Self appointed Apostle Paul Vs Yashu'a teaching

[Ken Brown]

no i dont believe so....they were all on the same page by virtue of their faith in Christ as the Messiah and their willingness to live by his teachings.

however, the jewish christians took a while to catch onto the idea that the mosaic law was not a requirement of worship. Thats understandable considering they were raised under the mosaic law and living by its requirements was a daily affair.

But the apostles used reasoning from the scriptures and they all came to the unanimous conclusion that the mosaic law was no longer the avenue to approach to God.

Hi Pegg, I know Shermana doesn't accept Acts 15 and 21 as valid Scripture, but do you? If you do, how do you explain the Councils decision with the four necessary commands from the Mosaic Law for the Gentile Believers, and then in Acts 21, the Jewish Believers being ZEALOUS for the Whole Mosaic Law, and even requiring Paul to pay the sacrificial expenses for four others who were under a vow, and then he himself going through the rites of purification? Wasn't this was done to PROVE the rumors were false about how Paul was supposedly teaching Jews not to worship according to the Law of Moses, the customs, and even with circumcising of children.

And here is the kicker. James, who initially made the decision for what the Gentiles were required to do in Acts 15, reiterates those four necessary commands in Acts 21:25 thus indicating the Gentiles were not required to do as the Jews. How do you explain James' thought process here? KB

 

[Shermana]

I accept Acts 21 as legitimately being a part of the original Acts, I just agree with the Tubingians that like the Council of Jerusalem episode, Acts 21:25 is interpolated and interupts the flow.

We also need to ask, were there three commands or four? The manuscripts can't agree.

 

[Ken Brown]

I accept Acts 21 as legitimately being a part of the original Acts, I just agree with the Tubingians that like the Council of Jerusalem episode, Acts 21:25 is interpolated and interupts the flow.

We also need to ask, were there three commands or four? The manuscripts can't agree.

Hi Shermana, like I said, you have objections to the validity of Acts 15 and Acts 21 as being inspired Scripture, I don't think Pegg does, so she will have a very difficult time in addressing the obvious difference between what the Jewish Believers were under, as compared to the Gentile Believers. Who knows though, you may make her agree with you and cause her to doubt the validity of Scripture. KB

 

[Pegg]

Hi Pegg, I know Shermana doesn't accept Acts 15 and 21 as valid Scripture, but do you? If you do, how do you explain the Councils decision with the four necessary commands from the Mosaic Law for the Gentile Believers, and then in Acts 21, the Jewish Believers being ZEALOUS for the Whole Mosaic Law, and even requiring Paul to pay the sacrificial expenses for four others who were under a vow, and then he himself going through the rites of purification? Wasn't this was done to PROVE the rumors were false about how Paul was supposedly teaching Jews not to worship according to the Law of Moses, the customs, and even with circumcising of children.

Ken, Paul himself explains why he did such things in his letter to the corinthian congregation....why did he continue to live by mosaic law in some instances but not in others? What was his reason??

1Cor 9:19 For, though I am free from all persons, I have made myself the slave to all, that I may gain the most persons. 20 And so to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, that I might gain those under law. 21 To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ,that I might gain those without law

If you notice Pauls reasoning here, he admits that he is not bound by mosaic law, yet he is bound by law according to the Christ. What is the Law of the Christ? That is the law that Paul was under....that is the law that all christians should be under, yet if they want to live by more laws such as those in the mosaic law, they can do that....they just have to realise that those mosiac laws dont earn you any extra points with God. And it was the Apostle Peter who made this point clear when he said: Acts 15:. 9 And he (God) made no distinction at all between us(Jews under law) and them(gentiles without law), but purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are YOU making a test of God by imposing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing? 11 On the contrary, we trust to get saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way as those people also.”
Here Peter is expressing the view that if the people without mosaic law are being saved through undeserved kindness, then why not the Jews also? And if the jews can be saved without adherence to mosaic law, then why burden ourselves with it.... the mosaic law is no longer the distinction between a righteous person and an unrighteous one, the distinction now is Faith in Christ.

If God is saving people by virtue of their faith in his Messiah, then why keep following Moses?

And here is the kicker. James, who initially made the decision for what the Gentiles were required to do in Acts 15, reiterates those four necessary commands in Acts 21:25 thus indicating the Gentiles were not required to do as the Jews. How do you explain James' thought process here? KB

What James and the Apostles were pointing out is that even though the mosiac law was not binding on the gentiles, they still needed to adhere to certain standards and abstain from practices which they likely were very familiar with considering they were from the very pagan nations who were accustomed to practicing such things.

You might recall that the law about blood was first given to Noah... that law existed before the mosaic law was given. Likewise the law about fornication was long known to Gods servants before the mosaic law was given for we have the experiences of Dinah & Joseph which shows that long before the mosaic law arrived, they knew that illicit sexual relations would offend their God. And idols were false gods, so that law about idols is fitting because they were not worshiping an idol god, they were worshiping Jehovah the God of Heaven and earth.

The jews and gentiles had the same requirments.... its just that the jews took a while to adjust their thinking regarding the mosaic law. That law became their custom, but now they had to change their customs.

So the question is:
After Jesus sacrifice, Would a christian still be going up to the temple to offer the customary sacrifices required by the mosaic law?

They would not need to do that if they accepted that Jesus had given his life for them as a 'perpetual' sacrifice as the Apostles were teaching. So even if they wanted to, there were some parts of the mosaic law which were no longer applicable to them as followers of Christ. But these customs were deeply engrained their culture and way of life, naturally they took a little longer to come to realise that they no longer needed to participate in such customs. Of course after 70ce, the temple and priesthood was removed so much of what they had always done under the mosaic law was no longer possible to do anyway. Dont you think that if God still wanted them to observe the mosiac law he would have prevented the priesthood and the temple from being destroyed?

 

[Ken Brown]

Ken, Paul himself explains why he did such things in his letter to the corinthian congregation....why did he continue to live by mosaic law in some instances but not in others? What was his reason??

1Cor 9:19 For, though I am free from all persons, I have made myself the slave to all, that I may gain the most persons. 20 And so to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, that I might gain those under law. 21 To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ,that I might gain those without law

If you notice Pauls reasoning here, he admits that he is not bound by mosaic law, yet he is bound by law according to the Christ. What is the Law of the Christ? That is the law that Paul was under....that is the law that all christians should be under, yet if they want to live by more laws such as those in the mosaic law, they can do that....they just have to realise that those mosiac laws dont earn you any extra points with God. And it was the Apostle Peter who made this point clear when he said: Acts 15:. 9 And he (God) made no distinction at all between us(Jews under law) and them(gentiles without law), but purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are YOU making a test of God by imposing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing? 11 On the contrary, we trust to get saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way as those people also.”
Here Peter is expressing the view that if the people without mosaic law are being saved through undeserved kindness, then why not the Jews also? And if the jews can be saved without adherence to mosaic law, then why burden ourselves with it.... the mosaic law is no longer the distinction between a righteous person and an unrighteous one, the distinction now is Faith in Christ.

If God is saving people by virtue of their faith in his Messiah, then why keep following Moses?

What James and the Apostles were pointing out is that even though the mosiac law was not binding on the gentiles, they still needed to adhere to certain standards and abstain from practices which they likely were very familiar with considering they were from the very pagan nations who were accustomed to practicing such things.

You might recall that the law about blood was first given to Noah... that law existed before the mosaic law was given. Likewise the law about fornication was long known to Gods servants before the mosaic law was given for we have the experiences of Dinah & Joseph which shows that long before the mosaic law arrived, they knew that illicit sexual relations would offend their God. And idols were false gods, so that law about idols is fitting because they were not worshiping an idol god, they were worshiping Jehovah the God of Heaven and earth.

The jews and gentiles had the same requirments.... its just that the jews took a while to adjust their thinking regarding the mosaic law. That law became their custom, but now they had to change their customs.

So the question is:
After Jesus sacrifice, Would a christian still be going up to the temple to offer the customary sacrifices required by the mosaic law?

They would not need to do that if they accepted that Jesus had given his life for them as a 'perpetual' sacrifice as the Apostles were teaching. So even if they wanted to, there were some parts of the mosaic law which were no longer applicable to them as followers of Christ. But these customs were deeply engrained their culture and way of life, naturally they took a little longer to come to realise that they no longer needed to participate in such customs. Of course after 70ce, the temple and priesthood was removed so much of what they had always done under the mosaic law was no longer possible to do anyway. Dont you think that if God still wanted them to observe the mosiac law he would have prevented the priesthood and the temple from being destroyed?

Hi Pegg, again, I must say that Lawless men twist and distort Paul as the Apostle Peter states. You see, most who would listen to Paul would THINK he was against the Mosiac law, and thus, he would be twisted and distorted. Yet when Paul explained himself, he would state that ONLY the doers of the Law are justified (Rom 2:13), and that a believer's faith does not nullify the Law, but rather confirms or establishes it. The Mosaic Law has TWO sides, a "by works" side (the physical keeping of the commands), and a "by faith" side (the Spiritual keeping of the commands). The "by faith" side is found by seeking justification in the Messiah, and that justification is a "doing" of the Law according to it's Spiritual fulfillment. This FAITH thus ESTABLISHES the Law, and that was Paul's teaching:

Rom 3:31
(31) Do we then make void the Law through faith? Elohim forbid: yea, we establish the Law.

One other key point that you should consider is that the Messiah gave His Body the authority to retain and remit sin, and to loosen and bind. You see, the Jewish Believers retained and bound the Mosiac law upon themselves (the physical keeping of it), and they were ZEALOUS to keep it (Acts 21:20), yet they gave the Gentile Believers a dispensation to where there was a loosening and a remitting of most of the Mosaic Law, according to it's literal or physical keeping (Acts 15:28-29, & Acts 21:25), with the hope that they would hear Moses read each and every Sabbath (Acts 15:21), and learn to Love the Law as did King David:

Psa 119:97-104
(97) MEM. O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
(98) Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
(99) I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
(100) I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.
(101) I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word.
(102) I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me.
(103) How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
(104) Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.

This loving of the Law is loving the Spiritual fulfillment of the Law as found in the Messiah, and those who have the Law "opened" to them, behold wondrous things veiled within the Law:

Psa 119:18
(18) Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy Law.

Paul was a teacher of those "wondrous" things veiled within the Law, and he taught the Ritual of the Red Heifer as it is where one must begin to "see" those things--the suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection of the Messiah. Hopefully this helps to give a better perspective of how Paul viewed the Law, and why the Jewish Believers would be ZEALOUS for the Law in keeping it according to the literal/physical. KB

 

[4YAH80]

Did Paul follow the Laws of Moses as Yashu'a did ?

yes he did, and he preached the commandments as well, I think Paul's letters have caused a lot of confusion, as peter stated Paul wrote "many things that are hard to understand." People seem to think that Paul was preaching a different gospel all together, but he really wasn't.

 

[Ken Brown]

yes he did, and he preached the commandments as well, I think Paul's letters have caused a lot of confusion, as peter stated Paul wrote "many things that are hard to understand." People seem to think that Paul was preaching a different gospel all together, but he really wasn't.

Hi 4YAH80, I have read just about all of your posts and I am having hard time finding something I disagree with. KB

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

2nd Peter is a blatant forgery-No one misspells their own name-but whatever.

Considering you have only the testimony of Paul and Luke, Paul's disciple, that Paul was an apostle, I find his supposed apostleship difficult to swallow. Especially since he was not trained for three years by Yahshua.

 

[Shermana]

One thing to consider though, what exactly was the author's intention when he was writing in Peter's name to try to vindicate Paul? What would be 2 Peter's motivation? What kind of false understandings of Paul was he referring to? What was he believing was the real meaning of what Paul meant? Regardless if 2 Peter is a blatant forgery which it most likely is, does it nonetheless serve as a valuable insight that even back then, the "Lawless" (i.e. anti-Mosaic Law) men were using Paul's letters in a way that was completely devoid of true understanding according to this particular author's opinion? Was 2 Peter thus the work of a Torah-obedient Nazarene or Ebionite who accepted Paul's apostleship? And if arguing against a person who believes it's authentic, what would "Peter" be saying about Paul here exactly? Who were the "lawless" men who were twisting Paul and what would they be twisting exactly? Is it the same thing that they say about Paul today regarding the Law?

 

[Ken Brown]

One thing to consider though, what exactly was the author's intention when he was writing in Peter's name to try to vindicate Paul? What would be 2 Peter's motivation? What kind of false understandings of Paul was he referring to? What was he believing was the real meaning of what Paul meant? Regardless if 2 Peter is a blatant forgery which it most likely is, does it nonetheless serve as a valuable insight that even back then, the "Lawless" (i.e. anti-Mosaic Law) men were using Paul's letters in a way that was completely devoid of true understanding according to this particular author's opinion? Was 2 Peter thus the work of a Torah-obedient Nazarene or Ebionite who accepted Paul's apostleship? And if arguing against a person who believes it's authentic, what would "Peter" be saying about Paul here exactly? Who were the "lawless" men who were twisting Paul and what would they be twisting exactly? Is it the same thing that they say about Paul today regarding the Law?

Hi Shermana, very good questions. The author of 2 Peter most assuredly was saying that Torah disobedient men were twisting and distorting Paul, as I believe that Paul was the most avid supporter of the Torah in his teachings, but it takes looking at the Torah from a Spiritual perspective. KB

 

[BornAgain]

Self appointed Apostle Paul Vs Yashu'a teaching?

Paul’s writings vs Christ’s teaching?

Why?

Do you think only the RED LETTERS were the words of Christ?

As a Gentile where do you see yourself in the New Testament?