The Problem of Paul for All Faiths/Outlooks

Pegg said:

Did Abraham observe a weekly sabbath? The law requiring observance was given to Abrahams descendants long after he died... and even they were unsure of how to observe it as can be seen in the account at exodus 16 where some is realities went out on the Sabbath. Also the Sabbath is said to have been given as a sign of there deliverance from Egypt. ..Abraham was not delivered from Egypt so it stands to reason that it did not apply to Abraham or anyone who lived before the exodus. Obviously the Sabbath is not a means of being acceptable to God. But in saying that, there is a sabbath we can observe on a daily basis which is what Christians are called to do.

Noah was given permission to eat any kind of meat so obviously eating piggies is not a sin and cannot defile a person. But sticking a box on your forehead is not likely to put God's word on your heart...probably best to read, meditate and apply it.

Click to expand...

So you lied when you said you listen to God's word. It doesn't matter what Noah and Abraham were commanded to do. What matters is what we were commanded to do. After all, I don't see you building an ark or looking to sacrifice your son... your version of religion is strangely similar to SimpleLogic's. You do what is convenient, and find excuses for the rest.

dantech said:

So you lied when you said you listen to God's word. It doesn't matter what Noah and Abraham were commanded to do. What matters is what we were commanded to do. After all, I don't see you building an ark or looking to sacrifice your son... your version of religion is strangely similar to SimpleLogic's. You do what is convenient, and find excuses for the rest.

Click to expand...

One of the differences is what is accepted as God's word. Another is the understanding of what is accepted. If one accepts the book Acts of Apostles and the letters written by Paul, what is considered binding is different from someone that does not. Same can be true for those that accept the Oral Laws in addition to the Written Law as cannon.

Regarding the eating of meat designated as unclean by the Law given thru Moses, it was was binding on those that readily accepted that law and their offspring. Or someone not a Jew by birth could often bind themselves to the Law. But what was binding on the Jews then was not binding on others. As I understand it the covenant was a contract between the Jews and God at the time it was agreed upon by both parties in the Wilderness....and only on them, those that converted or, to some extent, to those that lived within their national borders. Is that an excuse? It seems like a reason instead.

Paul's writings and Acts 15:28,29, if trusted, would have one believe that the prohibition on blood was still binding on Christians even though circumcision was not. Perhaps one reason they came to this conclusion was because all of us living today are offspring of Noah - as Noah was instructed not to eat the blood along with the meat. In a world that has vilified a strict refusing of blood transfusions as a unacceptable medical risk, I would say that those who are strict in this way are not looking for excuses.

But then, again, the problem is with what one accepts as God's word, and what one does not - and their understanding of it.

dantech said:

So you lied when you said you listen to God's word. It doesn't matter what Noah and Abraham were commanded to do. What matters is what we were commanded to do. After all, I don't see you building an ark or looking to sacrifice your son... your version of religion is strangely similar to SimpleLogic's. You do what is convenient, and find excuses for the rest.

Click to expand...

Its interesting that you acknowledge the different requirements given by God to different people at different times. God never asked any Isrealite to offer his son as a sacrifice or move to a foreign land. Nor did he ask any Isrealite to build an Ark like that of Noah.

Gods word is his word and some of it only applies to certain individuals as you seem to already acknowledge. So what was once required of an individual in the past, is not necessarily required of an individual in the future and this shows that God can change his requirements of us when he see's fit or when the circumstances change.

Gods people are not all living in the promised land today...they cannot travel to Jerusalem for the yearly festivals and they cannot offer their tithes to the priesthood or donate to the temple or offer sacrifices at the temple... so how can the Mosaic law still apply even to Jews today? You can't fulfill what is required by that law when you dont have a priesthood and temple, can you?

Pegg said:

Its interesting that you acknowledge the different requirements given by God to different people at different times. God never asked any Isrealite to offer his son as a sacrifice or move to a foreign land. Nor did he ask any Isrealite to build an Ark like that of Noah.

Gods word is his word and some of it only applies to certain individuals as you seem to already acknowledge. So what was once required of an individual in the past, is not necessarily required of an individual in the future and this shows that God can change his requirements of us when he see's fit or when the circumstances change.

Gods people are not all living in the promised land today...they cannot travel to Jerusalem for the yearly festivals and they cannot offer their tithes to the priesthood or donate to the temple or offer sacrifices at the temple... so how can the Mosaic law still apply even to Jews today? You can't fulfill what is required by that law when you dont have a priesthood and temple, can you?

Click to expand...

Why would the whole law only be applicable in the presence of a temple, if it was given to us before the construction of the first temple?

Also, I don't claim that Christians need to follow the law. But people who feel they are descendants, such as the OP, should follow the law.

As for your argument about the law no longer applying to us, what about those which are specified to be everlasting? And for those that aren't specified to be everlasting, how do you know that they no longer apply?

Kolibri said:

One of the differences is what is accepted as God's word. Another is the understanding of what is accepted. If one accepts the book Acts of Apostles and the letters written by Paul, what is considered binding is different from someone that does not. Same can be true for those that accept the Oral Laws in addition to the Written Law as cannon.

Regarding the eating of meat designated as unclean by the Law given thru Moses, it was was binding on those that readily accepted that law and their offspring. Or someone not a Jew by birth could often bind themselves to the Law. But what was binding on the Jews then was not binding on others. As I understand it the covenant was a contract between the Jews and God at the time it was agreed upon by both parties in the Wilderness....and only on them, those that converted or, to some extent, to those that lived within their national borders. Is that an excuse? It seems like a reason instead.

Paul's writings and Acts 15:28,29, if trusted, would have one believe that the prohibition on blood was still binding on Christians even though circumcision was not. Perhaps one reason they came to this conclusion was because all of us living today are offspring of Noah - as Noah was instructed not to eat the blood along with the meat. In a world that has vilified a strict refusing of blood transfusions as a unacceptable medical risk, I would say that those who are strict in this way are not looking for excuses.

But then, again, the problem is with what one accepts as God's word, and what one does not - and their understanding of it.

Click to expand...

The OP seems to agree that the Torah is the word of God, and this debate keeps that in perspective.

dantech said:

Why would the whole law only be applicable in the presence of a temple, if it was given to us before the construction of the first temple?

Click to expand...

for the same reason that the kingship is only applicable when there is a davidic king to sit on the throne. If there is no one from the line of David to take the throne, then no kingship exists for Isreal.

Likewise, without a levitical priesthood to administer the law, then on what basis can the law be practiced? Only on an individual basis and the problem with this is that there is now noone to mediate for the individual because that was the job of priests...
Leviticus 16:15 “He will then slaughter the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people,...
16 “He must make atonement for the holy place concerning the acts of uncleanness of the Israelites and concerning their transgressions and their sins,...17.....He will make atonement in behalf of himself and his house+ and in behalf of the entire congregation of Israel.+

The mosaic law requires a priest to act as mediator between Isreal and God....under the mosaic law, you cannot approach God on your own, you need a priest to do that on your behalf.

dantech said:

Also, I don't claim that Christians need to follow the law. But people who feel they are descendants, such as the OP, should follow the law.

Click to expand...

The apostles of Jesus mused over this as well and it causes quite a dilemma for them. In the end, they reasoned that if people of the nations could approach God though Jesus rather then through the mosaic law, then why couldnt they, being jews, also do likewise. In the end they unanimously voted in favor of not enforcing the mosaic laws requirements on anyone. Of course, if a jew wanted to continue in any of the customs he could do that, but it was not done as a way to approach God because they saw that it was through Jesus that they could approach God and get atonement for their sins.

dantech said:

As for your argument about the law no longer applying to us, what about those which are specified to be everlasting? And for those that aren't specified to be everlasting, how do you know that they no longer apply?

Click to expand...

Well i know that Gods moral laws and standards are everlasting, so we apply those laws. But many of the laws in the mosaic covenant are specific to the era and people for whom they were given. I dont own donkeys and bulls...so the law that says i must not mussel a bull while it is threshing wont ever apply to me. You can't buy and sell children anymore, so those laws regarding slaves will not apply to me. I will also never need to worry about the laws regarding sacrificing sound sheep and goats at the temple seeing there is no temple...and I will certainly never need a priest to mediate for me because Jesus Christ is my mediator and my approach to God is through him.

So can we really say the mosaic law as a whole is everlasting? If God really wanted the mosaic covenant to be in-force, wouldn't you think he would ensure that the levitical priesthood and temple were still in existence so they could administer the covenant in the way they are commissioned to do?

And Peg. I bet you are very happy that if you ever found yourself widowed and childless you are not required to be given to his next of kin.

I will never forget what my mom said to that when she first started studying the Bible. My uncles were not very desirable to her at all. And the one was a bit opinionated when it came to personal dress and grooming.

(Perhaps I should have put this in a conversation instead).

Alright Pegg, I give up... you're taking specific verses and applying them to the whole Torah, and then you just completely ignore other verses saying they no longer apply... how exactly does a priest mediate you not eating pork?

Here are a few verses which apply to the Sabbath being everlasting:

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant (Exodus 31:16).

Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant (Leviticus 24:8).

It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever (Leviticus 16:31).

And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD (Isaiah 66:23).

So getting back to the original intent of this debate, how do you even know what you're supposed to do or not do on the Sabbath without the oral law?

But the real question here which really bothers me. How do you pick and choose which laws to follow from the Torah?

Is homosexuality a sin? Is circumcision required? Is the Sabbath? What is the Sabbath? Dietary laws?

Kolibri said:

And Peg. I bet you are very happy that if you ever found yourself widowed and childless you are not required to be given to his next of kin.

I will never forget what my mom said to that when she first started studying the Bible. My uncles were not very desirable to her at all. And the one was a bit opinionated when it came to personal dress and grooming.

(Perhaps I should have put this in a conversation instead).

Click to expand...

Yes, very true.

And thankfully I dont ever have to sit back and watch my husband take a new wife for himself...eewwww

dantech said:

So getting back to the original intent of this debate, how do you even know what you're supposed to do or not do on the Sabbath without the oral law?

Click to expand...

the Torah says 'you will perform no work on the sabbath'

what more do you need to know? What do you do for work? How do you earn money?

the Isrealites didnt need a specific list of additional laws for them to know how they make money. To one Isrealite making money was by ploughing a field, to another it was by building houses, to another it was by cooking bread and selling it at the market. How on earth is that they needed to be given more instructions on how not to work on sabbath???

dantech said:

But the real question here which really bothers me. How do you pick and choose which laws to follow from the Torah?

Is homosexuality a sin? Is circumcision required? Is the Sabbath? What is the Sabbath? Dietary laws?

Click to expand...

The moral laws all apply, they will apply eternally because they reflect Gods standards of right and wrong.

And if you are still unsure, look at Acts 15:28-29

So much of this depends on if one accepts Paul's letters or not. If they are not accepted then these references are placed here to demonstrate that letting certain things go and keeping others is not arbitrary.
Purpose of the Law
First off, Galatians 3:12 quotes Leviticus 18:5 as saying that "The Law is not based on faith. Rather, "anyone who does these things will live by means of them.""
Romans 3:20 - "Therefore, no one will be declared righteous before him by works of law, for by law comes the accurate knowledge of sin."
Galatians 3:19;21 - "Why then the law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring (Lit., "seed") should arrive to whom the promise had been made;...For if a law had been given that could give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law."
Jesus kept the Law
John 8:46 and Hebrews 7:26 present Jesus as someone who did not sin. Since he was born under the Law it would make sense that he kept it perfectly if his sinlessness is to be believed - albeit not in keeping with the oral traditions of the time because they created a burden that was not found in the intent of the written law. (Matthew 23:4). As he put it, the whole Law hung on the two commandments, to love God and to love one's neighbor.
New Law
Hebrews 8:6-13 quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 and finishes off by saying, "In [Jehovah's] saying "a new covenant," he has made the former one obsolete."
Colossians 2:14 puts the timing of the erasure of "the handwritten document that consisted of decrees" at the time of Jesus' death, not before, and that seems to fit Daniel 9:27's half of the week.
Hebrews 7:11,12 - "If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Mel-chiz'e-dek and not in the manner of Aaron? For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well." (Since Jesus was of the tribe of Judah it would have to be by special appointment for him to be a priest along with the legal right to the Davidic kingship).
In Review
Romans 10:4 - "Christ is the end of the Law"
Romans 7:6 - "But now we have been released from the Law,...in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code."
Sabbath? Dietary Restrictions? Practices of Homosexuality?
Sabbath and Dietary Restrictions not binding under new law (Romans 14:4-6; Colossians 2:16)
Dietary Restriction given to Noah reaffirmed, - circumcision confirmed as not binding as per context (Acts 15:28-29).
Moral code of conduct reaffirmed. (1 Corinthians 6:9-20)
Principles that underpinned the Law of immense value to those under the New Law (1 Cor 9:7-10 and 1 Timothy 5:18 reasoning on Deuteronomy 25:4).
Sabbath Shadow of What?
Exodus 31:16,17 defines the Sabbath as a sign between Jehovah and the sons of Israel and as Jehovah set the pattern for them, he has been resting from his creative works and has been refreshing himself.
Colossians 2:17 After mentioning observances of festivals, the new moon, and sabbaths, it reads: "Those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ."
Matthew 12:8 has Jesus referring to himself as "Lord of the Sabbath."
Luke 13:10-13; John 5:5-9; 9:1-14 - record Jesus healing of woman with 18 years of chronic weakness along with being bent double; a man who had been sick for 38 years, and another born blind. Each of these times Jesus brought major relief to others on a Sabbath.
Revelation 19:16; 20:6 describes Jesus as a King who will rule for 1,000 years.
Revelation 21:1-4 describes as yet unseen rest and refreshment for those laboring under the effects of sin under this new arrangement.

All of this has meaning if Paul's writings are part of God's inspired word as it broadens our understanding of other scripture. Without it, it would seem to me that much is lost.

Truth speakers confirm God's Law remains intact
IS 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Because Jesus spoke truth, he confirmed this
LK 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

God said He would 'prove/test' us to see if we would cling to Him and His Law, or if we would prefer to follow a lie
Deu 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

Paul preached an UNKNOWN god as warned of in Deut 13:2
ACTS 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

The god which Paul promoted was actually Zeus, which the audience understood as Paul quoted Hymn to Zeus and agreed with the hymn that Paul and his audience are offspring of Zeus
ACTS 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (bold underlined are quotes from hymn to Zeus)

Jesus warned us not to heed anyone claiming to meet him in the desert after his ascension. The christ who Paul met in the desert on the road to Damascus, after Jesus ascended, was a different christ who quoted and promoted pagan concepts and lawlessness.

Paul admitted he suffered an angel/messenger from satan & preached that people should only heed him and not heed any messenger/angel from God, like Jesus, teaching a different gospel to Paul. Paul's 'good news' was God's Law was ended while the 'good news' from Jesus was that God forgives if we repent and turn to lawfullness.

God granted us consciences, yet Paul's conscience was faulty, since he claimed that he didn't know coveting was wrong until the law clarified that, so he finds God's law harsh in clarifying and judging Paul's lust as sin, so showed if you remove the law then you remove any clarification and guilt of sin.
ROM 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
ROM 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
ROM 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Paul is a test sent by God
EZEK 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

In preparing for a post in another thread I was reminded that just because something is no longer binding does not mean that it is not permitted. All it means is it is no longer required.

Actually, counsel was given both ways in Paul's writings:
1) Choose to be yielding - Be understanding that people's backgrounds can affect what is personally right or wrong for them. Do not behave in a way that hurts others in matters of conscience. (1 Co 8:1-13)
2) Do not insist where not required - Those members of the congregations who were trying to demand that all conform to Judaism needed to stop. This would just as easily apply to other personal soapboxes. (Acts 15:1; 1 Co 7:18-20)

Thus reasonableness was to become a trademark of mature Christians. (Php 4:5)

This is not to say that reasonableness is the only standard, but it certainly is an important one. "Superfine apostles" seem to miss that point.

Pegg said:

Here is the Apostle Peters view of Paul and what people do with Pauls teachings:

2 Peter 3:15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.


If the Apostle Peter supports Paul and his teachings, then I don't see any reason not to accept Pauls teachings.

But as Peter says, many people twist Pauls words and that is the problem... there is no problem with Paul.

Click to expand...

Dear Peg,
You have several problems with your foundation for the support of Paul. 2 Peter was written by an unknown writer,which is a fundamental problem for your theory, along with the fact that Peter himself, who was called Petros by Yeshua in Matther 16, means little stone, as in sand (Mt 7:26), which is not the same as petras, which represents a foundational type of stone. Also in Mt 16, you will find out that Peter was referred to Satan and to being a " Stumbling Block". It appears you have " stumbled" over some unknown writer, who plays the part of the " first apostle", in as Peter being chosen " first" , and who will be considered as " last" per Mt 19:30. Peter and Paul are simply the staffs/shepherds of Zechariah 11, who were to pasture the " flock doomed to slaughter". (Ze 11:7)

2ndpillar said:

Dear Peg,
You have several problems with your foundation for the support of Paul. 2 Peter was written by an unknown writer,which is a fundamental problem for your theory, along with the fact that Peter himself, who was called Petros by Yeshua in Matther 16, means little stone, as in sand (Mt 7:26), which is not the same as petras, which represents a foundational type of stone. Also in Mt 16, you will find out that Peter was referred to Satan and to being a " Stumbling Block". It appears you have " stumbled" over some unknown writer, who plays the part of the " first apostle", in as Peter being chosen " first" , and who will be considered as " last" per Mt 19:30. Peter and Paul are simply the staffs/shepherds of Zechariah 11, who were to pasture the " flock doomed to slaughter". (Ze 11:7)

Click to expand...

do you talk in tongues?

I thought to quote 2 Peter and Jude to show the parallelisms but it would take up too much space. I leave that to whoever wants to do it for themselves.

Peter, Letters of — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
Two inspired letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures composed by the apostle Peter, who identifies himself as the writer in the opening words of each letter. (1Pe 1:1; 2Pe 1:1; compare 2Pe 3:1.) Additional internal evidence unmistakably points to Peter as the writer. He speaks of himself as an eyewitness of the transfiguration of Jesus Christ, a privilege shared only by Peter, James, and John. (2Pe 1:16-18; Mt 17:1-9) And, as is evident from John 21:18, 19, Peter alone could have said: “The putting off of my tabernacle is soon to be, just as also our Lord Jesus Christ signified to me.” (2Pe 1:14) The difference in style between the two letters may be attributed to the fact that Peter used Silvanus (Silas) for writing the first letter but apparently did not do so when writing his second letter. (1Pe 5:12) Both were general letters, evidently directed to Jewish and non-Jewish Christians. The first letter is specifically addressed to those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia—regions of Asia Minor.—1Pe 1:1; 2:10; 2Pe 1:1; 3:1; compare Ac 2:5, 9, 10.

The letters of Peter agree fully with other Bible books in stressing right conduct and its rewards and also in quoting from them as the authoritative Word of God. Quotations are made from Genesis (18:12; 1Pe 3:6), Exodus (19:5, 6; 1Pe 2:9), Leviticus (11:44; 1Pe 1:16), Psalms (34:12-16; 118:22; 1Pe 3:10-12; 2:7), Proverbs (11:31 [LXX]; 26:11; 1Pe 4:18; 2Pe 2:22), and Isaiah (8:14; 28:16; 40:6-8; 53:5; 1Pe 2:8; 2:6; 1:24, 25; 2:24). Scriptural prophecy is shown to be the product of God’s spirit. (2Pe 1:20, 21; compare 2Ti 3:16.) God’s promise concerning new heavens and a new earth is repeated. (2Pe 3:13; Isa 65:17; 66:22; Re 21:1) The parallels between 2 Peter (2:4-18; 3:3) and Jude (5-13, 17, 18) evidently indicate that the disciple Jude accepted Peter’s second letter as inspired. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that the letters of the apostle Paul are classified by Peter with “the rest of the Scriptures.”—2Pe 3:15, 16.

dantech said:

So you lied when you said you listen to God's word. It doesn't matter what Noah and Abraham were commanded to do. What matters is what we were commanded to do. After all, I don't see you building an ark or looking to sacrifice your son... your version of religion is strangely similar to SimpleLogic's. You do what is convenient, and find excuses for the rest.

Click to expand...

What have I found an excuse to not do?

Possibilities of backsliding may include..
-tattoos
-Shabat observance
-shaving
-eating of forbidden foods
-wearing of wrong clothing, etc
..hmm I think I've broken a couple rules lately.
Anyways, I agree, we don't need the 'explanations', as long as we are "sensible". If we are extremely literal in all cases, that's where I disagree with the OP, I think.

disciple said:

Possibilities of backsliding may include..
-tattoos
-Shabat observance
-shaving
-eating of forbidden foods
-wearing of wrong clothing, etc
..hmm I think I've broken a couple rules lately.
Anyways, I agree, we don't need the 'explanations', as long as we are "sensible". If we are extremely literal in all cases, that's where I disagree with the OP, I think.

Click to expand...

-Hebrews are commanded not to make marks on themselves for the dead. No prohibition against tattoo's in general.
-Also, no prohibition against shaving. The command was not to trim our beards in the same manner as pagan nations.
-eating forbidden foods is cut and dry. YHVH lists which ones are edible in detail.
-We are commanded not to mix wool with linen…thats it.

All these laws are very easy to keep.

Simplelogic said:

-Hebrews are commanded not to make marks on themselves for the dead. No prohibition against tattoo's in general.
-Also, no prohibition against shaving. The command was not to trim our beards in the same manner as pagan nations.
-eating forbidden foods is cut and dry. YHVH lists which ones are edible in detail.
-We are commanded not to mix wool with linen…thats it.

All these laws are very easy to keep.

Click to expand...

The verse about tattoos does not specifically state the forbiddance is only for specific ceremonial markings. In fact, if I recall the verses, that is probably a separate command altogether, as tattoos and specific marks for ceremony are different things in that context. You can get 'pagan' tattoos that have magical meaning, but not ceremonial markings, vice-versa..
The beard law, I'll look it up.