Paul's distortion of the Torah message

[Saint Frankenstein]

I guess this article says everything.
All that we need to know.
PAUL - BIPOLAR SCHIZOPHRENIC - chosen of israel

Saint Paul is not the New Testament .
Peter's and James' letters answer many questions with clarity.

Interesting article. Many theories have been proposed to explain Paul's weirdness, like mental illness and being a closeted homosexual.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

2Pe 3:14 Therefore, dear friends, because you are waiting for these things, make every effort to be found at peace, spotless and unblemished in him.
2Pe 3:15 And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom that was given to him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does also in all his letters, speaking in them about these things, in which there are some things hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, as they also do the rest of the scriptures.

Not only did Peter consider Paul a dear brother but he also says that Paul's writings are "scripture" as the rest.

Peter also says that Paul spoke of "these things" referring to the same things Peter was saying.

"Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors."
Authorship of the Petrine epistles - Wikipedia

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

1 Peter 1:1 opens:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the temporary residents scattered about in Ponʹtus, Ga·laʹti·a, Cap·pa·doʹci·a, Asia, and Bi·thynʹi·a, to those chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father."-1 Peter 1:1, 2.

The very letter itself says it was written by Peter in the very beginning.

Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian all quote the letter, naming Peter as writer.

Eusebius tells us that the elders of the church made free use of the letter; there was no question as to its authenticity in his time (c. 260-342 C.E.). Ignatius, Hermas, and Barnabas, of the early second century, all make references to it.

They didn't have the same standards for authorship or scholarship that we do today. It was common for people to write in someone else's name during then. It's like we know the Gospel of John wasn't written by the Apostle John and Moses didnt write the Torah. It's for tradition's sake that we refer to them as the authors but they actually aren't (Moses being mythological, for one).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually Moses did write the first five books of the Bible. And John is the writer of his letters, as well as the epistle given his name. There are speculations to the contrary because people do not want to believe God's word is inspired and true. That anointed Christians added the letters into Bible canon is proof of their authenticity.

There will always be unbelievers with the aim to discredit God's word. But they cannot prove their lies that it was other people who wrote the scriptures than whom did.

You will have to use scholarship to prove that claim, as your religious claims and beliefs are irrelevant to me. You seem very defensive. If your faith rests on Biblical literalism, then your faith is very shaky indeed, but that's not my problem.

 

[Nimos]

Where is entrance into the kingdom of heaven offered under the Mosaic Law?

That is not made exactly clear, except that Heaven seems to be somewhere amongst the stars.

If you are referring to an actual entrance Genesis give a hint:

Genesis 28:12-13
12 - when he had a dream! He saw a raised highway that had been built with its ending point on earth and its beginning point in heaven. God's angels were ascending and descending on it.
13 - And there was the LORD, standing above it and telling Jacob, "I am the LORD God of your grandfather Abraham. I'm Isaac's God, too. I'm giving you and your descendants the ground on which you're sleeping.

 

[Eyes to See]

That is not made exactly clear, except that Heaven seems to be somewhere amongst the stars.

If you are referring to an actual entrance Genesis give a hint:

Genesis 28:12-13
12 - when he had a dream! He saw a raised highway that had been built with its ending point on earth and its beginning point in heaven. God's angels were ascending and descending on it.
13 - And there was the LORD, standing above it and telling Jacob, "I am the LORD God of your grandfather Abraham. I'm Isaac's God, too. I'm giving you and your descendants the ground on which you're sleeping.

No, I was asking where the Law Covenant made a promise for it's adherents to enter heaven.

The hope of the Jews was to be resurrected into a paradise on earth.

For example even the angel told Daniel that he was going to die at the end of his visions. And that he would be raised up to take possession of the lot of land on earth that he would be given in God's due time:

“But as for you, go on to the end. You will rest, but you will stand up for your lot at the end of the days.”-Daniel 12:13.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I respect your beliefs. If you disagree that is your right. If you want to believe the naysayers that is your prerogative, as you say: "that's not my problem." I respect your viewpoint.

The Bible has withstood the test of time and very powerful enemies indeed. It has been proven over and over again to be accurate and true. Archeology confirms its veracity. Prophecy does. And the very fact that it has withstood so many attempts by wicked and evil opposers of God to destroy it and do away with it completely. It is the most published and translated book in existence. And for very good reason.

It has nothing to do with believing "naysayers" and just listening to research and scholarship on the subject. I have no dog in the race so I'm not looking for research on the Bible that buttresses some dogma of mine and throwing out the rest that goes against it. I wouldn't be part of a religion that asked me to place dogma over verifiable reality.

 

[Rival]

Can we maybe try keeping this thread on topic? You guys can make a 'Who Wrote the Torah/Gospels/Letters' thread

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, this would be foolish. But if you did your research you would see that the Bible truths are not based on dogma. Rather on the word of God. As was shared with you in the previous post of mine, there are very strong proofs that it is indeed God's word and we can have confidence in it.

I would recommend you you investigate the information provided here giving proof that the Bible is inspired:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r1/lp-e/all-publications/brochures-and-booklets/book-for-all-ba

Whether you do so is up to you. But I will quote a part of it for you...something to seriously ponder over to see whether belief in the authenticity of God's word is really on shaky ground as you believe:



“I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane [secular] history whatsoever.”—Sir Isaac Newton, renowned English scientist.1

CAN this book—the Bible—be trusted? Does it refer to people who really lived, places that actually existed, and events that truly happened? If so, there should be evidence that it was written by careful, honest writers. Proof does exist. Much of it has been found buried in the earth, and even more is contained within the book itself.

Digging Up the Evidence

The discovery of ancient artifacts buried in Bible lands has supported the historical and geographic accuracy of the Bible. Consider just some of the evidence that archaeologists have dug up.

David, the courageous young shepherd who became king of Israel, is well-known to readers of the Bible. His name appears 1,138 times in the Bible, and the expression “House of David”—often referring to his dynasty—occurs 25 times. (1 Samuel 16:13; 20:16) Until recently, though, there was no clear evidence outside the Bible that David existed. Was David merely a fictitious character?

In 1993 a team of archaeologists, led by Professor Avraham Biran, made an astounding discovery, which was reported in Israel Exploration Journal. At the site of an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the northern part of Israel, they uncovered a basalt stone. Carved into the stone are the words “House of David” and “King of Israel.”2 The inscription, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., is said to be part of a victory monument erected by Aramaeans—enemies of Israel who lived to the east. Why is this ancient inscription so significant?

Based on a report by Professor Biran and his colleague, Professor Joseph Naveh, an article in Biblical Archaeology Review stated: “This is the first time that the name David has been found in any ancient inscription outside the Bible.”3* Something else is noteworthy about the inscription. The expression “House of David” is written as one word. Language expert Professor Anson Rainey explains: “A word divider . . . is often omitted, especially if the combination is a well-established proper name. ‘The House of David’ was certainly such a proper political and geographic name in the mid-ninth century B.C.E.”5 So King David and his dynasty evidently were well-known in the ancient world.

Did Nineveh—the great city of Assyria mentioned in the Bible—really exist? As recently as the early 19th century, some Bible critics refused to believe so. But in 1849, Sir Austen Henry Layard unearthed ruins of King Sennacherib’s palace at Kuyunjik, a site that proved to be part of ancient Nineveh. The critics were thus silenced on that score. But these ruins had more to tell. On the walls of one well-preserved chamber was a display showing the capture of a well-fortified city, with captives being marched before the invading king. Above the king is this inscription: “Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, sat upon a nîmedu -throne and passed in review the booty (taken) from Lachish (La-ki-su).”6

This display and inscription, which can be viewed in the British Museum, agree with the Bible’s account of the capture of the Judean city of Lachish by Sennacherib, recorded at 2 Kings 18:13, 14. Commenting on the significance of the find, Layard wrote: “Who would have believed it probable or possible, before these discoveries were made, that beneath the heap of earth and rubbish which marked the site of Nineveh, there would be found the history of the wars between Hezekiah [king of Judah] and Sennacherib, written at the very time when they took place by Sennacherib himself, and confirming even in minute details the Biblical record?”7

Archaeologists have dug up many other artifacts—pottery, ruins of buildings, clay tablets, coins, documents, monuments, and inscriptions—that confirm the accuracy of the Bible. Excavators have uncovered the Chaldean city of Ur, the commercial and religious center where Abraham lived.8 (Genesis 11:27-31) The Nabonidus Chronicle, unearthed in the 19th century, describes Babylon’s fall to Cyrus the Great in 539 B.C.E., an event narrated in Daniel chapter 5.9 An inscription (fragments of which are preserved in the British Museum) found on an archway in ancient Thessalonica contains the names of city rulers described as “politarchs,” a word unknown in classical Greek literature but used by the Bible writer Luke.10 (Acts 17:6, footnote) Luke’s accuracy was thus vindicated in this—as it had already been in other details.—Compare Luke 1:3.

Archaeologists, however, do not always agree with one another, let alone with the Bible. Even so, the Bible contains within itself strong evidence that it is a book that can be trusted.

...

Accurate in Details

In court trials the credibility of a witness’ testimony can often be determined on the basis of minor facts. Agreement on minor details may stamp the testimony as accurate and honest, whereas serious discrepancies can expose it as a fabrication. On the other hand, an overly tidy account—one in which every last detail is neatly arranged—may also betray a false testimony.

How does the “testimony” of the Bible writers measure up in this regard? The Bible penmen displayed remarkable consistency. There is close agreement about even minute details. However, the harmony is not carefully arranged, arousing suspicions of collusion. There is an obvious lack of design in the coincidences, the writers often agreeing unintentionally. Consider some examples.

The Bible writer Matthew wrote: “And Jesus, on coming into Peter’s house, saw his mother-in-law lying down and sick with fever.” (Matthew 8:14) Matthew here provided an interesting but nonessential detail: Peter was married. This minor fact is supported by Paul, who wrote: “Have I no right to take a Christian wife about with me, like the rest of the apostles and . . . Cephas?”* (1 Corinthians 9:5, The New English Bible) The context indicates that Paul was defending himself against unwarranted criticism. (1 Corinthians 9:1-4) Plainly, this small fact—Peter’s being married—is not introduced by Paul to support the accuracy of Matthew’s account but is conveyed incidentally.



...In some cases the omission of certain details only adds to the credibility of the Bible writer. For example, the writer of 1 Kings tells of a severe drought in Israel. It was so severe that the king could not find enough water and grass to keep his horses and mules alive. (1 Kings 17:7; 18:5) Yet, the same account reports that the prophet Elijah ordered enough water to be brought to him on Mount Carmel (for use in connection with a sacrifice) to fill a trench circumscribing an area of perhaps 10,000 square feet [1,000 sq m]. (1 Kings 18:33-35) In the midst of the drought, where did all the water come from? The writer of 1 Kings did not trouble himself to explain. However, anyone living in Israel knew that Carmel was on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, as an incidental remark later in the narrative indicates. (1 Kings 18:43) Thus, seawater would have been readily available. If this otherwise detailed book were merely fiction masquerading as fact, why would its writer, who in that case would be a clever forger, have left such an apparent difficulty in the text?

So can the Bible be trusted? Archaeologists have dug up enough artifacts to confirm that the Bible refers to real people, real places, and real events. Even more compelling, however, is the evidence found within the Bible itself. Candid writers spared no one—not even themselves—in recording the hard facts. The internal consistency of the writings, including the coincidences without design, gives the “testimony” the clear ring of truth. With such “sure marks of authenticity,” the Bible is, indeed, a book you can trust.

That's not research, just pushing of religion. You don't go to religious sites to learn about the historical development of a religion or learn facts about it's texts, because you'll just get their religious beliefs about it, not scholarly facts.

I'm trying to help you understand that the way you're approaching this is not going to convince anyone who doesn't already share your beliefs. You can go on about Yahweh all you please, but he's not my god and I don't care about his books. But I care about facts and history.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Can we maybe try keeping this thread on topic? You guys can make a 'Who Wrote the Torah/Gospels/Letters' thread

I didn't mean to derail but I wanted to point out that using a Bible verse to "prove" the authorship of a book in the Bible doesn't work. And it does go along with the thread subject to an extent as we have no real proof that the actual Apostles ever met or approved of Paul.

 

[LightofTruth]

There are speculations to the contrary because people do not want to believe God's word is inspired and true. That anointed Christians added the letters into Bible canon is proof of their authenticity.

There will always be unbelievers with the aim to discredit God's word. But they cannot prove their lies that it was other people who wrote the scriptures than whom did.

And since God's word endures forever, long after the scoffers and liars are gone, God's word the Bible will remain. Forever.

I was just thinking the same thing.

 

[Nimos]

No, I was asking where the Law Covenant made a promise for it's adherents to enter heaven.

The hope of the Jews was to be resurrected into a paradise on earth.

For example even the angel told Daniel that he was going to die at the end of his visions. And that he would be raised up to take possession of the lot of land on earth that he would be given in God's due time:

“But as for you, go on to the end. You will rest, but you will stand up for your lot at the end of the days.”-Daniel 12:13.

Im not 100% sure I know what you are asking. I don't recall God promising that anyone would go to heaven, without living up to whatever rules God have put forward. As you said the ancient Jews thought the would go to Sheol as a temporary place until judgement day and if they had done good they would be rewarded and if not they would be punished.

But I don't really think that Jesus have changed a lot about this, he still state that it is up to God to make this judgement and only him. Whereas Paul say that it is simply enough to just believe in Jesus and then you and your family is saved, which seems to contradict the ancient Jewish idea. Because if there is no requirements to getting into heaven except accepting Jesus as the saviour. Then the whole idea of living a good and righteous life in accordance with what God deems good, seems rather pointless, as God wouldn't care about how we behave.

But again, I might have misunderstood what you mean.

 

[Kenny]

Is there any reason why someone would think they need to make that comparison?

Because comparing man with man is self serving. There is always someone worse than you that makes you feel like you are better when one is no better.

This doesn't make sense. The possibility to sin isn't the same as actually sinning. And even if someone does sin, there are numerous verses about repentance. In fact the righteous person is said to be someone who repents, so sin is expected and that doesn't have to detract from their righteousness.

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense. Is there a human being of accountability age that doesn't sin? the fact that one must repent dictates that one has missed the mark and thus, comparing to God as per the prophet Isaiah, our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Doesn't detract from the possibility that ones heart is still bent towards righteousness (in a general sense). Certainly there are many offerings that were given because of unrighteousness.

I an reminded of King David 1 Kings 3:6 And Solomon said, Thou hast shewed unto thy servant David my father great mercy, according as he walked before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day.

Thus spoken of a man who committed murder and adultery, yet the mercy of God gave was greater. His heart was right in repentance yet the righteousness appears to be of God and not his :

Psalm 40:10 I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.

From what Google tells me, justification means "to achieve salvation". Can you first prove from the Tanach that Abraham was in need of salvation that he required justification?

As God that changes not, why would it be any different from the statement that G-d is the "G-d of my salvation"?

There are many definitions for justification including "either the favourable judgment by which he acquits man and declares them acceptable to Him".

For Abraham it was counted (credited) as righteousness.

Or "counted" or imputed (among other definitions)

1. (Niphal)
   1. to be imputed
2. (Qal)
   1. to charge, impute, reckon

It would appear to me that to impute something to someone is to say they did not have it before. Certainly Pharisee Paul thought so.

Certainly we believe that he saw the day of the Messiah and rejoiced.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

What if I started commenting on Maimonides. If I'm just not that interested in him I'd have perhaps one simple view of him like a cardboard cutout view.

This may surprise you, but that would not bother a Jew one bit. During the Rambam's (Maimonides) time there were fellow Jews who disagreed with various views and conclusions of his. There are Jews today who disagree with various ideas of any given Jewish leader. In fact, let's review a few quotes from the Rambam on this fact.

“Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it.”

“You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes.”

“Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate to do the same with his pen.”​

Within Jewish thought there is no problem at all commenting on something that doesn't make sense logically, doesn't appear to be correct, doesn't match the Torah standard, contradicts the words of Hashem, doesn't match what has been passed down from Mount Sinai to any given era, or that an individual has a personal disagreement with. It is a Torah requirement from Hashem for each Jew who writes or states something to back up their words with correct information and proof. In fact, the Torah requires Jews to seek out and verify the validity of all things at all times.

If Paul was a Jew, as the NT claims him to have been and if Paul really was at one time a Pharisee who was commissioned by a Saducee high priest to go on missions in Syrian Damascus to arrest people then he would understand that his personal letters to various Christian communities, if taken as some point to be a type of doctrine, would be up for scrutiny from the Jewish communities of the world. Especially, if there are things that he wrote that don't match the Hebrew text of the Tanakh.

 

[osgart]

Paul acknowledged that God gave the Torah to Israel, but that's about where he agreement ends.

Unlike what Paul claims, Torah is not hard to keep.

It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. Deuteronomy 30:12-14
​

And yet this despite the clear teaching that we will be less than perfect:

For there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
​

There is a lot of value to keeping the 613 laws of the Torah. Not only will Israel be allowed to live on the land and prosper, but there are blessings to the individual:

8 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
9 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
10 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever; the ordinances of the LORD are true, they are righteous altogether;
11 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
Psalm 19
​

But Paul believed and taught that obeying the law was insufficient for salvation from eternal hell, that only by grace through faith was a person saved.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God
Ephesians 2:8
​

Therefore the law, for Paul, served no purpose except to show us what sinners we are, indeed it brought with it a curse.

7 In fact, it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, “You must not covet.”[a] 8 But sin used this command to arouse all kinds of covetous desires within me! If there were no law, sin would not have that power.
Romans 7
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is [a]justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law,
Galatians 3
​

This is because unlike the ease of the Torah, which allows for simple repentance when one falls short, Paul believed that perfection was the standard if one attempted to keep the law -- missing the mark in even the slightest way brought damnation.

Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Galatians 5:3
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 2:21
​

Therefore Paul repeatedly taught against obeying the law, saying that salvation came by faith, and keeping the law was not only worthless, but brought damnation. He taught that circumcision was irrelevant, or even obligated one to keep the las -- a big mistake -- keeping the sabbath was personal discretion, and eating meat offered to idols was for the spiritually weak.

So we can see that Paul contradicts the message of the Torah and Tanakh. He is therefore a false teacher.

​

That's an impressively clear case of contradiction. Thanks!

The only message I like from Paul is I Corinthians Ch. 13. Of course that has a few shortcomings too. But I like the gist of it.

Paul definitely has his own gospel. I think he wanted to make christianity more attractive to a broader range of people.

Obviously orthodox judaism is still waiting for Messiah and rejects the NT. It seems Judaism is mainly for the Jews, and for strict converts.

So what is salvation in Judaism? Is it really that simple? The law is more than the Ten Commandments?

 

[74x12]

But Paul believed and taught that obeying the law was insufficient for salvation from eternal hell, that only by grace through faith was a person saved.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God
Ephesians 2:8

That is after Jesus came. Even Jesus said about the pharisees "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin."

So when Jesus came and started preaching the new Testament what was before adequate was no longer enough. Because before God winked at ignorance. (Acts 17:30) But once they heard Jesus then more accountability was required of them which itself is a principle of the Torah which teaches that you should hear a true prophet and do what he says.

Unlike what Paul claims, Torah is not hard to keep.
It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. Deuteronomy 30:12-14
And yet this despite the clear teaching that we will be less than perfect:
For there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

But why does God offer forgiveness? There must be a greater sacrifice that God provides.

This is because unlike the ease of the Torah, which allows for simple repentance when one falls short

Jesus came to be the sacrifice for sinners that lived after and also before Him. So even though they were justified by their observance of the Torah before Jesus came; yet if Jesus did not come then they would have had no sacrifice for their sins (John 1:29) and they would have had no resurrection. (John 11:25) So the hope of the Torah and all who observed it was always Jesus the Messiah. It was never any other way. That is what Paul believed and why he says what he says.

Paul believed that perfection was the standard if one attempted to keep the law -- missing the mark in even the slightest way brought damnation.
Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Galatians 5:3
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 2:21

He is correct; if you take away Jesus then you must be perfect. Those who came before as I said were allowed to repent because Jesus was going to come and by observing the Torah they had hope in Him. But once Jesus has already come then people who disregard Him are wasting their time trying to keep the Law.

So we can see that Paul contradicts the message of the Torah and Tanakh. He is therefore a false teacher.

I don't believe you're correct. Paul was a student of the famous Gamaliel. Paul was basically a rabbi for his time period.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So what is salvation in Judaism? Is it really that simple? The law is more than the Ten Commandments?

Simply put, in the Hebrew Tanakh there is no concept of "salvation" as is found Christianity. If you look in the Hebrew text what you find is the following.

1. Hashem, the Source of Creation, created reality in order for humanity to have the good in life.
   • As a part of this is that humans understand and learn about the reality that Hashem created which brings a better awareness of how to operate within the reality we were created into.
   • This would include focusing our engergies towards properly living in and surviving in the best environments.
2. Humanity has free will to choose to do the mitzvoth that they are responsible for, 7 mitzvoth for the nations and 613 mitzvoth for the Jewish nation.
   • Similar to cause and effect, our actions and inaction have effects on our personal reality and the world at large.
   • Mitzvoth are the "basis" for establishing humanity in reality. Mitzvoth were given for humans to make ourselves smarter and more aware, if we choose to do so.
3. The mtizvoth aren't hard to and are not impossible to do. Hashem stated this in the Torah.
   • We simply have an option to do them or not. Both have consequences for them. Some of which may seem good for the moment and some of them may seem bad for the moment.
   • A person who learns and trains in the mitzvoth are almost like someone who is in boot camp and the excel at all of the realities that their drill sergent places before them and thus when they become a soldier they excel because of their past and present training. On the flip side there are some people in boot camp who don't excel, or some who don't try, and either their career is very short lived or their career is defined as less than steller. There are also some people who attend boot camp and don't complete it; leaving due to their own choice to abandon it or due to their behavior requiring that they be sent away.
4. Doing the mitzvoth has particular effects in this world and the world to come.
   • There are some people who receive a reward for their actions in this world and in the world to come.
5. People can choose to reject the good that comes in either this world or the world to come.
   • I.e. an person, by their actions or lack of action, can choose to opt out of the world to come just as much as the can opt out of this world.
6. People can choose to receive, in this world, reward that would have been reserved for the world to come.
   • For example, someone rejects doing the mitzvoth and they receive rewards, in this world, for whatever good they have done in this world but not in the world to come. For example, a rich person who breaks most of the mitzvoth may draw the question of why are they so rich but their actions are opposite of the mitzvoth. One of the answers could be that they did some nice things here and there that merit some reward which they will experience only in this world and not in the world to come.
7. There are some people who do mitzvoth in this world and only receive their reward in the world to come and not in this world.
   • This is sometimes because there are things that said person has not come completely right with and this may prevent them from receiving the good in this world.
   • Another possibility is that Hashem knows that some people will only stay on the right path if they don't have to much to distract them and thus they are given what they need to exist and not more, so that their reward in the world to come will be greater.
   • There are some people who miss certain opportunties in this world simply by not being properly trained for them or because of bad decissions. For example, a person keeps the mitzvoth but they decide to not study for a test in school, or they choose a major in college that has a lower pay school or rate or success, they don't train as hard as the next person, etc. They choose to live in an area that is not stable or has a higher level of danger associated. (There is no good and bad in this just the reality.)

So, as you can see the concept is completely different when it comes to Torath Mosheh/Judaism.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I don't believe you're correct. Paul was a student of the famous Gamaliel. Paul was basically a rabbi for his time period.

Actually, Paul was not a student of Gamliel. Especially, if as the NT claims he was from Tarsus.

Even if he was, being a student of someone doesn't make someone a rabbi. Being a rabbi, in the 2nd Temple period, meant that you received "smichah" from someone who already had "smichah" and that is something that conferred and would have been known publically. No Jewish source ever claims either scenario for Paul.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Obviously orthodox judaism is still waiting for Messiah and rejects the NT.

Greetings. To correct this bit. It is not a matter of rejection. It is a matter of the NT not being valid for Jews, per the Hebrew Tanakh. It would be like someone saying that a chemist rejects Alchemy. It is not a matter of rejecting it, the chemist wouldn't use it because it has been proven to not be a valid method of science.

 

[rational experiences]

When any human thinks, especially the historian of the sciences/creation themes.

Only discussed by the thinking theorist male science inventor of all terms of reference, as a human living, thinking. Yet you do not talk on behalf of what exists in natural form.

If you apply a researched argument in the sciences, for a purpose, male and human and changes to life and the Earth body, then it would be a science review.

Both biological science and also observation/researched science.

All relating to human beings living, owning the status invention/design machine use and built and applied just by the thinker, the male human self.

What is natural is natural, what exists is his owned taught quotes, everything given a name is first its owned highest state. Why I preached the Word of God by name or inferred equals a worded description is its highest.

To then quote....so never alter the meaning of the word. Yet you did.

So if you were to quote......history says that the Egyptian High Priest owners of the pyramids/temples as the scientists caused harm to life in the ancient past.

And the cause and effect was given historically to the humans living in the areas where the science was practiced. Exactly how it was discussed.

You however are just a researcher, who in review of old science information apply a research to modern time life changes....to infer, I own and am informed by observation and research that science is wrong. And then go about detailing why it was wrong.

If you quoted that the life living was owner of the life/body/mind and heart then it is not owned anywhere else.

Science however claims information as a "core" or reactive reference, which is the stone philosophy. Which no human is any part of, the reactive states, to change and then review a reactive change.

Which is what was being preached. Which is not a false prophet, it is placing mathematical probability of prophetic numbers into the category to which it was incorrect about. Wholeness and completeness as origin form.

If science owns a human condition that taught science that science itself was wrong and evil, would science today own that teaching and accept it?