Reconciling Paul

Pappillion001 · Apr 5, 2013

outhouse said:
outhouse said:

Yet was he a strict adherent? Nope. he deviated away from traditional Judaism to that of a Proselyte of Judaism.

Paul's Judaism has always been in question.

What I think we see is a man who was sort of a extremist for his own view, and one who is taken out of context, because we don't exactly see the original sources he was replying too in his epistles.

We also see later Hellenistic authors trying to soften his stance up a bit so that he didn't seem so radical.

Since Paul's movement wasn't really for Jews, there was no reason to adhere to laws.

Click to expand...

I think it is a little ironic that one reason Paul's version survived is due to it being so drastically opposed during his life. All his letters that make up the majority of the NT and establish the basis for what Christianity was to become, are defending his position or explaining why everyone else is wrong.

I think it says a lot about him also with his constant emphasis on the need to be loving, forgiving and patient emulating Jesus, who forgave him his transgressions, which is either preceded by or follows some list of derogatory names or habits of those who did not accept his view. He even went sent two people to Satan to teach them not to blaspheme, one of the things that he received forgiveness for.

Ken Brown · Apr 5, 2013

outhouse said:
Jesus predicted nothing.

Sources please, because I think you will find some unknown author wrote these verses your talking about. Someone who never knew or heard a word from Jesus himself. Someone who wrote decades after his death and was not even from the same culture.

Hi outhouse, what about Jonah? Did someone centuries later conjure up that Sign that Messiah said He would give an adulterous generation? KB

Ken Brown · Apr 5, 2013

Pappillion001 said:
What Paul preaches is not always the same as what Jesus preached. There is nothing from Jesus to suggest the Law is to be disregarded and not kept (meaning as a whole, not in the sense people are free to steal and murder). Yeshua said it was written of old and then gave Spiritual examples of how that "work" of the Law could be followed. That is all Paul did, he saw that there were deeper meanings to the "works" of the Law that could truly save a person if they believed.

Paul repeatedly states the Law is no longer necessary. He goes so far as to say that to keep the Law will ensure God's wrathful judgment. He refers to it as being a source of sin in the world. None of the Apostles taught this or that what God stated was an abomination was now no longer. Paul's emphasis was not on discrediting the Law, but rather the "works" or the physical keeping of the Law. Paul saw that there was a higher function of the Law and an invisible side to it that those of faith could accomplish.

God does say that circumcision is a sign of the everlasting covenant between God and Abraham and his descendants. Paul preaches that Gentiles are included in this covenant, but do not have to comply with the conditions set forth. God is specific that all males whether free or slaves or foreign will do this. Anyone that does not is cut off from his people. Here is the problem, there was overwhelming evidence to the Jewish Believers that Elohim was taking for Himself the Gentiles, and these Gentiles were accepting and believing that Yeshua was THEIR Spiritual sacrifice, without being physically circumcised. This was the delimnia they faced in Acts 15. They knew that circumcision was commanded even before the Law, yet the evidence that Elohim was choosing Gentiles, and giving them His Spirit, without their physical circumcision, was evidence that there might be something going that they didn't fully recognize. There might be something more important than a physical "work" of the Law to be saved, something like being "cut to the heart" and having a circumcision "in Messiah" that is not made with hands. So the Gentiles were given a dispensation from doing a "work" of the Law, but had to comply with the Spiritual fulfillment of circumcision.

6And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

9And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

He refers to the Law as a curse No, Paul NEVER says the Law is a curse. The curse is IF you fail in continuing to DO the Law. As I have said previously, through the Sacrifice of Messiah, our failure to continue in all that is written in the Law, is nullified, because we are accomplishing the Just requirement of the Law, by our sacrifice of Yeshua (Him hanging on a tree). We are redeemed from the curse of not following what the Law says, by acknowledging Yeshua as our sacrifice, thus we are DOING what the Law said to do for our sin. Why is this so difficult to see?

10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Gal 3

Here he twists scripture to fit his intent The Law was added to increase the transgression of Adam. It was added to promote or give transgression, and by doing so, it would be easier to identify the True Seed of Abraham, because He was without transgression. Adding the Law to the Covenant to Abraham did not invalidate the promise to Abraham, it only helped to secure it.

15Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal 3

I don't want to make this a page long since there are a number of verses that convey the same meaning and I would prefer to try and stay at least close to the topic of the OP. Clearly Paul is teaching something contrary to scripture. Now that could be ok, except it would mean that God changes his mind or says things that he does not mean.

As for Abraham having faith, I honestly scratch my head with that because God tells him to go count the stars and when he does he thinks him righteous, meaning faithful to God and yet the very next words out of his mouth are to question God asking how will he know God will keep his promise. We should also keep in mind that God gave his blessing to Abraham when he went t osacrifice his son and said he did so not be cause of his faith but because of what he was going to do.

Hi Pappillion001, I have ran out of time this morning, but please see my responses in red above. KB

outhouse · Apr 5, 2013

Pappillion001 said:
I think it is a little ironic that one reason Paul's version survived is due to it being so drastically opposed during his life. All his letters that make up the majority of the NT and establish the basis for what Christianity was to become, are defending his position or explaining why everyone else is wrong.

I think it says a lot about him also with his constant emphasis on the need to be loving, forgiving and patient emulating Jesus, who forgave him his transgressions, which is either preceded by or follows some list of derogatory names or habits of those who did not accept his view. He even went sent two people to Satan to teach them not to blaspheme, one of the things that he received forgiveness for.

Dont let Pauls radical approach discount his message, it wasnt apposed as much as questioned by others in the movement teaching and healing. We can also suppose that he had heard something from one member of the households, as he was addressing, or should I say clearing up what he really ment.

We also have the later epistles from different authors trying to soften up his stance a bit.

Also take into account early on he was a grand theologian for these houses, he was viewed as a martyr, for the cause.

Pauls epistles evolved into the canon and the dogma you see very late in the game. Not early on. Many people had different takes on him, some of the early fathers make no mention of him at all. For some he was just to much.

Pappillion001 · Apr 6, 2013

Ken Brown said:
Hi Pappillion001, I have ran out of time this morning, but please see my responses in red above. KB

Yeshua said it was written of old and then gave Spiritual examples of how that "work" of the Law could be followed. That is all Paul did, he saw that there were deeper meanings to the "works" of the Law that could truly save a person if they believed.

I understand that and am not saying Paul did not address the spiritual aspect of the Law. Jesus recognized and tried to reform what he saw as a path down a Law more concerned with a tangible or out ward expression of the Law which was causing people to focus on "doing" the law instead of "being" the Law. It is interesting to look back at the OT and compare what is written about the Law to what is in the NT

Psalm 19:7-9
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. 9The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The decrees of the Lord are firm, and all of them are righteous.

PASLM 119
14I rejoice in following your statutes as one rejoices in great riches. 15I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways. 16I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word.

Corinthians 3
7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

The Law is now known as the of ministry death and condemnation. Please do not try and say Paul supported the Law. Does he ever say anything positive about it without then following with something why it must be abandoned?

Paul's emphasis was not on discrediting the Law, but rather the "works" or the physical keeping of the Law. Paul saw that there was a higher function of the Law and an invisible side to it that those of faith could accomplish.

What does God say about the idea that the Law will be fulfilled or parts to be removed or are to be kept until a later time?

Deuteronomy 4:6
Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.Torrey's Topical TextbookAKJV

Deuteronomy 6:2
That you might fear the LORD your God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command you, you, and your son, and your son's son, all the days of your life; and that your days may be prolonged.

There is no fulfillment of the law as if it was something to be completed. When I stop at a red light I have not fulfilled the Law and look for something to replace it. When I run a red light my excuses why I did do not work to make it legal nor would saying I thought I could get through.

Here is the problem, there was overwhelming evidence to the Jewish Believers that Elohim was taking for Himself the Gentiles, and these Gentiles were accepting and believing that Yeshua was THEIR Spiritual sacrifice, without being physically circumcised. This was the delimnia they faced in Acts 15. They knew that circumcision was commanded even before the Law, yet the evidence that Elohim was choosing Gentiles, and giving them His Spirit, without their physical circumcision, was evidence that there might be something going that they didn't fully recognize. There might be something more important than a physical "work" of the Law to be saved, something like being "cut to the heart" and having a circumcision "in Messiah" that is not made with hands. So the Gentiles were given a dispensation from doing a "work" of the Law, but had to comply with the Spiritual fulfillment of circumcision.

This reasoning doesn't work. After 14 years of teaching Paul had a following that could not be ignored. They couldn't very well tell him he was fired and go do something else and he wasn't going to change even if they tried. Only Paul was teaching Gentiles need not be circumcised. The traditional Jews and the Apostles did not and even after Paul argued his point they still did not change their belief. They made it clear to Paul he was not to teach this to Jews. Only when Peter stepped forward to say the Law was strict for new Gentile converts. Meaning, they had grown up with the Law and knew what was required. A Gentile converting as an adult would find it highly restrictive. The fear was they would not be able to maintain it and would either corrupt it, become lax in observing it or just change their mind.

If they believed there was something more to it or if Paul had the right of it, why restrict it to Gentiles?

They can't give a dispensation. It is a direct command from God as a specific condition of the covenant. Inclusion in the covenant requires all male children to be circumcised. To say this says that God may be overruled or that he may say something that does not always hold true and that at times man knows better than God what is beneficial for man.

No, Paul NEVER says the Law is a curse. The curse is IF you fail in continuing to DO the Law. As I have said previously, through the Sacrifice of Messiah, our failure to continue in all that is written in the Law, is nullified, because we are accomplishing the Just requirement of the Law, by our sacrifice of Yeshua (Him hanging on a tree). We are redeemed from the curse of not following what the Law says, by acknowledging Yeshua as our sacrifice, thus we are DOING what the Law said to do for our sin. Why is this so difficult to see?

Semantics. If he says no man can observe all of the law and that to not do so they will be cursed. Then the only way to view it is that it is a curse. If some could and some could not then it would be different, but when he says that is the only outcome then what else can it be?

So we make one human sacrifice (prohibited in the law) and we have atoned for not keeping the law forever, except that we still have to keep atoning for not keeping certain parts of it. We just do it differently now. Now it is easier and cheaper. Under the Law there was a tangible reminder that doing bad things had consequences. Losing an animal or having to buy one could be an expensive reminder and incentive. Just as having a period to reflect and consider how one has acted. Someone is much more willing if the they have only their conscience to pay or it is the only influence.

The Law was added to increase the transgression of Adam. It was added to promote or give transgression, and by doing so, it would be easier to identify the True Seed of Abraham, because He was without transgression. Adding the Law to the Covenant to Abraham did not invalidate the promise to Abraham, it only helped to secure it.

Really? God who hates sin, in order to help his chosen people set forth laws so they would commit sins more often. By doing so he gave them way to recognize his son who he sent to be sacrificed, breaking his own law, so he could forgive them for breaking the law he gave them to break.

I am obviously missing something because I cannot believe that is what you are saying.

I am not saying it invalidates it. I am saying that Paul cannot decide to include people under his own conditions.

He was not referring to Jesus as the seed of Abraham. He refers to his descendants, all the people of his house. Why do you think every male had to be circumcised, whether they were his biological offspring or slaves that he owned? Paul's reasoning is flawed. The covenant was with Abraham and his descendants. Circumcision was a sign of that.

I apologize as this might be a little scattered. I sat down 3 different times in order to finish it, but hopefully it will make some sense.

Pappillion001 · Apr 6, 2013

outhouse said:
Dont let Pauls radical approach discount his message, it wasnt apposed as much as questioned by others in the movement teaching and healing. We can also suppose that he had heard something from one member of the households, as he was addressing, or should I say clearing up what he really ment.

We also have the later epistles from different authors trying to soften up his stance a bit.

Also take into account early on he was a grand theologian for these houses, he was viewed as a martyr, for the cause.

Pauls epistles evolved into the canon and the dogma you see very late in the game. Not early on. Many people had different takes on him, some of the early fathers make no mention of him at all. For some he was just to much.

I don't question he positioned himself as a voice that could not be ignored. By going to the big cities and accepting the Gentiles he influenced to many people to try and just ignore.

I think he recognized the reasons causing the need to reform Judaism as Jesus did, but think where Jesus went reform Paul wanted to overthrow. By that I mean the religious leadership which I think both saw as passing on their increasing observance of maintaining an outward expression of the law to the people while the inner expression was being lost.

outhouse · Apr 6, 2013

Pappillion001 said:
I don't question he positioned himself as a voice that could not be ignored. By going to the big cities and accepting the Gentiles he influenced to many people to try and just ignore. .

He didnt influence as many as people think early on. He wasnt the only teacher by any means. Just one who wrote down his concernes to a few houses in different communities and they lasted.

The message spread to many of these places prior to Paul.

I think he recognized the reasons causing the need to reform Judaism as Jesus did,

Jesus wasnt reforming Judaism, he was practicing to and for the poor people in Galilee.

He had more of a issue with Hellenistic Judaism and the corrupt Jewish governement.

If we look at Judaism in the first century, it was wide and diverse with many different beliefs far and wide. Jesus version based on JtB teachings was not far off traditional Israelite born and raised Judaism.

but think where Jesus went reform Paul wanted to overthrow.

Paul and Jesus teachings were night and day different. The only simularities were the teaching and healing around dinner tables. Paul built off the mythology that started after Jesus death, not what Jesus taught during his lifetime. Paul didnt have a clue what the original message or teachings were.

sincerly · Apr 6, 2013

outhouse said:
The message spread to many of these places prior to Paul.

Yes, 50 days after the Resurrection of Jesus, those who attended the Day of Pentecost Festival were from many countries(Jews and proselytes) and they carried The salvation message back to their congregations.

outhouse said:
Jesus wasnt reforming Judaism, he was practicing to and for the poor people in Galilee.
He had more of a issue with Hellenistic Judaism and the corrupt Jewish governement.

Correct, The message of salvation was in the Oracles of the Jews. However, the "traditions and commandments made by the leaders/rabbis were the fault Jesus had with them-----to the point of chasing the corrupted Sacrificial sanctuary service providers from the Sanctuary.

outhouse said:
If we look at Judaism in the first century, it was wide and diverse with many different beliefs far and wide. Jesus version based on JtB teachings was not far off traditional Israelite born and raised Judaism.

Paul and Jesus teachings were night and day different. The only simularities were the teaching and healing around dinner tables. Paul built off the mythology that started after Jesus death, not what Jesus taught during his lifetime. Paul didnt have a clue what the original message or teachings were.

To the contrary, Jesus , JtB, and Paul all taught the scriptures of the OT. Obey and live; Repentance and Forgiveness; Love GOD with all one's heart and love one's neighbor as one's self. A blood sacrifice was made for the remission of one's sins.---That was the mission of Jesus in fulfilling those animal sacrifices which could never replace the death of the human Being who had sinned.
Those sacrifices were only "for the time then present" until the real Sacrifice came for to replace those "shadows".----Jesus upon the cross.

Pappillion001 · Apr 7, 2013

outhouse said:
outhouse said:

He didnt influence as many as people think early on. He wasnt the only teacher by any means. Just one who wrote down his concernes to a few houses in different communities and they lasted.

Click to expand...

He wasn't an issue early on. First he traveled under the direction of Barnabas. Most likely keeping his message in line with the Apostles. By the time he was called before church leaders in Jerusalem there was little they could do except what they did.

Whether by luck, persistence, ability or some combination he was able to lay the foundation solidly enough that it was able to survive and grow until it was strong enough to split from Judaism.

The message spread to many of these places prior to Paul.

Click to expand...

Paul's version?

Jesus wasnt reforming Judaism, he was practicing to and for the poor people in Galilee.

He had more of a issue with Hellenistic Judaism and the corrupt Jewish governement.

Click to expand...

He did not want to see changes in how Judaism was being observed? He saw that the religious leaders were teaching people an outward materialistic corruption of Judaism. His confrontations centered around interpretation of the Law. His healing and gathering food on the Sabbath, his lack of regard for customs instituted by men and the relationship with the Romans with the coin. Each time his response was tied to their failure to properly understand God's commandments.

If we look at Judaism in the first century, it was wide and diverse with many different beliefs far and wide. Jesus version based on JtB teachings was not far off traditional Israelite born and raised Judaism.

Click to expand...

Significantly subtle. That the divergence was common only lends credibility to the problem. A diverse observation is exactly what God told his people not to let happen. They had become influenced by the religions and customs of the nations around them, By doing so the were subjecting themselves to God's judgement. What Jesus was saying, was what God said if they would repent and return to his statutes then he would forgive them otherwise he would punish them.

Paul and Jesus teachings were night and day different. The only simularities were the teaching and healing around dinner tables. Paul built off the mythology that started after Jesus death, not what Jesus taught during his lifetime. Paul didnt have a clue what the original message or teachings were.

Click to expand...

Their messages are similar, but have a difference that drastically at odds with each other. The both speak of high moral values, the importance of a spiritual life and obedience to God as a few examples.

Things they differed on included the observation of the Law and God's relationship with the people. Where Jesus comes across as its not to late Paul seems to say time is up. Jesus implies God is willing to forgive and man may redeem himself. While Paul suggests that man can only hope that Jesus will take pity on us and convince God to open the gates of Heaven to us. Because there is no other way we would go there.

Pappillion001 · Apr 7, 2013

sincerly said:
To the contrary, Jesus , JtB, and Paul all taught the scriptures of the OT. Obey and live; Repentance and Forgiveness; Love GOD with all one's heart and love one's neighbor as one's self. A blood sacrifice was made for the remission of one's sins.---That was the mission of Jesus in fulfilling those animal sacrifices which could never replace the death of the human Being who had sinned.
Those sacrifices were only "for the time then present" until the real Sacrifice came for to replace those "shadows".----Jesus upon the cross.

I am sorry, but I just can't get why God would give a system and say it is to be forever and then a few hundred years later say in direct conflict with the laws he gave, a first born son, who is blemished, will be sacrificed and a new covenant established with the symbolic drinking of blood and eating of human flesh, again also specifically prohibited by God.

Of course the animal sacrifice was sufficient, to say otherwise is to say God lied. God determined what would be acceptable to atone for any sins committed. He knew people would sin when he gave them the Law. That is why the sin and atonement components are there. He doesn't give impossible laws with a 1 strike aspect, nor does he say that the sinner may not redeem himself.

So what did the death of Jesus accomplish other than attempting to stop the sacrificial system, which the Romans were overwhelmingly successful at, and making the priests get another source of food?

outhouse · Apr 7, 2013

Pappillion001 said:
Most likely keeping his message in line with the Apostles.

Really?

We have a few very Jewish apostles, teaching to Jews.

And we have a Hellenist Roman citizen teaching to non Jews.

How could their message be "inline" ?

Whether by luck, persistence, ability or some combination he was able to lay the foundation solidly enough that it was able to survive and grow until it was strong enough to split from Judaism.

Your missing some known history here my well educated friend.

Paul did not lay anything, Jesus did with his death and the legends that grew after his death.

There was roughly 400,000 people in attendance at Passover when Jesus was killed. This would have been the big event and the oral tradition started right then and there. These people lived all through the Diaspora, and they took these legends back home all over the Roman Empire with them.

Jesus death started the movement and it spread rapidly due to the sheer number people in attendance at Passover.

Remember Paul tells us early on, there were already other gospels in circulation and other teachers like him.

Paul's version?

Yes, Pauline Christianity.

Paul's, movement was his own, and he tells us it was his own.

He says he met the "real apostles" but argued with them.

Even if he didn't argue with them all, his non Jewish movement after hunting down and killing the leaders of this movement, would have some serious trust issues with the real apostles.

He saw that the religious leaders were teaching people an outward materialistic corruption of Judaism.

I could write a book to this reply.

Remember, Judaism was wide and diverse. Jesus was against Hellenistic Judaism, and the corruption and greed surrounding it.

Jesus was not against Judaism that was practiced by the poor hard working peasants. That is to say, the majority of Jews in Israel.

The rift between Hellenistic Judaism and born and raised Judaism existed before Jesus was born. This all has to do with the socioeconomic situation in Israel at this time.

You had the ruling elite, that were Hellenistic Jews, the very people Jesus was against by his demonstrations in the temple and the disturbance he caused there.

Ask yourself why did Jesus cause a disturbance in the temple?

What we have is Paul going to the opposite side of this "rift" in Judaism, and teaching and creating his theology for the Hellenistic Proselytes. NOT the traditional pure form of Judaism that Jesus was promoting for the common hard working peasant.

. Each time his response was tied to their failure to properly understand God's commandments.

Paul, factually breaks the laws, because it was what was best for his people in his houses. Paul factually takes the movement and laws from Judaism, and twist them to fit the Proselytes, Roman citizens, and other gentiles in the Roman Empire.

These were not the people Jesus taught too. He opposed them.

Had he been a great Hellenistic teacher, we would have volumes of people who would have wrote about him while he was alive. He would have traveled to Sepphoris and to Tiberious and taught to the people there. he would not have been a champion of the poor. We would have writing similar to Paul's writing.

But we don't, we have a small time teacher only going to small very Jewish villages teaching and healing for the very poor. The exact opposite of what Paul does.

Ken Brown · Apr 7, 2013

Hi Pappillion001, you left out a very important Scripture from Psalms:

(Pss 119:18) Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

Hidden within the Law are "wondrous" things, and like the Psalm states, "opened" eyes are needed to behold those things. Yeshua OPENED the minds of His disciples to see the Gospel that was written in the Law of Moses, namely, His suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection. The Apostle Paul also had his eyes/mind opened to understand what Moses wrote, and he could see there was a more important side of the Law, the "hidden" side. Only those who who look at the Law according to the Spiritual Fulfilllment could see those "wondrous" things, and those who's focus and mind was on just the "works" of the Law, couldn't see. It was as Isaiah declared, "Seeing and they see not, hearing and they hear not."

The wisdom and understanding that can be SHOWN to the nations is the Spiritual Fulfillment of the Law. The children of Israel proved time and time again that they had no wisdom and understanding because of their disobedience. And this is why the True Wisdom and Understanding of the Law comes to those who believe through the obedience of Faith.

Now Pappillion001, you need to go back and re-examine Acts 15 and really look at what moved the Elders to agree together. They listened to Paul, and they listened to Peter, and REMAINED SILENT (v12 & 13). Peter and Paul's testimony of their experience with the Gentiles converting did not move the Elders to loosen the requirement of circumcision (So your assumption that what Peter and Paul said and those following Paul's 14 years teaching against the Law, was wrong). It was James appeal for Yeshua's return, that there had to be Gentiles calling on The Name before He would come back and repair the fallen tabernacle, that moved the Apostles and Elders into agreement about the Gentiles not being circumcised.

The curse of the Law is "Semantics?" The Law is NOT a curse, but failing to confirm all that is written within the Law brings the curse. The Messiah has delivered us from the "curse" of not confirming all things that are written within the Law. That "curse" which is brought on by disobedience, is removed in Messiah, by believing in the Spiritual Fulfillment of the Law. And what brings a sinner INTO believing in the Spiritual Fulfillment of the Law is by what is found hidden in The Foundation of the Torah--The Chassidic Dimension - Festivals 1: Parshas Parah.

The Law was added to increase the transgression of Adam, not to increase sin as you suggested I said. There is a difference. Before the Law all were sinning, but they were not dying for their sin, because they had not been giving any commands concerning their sin. When the Law came in, now sinners could transgress just like Adam, and they could die for their own sin, instead of Adams. This increasing the transgression of Adam, confirms who the True Seed of Abraham would be. Yeshua said to the Jews of His day that IF Abraham was THEIR father, they would do what Abraham did, but they proved that Satan was THEIR father by doing what Satan does. Adding the Law to the Covenant with Abraham, confirms who the True Seed of Abraham would be, and this Paul confirms in Gal 3:16 by stating that the SEED is just ONE SEED, not many.

Finally, Elohim hates sin. He truly wants us to hate sin as He hates sin, but for us to become LIKE Him in KNOWING good and evil, and then hating the evil and loving the good, He had to consign us or shut us ALL up under disobedience (Rom 11:32). Experience is the BEST teacher, and 7000 years of having mankind shut up under disobedience, and then having a plan to first bring out a chosen people, an ELECT who would flee from that disobedience because of coming to a knowledge of the Truth of what their former sin did horrifically accomplish (Yeshua's suffering and death). Coming to a knowledge of what our sin did do, forces or compels a sinner to turn from their sin. Sure, killing an innocent animal was to be costly and move a sinner away from their sin, but as history tells us, the shed blood of those animals really couldn't bring about the remission of a sinners sin. But shedding the Innocent and Righteous blood of Yeshua (by sinning), can and will cause a mourning for Him and a turning from sin in the hearts of those who KNOW what they did do. Elohim is a wise and patient teacher, and He wants all to come to a knowledge of the Truth concerning what their sin did do (Kill/Sacrifice Yeshua).

Hope this helps you Pappillion001 to better understand Paul. KB

Pappillion001 · Apr 8, 2013

Ken Brown said:
Ken Brown said:

Hi Pappillion001, you left out a very important Scripture from Psalms:

(Pss 119:18) Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

Click to expand...

Hidden within the Law are "wondrous" things, and like the Psalm states, "opened" eyes are needed to behold those things. Yeshua OPENED the minds of His disciples to see the Gospel that was written in the Law of Moses, namely, His suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection.

Click to expand...

God also said

1If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, Let us follow other gods (gods you have not known) and let us worship them, 3you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery.

....Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors 18because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes. Deut 13

Jews don't believe in Jesus because he failed to accomplish what the Messiah is supposed to accomplish. God say if that happens he isn't the Messiah.

The Apostle Paul also had his eyes/mind opened to understand what Moses wrote, and he could see there was a more important side of the Law, the "hidden" side. Only those who who look at the Law according to the Spiritual Fulfilllment could see those "wondrous" things, and those who's focus and mind was on just the "works" of the Law, couldn't see. It was as Isaiah declared, "Seeing and they see not, hearing and they hear not."

Click to expand...

The Law is not simply a collection of actions Jews were required to perform without any spiritual meaning. Just so I understand you correctly are suggesting that Jews never observed the Law from a spiritual aspect or they did and were no longer or were headed in that direction by the time of Jesus?

Now Pappillion001, you need to go back and re-examine Acts 15 and really look at what moved the Elders to agree together. They listened to Paul, and they listened to Peter, and REMAINED SILENT (v12 & 13). Peter and Paul's testimony of their experience with the Gentiles converting did not move the Elders to loosen the requirement of circumcision (So your assumption that what Peter and Paul said and those following Paul's 14 years teaching against the Law, was wrong).

Click to expand...

No that is not at all the wording. Peter speaks saying it would be to hard for them to observe the law followed by

Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:

They kept silent to hear what Paul and Barnabas had to say and after doing so James made his decision. Of course Paul convinced him, he surely did not contact Paul and tell him to teach this. He di not decide prior to Paul pleading his case, but afterwards he said ok, but with conditions. Which Paul then ignored when he went back home.

Now let's really look at the situation. Paul is teaching the Law is not the way for salvation, that one just needs to profess faith in Jesus and live a moral life. By doing so that person does not and should not observe the Law.

How did this become an issue? Because mainstream Jews and the Apostles did not teach this, but in fact the opposite. When some of them came and talked to Paul's followers they said no that is not right and sent them to the Apostles to decide.

The point was argued, but without resolution so Paul and Barnabas went to put the question before the Apostles. Keep in mind this is not the recognized leadership of the Jewish community, but the leaders of what is considered a Jewish sect. Paul and Barnabas argue with them with at least Peter saying to let them continue on the grounds that to hold them to the law would be to much of a burden. They justify preaching to Gentiles saying that God chose their ancestors from among Gentiles to be his chosen people and quote from Amos 9.

This is a doctrine that did not come to them through Jesus. The Apostles did not teach it. They agreed to let Paul continue, but what else could they do. From his letters it is obvious he was not going to stop and an internal fight over what they taught would have been a disaster. Did they truly believe Faith in Jesus was a replacement of the Law? No they did not. If they had their would not have been anything to discuss. They would no longer follow it themselves. They would not tell Paul to only teach to Gentiles.

They knew it was wrong as evidenced by the mockery of Paul's later visit and purification rite. They told him he must do it to convince Jews that he was not doing what he was actually doing. Teaching Jews to abandon the Law and telling new converts it was unnecessary to receive the promise made to Abraham. To convince the mainstream Jews this was not true they rounded up some people who made a vow and had Paul pay for it, which by doing so he was permitted to then "share" in the vow as if he had actually done it.

Do you not see something isn't right about the whole episode?

The curse of the Law is "Semantics?" The Law is NOT a curse, but failing to confirm all that is written within the Law brings the curse. The Messiah has delivered us from the "curse" of not confirming all things that are written within the Law. That "curse" which is brought on by disobedience, is removed in Messiah, by believing in the Spiritual Fulfillment of the Law. And what brings a sinner INTO believing in the Spiritual Fulfillment of the Law is by what is found hidden in The Foundation of the Torah--The Chassidic Dimension - Festivals 1: Parshas Parah.

Click to expand...

Man can not sin no more than he can not breath. Taking away the Law and accepting Jesus sees man performing the same sins or arguably worse sins more often. For some reason there seems to be this reasoning that the Law was unable to address when man sinned. That the Law at best provided only action without meaning, that despite what God says the law was unable to allow God to forgive. That its intended purpose was to cause sin, to insure that Jews would do what God hates when they observed his statues. All so that later he could change everything because something was beyond his ability to do it right the first time.

The Law was added to increase the transgression of Adam, not to increase sin as you suggested I said. There is a difference. Before the Law all were sinning, but they were not dying for their sin, because they had not been giving any commands concerning their sin.

Click to expand...

So the flood was not due to the wickedness of men, but because of Adam? Same with Sodom and Gomorrah? Even though the Bible clearly says that it was because of their sins?

Adding the Law to the Covenant with Abraham, confirms who the True Seed of Abraham would be, and this Paul confirms in Gal 3:16 by stating that the SEED is just ONE SEED, not many.

Click to expand...

God references descendants.

There is a comical example of how easy it is to find verses that can be used to demonstrate almost anything. The author finds numerous biblical verses that proclaim the Messiah is his chicken.

Experience is the BEST teacher, and 7000 years of having mankind shut up under disobedience, and then having a plan to first bring out a chosen people, an ELECT who would flee from that disobedience because of coming to a knowledge of the Truth of what their former sin did horrifically accomplish (Yeshua's suffering and death).

Click to expand...

Again, this method is counter productive and for what? If all our sin stems from earthly desires of the flesh, we will never be any different until we shed the body at death. It is not bad habit we picked up someplace. It is hard wired into us.

Coming to a knowledge of what our sin did do, forces or compels a sinner to turn from their sin. Sure, killing an innocent animal was to be costly and move a sinner away from their sin, but as history tells us, the shed blood of those animals really couldn't bring about the remission of a sinners sin.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what history you are referring to. Could you site some examples?

Shermana · Apr 8, 2013

Jews don't believe in Jesus because he failed to accomplish what the Messiah is supposed to accomplish. God say if that happens he isn't the Messiah.

If only the exact requirements and time frame was so clear cut.

Let me also repeat, the Council of Jerusalem episode in Acts 15 (and verse 21:25 which interputs the flow of 21) is contested by many scholars as a totally interpolated and did not actually happen, and even traditionalist scholars like FF Bruce note that it clashes with Galatians 2.

Ken Brown · Apr 8, 2013

Hi Pappillion001, you state the following:

Originally by Pappillion001:
Jews don't believe in Jesus because he failed to accomplish what the Messiah is supposed to accomplish. God say if that happens he isn't the Messiah.

But the irony is that it will be the Jews who acknowledge and confess the accomplishments of Yeshua HaMashiach, and traditional christianity will deny those accomplishments. Just give the Jews a little more time. KB

Ken Brown · Apr 8, 2013

Shermana said:
If only the exact requirements and time frame was so clear cut.

Let me also repeat, the Council of Jerusalem episode in Acts 15 (and verse 21:25 which interputs the flow of 21) is contested by many scholars as a totally interpolated and did not actually happen, and even traditionalist scholars like FF Bruce note that it clashes with Galatians 2.

Hi Shermana, how do you explain Acts 15:24?

(Acts 15:24) Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:

Acts 15 and Acts 21 does not clash with Galatians 2, apparently, FF Bruce is not very knowledgeable, and does not understand Paul at all. KB

Ken Brown · Apr 8, 2013

Pappillion001 said:
I am not sure what history you are referring to. Could you site some examples?

Hi Pappillion001, here are some examples:

(Deut 31:16) And YHWH said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go [to be] among them, and will forsake Me, and break My covenant which I have made with them.

(Judg 2:12 - 2:13) (12) And they forsook YHWH Elohim of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that [were] round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked YHWH to anger. (13) And they forsook YHWH, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.

(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith YHWH:

The history of Israel is that she played the harlot, forsook YHWH, and chased after the Baalim and Ashtaroth. There was no remission of sin taking place with the House of Israel and Judah with the multitude of their sacrifices:

(Isa 1:11) To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith YHWH: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

(Mic 6:6 - 6:7) (6) Wherewith shall I come before YHWH, [and] bow myself before the high El? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? (7) Will YHWH be pleased with thousands of rams, [or] with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, the fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul?

YHWH despised those who tried to appease Him with the killing of something innocent, for what He truly wanted was a contrite heart and humble spirit, and the Killing or Sacrificing of Yeshua does produce that in sinners and causes their sin to go into remission. Yeshua thus fulfills His role in TAKING AWAY sin from sinners, making Him the Mashiach. KB

Shermana · Apr 8, 2013

Ken Brown said:
Hi Shermana, how do you explain Acts 15:24?

(Acts 15:24) Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:

Acts 15 and Acts 21 does not clash with Galatians 2, apparently, FF Bruce is not very knowledgeable, and does not understand Paul at all. KB

I would explain it as the many scholars do that it is totally interpolated like I said in my quote. Acts 21:25 is not what clashes, it is argued, by the Tubingen school at least, and the argument was never really refuted, that it was added to coincide with the edited addition of the Council of Jerusalem episode.

I don't think you understand who FF Bruce is, or why the common consensus is that Galatians 2 clashes with Acts 15. Try researching these things first before calling the grand-daddy of Protestant Conservative Scholars "not very knowledgeable".

Galatians versus Acts: The Jerusalem Council & Apostolic Decree

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/17/17-4/17-4-pp239-242_JETS.pdf

Try reading Stein's paper here and explain why you think he's not very knowledgeable either, as he summarizes the same points that FF Bruce does. What they try to do is say that Galatians 2 is referring to a totally different episode, and this is far from the consensus view on the matter.

Pappillion001 · Apr 10, 2013

outhouse said:
outhouse said:

Really?

We have a few very Jewish apostles, teaching to Jews.

And we have a Hellenist Roman citizen teaching to non Jews.

How could their message be "inline" ?

Click to expand...

When he started it is highly unlikely he was teaching anything radically different. I think as he was rejected by the Jewish community, but was finding an audience with Gentiles. Until they learned what was required. Paul would have been faced with a dilemma that he solved by becoming the Apostle to the Gentiles granting them salvation based on a hope and a prayer.

Your missing some known history here my well educated friend.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the attempt to soften the blow.

Paul did not lay anything, Jesus did with his death and the legends that grew after his death.

There was roughly 400,000 people in attendance at Passover when Jesus was killed. This would have been the big event and the oral tradition started right then and there. These people lived all through the Diaspora, and they took these legends back home all over the Roman Empire with them.

Click to expand...

Yes, but what version of Jesus as well as many of the beliefs and structure of the Catholic church come from Paul. Yes Jesus is the point of origin and it is his message that Paul develops into what we have today.

Jesus death started the movement and it spread rapidly due to the sheer number people in attendance at Passover.

Remember Paul tells us early on, there were already other gospels in circulation and other teachers like him

Click to expand...

.

Paul's letters and later the need to establish the Canon are evidence of a quickly growing organization that lacked the organization to support itself. Those teaching in those formative years were not all saying the same things and in come cases lacked the ability to overcome objections.

I could write a book to this reply.

Remember, Judaism was wide and diverse. Jesus was against Hellenistic Judaism, and the corruption and greed surrounding it.

Jesus was not against Judaism that was practiced by the poor hard working peasants. That is to say, the majority of Jews in Israel.

The rift between Hellenistic Judaism and born and raised Judaism existed before Jesus was born. This all has to do with the socioeconomic situation in Israel at this time.

You had the ruling elite, that were Hellenistic Jews, the very people Jesus was against by his demonstrations in the temple and the disturbance he caused there.

Ask yourself why did Jesus cause a disturbance in the temple?

Click to expand...

Jesus was against the Judaism that was being pushed onto the people. Which was putting emphasis on customs that men had made as important as the the God given law. These customs as well as an interpretation that lacked both common sense and the overall intent put additional burdens on those least able to bear them.

We see evidence of this with his numerous charges of hypocrisy, the confrontation over the apostles not washing their hands, healing on the Sabbath and the commercialization of Temple worship.

What we have is Paul going to the opposite side of this "rift" in Judaism, and teaching and creating his theology for the Hellenistic Proselytes. NOT the traditional pure form of Judaism that Jesus was promoting for the common hard working peasant.

Click to expand...

Right. Gentiles were receptive to him while Jews were not and at times even hostile. He tailored his message to what they wanted to hear or found most appealing. Remember Paul's followers were also primarily the slaves, the poor and working class people.

Paul, factually breaks the laws, because it was what was best for his people in his houses. Paul factually takes the movement and laws from Judaism, and twist them to fit the Proselytes, Roman citizens, and other gentiles in the Roman Empire.

Click to expand...

Yes he did

These were not the people Jesus taught too. He opposed them.

Had he been a great Hellenistic teacher, we would have volumes of people who would have wrote about him while he was alive. He would have traveled to Sepphoris and to Tiberious and taught to the people there. he would not have been a champion of the poor. We would have writing similar to Paul's writing.

But we don't, we have a small time teacher only going to small very Jewish villages teaching and healing for the very poor. The exact opposite of what Paul does.

Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with what you are saying, but at the same time I didn't really get into these things in my post. I did give examples of things that Paul took from Jesus and so would be similar as well as a examples of where they differed.

I know Paul taught in cities, it is one of the reasons his teachings lasted and grew

Pappillion001 · Apr 10, 2013

Ken Brown said:
Hi Pappillion001, here are some examples:

(Deut 31:16) And YHWH said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go [to be] among them, and will forsake Me, and break My covenant which I have made with them.

(Judg 2:12 - 2:13) (12) And they forsook YHWH Elohim of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that [were] round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked YHWH to anger. (13) And they forsook YHWH, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.

(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith YHWH:

The history of Israel is that she played the harlot, forsook YHWH, and chased after the Baalim and Ashtaroth. There was no remission of sin taking place with the House of Israel and Judah with the multitude of their sacrifices:

(Isa 1:11) To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith YHWH: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

(Mic 6:6 - 6:7) (6) Wherewith shall I come before YHWH, [and] bow myself before the high El? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? (7) Will YHWH be pleased with thousands of rams, [or] with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, the fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul?

YHWH despised those who tried to appease Him with the killing of something innocent, for what He truly wanted was a contrite heart and humble spirit, and the Killing or Sacrificing of Yeshua does produce that in sinners and causes their sin to go into remission. Yeshua thus fulfills His role in TAKING AWAY sin from sinners, making Him the Mashiach. KB

Wasn't Jesus innocent? Wasn't the purpose of his sacrifice to appease God?

Reconciling Paul

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Atheistically

Member

Member

Atheistically

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Atheistically

Well-Known Member

Member

Heretic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heretic

Member

Member