). Also don't forget that the exile caused many Jewish communities to spend thousands of years cut off from other Jewish contact, yet still retain the same basic belief systems over the years.

I wasn't really trying to address that- we both know that Judaism was complex then as now (probably moreso) and we can find lots of evidence about that diversity if we dig deeper. I was just saying that often people forget that when interpreting the scriptures. I think we are in agreement on this.

Sure thing, one at a time is probably better XD

Corinthians 9:20-22 - To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.

What is your question regarding this text? (Keep in mind that this text is not a dogmatic proclamation or doctrinal in essence. This is description of Paul's personal praxis at some point in history, not prescription of binding dogma).

[Wags]

:sigh: Guess some things never change..... why are non-messianics trying to speak for messianics? :scratch:

[ContraMundum]

:sigh: Guess some things never change..... why are non-messianics trying to speak for messianics? :scratch:

In all fairness, this would be an ideal time for you to present your answers to Hix's questions and do the speaking for your particular version of Christianity. I can only speak for mine (and I say I am a true Messianic just as much as another Jew in a newer denomination). I'm sure we'd all appreciate hearing your understanding on this matter.

Let's not sidetrack the issue with complaints- do your bit for your beliefs, state your understanding of these questions and as you say in your country "represent, sister!" :)

:thumbsup:

[Hix]

This is agreeable with Christianity, which continues this tradition. We would say that the authority to interpret the scriptures in found in the community of Church- not in individuals alone- although individuals are free to interpret, their interpretations should always be tested by the consensus of the church.

Fair enough, this would be however where a leap of faith would be required on both our parts.

I have my own issues with it, but as you say, this is a topic for another forum.



The arrangement of the books has nothing to do with Christian theology- it doesn't matter.

It matters to us, just one of the many subtle hints and changes created to undermine the Torah's role.


You've already done an excellent job of explaning on my behalf how I see Paul's stance on Torah observance. I'll quote you- "Of course this also applies to Gentiles too, as you say. They are not expected to follow the full Torah because G-d has different (yet equal) expectations. "

This would be grand but there are some flaws overall. For a start we had what could best be described as the early "church" in Acts, primarily made up of Jews who just so happened to think Yeshua was the messiah (as many people claiming to be messiah have gotten over the years).
They argue quite violently with Paul regarding what needs to take place. Remember, at the time, Judaism was the monotheism. Because of this it was actually extremely popular, it had a coherant and believable system and was (surprisingly) well respected for it. The major stumbling block towards them ultimately converting however was halacha. Probably no different all these years later either ;)

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that at the time, it was viewed that there was no seperate religion. This was Judaism who thought that Yeshua might be the messiah. People were converting to Judaism to be a part of this. This involves taking up the yoke of the commandments etc.

Paul saw this was ultimately a stumbling block towards more people converting and sought to bend the rules a little bit. Infact, in Acts, one of the few rules he does enforce is not to eat meat offered to idols, but he later says that it is alright and "an idol is just a statue" etc in his writings!

This is where we get to the heart of the matter, Paul was basically trying to win as many converts as is possible. That is the message behind Corinthians 9:20-22 which I asked about earlier.

Corinthians 9:20-22 - To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.

EDIT: Apologies, but I'll have to reply to your other posts later :D I'm late for work...

[Wags]

In all fairness, this would be an ideal time for you to present your answers to Hix's questions and do the speaking for your particular version of Christianity. I can only speak for mine (and I say I am a true Messianic just as much as another Jew in a newer denomination). I'm sure we'd all appreciate hearing your understanding on this matter.

Let's not sidetrack the issue with complaints- do your bit for your beliefs, state your understanding of these questions and as you say in your country "represent, sister!" :)

:thumbsup:


You are welcome to speak about ANGLICAN beliefs since that is the icon you hold and you are clergy for that demonimation - but you are not a member of any messianic organization or congregation.

[Steve Petersen]

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that at the time, it was viewed that there was no seperate religion. This was Judaism who thought that Yeshua might be the messiah. People were converting to Judaism to be a part of this. This involves taking up the yoke of the commandments etc.

There were three classes of people Paul addressed when he visited diaspora synagogues: Jews, converts, and god-fearers. After he left some of each of these groups became believers. There were then six groups in that synagogue. When Paul wrote later to them, who was he addressing and what were the issues?

Paul also made converts (though Acts indicates not very successfully) among rank pagans who probably then got interested in religous participation in a local synagogue (the subject of Acts 15 and 21.) I have not ever read any scholarly works indicating that these former pagans converted TO JUDAISM IN ORDER to become followers of Jesus nor were they required to by Jewish believers. Acts 15:1 indicates that some Jewish faction (it is not clear whether that faction were believers or not) thought that former pagan and god-fearers needed to undergo ritual conversion to Judaism IN ORDER TO BE SAVED (i.e, attain a place in the World to Come.) That position was contrary to James and Paul's theology.

In f ct, in Acts, one of the few rules he does enforce is not to eat meat offered to idols, but he later says that it is alright and "an idol is just a statue" etc in his writings!

Pau's dismissal of idols as 'no gods' (Gal. 4:8) is a reiteration of the words of Jeremiah (2:11, 5:7, 16:20).

This is where we get to the heart of the matter, Paul was basically trying to win as many converts as is possible. That is the message behind Corinthians 9:20-22 which I asked about earlier.

Corinthians 9:20-22 - To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.

There is nothing here or in Acts that unequivocally demonstrates that Paul ADOPTED pagan LIFESTYLES or THEOLOGY in order to win converts. He does occasionally CITE them in his sermons and letter. This is way different that taking them for your own. In these very verses you cited Paul says that he DID NOT become Torahless (anomos) rather subject to (ennomos) the Law of Christ.

Paul's writings should be viewed through HIS perception of the imminent establishment of the sovereignty of God over the nations described by the prophets. That Day is one in which Israel would be the head of the nations.

[Hix]

You are welcome to speak about ANGLICAN beliefs since that is the icon you hold and you are clergy for that demonimation - but you are not a member of any messianic organization or congregation.

I find this rather rude actually. While I disagree with ContraMundum, in fairness to him he came forward and defended his faith and beliefs.

At the end of the day he's only a different denomination of the christian faith, like yourself.

[Hix]

There were three classes of people Paul addressed when he visited diaspora synagogues: Jews, converts, and god-fearers. After he left some of each of these groups became believers. There were then six groups in that synagogue. When Paul wrote later to them, who was he addressing and what were the issues?

Not quite sure what you mean here...:scratch:


Paul also made converts (though Acts indicates not very successfully) among rank pagans who probably then got interested in religous participation in a local synagogue (the subject of Acts 15 and 21.) I have not ever read any scholarly works indicating that these former pagans converted TO JUDAISM IN ORDER to become followers of Jesus nor were they required to by Jewish believers.

I would have thought this would be rather obvious, there was no other organised monotheistic religion or beliefs at the time. Judaism was still the main focus and Judaism was still as popular and attractive to the Greeks and Pagans as before. The only difference after was that their one primary stumbling block to converting (Torah Observance) was no longer being required, according to Paul.

Romans 10:4 - For Christ the end of the law for righteousness to every onethat believeth.

The Torah was and is so central to the Jewish faith, that this one change to theology alone was more than enough to divorce Paul and his teachings from anything Judaism.


Acts 15:1 indicates that some Jewish faction (it is not clear whether that faction were believers or not) thought that former pagan and god-fearers needed to undergo ritual conversion to Judaism IN ORDER TO BE SAVED (i.e, attain a place in the World to Come.) That position was contrary to James and Paul's theology.

I know the passage well, Paul and Barnabas happen to stumble into some of those evil Pharisees (who depending on the translation, may or may not have been "believers") that inform them of the requirement to convert and follow the Torah.
Peter gets up and rebukes them, then speaks about how everyone is now saved through the grace of Jesus and the yoke of the commandments has been lifted, etc.
James goes on to talk about a few select rules from the Torah they actually will decide to enforce. To abstain from fornification, eating food previously offered to idols etc.

Though I do agree that the position was contrary to Paul and James' theology, thats actually the point I'm kinda getting at...


Pau's dismissal of idols as 'no gods' (Gal. 4:8) is a reiteration of the words of Jeremiah (2:11, 5:7, 16:20).

This doesn't make it any less of a contradiction to the before mentioned text (Acts 15:20).


There is nothing here or in Acts that unequivocally demonstrates that Paul ADOPTED pagan LIFESTYLES or THEOLOGY in order to win converts. He does occasionally CITE them in his sermons and letter. This is way different that taking them for your own. In these very verses you cited Paul says that he DID NOT become Torahless (anomos) rather subject to (ennomos) the Law of Christ.

The point wasn't necessarily that he became Torahless. As I have said before, Paul the man is always painted in a good light in the NT. Theres reason to believe he wasn't all he claimed, but the point remains, what Paul himself did was never an issue.

The point of the quote was to highlight that Paul advocated becomming all things to all people. Or rather, make his new system more attractive to as many as possible. This is consistant with much of Paul's work.


Paul's writings should be viewed through HIS perception of the [I]imminent establishment of the sovereignty of God over the nations described by the prophets. That Day is one in which Israel would be the head of the nations.

Now THAT I can agree with. Much of the NT is written by and of people who were under the impression Yeshua was returning soon and in their lifetime. Paul's desperate methods were probably done with this in mind.

As Yeshua himself says:

Matthew 24:29 - Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

[Steve Petersen]

The only difference after was that their one primary stumbling block to converting (Torah Observance) was no longer being required, according to Paul

You go on to cite Romas 10:4 with the implication that Paul is talking about the 'termination' of the Law. We had agreed that this verse was not relevant to that discussion because it could be read as 'termination' or as 'goal or purpose.' We agreed to take that verse off the table. Are you reneging or are you trying to say something else?

[Hix]

You go on to cite Romas 10:4 with the implication that Paul is talking about the 'termination' of the Law. We had agreed that this verse was not relevant to that discussion because it could be read as 'termination' or as 'goal or purpose.' We agreed to take that verse off the table. Are you reneging or are you trying to say something else?

Sorry, that was actually very unintentional, though I still believe the quote is very clear. Would Romans 7:4 be a better example?

I didn't actually state that it was termination either, the context I used it in might have alluded to that, but only because the context I used it in was proof that such a comment would be quite consistant with Paul.

Anyway, taking Romans 7:4...infact, lets look at Romans 7:1-6 :

You cannot be unaware, my friends -- I am speaking to those who have some knowledge of law -- that a person is subject to the law so long as he is alive, and no longer. For example, a married woman is by law bound to her husband while he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the obligations of the marriage-law. If, therefore, in her husband's lifetime she consorts with another man, she will incur the charge of adultery; but if her husband dies she is free of the law, and she does not commit adultery by consorting with another man. So you, my friends, have died to the law by becoming identified with the body of Christ, and accordingly you have found another husband in him who rose from the dead, so that we may bear fruit for God. While we lived on the level of our lower nature, the sinful passions evoked by the law worked in our bodies, to bear fruit for death. But now, having died to that which held us bound, we are discharged from the law, to serve God in a new way, the way of the spirit, in contrast to the old way, the way of a written code.

This isn't too hard to see which Law is being spoken of here. Paul is trying to compare the abrogation of the Eternal Torah and the advent of the new covenant of Christianity with a second marriage contracted by a widow.

Seems to me, Paul is saying: the wife is the Church; the former husband is the Torah, and the new husband is Jesus. I think anyway, the whole passage is very confused and muddled and Paul generally messes up what he was trying to say. In doing so he raises even more questions as to whether he really was a Pharisee, as he is shown to have the rhetorical style of the Hellenistic preachers of popular Stoicism, not the terse logic of the rabbis.

Regardless, the belief that the former husband is the Torah and the now new husband is Jesus is very much in line with standard christian thinking, is it not?

[Steve Petersen]

Why don't we step back a bit. Tell me your understanding of the situation in the Roman congregations that Paul was writing to.

[Hix]

Why don't we step back a bit. Tell me your understanding of the situation in the Roman congregations that Paul was writing to.

I wouldn't see how this would change much if anything. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the situations though.

As for commentary, briefly reading through the few at my disposal, they seem to agree that Romans was more than just a personal letter to Roman congregations but more of a "theological treatise".
This would more than likely be accurate as Paul later goes into discussion on Israel and its future later in Romans.

[Colabomb]

You are welcome to speak about ANGLICAN beliefs since that is the icon you hold and you are clergy for that demonimation - but you are not a member of any messianic organization or congregation.


Hasn't this been addressed in the past? Isn't he one of few actual Christian JEWS on the board?

I admit i'm an ignorant outsider (but admittedly an interested outsider), but the concept of denominational affiliation doesn't seem very Jewish to me. Wouldn't his status as a Jewish man (An heir to the Promises given to the Jewish Nation), and his belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, make him by definition, a Messianic Jew?

I mean no offense my bretheren, but he is more Jewish than most on this forum will ever hope to be.

[Steve Petersen]

Hasn't this been addressed in the past? Isn't he one of few actual Christian JEWS on the board?

I admit i'm an ignorant outsider (but admittedly an interested outsider), but the concept of denominational affiliation doesn't seem very Jewish to me. Wouldn't his status as a Jewish man (An heir to the Promises given to the Jewish Nation), and his belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, make him by definition, a Messianic Jew?

I mean no offense my bretheren, but he is more Jewish than most on this forum will ever hope to be.

I'll second that, with the caveat that we may disagree on the priority of the NT over the OT and Gentile participation in Torah.

[ContraMundum]

You are welcome to speak about ANGLICAN beliefs since that is the icon you hold and you are clergy for that demonimation - but you are not a member of any messianic organization or congregation.

If you had any idea about Anglicanism, you would never say that.

I must have said this 100 times already- my beliefs are my beliefs. My beliefs are ecumenical, historical, consential. This is allowable within Anglican paramaters but it is not uniquely "Anglican" and many Anglicans would disagree with my perspective. In fact, nothing I have ever said, or ever will say, on this forum is representative of "Anglicanism" (which has no unique doctrines unlike other denominations). I truly believe that my beliefs are the best representation of the continuity of our one unified Christian faith with those of the earliest Christians and thus truly "Hebraic"- but this is my belief. As I have said already- I can only give my perspective. If you have a different one, you had better give it rather than expect others to.

I don't know who told you that I have to hold to a certain, prescribed set of dogmas to do what I do. I don't know who told you that there is a definitive set of "Messianic" doctrines either that all posters must conform to or that any of them have cornered the market on the truth. In fact, no one agrees on what Messianic doctrine is in total- so who are you to say that I'm not representative of the Christian faith because I don't go to church in your building?

Really, attacking others on this forum because they don't go to church in your building is a waste of space, time and effort. You should be positive and present your beliefs if you think no one else has done them justice. Rather than tear down, build. Tearing down is easier, yes, but at the end of the day, you're left with nothing to live in. Better to do the hard work and present your doctrines- because otherwise all this enquirer will hear is everyone else's position.

All this constant attacking of me when I'm one of the few who will stand up for the NT is a little difficult to understand.

Have a nice day wags. :)

[Hix]

Amazing that some christians hold each other randsom based on a different christian denominational internet forum faith icon.

Wags, I would very much love to see your side of the debate, but I would be extremely surprised if it is even half as coherent as ContraMundum's...or is that the problem?

[ContraMundum]

This would be grand but there are some flaws overall. For a start we had what could best be described as the early "church" in Acts, primarily made up of Jews who just so happened to think Yeshua was the messiah (as many people claiming to be messiah have gotten over the years).
They argue quite violently with Paul regarding what needs to take place. Remember, at the time, Judaism was the monotheism. Because of this it was actually extremely popular, it had a coherant and believable system and was (surprisingly) well respected for it. The major stumbling block towards them ultimately converting however was halacha. Probably no different all these years later either ;)

I'm not entirely sure I could agree with your interpretation of history on this point- but I'm also not sure we will agree on it either even if I could explain my understanding.

In a nutshell, I'd say Judaism was struggling in the 1stC, with many differing parties, doctrines and interests. We know of at least four- Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees and Zealots. There are of course more. Then, in the Pharisaic school, you had division as well between at least two major schools- as you know. On top of that, Jewish histories consider this era one of great sin and much trouble.

I believe that into that arena God sent Moschiach- at the right time. :) He founded His church, and His church would have a lot of growing pains, all according to Divine will.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that at the time, it was viewed that there was no seperate religion. This was Judaism who thought that Yeshua might be the messiah. People were converting to Judaism to be a part of this. This involves taking up the yoke of the commandments etc.

Paul saw this was ultimately a stumbling block towards more people converting and sought to bend the rules a little bit. Infact, in Acts, one of the few rules he does enforce is not to eat meat offered to idols, but he later says that it is alright and "an idol is just a statue" etc in his writings!

Well, that is the usual interpretation of many Jews and Muslims- but it doesn't consider the evidence of the people in question- the church itself. The story told by prominent apologists (aka anti-missys', Muslims) these days (eg. Singer, J4Judaism, Deedat etc) is not the same as the one shown in the history of the people in question- the church. One should never interpret history outside of the evidence of the subject. In other words, the church doesn't have the same story that the anti-Christians do- so why not hear our side of the story too?

This is where we get to the heart of the matter, Paul was basically trying to win as many converts as is possible. That is the message behind Corinthians 9:20-22 which I asked about earlier.

Corinthians 9:20-22 - To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.

EDIT: Apologies, but I'll have to reply to your other posts later :D I'm late for work...

I have no disagreement that Paul was trying to win converts- that's the nature of the Christian faith- it's evangelical! It's missionary! :) The thing is, that those who oppose Christianity say that Paul changed the religion to win more converts. The problem with that is, that a) Paul was being obedient to the call to spread God's message of forgiveness of sins given by Yeshua and b) Paul got the approval of the Apostles in doing so, and was never opposed by them, rather, he was endorsed wholeheartedly (which would indicate that he was not creating new doctrines, but rather propagating the authentic ones) and c) the ancient church's own understanding of Paul's writings (which in fact is the only understanding that matters- other religions need not define it for us) is that he changed nothing, but rather, when interpreted properly, is in step with Yeshua, the Apostles, Moses, David and the Prophets.

Perhaps we should get back to texts that are prescriptive of doctrine rather than descriptive of praxis? After all, what you have presented is merely an interpretation of history, which is difficult to agree upon as there are variant sources that each of us would use. If we both stick to the NT, then at least we have a starting point.

[ContraMundum]

Hix,

I've got Shabbos in a couple of hours, so I'll be a little busy- I promise to get back to this if I can but otherwise it will be after Shabbos. :)

[Steve Petersen]

With regard to the objection that Paul dismisses idols as nothing, you will find this in the Talmud, Avodah Zarah 44b:

MISHNAH. PROCLOS, SON OF A PHILOSOPHER,1 PUT A QUESTION TO R. GAMALIEL IN ACCO WHEN THE LATTER WAS BATHING IN THE BATH OF APHRODITE. HE SAID TO HIM, IT IS WRITTEN IN YOUR TORAH, AND THERE SHALL CLEAVE NOUGHT OF THE DEVOTED THING TO THINE HAND; WHY ARE YOU BATHING IN THE BATH OF APHRODITE?’ HE REPLIED TO HIM, WE MAY NOT ANSWER [QUESTIONS RELATING TO TORAH] IN A BATH.WHEN HE CAME OUT, HE SAID TO HIM, ‘I DID NOT COME INTO HER DOMAIN, SHE HAS COME INTO MINE. NOBODY SAYS, THE BATH WAS MADE AS AN ADORNMENT FOR APHRODITE; BUT HE SAYS, APHRODITE WAS MADE AS AN ADORNMENT FOR THE BATH. ... BUT THIS [STATUE OF APHRODITE] STANDS BY A SEWER AND ALL PEOPLE URINATE BEFORE IT. [IN THE TORAH] IT IS ONLY STATED, THEIR GODS — I. E., WHAT IS TREATED AS A DEITY IS PROHIBITED, WHAT IS NOT TREATED AS A DEITY IS PERMITTED.

GEMARA. ...Rabbah b. ‘Ulla said: [It can be shown that the reply was] fallacious from the fact that he told him, ‘NOBODY SAYS, THE BATH WAS MADE AS AN ADORNMENT FOR APHRODITE, BUT APHRODITE WAS MADE AS AN ORNAMENT FOR THE BATH. And if one said that the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite, what of it? For it has been taught: If one says, ‘This house is for an idol, this cup is for an idol,’ he has said nothing because there can be no dedication to an idol!

[Hix]

In a nutshell, I'd say Judaism was struggling in the 1stC, with many differing parties, doctrines and interests. We know of at least four- Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees and Zealots. There are of course more. Then, in the Pharisaic school, you had division as well between at least two major schools- as you know. On top of that, Jewish histories consider this era one of great sin and much trouble.

I believe that into that arena God sent Moschiach- at the right time. :) He founded His church, and His church would have a lot of growing pains, all according to Divine will.


What exactly, did Jesus do to correct this, if I may ask? Creating a new world religion with a myriad of different bits and pieces from all the popular religions of the time (including Judaism) didn't really help the situation. From my standpoint, it only really serves to confuse people about G-d.


I have no disagreement that Paul was trying to win converts- that's the nature of the Christian faith- it's evangelical!It's missionary! :)

Why is it evangelical and missionary? I think Paul himself answers that:

1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing : for the fashion of this world passeth away.

Similar to the quote in Matthew (which is repeated in Luke also) I posted earlier, Paul was of the belief that Jesus return was imminent. This is understandable given how Jesus himself said he would in their lifetime.

I'm not saying this is likely to be the only reason he advocated that the Torah is no longer required (comparing it to the "dead" husband and Jesus as the new one). Still this is important to keep in mind that Paul (who on several occasions ADMITS to lying to get converts) was expecting Jesus' return (as Jesus promised) in his own lifetime.

Of course the fact that he didn't return, doesn't look well on both of them given what Deuteronomy 18:20 tells us about false predictions. Still thats another topic...


The thing is, that those who oppose Christianity say that Paul changed the religion to win more converts. The problem with that is, that a) Paul was being obedient to the call to spread God's message of forgiveness of sins given by Yeshua

Which is a change from just about everything that the Torah and Tanakh tells us.

One of my major hangups with the writings of the NT is the advocation of a change in the way G-d expects us to live, atones sin and a host of other issues.

[I]Malachi 3:5 - And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts. For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?


and b) Paul got the approval of the Apostles in doing so, and was never opposed by them, rather, he was endorsed wholeheartedly (which would indicate that he was [I]not creating new doctrines, but rather propagating the authentic ones)

Up to a point, infact it was James and the "first church" that decided on the new doctrines, as is defined in Acts. They sit round and debate on what will be included and what will not be. I touched on this a little earlier.

Paul did play a part in this, so while it may not necessarily have been all him, he was involved in it in some way. That said, almost all of the decisions made were never even mentioned by Jesus himself.


and c) the ancient church's own understanding of Paul's writings (which in fact is the only understanding that matters- other religions need not define it for us) is that he changed nothing, but rather, when interpreted properly, is in step with Yeshua, the Apostles, Moses, David and the Prophets.

:scratch:

If you could point me to somewere in the Tanakh that claims the Torah DOESN'T make you righteous, maybe I'd be more willing to accept that. And that's only one of the theological changes.


Perhaps we should get back to texts that are prescriptive of doctrine rather than descriptive of praxis? After all, what you have presented is merely an interpretation of history, which is difficult to agree upon as there are variant sources that each of us would use. If we both stick to the NT, then at least we have a starting point.

Sure thing, be back on Sunday for the rest then.

Shabbat Shalom
~Hix~

[ChazakEmunah]

Galations 2:21 - "If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Romans 10:4 - "For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Romans 3:20 - "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin."

Romans 7:4 - "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto G-d. [5] For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. [6] But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter."


A few (there are more) examples that have me puzzled. Why do "observant" messianics accept the writings of Paul as scripture, when not only does he contradict himself, he contradicts the enduring themes of the Torah and Tanakh as a whole?

Not only is the Tanakh clear that righteousness DOES come from Torah and that it is to be followed forever, but also G-d doesn't (and wouldn't) change.

Of all the problems facing the messianic movement, the vast majority of them are through paganistic, early-church, reforms concieved by Paul that have no bearing whatsoever to Judaism.

I don't want to start a row, I'd just like to hear some opinions as to why he is taken on board at all.

Shalom and G-d Bless
~Hix~
Wow, I never thought I'd see another Paul thread. I had two of my own going at one point.

[Steve Petersen]

Wow, I never thought I'd see another Paul thread. I had two of my own going at one point.

^_^ Yeah, I tried to point that out, but some people enjoy the fracus.

[Talmidah]

To be fair, its hard to be a new person with questions and simply be directed to some thread that took place before you arrived with people you're not familiar with. In that case, pretty much all discussions should have ceased after the first year of this forum and all new people simply referred to past threads.

The same topics will always be rehashed with new participants, new opinions, new points of view. Such is the dynamic of internet forums like this. If a person is not interested in the topic, then they should refrain from the thread. But to post and say that they will not discuss it because they already discussed it with someone else months ago is not very productive.

[Colabomb]

To be fair, its hard to be a new person with questions and simply be directed to some thread that took place before you arrived with people you're not familiar with. In that case, pretty much all discussions should have ceased after the first year of this forum and all new people simply referred to past threads.

The same topics will always be rehashed with new participants, new opinions, new points of view. Such is the dynamic of internet forums like this. If a person is not interested in the topic, then they should refrain from the thread. But to post and say that they will not discuss it because they already discussed it with someone else months ago is not very productive.

I agree.

[Steve Petersen]

To be fair, its hard to be a new person with questions and simply be directed to some thread that took place before you arrived with people you're not familiar with. In that case, pretty much all discussions should have ceased after the first year of this forum and all new people simply referred to past threads.

The same topics will always be rehashed with new participants, new opinions, new points of view. Such is the dynamic of internet forums like this. If a person is not interested in the topic, then they should refrain from the thread. But to post and say that they will not discuss it because they already discussed it with someone else months ago is not very productive.

If it weren't for the nefarious socks that are allowed here I would agree. Who wants to get into a discussion with a 'new' person who is actually an 'old' poster just coming back to mix it up again using an new name.

[Talmidah]

If it weren't for the nefarious socks that are allowed here I would agree. Who wants to get into a discussion with a 'new' person who is actually an 'old' poster just coming back to mix it up again using an new name.I understand to a point, but since you don't know if a 'new' person is an 'old' one in a sock, it seems more prudent to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. As to the OP of this thread, he was a member here before I arrived four years ago but he was inactive for the past couple of years and so is basically a 'new' person again.

[Hix]

If it weren't for the nefarious socks that are allowed here I would agree. Who wants to get into a discussion with a 'new' person who is actually an 'old' poster just coming back to mix it up again using an new name.

I hope my "newness" (from having been away so long) doesn't become too much of a hinderance to you actually debating and posting as per the rules of this forum :wave:

Shalom and G-d Bless
~Hix~

[simchat_torah]

Lol, typical.... 3 pages of attacking the OP's character and questioning his motivations rather than discussing the topic at hand.

[Ivy]

Now, now. Don't inflate the page numbers, there. ;)

[simchat_torah]

LOL, there's not a single post for 3 entire pages that even addresses the topic at hand. Then even for the following 4 pages after that a number of posts still don't adhere to the topic! But at least the thread seemingly was moving forward till this last page.


meh.

[ContraMundum]

What exactly, did Jesus do to correct this, if I may ask? Creating a new world religion with a myriad of different bits and pieces from all the popular religions of the time (including Judaism) didn't really help the situation. From my standpoint, it only really serves to confuse people about G-d.

Well, I'm not sure what this has to do with Paul, but I would not agree that Yeshua created a new religion or that it is a conglomeration of other world religions, nor do I find Christianity confusing. However, this would make a good topic for another thread and I'd be happy to compare to talk about it there.

Why is it evangelical and missionary? I think Paul himself answers that:

1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing : for the fashion of this world passeth away.

Similar to the quote in Matthew (which is repeated in Luke also) I posted earlier, Paul was of the belief that Jesus return was imminent. This is understandable given how Jesus himself said he would in their lifetime.

We can get back to that also- I'd like to stick with the ones that concern you about this matter (eg. the idea that Paul's teachings seek to destroy Torah).

I'm not saying this is likely to be the only reason he advocated that the Torah is no longer required (comparing it to the "dead" husband and Jesus as the new one). Still this is important to keep in mind that Paul (who on several occasions ADMITS to lying to get converts) was expecting Jesus' return (as Jesus promised) in his own lifetime.

Well, you've made a couple of points there. The first point is the one that we are discussing, right? (The second point about Paul "lying", we can get back to as well......let's not get sidetracked! Don't let the crowd distract us).

On that first point, have we established that Paul advocates that the Torah is "no longer required"? I think not. If you think that this is an established fact, you are in effect calling every Christian on the planet a complete fool- because he cannot see in his religion what you do see in his religion. Not one Christian of any good standing would ever say that the Torah is no longer valid or required. In fact, the last guy to say that (Marcion) was declared a heretic!

So- if you see Paul as declaring the Torah null and void- you're reading him wrong, because not one decent Christian theologian or teaching in the last two millenia would ever say that.

Perhaps we really need to get back to those texts that concern you.

Of course the fact that he didn't return, doesn't look well on both of them given what Deuteronomy 18:20 tells us about false predictions. Still thats another topic...

Right...let's get back to that another time. But in the meantime, entertain the idea that you might be mistaken on this interpretation too- because again, not one Christian believes as you say we should according to our text.

Which is a change from just about everything that the Torah and Tanakh tells us.

One of my major hangups with the writings of the NT is the advocation of a change in the way G-d expects us to live, atones sin and a host of other issues.

[I]Malachi 3:5 - And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts. For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?


I don't think the Lord changes at all either. I don't think the missionary call is against the Tanach (how else can you be a "Light to the Gentiles" in the New Covenant if you don't tell them about that light?) Simply put, no one disputes that the Tanach prophesies a New Covenant, a Messiah, a Messianic era and grace for all the nations, do they? Now, as a believer that Yeshua is the Messiah, I don't claim anything other than this was God's plan all along. Surely no one who loves the Lord and the Tanach would dispute that the Messiah, the New Covenant and the Messianic Kingdom are all part of the One God's unchanging plan.

Surely even if we disagree on who the Messiah is we cannot dispute that He is prophesied, that there is a New Covenant and that the nations will be blessed through Abraham's seed. This means that according to both of our beliefs systems, God will not be accused of "changing", but rather truly carrying out His Divine plan for us.

But that's another topic. :)

Up to a point, infact it was James and the "first church" that decided on the new doctrines, as is defined in Acts. They sit round and debate on what will be included and what will not be. I touched on this a little earlier.

Paul did play a part in this, so while it may not necessarily have been all him, he was involved in it in some way. That said, almost all of the decisions made were never even mentioned by Jesus himself.

This of course touches on another topic altogether- authority. This is one of my favorite topics, and I'd love to talk about it, but it could get lengthy. Let me just say what I believe about this in short hand. Just as God gave Israel elders, judges, Kings and prophets, He has done that with the Church too. Any Jew will tell you that halacha has increased through the years- we now have laws regarding driving, electricity and the like which we never had before, but clearly the Rabbis and sages think them necessary (as one Rabbi put it to me, the old "fence around the Torah getting bigger because we are worse sinners" idea.) Obviously, the belief system of modern Rabbinic Judaism says that these guys have that kind of authority.

I'm going to put it to you that God gave similar authority to the church, as is testified in the NT. However, I would also argue that the authority in the church is bound to God's revelation (as one would hope the Rabbis bind themselves to), and that the Jerusalem Council did not break any known halacha, but in fact, correctly ruled on it and properly and clearly defined it (as is witnessed by the fact that the modern Jews have the same ruling on Gentiles and Torah!)




:scratch:

If you could point me to somewere in the Tanakh that claims the Torah DOESN'T make you righteous, maybe I'd be more willing to accept that. And that's only one of the theological changes.

No one has ever said that the Torah does not have within it the means of righteousness. Not even Paul. (Is not the onus on you to demonstrate this, as you have made the accusation? Is this not the topic at hand and is this not still open for dispute?)

For a start, the Torah has portions of it that clearly do not make you righteous, but rather tell you of your sin, declaring you guilty before a holy God. One should never forget that when Moses came down from the mountain, he brought with him the law, but he was also given the instructions for the Tabernacle. One which told us of sin and the other which redeemed us from sin. There would be no need of the Tabernacle or the sacrifices if the laws alone were enough. This is why the whole Torah has manifold instructions for the Kohanim and sacrifices. Righteousness is found in the whole of the Torah, not in keeping half of it.

While today it is argued that the Tanach states that confession, almsgiving, good deeds and the like is enough to atone for one's own sins (""Prayer, repentance, and charity avert the evil decree"), this is clearly not the whole of the Torah, but rather, is Torah *lite- missing vast sections of commandments given by God Himself. One is left asking- if these personal mitzvot were enough, why would God have bothered to have us slay animals for Him? Surely the sacrifies for shogeg had a purpose (and I'd love to discuss Rambam's definition of Shogeg if we had time). Christianity has (I believe) the true answer to that question, but Yochanan Ben Zakkai and the Council of Yavneh had another.

Sure, we both know of many places in the Tanach that tell us that the sacrifices of the priests are not necessary for the forgiveness of sins. We could also show many citations to support that not just from scripture but also from the Rabbis. Interesting, that. Christianity says that the confession of sins, repentance and faith in the Messiah's atonement is enough too. In other words, we are approaching God the same way. No one is killing animals anymore. We are all confessing our sins before God. The difference is this- we believe that the blood of animals is just the blood of animals (which were signs of the true sacrifice to come- but their true efficacy came not from the bllod of the animal, but from God's grace and His true atonement). We believe the only reason anyone's sins are forgiven is by God's sacrifice. God gives true atonement Himself of His initiative and action, based on our response to Him in faith (2 Chronicles 7:14). We believe those before the Cross were saved by the Cross just as much as those after the Cross. While the Cross took place in history, its effect took place in eternity. Those before the Cross were saved by their faith just as those after the Cross.

A