• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Paul declares the God of Israel dead!

Simplelogic

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Brickjectivity said:
Not giving a complete answer but you'd have to widen the context. Romans 6:1-2 says "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" Here the writer suggests it is sin that we die to and that we must not go on sinning (against the Law). Then further in 6 Paul talks about dying 'With Christ' and continues to 6v15 with "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!" He upholds obedience to the Law here.

With a widening context and increasing effort the letter takes on more dimensions. Following through with further reading it becomes clear Paul isn't teaching anything new but revisiting the concept of 'Circumcision' of the 'Heart' which is alluded to in Deuteronomy 10v16. In Romans 8:12 he says "Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it." In other words there remains an obligation for them to the Law, but it is not about the physical actions they do. The actions must lead to results. Circumcision of heart is not a new teaching and is a goal of the Law, but his line of argument continues and takes the familiar into unfamiliar territory in chapter 9 when he comments on the 'Stumbling stone' of Zion. It relates to his interpretation of the Kingdom of God and how it will become a reality, but the idea seems to be that now the Law is no longer on paper but has to move onto the tablets of the heart, a kind of harmonization with Matthew's comments about Jeremiah 34.

So it doesn't appear to be a rejection of Torah.
Click to expand...

I have addressed many of Paul's "pro law" statements in the past. It is crucial to understand Paul's definition of the law. Paul refers to the law of Christ different times in his letters. He clearly differentiates this law with the Law of Moses. I do admit that Paul's letters can be confusing on this topic. This verse may help explain why Paul speaks both ways about the law.

19For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 1 Corinthians 9: 19-21

Regarding circumcision of the heart:

You accurately stated that heart circumcision was not a new concept and a Torah command itself. But flesh circumcision was also a command and a requirement for any gentile who wished to become a full Israelite, capable of keeping the Passover and entering the Temple. Paul completely rails against the continuance of circumcision for Gentiles. James and his followers continued to practice this concept, even though they agreed circumcision was not necessary for salvation at the Jerusalem council. Circumcision was NEVER necessary for salavation in the Torah. It was necessary for anyone to become an Israelite/Hebrew though. Which is why James kept teaching it to gentiles who wished to become such.
 
Simplelogic

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
outhouse said:
yes outdated incomplete work is all you can find that only partially agrees with small aspects of your guesses
Click to expand...

Actually, almost every mainstream Christian scholar agrees that Paul was speaking of the Law of Moses. My opinions on this are mainstream, as sick as they appear to be.
 
Brickjectivity

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Also I agree with something that scholars (and Outhouse) generally agree on, that Paul is not just one person but represents a tradition of writing. We tend to think about him as one person only because of our modern patterns of thinking. Mainly I agree with this, because Paul's letters are so confusing about Torah.

It is not merely confusing to read Paul when it comes to Torah but he appears to change his mind. Galations has a very different spin on Torah than Romans. Romans upholds both Torah and physical circumcision as valuable. Galations doesn't seem to do that. Both are written by 'Paul' but they disagree with each other in my lay opinion. The letter to Galations tosses Torah and circumcision under the bus and reduces it to a temporary tool for realizing a promise to Abraham. In Romans this promise by the way is not yet fulfilled except in Christ, for those who are in Christ Jesus. 'In Christ' and for those who have died with Christ it is fulfilled in a future sense but not in a present sense, so people on the outside of Christ don't perceive it. Romans as opposed to Galations says that circumcision is valuable and goes into a long winded exhortation about being fired up about Torah, which this Romans 7 is actually part of.
 
Last edited:
dawny0826

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Simplelogic said:
These were NOT new commandments. Yeshua was quoting the Torah:

You shall therefore love the LORD your God, and always keep His charge, His statutes, His ordinances, and His commandments. Deut 11:1

'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19:24
Click to expand...

Love became the fulfillment of the law under the new covenant.

Was love the fulfillment to the law prior to Christ?

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[a] “You shall not covet,”[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[c] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Click to expand...

Romans 13:8-10 NKJV Source
 
Simplelogic

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
dawny0826 said:
Love became the fulfillment of the law under the new covenant.

Was love the fulfillment to the law prior to Christ?



Romans 13:8-10 NKJV Source
Click to expand...
These were always the top two commands that every other law hinged upon. These two laws encapsulate the rest of the commands in the Torah. They don't "fulfill" them in the replacement sense.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Brickjectivity said:
Also I agree with something that scholars (and Outhouse) generally agree on, that Paul is not just one person but represents a tradition of writing. We tend to think about him as one person only because of our modern patterns of thinking. Mainly I agree with this, because Paul's letters are so confusing about Torah.
Click to expand...

Most of his epistles were a community effort.

Of which we don't know how much was really even from him Or Tim or any other member.

He very well could have been the scribe and spent much time taking dictation for the community.

The rhetorical writing style scribes were all trained in would leave us with exactly what we have.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Simplelogic said:
Paul uses the word "nomos" in Ch 1-6 of Romans. In each time referring to the Torah.

Paul in this passage of Romans specifically addresses Jews about the Mosaic Law: "for I speak to them that know the law" (Romans 7:1.) This is obviously in reference to the Torah.

Christian scholars who agree with me:

Tischendorf -- a faithful German scholar from the 1800s (discoverer of the Sinaiticus manuscript,

Tischendorf says of Romans 7:1-6 that Paul refers to "the law in the sense it has been used all along, the Mosaic law." (Notes on Tischendorf's text of Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Ed. Jammes Robinson Boise) (1883) at 57.)

Henry Ripley-notes of Romans 7:1-6: "When we consider the apostle's habits of thought in regard to the Law, and those of the majority, at least of his earliest readers, it is most reasonable to think hehad in mind the Mosaic code." (The Epistle ... to the Romans; with notes by H.J. Ripley (edited by Henry Jones Ripley) (1857) at 72.)

Matthew Henry- Henry says Paul uses an illustration of the law of the husband to teach we are "not under a covenant of works-under the gospel of Christ, and not under the law of Moses." (Henry's commentary at Bibble-Browser Romans 7:4.)

John Locke says in his commentary:

That his discourse here, is addressed to those converts of this church, who were of the Jewish nation, is so evident, from the whole tenour of this chapter, that there needs no more but to read it with a little attention, to be convinced of it, especially ver. 1, 4, 6. (Works of John Locke (1823) Vol. 8 at 310.)

In Romans 7:5 Paul refers to the "sinful passions through the Law" very much like Paul said elsewhere in 1 Cor. 15:56 that the Law given Moses made sin to be wrought in our members. Tischendorf comments on Romans 7:5 that Paul in that verse means "the sinful passions...[are] coming into active exercise through the law" just as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:56 about the Mosaic Law. (Tischendorf, supra, at 57.)
Click to expand...

So you have no problem with interpolating these interpretations into translations? It is completely irrelevant if two scholars think that Paul is referring to the Torah - he didn't write 'the Torah' inasmuch as we can discern from the text -- it's not even in the translation that you chose(!).

If Paul did write 'Torah', or even if some textual tradition preserved it, then there would be no dispute, no room for interpreting Paul any other way - Yes, he would be referring to the Torah because he uses the word. But he's using a word where there is a possibility -- and with Paul, a strong possibility that he could be referring to something else.

1) nomos can be a referring to the Torah, but also many other things

2) but the Torah always refers to the Torah unless there's a significant reason why it's not

3) Therefore, when you replace the translation 'law' with 'Torah,' you are artificially closing all other doors to the other plausible interpretations. If you preserve 'law' it can refer to Torah, if you prove it... but the proof is an interpretation, not in the text itself.

I think it's more than a little intellectually dishonest AND it displays a bit of insecurity in the argument when you must knowingly interpolate your interpretation into the text... especially when it's something this significant.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Simplelogic said:
Actually, almost every mainstream Christian scholar agrees that Paul was speaking of the Law of Moses. My opinions on this are mainstream, as sick as they appear to be.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is, but it is not talking about the Deity in Judaic Scripture. The 'laws' were also all the laws, not just written Torah.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Jesus is clearly indicated as one to worship. We don't really know all the context here because much has happened religiously in both Judaism and Xianity since the time these texts were written. We know it was 'normal' to be reading Theological text of this manner because it was pretty kosher with most Xians.
We can't compare modern concepts of post-Jesus religion to the Scripture, doesn't work.
 
Ingledsva

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Simplelogic said:
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the Torah, Jews) how that the Torah hath dominion over a man (anthropos) as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman (Israel/Jews) which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that Torah; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

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 God.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the Torah, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

6 But now we are delivered from the Torah, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (KJV) Romans 7
Click to expand...

What? o_O That says nothing about the God of Israel being dead. What do you mean?

In fact it ends with -

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

*
 
roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
dawny0826 said:
Love became the fulfillment of the law under the new covenant.
Was love the fulfillment to the law prior to Christ?
Romans 13:8-10 NKJV Source
Click to expand...
I had to read that a half a dozen times. Christ is the “fulfillment of the law”. They are one in the same. There is no before or after. Jesus represents the union between God and Israel. The offspring of this union is holiness or righteousness. Jesus’s father is God. Jesus’s mother is Israel. When the two come together, God is with us.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
roger1440 said:
I had to read that a half a dozen times. Christ is the “fulfillment of the law”. They are one in the same. There is no before or after. Jesus represents the union between God and Israel. The offspring of this union is holiness or righteousness. Jesus’s father is God. Jesus’s mother is Israel. When the two come together, God is with us.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it's 'either or'. Why would it be, or need be. It's fine to view things that way, it's every ones prerogative, but I don't really understand it.
 
Last edited:
roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
Paul’s Jesus is different than the Jesus of the Gospels. The Jesus of the Gospels is metaphors and allegory. Paul’s Jesus is a real Jewish dude. Well, so he believes or convinced himself.
 
roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
The New Covenant is a direct revelation of God. No longer will the Jews learn of God from a book or scroll. They will ALL know him. This can only happen when Israel unites with God. Then and only then will God be in the Jews presence. Jesus is that union, FIGURATIVELY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top