Paul, the Pentateuch, the Tanakh: Conflict or reconciliation

[firedragon]

Since Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus are now equal members of the family of God and therefore one people, Paul argues that Jesus put an end to the requirement of adherence to the Torah or Law, not only for Gentiles but also for Jews. That means Torah takes a backseat to Jesus—for Jews and Gentiles. Though this does not mean they cannot get circumcised, that faithfulness to God would no longer be defined by abiding by the law (Torah).

Paul does not make a case where Jesus founded a new religion, and in fact he shows to the contrary. Yet he argues that Torahkeeping doesn’t secure anyone’s status before God

So as the topic reads, "Paul, the Pentateuch, the Tanakh: Conflict or reconciliation"?

Shalom Aleichem.

 

[exchemist]

Since Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus are now equal members of the family of God and therefore one people, Paul argues that Jesus put an end to the requirement of adherence to the Torah or Law, not only for Gentiles but also for Jews. That means Torah takes a backseat to Jesus—for Jews and Gentiles. Though this does not mean they cannot get circumcised, that faithfulness to God would no longer be defined by abiding by the law (Torah).

Paul does not make a case where Jesus founded a new religion, and in fact he shows to the contrary. Yet he argues that Torahkeeping doesn’t secure anyone’s status before God

So as the topic reads, "Paul, the Pentateuch, the Tanakh: Conflict or reconciliation"?

Shalom Aleichem.

Paul wrote as a Jew himself. So he would have had to argue the new dispensation superseded the old and released him and others from the detail of his obligations under the Law of Moses - though some of the principles were carried over.

 

[LightofTruth]

Since Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus are now equal members of the family of God and therefore one people, Paul argues that Jesus put an end to the requirement of adherence to the Torah or Law, not only for Gentiles but also for Jews. That means Torah takes a backseat to Jesus—for Jews and Gentiles. Though this does not mean they cannot get circumcised, that faithfulness to God would no longer be defined by abiding by the law (Torah).

Paul does not make a case where Jesus founded a new religion, and in fact he shows to the contrary. Yet he argues that Torahkeeping doesn’t secure anyone’s status before God

So as the topic reads, "Paul, the Pentateuch, the Tanakh: Conflict or reconciliation"?

Shalom Aleichem.

Gentiles were never required to adhere to the law. God gave His law to the Jews only.

Jesus could not put an end to a requirement where that requirement never existed.

 

[firedragon]

Gentiles were never required to adhere to the law. God gave His law to the Jews only.

1. So will that mean gentile Christians dont have to follow the Torah while Jewish Christians must?
2. Does that also mean the Torah is being racist?

Don't take me wrong. I do not believe that the Bible was overall meant for one race though someone could argue either way. I am asking not to offend but to follow up with your own thought pattern.

 

[Rival]

Gentiles were never required to adhere to the law. God gave His law to the Jews only.

Jesus could not put an end to a requirement where that requirement never existed.

No but they are and were beholden to the 7 Noahide Laws. As far as Judaism is concerned there's no need for anything new.

 

[LightofTruth]

1. So will that mean gentile Christians dont have to follow the Torah while Jewish Christians must?
2. Does that also mean the Torah is being racist?

Don't take me wrong. I do not believe that the Bible was overall meant for one race though someone could argue either way. I am asking not to offend but to follow up with your own thought pattern.

In order for the Jews and Gentiles to become one equal people of God they must both have the same requirements.
God did not command Gentiles to adhere to the same law He gave the Jews. Instead, He says the only law which can save anyone is the law of faith. So Jews and Gentiles are united under the law of faith.

Any Jewish person who does not enter into that covenant is still under the law given at Mount Sinai. That makes them a distinct group from the Gentiles.

 

[firedragon]

Paul wrote as a Jew himself. So he would have had to argue the new dispensation superseded the old and released him and others from the detail of his obligations under the Law of Moses - though some of the principles were carried over.

Agreed.

The point-break in my thoughts is that it was always Torah-Breaking which was deemed by God as the problem with Israel that kept the Jews from being fully salvaged or/and restored. Torah-breaking was such a tragic and blasphemous act that landed the Israelites in Exile. If that was such a big matter, how come Saul, who comes up writing around twenty years after Jesus Christ says that Torah Breaking is not a big matter any more? God suddenly changed his mind with Paul!

 

[firedragon]

In order for the Jews and Gentiles to become one equal people of God they must both have the same requirements.
God did not command Gentiles to adhere to the same law He gave the Jews. Instead, He says the only law which can save anyone is the law of faith. So Jews and Gentiles are united under the law of faith.

Any Jewish person who does not enter into that covenant is still under the law given at Mount Sinai. That makes them a distinct group from the Gentiles.

I understand that. Which is why its a conflict in my line thought.

 

[exchemist]

Agreed.

The point-break in my thoughts is that it was always Torah-Breaking which was deemed by God as the problem with Israel that kept the Jews from being fully salvaged or/and restored. Torah-breaking was such a tragic and blasphemous act that landed the Israelites in Exile. If that was such a big matter, how come Saul, who comes up writing around twenty years after Jesus Christ says that Torah Breaking is not a big matter any more? God suddenly changed his mind with Paul!

No, I think the way a Christian would see it is that the coming of Christ ushered in a new era which rendered the old law redundant for those who embraced the new way, as Paul did. I don't see any lack of logic in that. New rules can replace older ones.

 

[LightofTruth]

No but they are and were beholden to the 7 Noahide Laws. As far as Judaism is concerned there's no need for anything new.

God delivered the Jewish people out of Egypt so that he could be their God. So that He could give them His laws to follow. He was not the God of the Egyptians and therefore they were not required to follow His laws. They made up their own laws. If one of those laws forbid murder, it simply came from their own conscience.

 

[firedragon]

No, I think the way a Christian would see it is that the coming of Christ ushered in a new era which rendered the old law redundant for those who embraced the new way, as Paul did. I don't see any lack of logic in that. New rules can replace older ones.

I understand your statement. Its sound.

Yet, doesnt the NT quote Jesus affirming the Torah, not replacing it with something new?

 

[Rival]

God delivered the Jewish people out of Egypt so that he could be their God. So that He could give them His laws to follow. He was not the God of the Egyptians and therefore they were not required to follow His laws. They made up their own laws. If one of those laws forbid murder, it simply came from their own conscience.

Was Adam a Jew?
Was Enoch a Jew?
Was Noah a Jew?
Was Abraham a Jew?
Was Jacob a Jew?

They weren't and yet they were righteous before G-d. If there were no law, how were they righteous? If there were no law, which law did Cain break, murdering Abel? Which law did the generation of the flood break? Which law did the Sodomites break? G-d won't punish you unless you broke a law. That's how this works.

What about Nineveh? Why would G-d send Jonah to Nineveh, a non-Jewish city, to tell them to repent? What have they to repent of if G-d gave them no law?

I'm sick of Christians treating it like the Noachide Code doesn't exist when it clearly does and did for the abovementioned. G-d did not just forget everyone else.

 

[firedragon]

God delivered the Jewish people out of Egypt so that he could be their God. So that He could give them His laws to follow. He was not the God of the Egyptians and therefore they were not required to follow His laws. They made up their own laws. If one of those laws forbid murder, it simply came from their own conscience.

You should note that the Bible begins with the Genesis story. The Tanakh claims God created Adam and Eve and all children on earth are called in the Bible over and over again as Ben Adam. So to me I believe its absolutely unfair from the point of view of the Tanakh to make that claim you just did.

 

[LightofTruth]

No, I think the way a Christian would see it is that the coming of Christ ushered in a new era which rendered the old law redundant for those who embraced the new way, as Paul did. I don't see any lack of logic in that. New rules can replace older ones.

The only thing new about the "new" covenant was that it newly came into force by the death of the testator of that covenant, Jesus.
The "new" covenant is actually older than the covenant made at Mount Sinai. And that covenant is the covenant of salvation by faith as it was promised to Abraham long before the Sinai covenant.

"Now faith is the assurance of what is hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Heb 11:1

It was by faith that Abraham obeyed God. And it was his faith that was accounted to him for righteousness. Something he didn't have of his own. It had to be God's righteousness imputed to Abraham by his faith.

So in the same way Abraham's faith made him righteous with God's righteousness is the same way it has to work for everyone.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Since Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus are now equal members of the family of God and therefore one people, Paul argues that Jesus put an end to the requirement of adherence to the Torah or Law, not only for Gentiles but also for Jews. That means Torah takes a backseat to Jesus—for Jews and Gentiles. Though this does not mean they cannot get circumcised, that faithfulness to God would no longer be defined by abiding by the law (Torah).

Paul does not make a case where Jesus founded a new religion, and in fact he shows to the contrary. Yet he argues that Torahkeeping doesn’t secure anyone’s status before God

So as the topic reads, "Paul, the Pentateuch, the Tanakh: Conflict or reconciliation"?

Shalom Aleichem.

I think, if you can quote some verses or passages from Bible, we can discuss things where you are coming from.

But, the idea in Abrahamic Religions is, there is an All-Knowing God, who can do as He wills. He can bring certain Laws for a period of time, then, later change, add or abrogate those Laws, for another period of time. We cannot say to God, why you changed your Religious Laws. This is totally up to God, if we accept God is Omnipotent.

 

[LightofTruth]

You should note that the Bible begins with the Genesis story. The Tanakh claims God created Adam and Eve and all children on earth are called in the Bible over and over again as Ben Adam. So to me I believe its absolutely unfair from the point of view of the Tanakh to make that claim you just did.

Ever since man became a sinner he has been the object of mercy. if man only needed seven laws which he could easily follow, then he is not an object of mercy but simply under certain requirements. He would then have reason to boast in himself as having achieved those requirements and be entitled to what was promised him. and the person who broke any one of those laws would become a person in need of forgiveness and mercy.

And that can only be in effect if there is a covenant made between two parties. One party promises something and the other party promises something else. Like God might promise to give you land forever IF you follow certain laws. So you agree. If you fail to keep your part of the bargain God doesn't have to give you the land because you broke the covenant.

A person becomes an object of mercy when he realizes his inability to adhere perfectly to God's laws. He broke the covenant, so now what? He needs to make a new covenant. A covenant that offers forgiveness is what he needs.

So, God offers the same promises as he did before. To give you the land as a possession forever. All you need to do is have faith that he will do it.

So what need is there for Christ?

Well, you can't have the land forever because you die. And that's why Paul says that the law of sacrifices under the covenant at Mount Sinai could never give the life that is necessary to acquire the land forever. Sure, you were forgiven by the sacrifice but it could never save your life.

Christ sacrifice saves your life forever.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I understand your statement. Its sound.

Yet, doesnt the NT quote Jesus affirming the Torah, not replacing it with something new?

Please quote this from NT. It depends how one interprets it.

But, there are some Laws, or teachings which are the foundation of Religion. Those are the same for Jewdaism or Christianity. So, those fundamental teachings always remain the same. God does not change them. For example, God does not say, there are 4 Gods. It is always one.

 

[LightofTruth]

Was Adam a Jew?
Was Enoch a Jew?
Was Noah a Jew?
Was Abraham a Jew?
Was Jacob a Jew?

They weren't and yet they were righteous before G-d. If there were no law, how were they righteous? If there were no law, which law did Cain break, murdering Abel? Which law did the generation of the flood break? Which law did the Sodomites break? G-d won't punish you unless you broke a law. That's how this works.

What about Nineveh? Why would G-d send Jonah to Nineveh, a non-Jewish city, to tell them to repent? What have they to repent of if G-d gave them no law?

I'm sick of Christians treating it like the Noachide Code doesn't exist when it clearly does and did for the abovementioned. G-d did not just forget everyone else.

See post #14

 

[Rival]

See post #14

That's all just a Christian view. Abraham was tested with the Akeida, which included action, not just faith. He was also given the circumscion, which is a commandment. Anyone can have faith and still be a terrible person. You don't need to look far. You're just interpolating Christian views into Jewish Scripture. You also haven't answered why Cain was punished, or the flood generation, or Sodom; nor why a prophet was sent to Nineveh.

 

[LightofTruth]

That's all just a Christian view. Abraham was tested with the Akeida, which included action, not just faith. He was also given the circumscion, which is a commandment. Anyone can have faith and still be a terrible person. You don't need to look far. You're just interpolating Christian views into Jewish Scripture. You also haven't answered why Cain was punished, or the flood generation, or Sodom; nor why a prophet was sent to Nineveh.

Faith is dead without works. That's the N.T.
Being baptized is a work of faith. Showing love is a work of faith. Obeying Christ is a work of faith.

Paul says stuff like, "shall we continue in sin that grace might abound, God forbid"

Any Christian that doesn't know that stuff doesn't know anything.