Paul's misquotes of the Old Testament

[Desert Snake]

Where did I give the impression that I agree the Sabbath could be Sunday? I'm pretty sure we know what day of the week it's been since the ancient times.

if I was going to do that I would use a calendar converter, otherwise it's arbitrary.



And if only going by Jesus's teachings, it's as clear as day that Torah Law is 100% binding on ALL believers. The only place this remotely comes into dispute is when the Pauline writings and Acts enters the equation. In the first epistle of John it's not an issue at all, but in line with Jesus's teachings.

There needs to be OT Scripture to back this up, otherwise it's not a given that Christians would be under Torah laws.
Anyways, topic for another thread.

 

[Shermana]

There needs to be OT Scripture to back this up, otherwise it's not a given that Christians would be under Torah laws.
Anyways, topic for another thread.

There is, the prophecy in Jeremiah 31 says in the New Covenant (more like Renewed Covenant), the Law (same Law) will be written on the hearts of believers.

With that said, on what OT scripture do you base the idea that Jesus was the Messiah to begin with, and what it means for him to be Messiah? If you're not going to go by what Jesus says and want OT scriptures, whence is your basis of Jesus being the Messiah and what it means to be Messiah and what it means to follow the Messiah in the first place?

 

[nazz]

A lot of quotes in the NT come from the Septuagint and not the Masoretic text. So they don't completely match. Some renderings in the NT don't match either text.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is, the prophecy in Jeremiah 31 says in the New Covenant (more like Renewed Covenant), the Law (same Law) will be written on the hearts of believers.

With that said, on what OT scripture do you base the idea that Jesus was the Messiah to begin with,

I'd have to look those up. I'm not overly concerned about it. Do you even believe that Jesus was the Messiah?


Jesus didn't say that Christians or Gentiles should be under the Torah laws, you're inferring it.

 

[Desert Snake]

When Jesus said that He had come to "fulfill" the law it also means Christians aren't obligated to follow the Torah laws, almost every Christian denomination interprets it this way. Then you have the Council of Jerusalem, it all fits together, your argument goes against logic IMO.

 

[Shermana]

I'd have to look those up. I'm not overly concerned about it. Do you even believe that Jesus was the Messiah?

Jesus didn't say that Christians or Gentiles should be under the Torah laws, you're inferring it.

Of course I believe Jesus is Messiah, where did I indicate otherwise?

You made a claim that this doctrinal point needs substantiating from the OT, which I say it does when Jeremiah 31 is read in proper context. Then I countered by asking you what you think the basis for the Messianic Theology is to begin with.

If you're not concerned with why Jesus was considered Messiah in the first place, why would you even want to consider Jesus was Messiah in the first place? Just because it's a popular notion?

By this logic, Jesus gave no indication that non-Torah obedient gentiles could be members of the true Church, and he specifically said he did NOT come for ANYONE except the "Lost sheep of the House of Israel". So essentially, Jesus pretty much said non-Israelite-convert Gentiles are 100% excluded!

The only way to reconcile "Go and make disciples of all nations" with "I did NOT come for ANYONE but the lost sheep of the House of Israel" would thus be to say that these "disciples of all nations" must be members of the "house of Israel" through conversion to the House of Israel. He didn't say one becomes a member of the House of Israel merely by calling him lord.

At best he granted favors for the Canaanite woman and the Roman Centurion, that in no way indicates they were to be members of the church.

Even the first gentile convert Cornelius in the book of Acts, was said to be righteous by the Jews. Considering that the Noahide Laws aren't anywhere necessarily indicated before the Talmudic era, that could very well mean that Cornelius was a full on convert.

 

[Shermana]

When Jesus said that He had come to "fulfill" the law it also means Christians aren't obligated to follow the Torah laws, almost every Christian denomination interprets it this way. Then you have the Council of Jerusalem, it all fits together, your argument goes against logic IMO.

Not at all, this is an extremely common argument, but "fulfill" in no way means "Done away with", otherwise when Paul says "Fulfill the Law of Christ", you're saying Paul said to do away with the Law of Christ. I've been over that hundreds of times. "Fulfilled" does not mean "No longer applies". Apparently none of the disciples got this message since the female disciples obeyed the Sabbath and James told Paul about a rumor that he was telling Jewish Christians to not obey the Law. In no way whatsoever would that mean Gentiles don't need to obey it, there's simply no logical or rational reconcilation to apply that to.

Whether "almost every Christian denomination interprets it this way" is moot, many non-church-aligned scholars and many Christian denominations disagree, including to a degree the widespread "Church of God" movement and 7th day adventists, it's not an appeal to majority. The majority is simply wrong and is going to find out the hard way what Jesus meant in Matthew 7:22-23. The majority of Christians believe the Pope is Christ's vicar and that wafer and wine turns to his physical flesh and blood when eaten, so what?

And we've already been over the Council of Jerusalem and how its widely considered to be interpolated, so many times by now. That's for another thread.

What goes against logic is the vast historical attempt to turn Christianity from a totally Jewish sect to some Univeralist Gentile religion that's not concerned with what it means to be Messiah in the first place, it's 100% cultural theft and distortion of the text on a wide basis IMO.

 

[Shermana]

Wow you haven't read Josephus? Or do you not consider him a viable source?

I have Josephus's complete works and I'm not through reading them, what reference are you referring to? Ant 18? And what's the relevance?

 

[Desert Snake]

^ Ah, nevermind I need to find some references anyways.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not at all, this is an extremely common argument, but "fulfill" in no way means "Done away with", otherwise when Paul says "Fulfill the Law of Christ", you're saying Paul said to do away with the Law of Christ. I've been over that hundreds of times. "Fulfilled" does not mean "No longer applies". Apparently none of the disciples got this message since the female disciples obeyed the Sabbath and James told Paul about a rumor that he was telling Jewish Christians to not obey the Law. In no way whatsoever would that mean Gentiles don't need to obey it, there's simply no logical or rational reconcilation to apply that to.

Whether "almost every Christian denomination interprets it this way" is moot, many non-church-aligned scholars and many Christian denominations disagree, including to a degree the widespread "Church of God" movement and 7th day adventists, it's not an appeal to majority. The majority is simply wrong and is going to find out the hard way what Jesus meant in Matthew 7:22-23. The majority of Christians believe the Pope is Christ's vicar and that wafer and wine turns to his physical flesh and blood when eaten, so what?

And we've already been over the Council of Jerusalem and how its widely considered to be interpolated, so many times by now. That's for another thread.

What goes against logic is the vast historical attempt to turn Christianity from a totally Jewish sect to some Univeralist Gentile religion that's not concerned with what it means to be Messiah in the first place, it's 100% cultural theft and distortion of the text on a wide basis IMO.

Actually I'll just let someone else argue this if they want.

BTW I have no idea what you're problem is with my quoting, I'm even changing the color of my comments.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Some excerpts from:
SAUL OF TARSUS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Not a Hebrew Scholar; a Hellenist.
Saul (whose Roman cognomen was Paul; see Acts xiii. 9) was born of Jewish parents in the first decade of the common era at Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts ix. 11, xxi. 39, xxii. 3). The claim in Rom. xi. 1 and Phil. iii. 5 that he was of the tribe of Benjamin, suggested by the similarity of his name with that of the first Israelitish king, is, if the passages are genuine, a false one, no tribal lists or pedigrees of this kind having been in existence at that time (see Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." i. 7, 5; Pes. 62b; M. Sachs, "Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung," 1852, ii. 157). Nor is there any indication in Paul's writings or arguments that he had received the rabbinical training ascribed to him by Christian writers, ancient and modern; least of all could he have acted or written as he did had he been, as is alleged (Acts xxii. 3), the disciple of Gamaliel I., the mild Hillelite. His quotations from Scripture, which are all taken, directly or from memory, from the Greek version, betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text.

 

[Desert Snake]

So modern "Hebrew scholars" who are "Hellenistic" in thought, or influenced (what is that, like most?) are not to be taken as credible? That's perfectly o.k. with me but I think we should be clear about this.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Please elucidate your point more clearly.

 

[Desert Snake]

Please elucidate your point more clearly.

?? I think perhaps you should.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Do you have a specific question? It seems as though you are just posting for the sake of posting.

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you have a specific question? It seems as though you are just posting for the sake of posting.

Question for who, you're mostly just posting links. Are you answering for your sources?

heheheh

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Question for who, you're mostly just posting links. Are you answering for your sources?

heheheh

I don't see what is so funny that you are laughing. If you have a specific issue please let me know.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

<whipping-out-my-magic-decoder-ring>

One need only study my avatar to see what was taken from Moses and Pharaoh alike and how it has been commemorated for all time!​

</whipping-out-my-magic-decoder-ring *>

* one cannot really "unwip out"

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Please explain your avatar and its possible relevance to the topic at hand.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Hi Everyone,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
I believe that JayhawkerSoule has just given us all some very good advice. I just took the time to check out the LXX in relation to Hebrews 10:5 and Psalms 39:6 in the Septuagint. The Greek of the LXX has the phrase "but a body you have prepared me" instead of the phrase "mine ears hast thou opened" which is found in the Tanakh. Of course, this leads me to ask JayhawkerSoule how it is that the Rabbis of the Septuagint did such a terrible job of translating the Hebrew of the Tanakh?
When we look at Psalms 13:1-3 of the LXX, we discover that the phrase "there is none that does goodness, no not even one" is found twice in the first 3 verses of the Greek text. I say this for the benefit of Jonathan Hoffman who accuses Paul of embellishment concerning that phrase.
Paul in writing to his Jewish Brethren in the Diaspora and to Gentiles in a Roman world, how many here believe that Paul would quote from the Hebrew Tanakh instead of the Greek LXX which both Jews and Gentiles could work with and understand?
Thanking in advance any that should be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

If you read the full context of LXX Psalms chapter 13, (Psalms Ch 14 in the Hebrew Bible) you will see that the statement is made in reference to the foolish and the wicked and not all of humanity. Please see my post #6 for more discussion on this from "The Law Stands"