Paul's distortion of the Torah message

[Ehav4Ever]

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?

Greetings. You may misunderstand what a "moral responsibility" is for a Jew and what the use of such a term means for a Jew.

The Hebrew text of the Torah never claims that a Jewish child being circumcised was for the purpose of not commiting adultry, killing, or stealing. The purpose of a Jewish male child being circumcised is for the sake of being included in the nation that had its start with Avraham ben-Terah (as you may call him Abraham). Thus, using western speak, it is a moral responsibility for A Jew who keeps Torah to circumcise their sons in order to include them in the nation that started with Avraham ben-Terah. If a Jewish male child was not circumcised by their father, it is a moral responsibility for that male to circumcise himself as soon as he realizes that this was not done for him.

On the opposite spectrum, according to the Torah based logic, it is a moral responsibility for non-Jews to keep the 7 Mitzvoth that are often termed as the Noachide Laws.

This is often the challenge in discussing this issues since one first has to define terms from Hebrew and Aramaic into English.

 

[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.

Allow me, please, to ask if Moses is ever called Rabbi in the Torah. (Thank you.)

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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?

Further to what I wrote earlier. Once a Torah based Jew has accepted the responsibilities that Jews received at Mount Sinai, it is a moral responsibility for said Jews to use the Torah and Halakah to develop themselves, their community, and the Jewish nation using the standards set for by Hashem.

For example, the Torah does not say, in Hebrew, don't kill. It states "don't murder." It also defines morally how nationally this is to be upheld in a Torah based Jewish nation. The Torah and halakha further details how to avoid murdering and what mindsets would be needed to reduce the need to kill someone, even as a part of the legal system, and what kind of lifestyle would help people rationalize themselves away from murder.

Further, when it comes to adultry the Torah and Halakha first defines that that even means, conceptially, and how a Jew can choose to avoid it and what the legal/national ramifications of such practices taking place.

Lastly, the Torah is clear that people can choose to disregard directives, even when they come from Hashem, and what the results morally, socially, and legally are for such a choice. It further details how such a person should dealt with personally, legally, and nationally.

Many of these same concepts exist for the non-Jewish nations since one of the 7 Noachide laws is that all nations/societies must develop systems of law and justice.

 

[YoursTrue]

Greetings. You may misunderstand what a "moral responsibility" is for a Jew and what the use of such a term means for a Jew.

Greetings, my friend. I don't know if Indigochild is a natural born Jew, a convert, or a Noahide, I am going by her words.

The Hebrew text of the Torah never claims that a Jewish child being circumcised was for the purpose of not commiting adultry, killing, or stealing.

I certainly understand that. In fact, why would anyone think that circumcision was for the purpose of not committing adultery, killing or stealing, although it is written that these things [murder, let's not go into killing in a war ordained by God] were clearly against the law of Moses?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Allow me, please, to ask if Moses is ever called Rabbi in the Torah. (Thank you.)

The Aramaic word (רברבא) "ravreva" is a translation of the Hebrew word (נשיא) which is a leader/teacher of Torah and equates to the term rabbi as we speak in modern times. We Jews, in the modern era, when speaking use a mix of Hebrew (Ancient, Mishnaic, etc.) and Aramaic when we speak.

Officially, the term rabbi has different meanings, from a national/communal perspective, depending on what era of history we are talking about. Because Mosheh ben-Amram taught the Jewish nation correct Torah from Hashem, one of the many titles we call him includes Rabbeinu. Yet, no one says "Rabbi Mosheh" especially since the term (רבי) "ribbi/rebbe/rabbi" in Mishnaic/Talmudic speak meant that someone received ordination from the land of Israel and the term (רב) "rav" would have meant that someone received ordination from the Jewish community in Babylon.

In modern terms, what it means to be a rabbi, in Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jewish communities, means something slightly different than it did during the time when there was a Sanhedrin (Mishnaic/ early Talmudic periods).

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I'll look at this another time -- but here is what I was looking at regarding the future:
(what Isaiah said)
“As surely as my new heavens and earth will remain,

so will you always be my people,

with a name that will never disappear,”

says the LORD.

23“All humanity will come to worship me

from week to week

and from month to month.

24And as they go out, they will see

the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me.

For the worms that devour them will never die,

and the fire that burns them will never go out.

All who pass by

will view them with utter horror.”

Now we know that the word LORD there in capital letters means YHWH (or perhaps YHVH, but that slight is really inconsequential), but the point to see is that God's new heavens and earth are to remain, that He has His people, and as that goes on, there will be dead bodies who rebelled against Him. Quite interesting to see, eh? Now I"m sure you have your reasoning on this, and so do I.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Greetings, my friend. I don't know if Indigochild is a natural born Jew, a convert, or a Noahide, I am going by her words.

Greetings. How are you?

That is not what I was addressing. I don't think you understood what Indigochild meant when they mentioed morality. That is why I was explaining what it means to both Torah based Jews and Noachides.

I certainly understand that. In fact, why would anyone think that circumcision was for the purpose of not committing adultery, killing or stealing, although it is written that these things [murder, let's not go into killing in a war ordained by God] were clearly against the law of Moses?

One could ask the question why someone would think that no one can correctly keep the Torah. esepecially when Hashem stated that Jews could keep correctly in every generation. There are ideas that trickle down to people from sources that are not always 100% in line with the reality.

What you have to understand is that the Hebrew word for murder (רצח), killing/sometimes murder (הרג), and killing/slaying (קטל) are not the same words. The Torah is very specific that murder (רצח) if forbidden in all sitautions. The other two depend on the circumstances.

There are times when the Torah gives the option of killing to a) protect one's life from danger, b) the Judicial system requires it in extreme situations for the sake of maintaining a just society, and c) as you mentioend war (even ones that are decided upon by particular national interests).

 

[YoursTrue]

The Aramaic word (רברבא) "ravreva" is a translation of the Hebrew word (נשיא) which is a leader/teacher of Torah and equates to the term rabbi as we speak in modern times. We Jews, in the modern era, when speaking use a mix of Hebrew (Ancient, Mishnaic, etc.) and Aramaic when we speak.

Officially, the term rabbi has different meanings, from a national/communal perspective, depending on what era of history we are talking about. Because Mosheh ben-Amram taught the Jewish nation correct Torah from Hashem, one of the many titles we call him includes Rabbeinu. Yet, no one says "Rabbi Mosheh" especially since the term (רבי) "ribbi/rebbe/rabbi" in Mishnaic/Talmudic speak meant that someone received ordination from the land of Israel and the term (רב) "rav" would have meant that someone received ordination from the Jewish community in Babylon.

In modern terms, what it means to be a rabbi, in Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jewish communities, means something slightly different than it did during the time when there was a Sanhedrin (Mishnaic/ early Talmudic periods).

I am glad you mentioned that especially in current times it usually would entail ordination from a school. Not to get into too much complexity, but again I thank you for the conversation. But again, the term rabbi, now that we're discussing it, was never mentioned in the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, was it?

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

I have heard of this movement Jews for Judaism, before. They are not so interested in debunking Paul as in just trying to reeducate some of the Jews who aren't that knowledgeable about Judaism for themselves. Its interesting, sometimes. You know I have actually met some Jews who say they have become Christians. I'm not going to comment on them, but I think I understand why there is a Jews for Judaism institution.

I took a peek. In the first video I wish the guy with the baseball cap would let the guy with the books talk. I'm waiting for someone to get to a point. Are they going to have a coffee before they start actually discussing?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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?

The Torah didn't change. The Torah gave the Sanhedrin of Israel the responsibility to decide Judicial cases and they are only ones who can rule on capital cases. I.e. because the Torah requires that a Judicial body investigate a claim based on valid witnesses who had warned the person several times of the worng direction they are taking and the Sanhedrin is required to first try to help the person make shuvah back to the Torah, assume that the made a mistake (one that they would not have made had they known better), and because the burden of proof to perfrom capital punishment is extremely high (so high that it is rare to find it happening throughout Jewish history)

Further, if you look through Jewish history it is "extremely" rare to find Jews who were out trying to break this law. It is even more rare to find that the capital punishment was performed in such a case.

So, that being said the reason why it was forbidden for a non-Kohen to make the spices is 1) it was forbidden for a non-Kohen to be in certain parts of the Temple, 2) in order for people to start making up stuff and misleading others, 3) that particular mixture had no use in Israeli society outside of the Temple so someone making it would more than likely be making to mislead someone when they know Hashem commanded for it not be made outside of the Temple grounds.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am glad you mentioned that especially in current times it usually would entail ordination from a school. Not to get into too much complexity, but again I thank you for the conversation. But again, the term rabbi, now that we're discussing it, was never mentioned in the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, was it?

There is no requirement in the Torah to call someone only by terms that existed in their era of history. If that is the case you would have throw out all of the prophets and the writings in the Tanakh since they were using a slightly different Hebrew than existed in previous generations. In fact, you sould have to throw out all Greek, English, etc. words/titles used in every translation (or attempt of such) for the same reason. If one would want to go this route, with termology, the safer bet would be read and speak only in Hebrew and Aramaic to be safe since those are the language of the Tanakh.

 

[YoursTrue]

Greetings. How are you?

That is not what I was addressing. I don't think you understood what Indigochild meant when they mentioed morality. That is why I was explaining what it means to both Torah based Jews and Noachides.

Thank you, I am well (coping with God's help) and enjoying our conversations. Forgive me if I do not understand something, so I appreciate your questions and points as well. Not that I can answer everything until I study it. People would have different definitions of what constitutes morality. And now that you're mentioning it, yes, it would seem that while certain things (like stealing and adultery -- I was going to say 'wife-grabbing,' but there could be husband-grabbing as well, so I'll use the term adultery) are pretty much against any law, there are other things not so obvious. Such as sleight of hand of lawyers and laws as well. I have not read all the posts and probably will not tonight, but let me ask you for a moment about Noahides. According to their belief as well as Judaistic belief, do Noahides have to get circumcized?

One could ask the question why someone would think that no one can correctly keep the Torah. esepecially when Hashem stated that Jews could keep correctly in every generation. There are ideas that trickle down to people from sources that are not always 100% in line with the reality.

OK, I get your point, but now comes the question about keeping the Law. Which I'll get into hopefully in more detail later on. Allow me to say again, I appreciate the need to make sure of all things.

What you have to understand is that the Hebrew word for murder (רצח), killing/sometimes murder (הרג), and killing/slaying (קטל) are not the same words. The Torah is very specific that murder (רצח) if forbidden in all sitautions. The other two depend on the circumstances.

There are times when the Torah gives the option of killing to a) protect one's life from danger, b) the Judicial system requires it in extreme situations for the sake of maintaining a just society, and c) as you mentioend war (even ones that are decided upon by particular national interests).

I realized that when I used the word kill. Vs. murder. Thanks for that. Of course, considering there were men and women of different nationalities, perhaps the same religion, perhaps even in the same "family," such as Italian-Americans and Italians born and bred in Italy, fighting and killing one another in observance of their "homeland" in WW2. I'm sure there are many examples of "brother killing brother" in many areas of nationalistic life. Which is another thing, but I'll leave that for now.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I took a peek. In the first video I wish the guy with the baseball cap would let the guy with the books talk. I'm waiting for someone to get to a point. Are they going to have a coffee before they start actually discussing?

It was the kick-off. Sometimes the kick-off takes time to get warmed up. Kind of like in sports where you have warm-up, practice, and the then the game.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am glad you mentioned that especially in current times it usually would entail ordination from a school. Not to get into too much complexity, but again I thank you for the conversation. But again, the term rabbi, now that we're discussing it, was never mentioned in the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, was it?

In fact, one can say the name "Moses" never shows up in the Torah. His name is correctly pronouched (משה בן עמרם) which would correctly be written in English as Mosheh ben-Amram, or in some dialects of ancient Hebrew Moshah ben-`Amrawm.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no requirement in the Torah to call someone only by terms that existed in their era of history. If that is the case you would have throw out all of the prophets and the writings in the Tanakh since they were using a slightly different Hebrew than existed in previous generations. In fact, you sould have to throw out all Greek, English, etc. words/titles used in every translation (or attempt of such) for the same reason. If one would want to go this route, with termology, the safer bet would be read and speak only in Hebrew and Aramaic to be safe since those are the language of the Tanakh.

Once again, and I repeat and reiterate, because I am really relating this to Gamaliel and the term rabbi and ordination, etc., as a rabbi, as I understand it, is not used (not even for Moses) in the Torah, although he might be referred to now as rabbi. But he was not spoken of as a rabbi back then. And as I understand it, it is not certain if Hillel the Elder was Gamaliel's father or grandfather.
I think it's about time for me to close up, I hope the weather and conditions are good where you're at now. We have had some beautiful weather in the area we're in, the leaves are turning beautiful colors now, although the west coast is being ravaged by fires, and the earth is being ruined by fuel companies, just to mention a few. Yet God allows some of us to see His beautiful creation and think about it, He will step in to stop the ruination of the earth, as it is written. Shalom.

 

[YoursTrue]

It was the kick-off. Sometimes the kick-off takes time to get warmed up. Kind of like in sports where you have warm-up, practice, and the then the game.

LOL, that was one of my biggest laughs today! Fini.

 

[YoursTrue]

In fact, one can say the name "Moses" never shows up in the Torah. His name is correctly pronouched (משה בן עמרם) which would correctly be written in English as Mosheh ben-Amram, or in some dialects of ancient Hebrew Moshah ben-`Amrawm.

Oh, come on now...lol...and here I thought we were having somewhat of a decent conversation. Yeah well, good night.

 

[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.

Slipping up is not the same as deliberate sin. On the other hand, King David was condemned for his sin, but when he repented, realized his sin, God forgave him. Nathan told him that. But David deserved death except for his repentance and his love and worship of the true God.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Oh, come on now...lol...and here I thought we were having somewhat of a decent conversation. Yeah well, good night.

I am taking to an extreme that one could go to. For example, there is a Christian movement called the Sacred Name movement that goes to similar extremes. It depends on how far wants to go.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Slipping up is not the same as deliberate sin. On the other hand, King David was condemned for his sin, but when he repented, realized his sin, God forgave him. Nathan told him that. But David deserved death except for his repentance and his love and worship of the true God.

We actually discussed that earlier. The Torah is clear that their are different types of transgressions of the Torah that are addressed to why someone did it. Besides, according to the Tanakh dying in this world due to a transgression of the Torah doesn't always equate to not having anything in the world to come.

It must be understood that sin, as Christians understand it, is not a concept found in the Hebrew text of the Tanakh. Just like repentence in Christiniaty is not the same as it is in Torath Mosheh.