Paul's distortion of the Torah message

[Brickjectivity]

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.

That flexibility of disagreement is evident in Christian scripture. Its just not evident in a lot of ministries. We have a strong biblicist impulse in modern churches. When I was a child I was taught that the Christian scriptures together with 'Old' testament were altogether preserved by God and miraculously arranged, prescient and fabulously exegeted by our Church leadership who were in constant contact with God. That is fairly common in a lot of newer type churches. We had many bible readers, too; so what is evident now to me was not evident to them, then. They probably would be surprised by your statement.

The Talmud is often thought to be idolatrous since you reverence its words. A lot of people call it 'The traditions of men' as something to be done away with. A lot could be said against that, but it arises from a superstitious belief in the powers of the canon. We have (or recently have had) some churches here in America which believe that a Christian could verify their belief by handling poisonous snakes. Such is the belief in the perfection and miraculous nature of the bound bible as it is in protestant canon. Obviously things aren't perfect in among churchmen, however the scriptures themselves never claim to be perfect. They are not at all like a Quran (which claims perfection) or a geometry proof (which claims to be logical). The gospels do say that they are accounts, but they have no introductions, no forwards, no genre stamped on them. I think they are also filled with clear indications that they aren't supposed to be taken literally. The letters of Paul don't come in bundles with the letters he has received, so often its guessing to say what he is replying about.

Paul is unassailable, mainly because there isn't anyone who can claim that they are an expert on him. Does he believe Jesus is this or that? Does he believe Jesus isn't? Does he uphold the law or not? These remain debatable.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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?

Judaism doesn't really talk that much about salvation. It's not really our ball of wax. The Torah promises that if we keep the 613 laws, we may live on the land, and will be blessed with prosperity.

Much later on, the prophets do speak of an afterlife, where the wicked will be annihilated and the righteous will be resurrected to the world to come. Judaism teaches that we will spend time in Gehenna being purified so that when we are resurrected we are fit for the world to come. For Jews, the standard is keeping the 613 laws. For non-Jews the standard is keeping the universal laws.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is after Jesus came.

God does not change, nor does he break his covenants. And the standard was never perfection. Perfection was what Christians made up.

 

[74x12]

God does not change, nor does he break his covenants. And the standard was never perfection. Perfection was what Christians made up.

Of course He doesn't change but He does do new things. (Isaiah 43:18-19) Which He will do when He raises up the righteous from the dead. And the beginning of this new life is Jesus Christ.

This is why God says He'll make a way in the wilderness. It is the way of holiness ... the way of following Jesus Christ and the meaning of how He will make rivers in the desert is that He will pour out His Spirit on all flesh so it will be like rivers in the desert of our hearts and we can become fruitful. That is ... so we won't need to return to Eden because Eden will be within us. Therefore we will bear the fruit of the tree of life from within ourselves. But only if you receive the Spirit that Jesus came to baptize with.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

Romans 6:15-16

As I understand Paul grace doesn't relieve you from moral responsibility.

 

[74x12]

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

Paul said he was brought up in Jerusalem even though he was born in Tarsus. And Gamaliel was his teacher. (Acts 22:3)

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.

He had the Jewish education to become a rabbi but became a Christian instead.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

​

There is no man now or then that could keep the law of Moses. The only one that did not sin was Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

Romans 6:15-16

As I understand Paul grace doesn't relieve you from moral responsibility.

That is correct.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Paul said he was brought up in Jerusalem even though he was born in Tarsus. And Gamaliel was his teacher. (Acts 22:3)

Actually, the author of Acts makes the claim that Paul claimed that. If you ask the question of, who can confirm this you will find that no one in the Jewish community can confirm this claim. Also, if one wants to claim that Paul learned from Gamliel from what year to what year did he supposidly learn from Gamliel. Also, why does Paul never mention this in his own writings?

He had the Jewish education to become a rabbi but became a Christian instead.

The NT never claims that Paul had a Jewish education to become a rabbi. That is not even how someone become a rabbi in the 2nd Temple period.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Paul said he was brought up in Jerusalem even though he was born in Tarsus. And Gamaliel was his teacher. (Acts 22:3)
He had the Jewish education to become a rabbi but became a Christian instead.

Here is a good video that shows that Paul did not learn from Gamliel.

 

[YoursTrue]

Here is a good video that shows that Paul did not learn from Gamliel.

Hello, peace if possible, and shalom again. What you bring out is very interesting, but I see that one of the first claims the speaker makes is that Paul was not a member of the Sanhedrin. I don't recall Paul ever saying he was a member of the Sanhedrin. But surely Gamaliel was. Paul claimed he was his teacher in strict Law. Learning some more about Gamaliel, it is said he was the grandson of Hillel the Elder, who had founded one of the two great schools of thought within Pharisaic Judaism, although the some sources say that Gamaliel was the son of Hillel. The Talmud is unclear on this matter. (Article from https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1996527#h=6 about Gamaliel.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, the author of Acts makes the claim that Paul claimed that. If you ask the question of, who can confirm this you will find that no one in the Jewish community can confirm this claim. Also, if one wants to claim that Paul learned from Gamliel from what year to what year did he supposidly learn from Gamliel. Also, why does Paul never mention this in his own writings?



The NT never claims that Paul had a Jewish education to become a rabbi. That is not even how someone become a rabbi in the 2nd Temple period.

He was brought before the Sanhedrin as an adult. As far as Gamaliel and his teaching goes, I learn that the House of Hillel became the official expression of Judaism, since all other sects disappeared with the temple’s destruction. About the Sadducees--this from Encyclopedia Britannica - "During the long period of the two parties’ struggle--which lasted until the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD--the Sadducees dominated the Temple and its priesthood."
Sadducee | Jewish sect
There's more interesting information there which I hope I will follow up soon. Erev tov, good evening.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Hello, peace if possible, and shalom again. What you bring out is very interesting, but I see that one of the first claims the speaker makes is that Paul was not a member of the Sanhedrin. I don't recall Paul ever saying he was a member of the Sanhedrin.

Greetings. Let's look at what the author of Acts claims:

Acts 5
17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20 “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people all about this new life.”
21 At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people. When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles.
​

Further, in the author of Acts claims the following:

Acts 7

54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him.......57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.....
​

Acts 8

3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.​

So, what this means is that the author of Acts is "claiming" that Saul worked for the Sanhedrin as a (שוטר). A (שוטר) is someone who was essentially a part of Sanhedrin system and in an independent Torah nation they would have served as the police.

Further, the only way Paul could have taken people to prison, during the 2nd Temple period, is for him to have been working for the Romans as a (Αστυνομία) or a as a police officer. The Sanhedrin would not have had the power, during the Roman occupation, to have done this w/o Roman approval. Since the Sadducees were in close with the Roman occupation only they, and not the Pharisees, would have had any "potential" ability to convince the Romans to let them get away with something like this.

Please note that I am not claiming that Paul was connected to anyone in Jerusalem in this or any other way. I am saying that this is what the author of Acts is implying by what he wrote.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But surely Gamaliel was. Paul claimed he was his teacher in strict Law.

Greetings. This statement doesn't make sense. There is no such thing, historically or otherwise, in Jewish society as a "teacher in strict law."

Further, there is debate among Christian scholars about Paul's family and also how much time he spent in Tarsus as a youth, or even if he was born there at all. So, according to Christian source between what years did Paul "learn at the feet" and what exactly did he learn "while at the feet?

What I am asking is, what evidence is there that author of Acts was potraying Paul accurately to begin with? Further, maybe the statement "learning at the feet of Gamliel" means that Paul read some of Gamlie's writings. It may even mean that he agreed with what he heard Gamliel may of taught. Where is the evidence, for Christians, for the strict interpretatio of the author of Acts claim that he was a first hand student of Gamliel? Are there any other students of Gamliel who attest to this? Do you have evidence from Gamliel that he taught Paul personally?

For example, a friend of mine can claim that I told him that "I learned at the feet" of Rabbi Ovadyah Yosef z"l. The first question you could ask is, "What do you mean you learned at his feet? Are you saying that literally he sat in a chair and taught you while you laying down/prostrating at his feet?" If, the statement is meant to be understand that I was a direct student of his, Is this statement true because my friend claim's I said that? Is the claim true because I say it? Is the claim true if Rabbi Ovadyah Yosef z"l, his family, or known students of his attest to me being a student who learned from him? If you were to ask them and they say, Ehav4Ever? Who is that? Is the claim true?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

He was brought before the Sanhedrin as an adult.

A few questions about your statement:

1. Where does the author of Acts claim that he was brought to the Sanhedrin as an adult?
2. At what age are you considering him to be an adult?
   • 12, 13, 20, 30 years old?
3. Brought from where, from Tarsus and and by whom?
4. Why was he brought to the Sanhedrin, as you say, as an adult?
5. Was he just visiting from Tarsus? Is the Christian claim that he had moved to live in Jerusalem?

Thanks.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Learning some more about Gamaliel, it is said he was the grandson of Hillel the Elder, who had founded one of the two great schools of thought within Pharisaic Judaism, although the some sources say that Gamaliel was the son of Hillel. The Talmud is unclear on this matter.

Greetings. Given that there is no such thing as Pharasiac Judaism, meaning the termonology is not correct, Josephus can give a better outside view of what the situation was during the era we are discussing.

Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII

2. The Jews had, for a great while, had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves. The sect of the Essens; and the sect of the Sadducees; and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees. Of which sects although I have already spoken in the second book of the Jewish war;1 yet will I a little touch upon them now.
3. Now for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the contract of reason: and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do: and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years: nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced. And when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit: since their notion is, that it hath pleased Hashem to make a temperament; whereby what he wills is done; but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. They also believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them: and that under the earth there will be rewards, or punishments; according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life: and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison; but that the former shall have power to revive and live again. On account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people: and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction. Insomuch, that the cities give great attestations to them, on account of their intire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives, and their discourses also.
4. But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this; that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them. For they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent. But this doctrine is received but by a few: yet by those still of the greatest dignity.​

Further to the above, see the following:

[A.D. 61.] And now Cesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the King deprived Joseph of the High Priesthood; and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes, that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man. For he had five sons, who had all performed the office of an High Priest to God; and who had himself injoyed that dignity a long time formerly: which had never happened to any other of our High Priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the High Priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees: (26) who are very rigid in judging offenders above all the rest of the Jews: as we have already observed.9​

(26) It hence evidently appears, that Sadducees might be High Priests in the days of Josephus; and that these Sadducees were usually very severe and inexorable judges; while the Pharisees were much milder and more merciful: as appears by Reland’s instances in his Note on this place; and on Josephus’s Life, § 34. and those taken from the New Testament; from Josephus himself; and from the Rabbins. Nor do we meet with any Sadducees later than this High Priest in all Josephus.​

So, for all intents and purposes Paul sounds a lot like a Sadducee more than anything else. This may be why the Ebionite Christians are said to have considered Paul a spy and thus they rejected his writings.

 

[firedragon]

With Paul I'm sure you are aware that he's not necessarily only one person. He may actually be several, such was the tendency of art in those days.

I would like to understand what your statement means. Paul being several?

Yet if you mean that some of the Pauls letters are written by someone else, that's of course true. Yet, this is just a clarification of what you mean.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I would like to understand what your statement means. Paul being several?

Yet if you mean that some of the Pauls letters are written by someone else, that's of course true. Yet, this is just a clarification of what you mean.

I mean only that it is not dishonesty but humility which causes these people to write in Paul's name, and it is a mistake to presume otherwise. Whether Paul is one person or several I do not know but only that he seems to contradict his own words about the observance of Torah and in particular about circumcision. Muslims and many (not all) Christians take this kind of thing as possible signs of corruption, but I do not. Some deny that there is a contradiction at all. I think instead its evidence that different perspectives are allowed to thrive together. I think that its understood in Christianity that people do not see things the same way and that none of us ought to be treated as better than another.

 

[firedragon]

I mean only that it is not dishonesty but humility which causes these people to write in Paul's name, and it is a mistake to presume otherwise. Whether Paul is one person or several I do not know but only that he seems to contradict his own words about the observance of Torah and in particular about circumcision. Muslims and many (not all) Christians take this kind of thing as possible signs of corruption, but I do not. Some deny that there is a contradiction at all. I think instead its evidence that different perspectives are allowed to thrive together. I think that its understood in Christianity that people do not see things the same way and that none of us ought to be treated as better than another.

Yep. You're right. No so called "religion" is monolithic anyway.

Cheers.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I mean only that it is not dishonesty but humility which causes these people to write in Paul's name, and it is a mistake to presume otherwise. Whether Paul is one person or several I do not know but only that he seems to contradict his own words about the observance of Torah and in particular about circumcision. Muslims and many (not all) Christians take this kind of thing as possible signs of corruption, but I do not. Some deny that there is a contradiction at all. I think instead its evidence that different perspectives are allowed to thrive together. I think that its understood in Christianity that people do not see things the same way and that none of us ought to be treated as better than another.

That is an interesting take. I have sometimes wondered if the authors of the NT did not intend for many of their words to be taken literally. I think there are some areas where authors were being sarcastic. Like when the author of Acts claims that Paul stated he was a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees.

I remember once hearing a review of Paul's letters that stated that the author(s) of the letters did not intend for anyone to derive theology from them. I.e. they were personal letters from Paul to particular Christians he supported or for him to put out fires of those who challenged him or disagreed with him.