Paul's distortion of the Torah message

[firedragon]

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.

Well, I would like to read that review. Please if you could find, share where I could find it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, I would like to read that review. Please if you could find, share where I could find it.

Sure. It is a series called "A Rabbi Cross Examines the New Testament."
Here is the link to the entire series.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc-myPWjqSqSni4ILg2c2o_10Z4e5PMwR

He has been going through most of the NT for about a year or so. I will find the episodes where he talks about this and post here.

 

[firedragon]

Sure. It is a series called "A Rabbi Cross Examines the New Testament."
Here is the link to the entire series.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc-myPWjqSqSni4ILg2c2o_10Z4e5PMwR

He has been going through most of the NT for about a year or so. I will find the episodes where he talks about this and post here.

rabbi Scobak? Yeah, I like this guy.

But nevertheless, I must say that there are many Bible scholars who say that Pauls letters are more theology than the synoptic gospels which are more biographical.

Nevertheless, its your take. Thanks a lot.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

rabbi Scobak? Yeah, I like this guy.

But nevertheless, I must say that there are many Bible scholars who say that Pauls letters are more theology than the synoptic gospels which are more biographical.

Nevertheless, its your take. Thanks a lot.

Possibly. I look at like this. I don't have a take.

The people who would have known for sure what the authorship was or why things are written the way they are in Paul's letters are all gone and left no clear transmission that has lasted. So, I take it as something people can come to what ever conclusion they want about Paul's writings in whatever extreme they want to take it in.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

For practical purposes at this time, almost no Christians have this point of view. I don't wish to misrepresent that. I think your instinct about the authors is probably right, but don't think I am trying to imply this is what Christians say generally. A multitude of Christians believe and say Paul's words are inerrant, consistent, compelling arguments which may be questioned but only if the conclusion is that they are immutable.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But nevertheless, I must say that there are many Bible scholars who say that Pauls letters are more theology than the synoptic gospels which are more biographical.

Just to explain a bit more what I meant. I agree that there is definate theology is in the letters, but the question is "Did the author(s) of the Pauline letters intend for every word in these letters to be over arching required Christian theology for all time, is each letter just for the community it was addressed to, or is this just Paul's personal take or were all ancient Christians in agreement that everything written in these letters are required Christian theology?"

Further, did said author(s) intend for ever letter of his to be combined in a singular book to be taken literally for every Christian throughout history? Do the commands issued in Paul's letter all to be taken as required across the board for all Christians in every generation. For example, Paul's views on marriage or even 2 Corinthians 10.
.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

For practical purposes at this time, almost no Christians have this point of view. I don't wish to misrepresent that. I think your instinct about the authors is probably right, but don't think I am trying to imply this is what Christians say generally. A multitude of Christians believe and say Paul's words are inerrant, consistent, compelling arguments which may be questioned but only if the conclusion is that they are immutable.

Most modern day Christians may not. Yet, the 100,000 question would be "how do they know what the original authors intended?" Which modern day denomination of Christianity correctly understands Paul and how does an outsider determine that denomination correctly understands Paul? Are they descendants of Paul? Did they receive explainations from Paul?

This is especially true when the texts in question were written in Koine Greek, and language most Christians don't know, in a culture that existed almost 2,000 years ago. If modern Christinity gets its information by way of the Church Fathers who is to say that this is the correct to understand the NT?

Also, given that there are a lot of modern day Christian denominations all of which claim to be the correct way that said ancient Christian texts are to be correctly understood, why would other interpretations, even if considered extreme, not "possibly" be correct?

Lastly, one can say that the writings attributed to Paul are inerrant, consistent, compelling arguments which may be questioned but only if the conclusion is that they are immutable. Yet, we can go down a number of varying rabbit holes even with that statement.

 

[firedragon]

Just to explain a bit more what I meant. I agree that there is definate theology is in the letters, but the question is "Did the author(s) of the Pauline letters intend for every word in these letters to be over arching required Christian theology for all time, is each letter just for the community it was addressed to, or is this just Paul's personal take or were all ancient Christians in agreement that everything written in these letters are required Christian theology?"

Further, did said author(s) intend for ever letter of his to be combined in a singular book to be taken literally for every Christian throughout history? Do the commands issued in Paul's letter all to be taken as required across the board for all Christians in every generation. For example, Paul's views on marriage or even 2 Corinthians 10.
.

I agree. Paul never thought he is writing any part of the "Bible". He was just writing letters to propagate his theology. But never thought that it would be canonised as part of a Bible. So you are right, he never intended it to be Christian theology for ever.

Also you are right in referring as "Authors" because it is quite evident that some of the books were never written by Paul.

One thing though is that there are some who make the case that people did not really care who wrote the books. But they did care. Most of the people who make this case are listening to people, not making any analysis. Even Paul was pretty strict in letting people know that others would do forgery and even discussed his signature.

Cheers.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

This may also explain what I mean about who does one beleive in terms of NT authorship and interpretation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Most modern day Christians may not. Yet, the 100,000 question would be "how do they know what the original authors intended?" Which modern day denomination of Christianity correctly understands Paul and how does an outsider determine that denomination correctly understands Paul? Are they descendants of Paul? Did they receive explainations from Paul?

This is especially true when the texts in question were written in Koine Greek, and language most Christians don't know, in a culture that existed almost 2,000 years ago. If modern Christinity gets its information by way of the Church Fathers who is to say that this is the correct to understand the NT?

Also, given that there are a lot of modern day Christian denominations all of which claim to be the correct way that said ancient Christian texts are to be correctly understood, why would other interpretations, even if considered extreme, not "possibly" be correct?

Lastly, one can say that the writings attributed to Paul are inerrant, consistent, compelling arguments which may be questioned but only if the conclusion is that they are immutable. Yet, we can go down a number of varying rabbit holes even with that statement.

The instant you bring up that it was 2,000 years ago and that we don't know the culture -- that is the instant when you have departed from the idea that it is inerrant having been perfectly preserved for our benefit and containing various accurate prognostications. You've already left the ground, wheels up. The second you get into a Historical discussion you've left 70% of people behind. Instead biblicism relies upon arguments from the canon, the accepted canon. The arguments come from there and stay in it.

A lot of true, real life, religious thinking goes like this: "My baby is in heaven," and that's the end of discussion.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The instant you bring up that it was 2,000 years ago and that we don't know the culture -- that is the instant when you have departed from the idea that it is inerrant having been perfectly preserved for our benefit and containing various accurate prognostications. You've already left the ground, wheels up. The second you get into a Historical discussion you've left 70% of people behind. Instead biblicism relies upon arguments from the canon, the accepted canon. The arguments come from there and stay in it.

A lot of true, real life, religious thinking goes like this: "My baby is in heaven," and that's the end of discussion.

Actually, I didn't say that "we don't know the culture." I am saying who is to say which Chrisitian denomination has the accurate information about the text and the culture of the NT text?

For example, someone says that the writings attributed to Paul are in inerrant. I could ask, "Inerrant according to what and what standard?" Maybe Paul's writings 100% represent what the NT authors claim Jesus was about. Doesn't mean that Jesus was right, just means that Paul understood Jesus the best; maybe better than the disciples Jesus had. Maybe Paul's writings are inerrant in terms of his own personal rule of law with no connection to Jesus.

Further, one could say, "The letters of Paul are inerrant ONLY if one uses the original Greek or a particular translation of them from a particular translator." See how that could open up a whole area of intepretation since w/o dealing with who is the most reliable source of transmission?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Actually, I didn't say that "we don't know the culture." I am saying who is to say which Chrisitian denomination has the accurate information about the text and the culture of the NT text?

For example, someone says that the writings attributed to Paul are in inerrant. I could ask, "Inerrant according to what and what standard?" Maybe Paul's writings 100% represent what the NT authors claim Jesus was about. Doesn't mean that Jesus was right, just means that Paul understood Jesus the best; maybe better than the disciples Jesus had. Maybe Paul's writings are inerrant in terms of his own personal rule of law with no connection to Jesus.

Further, one could say, "The letters of Paul are inerrant ONLY if one uses the original Greek or a particular translation of them from a particular translator." See how that could open up a whole area of intepretation since w/o dealing with who is the most reliable source of transmission?

I see what you mean.

 

[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.

When a young boy goes to a yeshiva, does it necessarily mean he will become a rabbi, or that he wants to become a rabbi?

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, I didn't say that "we don't know the culture." I am saying who is to say which Chrisitian denomination has the accurate information about the text and the culture of the NT text?

For example, someone says that the writings attributed to Paul are in inerrant. I could ask, "Inerrant according to what and what standard?" Maybe Paul's writings 100% represent what the NT authors claim Jesus was about. Doesn't mean that Jesus was right, just means that Paul understood Jesus the best; maybe better than the disciples Jesus had. Maybe Paul's writings are inerrant in terms of his own personal rule of law with no connection to Jesus.

Further, one could say, "The letters of Paul are inerrant ONLY if one uses the original Greek or a particular translation of them from a particular translator." See how that could open up a whole area of intepretation since w/o dealing with who is the most reliable source of transmission?

Yes, once again, greetings and hope it's a nice day (or night) in your part of this earth. Despite its problems. Funny, isn't it, how some people look forward to the future promised by God? For this earth.
I don't know how you say "holy spirit" in Hebrew, but I will say that holy spirit would meet a person, inwardly or outwardly, to help him to decide. One can respond positively or negatively. God allows choices, obviously. For instance, Pharaoh certainly met Jehovah in a manner of speaking but did not respond well to his imploring. Even though he said, "Who is Jehovah?" Exodus 5:2 - But Pharaoh said: “Who is Jehovah, that I should obey his voice to send Israel away?+ I do not know Jehovah at all, and what is more, I will not send Israel away.”
Pharaoh found out who he was. As time wears on, those who are seeking will find.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

When a young boy goes to a yeshiva, does it necessarily mean he will become a rabbi, or that he wants to become a rabbi?

No. Going to yeshiva, in the modern era, can mean that they are simply learning some basics like Hebrew/Aramaic and some basic Tanakh and Halakha (Jewish Law) in some cases. In some cases it means that one is learning at a more advanced level.

Yeshivas can also be different in their focus. Going to "certain" Yeshivas may put one on the track to becoming a rabbi, BUT getting ordination isn't automatic with going to yeshiva.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

Again, the standard is not perfection. That is the Christian misunderstanding due to Paul's teachings. One can be righteous if one aspires to keep the commandments, and repents when one slips up. It's just not the same thing as being a habitual sinner.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Romans 6:15-16

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

Paul did NOT teach that it was a moral responsibility for Jews to be circumcised, observe the Shabbat, keep kosher, etc.

 

[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.

​

Speaking of which, what IS the "Torah message"?

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, the standard is not perfection. That is the Christian misunderstanding due to Paul's teachings. One can be righteous if one aspires to keep the commandments, and repents when one slips up. It's just not the same thing as being a habitual sinner.

Let me ask you one question now. That is, when did the Law change? For instance, it was part of the "Law" to not make incense like that prescribed for the priests by anyone else. It was punishable by...? What do you think? What was the punishment for those that made a formula for incense outside of those given the privilege by...God through Moses. So the question is, what was the punishment to be carried out and set by God and given to Moses for those breaking that rule about incense at Exodus 30?

 

[YoursTrue]

Paul did NOT teach that it was a moral responsibility for Jews to be circumcised, observe the Shabbat, keep kosher, etc.

If it's such a moral responsibility, what about the other laws and responsibilities. After all a person can be circumcized and yet commit adultery, kill others and steal, isn't that true?