How Paul wrote the old testament.

[Simplelogic]

I know you seem to have problems with Paul, but he was chosen by the lord. So why have problems with him. If scripture is right, and it is, then it is what it is.

Do not forget what Peter said, that Paul's words are ''hard to understand''.

I don't by the logic that whatever is included in scripture must be correct. This is circular logic in my view. I believe that scripture must make sense and not contradict. So the Torah is my foundation. Everything else deemed scripture imho must be in line with the original commands which YHVH says a perfect and good.

I don't believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter. Here is the argument if you want to see why many scholars admit 2 Peter was a forgery.

Second Peter: Reference to Paul

 

[Simplelogic]

I also believe that Yeshua chose twelve to be his official emissaries. Paul was not one of these men.

 

[Simplelogic]

I have skimmed the links.
The question I have is, How do I know that what they are saying is right? The sites might be right, they might not. On whose authority are they stating this?
But even if they are correct, and I suspect theya re, it matters little really. Scripture is spirituall discerned.

Acts 21 does not mention specifically that it is a Nazarite vow. Through the Essenes it would be slightly different. It would not be animal as they did not do that because they did not have access to the real Temple at Yerushalaim.

So they were probably Nazarenes, there version of the same. No animal sacrifices.

This was in Jerusalem at the Temple BTW.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well…the nazarite "offerings" were animal sacrifices. This was a test for Paul to prove his devotion to the law of Moses. The law of Moses tells us exactly how this process was to go. I'm not sure why were are off on this point. O well.

If you read Theiring's Pesher about the Essenes (she has a website) you will see it would not be. I am not sure if it is on the site or if she makes a big point about it. But this is the saviour of the world. He had to be part of a group that did not kill animals. How could he say he was God, and so better than us, and then kill an animal?
The NT is not quite what it seems. Though it would have been played out in 'real' terms if I can put it that way. I can only say that they did not sacrifice animals.

If they did, then they must have completely forgot what had just happened on the cross and the whole point of it! That would make no sense. We are saying perhaps that the lord goes to all this trouble,and then at a drop of a hat, they go back to their old ways? I don't think so.

Haha.... scripture is good like that though, no? It is all things to all people, and none agree. It is a book of magic I think, perhaps in the truest sense of the word.

Each one gets out of it what he or she is... there own reality. That is fascinating.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I also believe that Yeshua chose twelve to be his official emissaries. Paul was not one of these men.

But he was later on, and that is recorded

 

[Robert.Evans]

This was in Jerusalem at the Temple BTW.

They used a plural version of Yerushalaim for Qumran where the Essenes were. It is not shown in the text, as the translators would make no sense of it. But I have to say, some think Theiring is a 'quack'. I don't. Though she does miss some things, as we all do.

 

[Simplelogic]

There is no other vow in the Torah were a man shaves his head at the end of it. It was obviously a reference to the Nazarite vow. There is no getting around this one and there is no way to suggest that the Essenes had anything to do with this process. Essenes did not worship in the Jerusalem Temple at all.

 

[Simplelogic]

But he was later on, and that is recorded

By Paul. Yeshua never calls Paul an apostle..even in Paul's own vision accounts. Nor do any of the twelve ever call Paul an apostle.

 

[Simplelogic]

If you read Theiring's Pesher about the Essenes (she has a website) you will see it would not be. I am not sure if it is on the site or if she makes a big point about it. But this is the saviour of the world. He had to be part of a group that did not kill animals. How could he say he was God, and so better than us, and then kill an animal?
The NT is not quite what it seems. Though it would have been played out in 'real' terms if I can put it that way. I can only say that they did not sacrifice animals.

If they did, then they must have completely forgot what had just happened on the cross and the whole point of it! That would make no sense. We are saying perhaps that the lord goes to all this trouble,and then at a drop of a hat, they go back to their old ways? I don't think so.

Haha.... scripture is good like that though, no? It is all things to all people, and none agree. It is a book of magic I think, perhaps in the truest sense of the word.

Each one gets out of it what he or she is... there own reality. That is fascinating.

Maybe Yeshua's sacrifice was never meant to replace animal sacrifices.

Ezekiel tells us plainly that sacrifices will resume when the Messiah returns anyways.

 

[Simplelogic]

Haha.... scripture is good like that though, no? It is all things to all people, and none agree. It is a book of magic I think, perhaps in the truest sense of the word.

Each one gets out of it what he or she is... there own reality. That is fascinating.

Actually I think all this confusion comes from Paul mainly. Remove Paul and it is one simple story that fits together perfectly with no contradictions.

 

[outhouse]

Yeshua never calls Paul an apostle..

He never net Paul.

Jesus probably never intended his movement to be popular in the Diaspora either in Koine speaking communities, but that is where Paul lived and where the theology was found popular. Not in Galilee where his Aramaic movement existed.

I also believe that Yeshua chose twelve to be his official emissaries.

Im glad it is a belief, because it really has no historicity.

Can you explain why the most popular and widespread gospel in its day, only has 4 apostles, and never mentions the 12?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Maybe Yeshua's sacrifice was never meant to replace animal sacrifices.

Ezekiel tells us plainly that sacrifices will resume when the Messiah returns anyways.

Where please...

 

[Robert.Evans]

Actually I think all this confusion comes from Paul mainly. Remove Paul and it is one simple story that fits together perfectly with no contradictions.

You might be right. But it evolves.... the spirit and law of God is living, it breathes. It is not static like the OT Mosaic law. The Mosaic law misunderstood the true meaning.

Paul took it to another level..... in order ''to save but some'' He became ''all things to all people''. It is better to have a diluted level of understanding than no understanding at all

 

[Robert.Evans]

He never net Paul.

Yes he did. Acts tells you that.

Jesus probably never intended his movement to be popular in the Diaspora either in Koine speaking communities, but that is where Paul lived and where the theology was found popular. Not in Galilee where his Aramaic movement existed.



Im glad it is a belief, because it really has no historicity.

Can you explain why the most popular and widespread gospel in its day, only has 4 apostles, and never mentions the 12?

What has no historicity? The Bible itself is history.

 

[Simplelogic]

You might be right. But it evolves.... the spirit and law of God is living, it breathes. It is not static like the OT Mosaic law. The Mosaic law misunderstood the true meaning.

Paul took it to another level..... in order ''to save but some'' He became ''all things to all people''. It is better to have a diluted level of understanding than no understanding at all

I would note characterize the Law of Moses as "static" personally. It is meant to be meditated on and adhered to from the heart. Nor do I believe that the law of Moses "misunderstood the true meaning" either.

1Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law (Torah) of the LORD.

2Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.

3They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.

4Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.

5O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!

6Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.

7I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.

8I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly. Psalm 119:1-8

Obeying the law of Moses from the heart is the whole duty of man:

13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it begood, or whether it be evil. Ecc 12:13-14

 

[Simplelogic]

Where please...

"It shall be the prince's part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings and the drink offerings, at the feasts, on the new moons and on the sabbaths, at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel; he shall provide the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering and the peace offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel." Ezekiel 45:17

 

[Robert.Evans]

I would note characterize the Law of Moses as "static" personally. It is meant to be meditated on and adhered to from the heart. Nor do I believe that the law of Moses "misunderstood the true meaning" either.

1Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law (Torah) of the LORD.

2Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.

3They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.

4Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.

5O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!

6Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.

7I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.

8I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly. Psalm 119:1-8

Obeying the law of Moses from the heart is the whole duty of man:

13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it begood, or whether it be evil. Ecc 12:13-14

Not part of the Torah though is it.
Even Deuteronomy is suspect. It is supposed to be a re-writing of the law, but we find things in their which are not in Ex and Lev for example.

It is static as it is written. Written word can be taken literally, even if sometimes it can be ambigous. The spirit of God is alive. That reveals the true law.

One clear misunderstanding is circumcision which was of the heart in the spirit, not the flesh. It is mentioned in teh Torah, but as far as I know it is only in the suspect Deut

 

[Simplelogic]

Not part of the Torah though is it.
Even Deuteronomy is suspect. It is supposed to be a re-writing of the law, but we find things in their which are not in Ex and Lev for example.

It is static as it is written. Written word can be taken literally, even if sometimes it can be ambigous. The spirit of God is alive. That reveals the true law.

One clear misunderstanding is circumcision which was of the heart in the spirit, not the flesh. It is mentioned in teh Torah, but as far as I know it is only in the suspect Deut

The Torah is Genesis through Deut. If you want to debate this then we can on another thread.

 

[Robert.Evans]

"It shall be the prince's part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings and the drink offerings, at the feasts, on the new moons and on the sabbaths, at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel; he shall provide the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering and the peace offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel." Ezekiel 45:17

But the ''prince'' was the lord and saviour Yahshuah. It is HE who provides all these things. He is the LAST sacrifice and the aeons one also, always.
The Mosaic law is about him. He is the true law and the true sacrifice

 

[Simplelogic]

One clear misunderstanding is circumcision which was of the heart in the spirit, not the flesh. It is mentioned in teh Torah, but as far as I know it is only in the suspect Deut

This is not accurate. The Torah teaches both heart circumcision and flesh circumcision. It is not one or the other.