Sabbath

[pinacled]

No not the claw hammer. The other one

 

[Steve Petersen]

Interesting watching non-Jews lecturing Jews about Judaism.

What next? Talmud burning? After that?

 

[Shimshon]

I'm waiting for the Messianic Muslim sock to show up. Maybe some Messianic Mormons. Since when is traditional Judaism a stereotype? Think I'll go hide behind my tree for a while... There's Israelites running around with hammers here attacking stereotypical Jews. Quick! Round the wagons around Paul, the rocks are about to fly!

 

[pinacled]

Interesting watching non-Jews lecturing Jews about Judaism.

What next? Talmud burning? After that?

I wouldnt worry about how far away the Lighter is from the solid rocket.

 

[Lulav]

No, what's 'interesting' is watching Jews tell other Jews they aren't Jewish enough or don't talk the talk just right.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Every one else interpretation is wrong except for his.... Talmudism... That's a new disparaging remark.

If you add -ism to any word, you can turn it into a bad thing.
Religionism sounds bad; Godism sounds bad; Lovism sounds bad. LOL
Don't let it get you stressed. He's just trying to make "Talmud" sound bad.

 

[ContraMundum]

<Staff Edit>
Anti-Paul spin <Staff Edit> is against forum rules. Apart from being ridiculously inaccurate, it's offensive to the those of us who have no problem with Paul and his teachings and see it as completely in line with scripture and obviously inspired by the same Holy Spirit who gave us the rest of the canon. Any apparent contradiction is a failing on the part of the reader, not the author.

 

[ContraMundum]

Not really. You said that you can see why Jews would perceive Paul as anti Torah. I don't know if he was or not. I am sure that he was both. Sometimes for, sometimes against. Did not value circumcision, but was for keeping the commands. Don't tell anyone, but circumcision is a command. It even predates Moses And that's only one example. Easy to see why Jews of his time, listening to him, just through their hands in the air saying- what's this guy trying to say?

Actually danny, as usual you are being inaccurate. Paul valued circumcision- for Jews (Acts 16:1-3). Not for Gentiles (Gal). Same as your rabbi does today. The real reason Rabbinic Jews then and now have a problem with Paul is that they aren't converted.

1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1Co 2:7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
1Co 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1Co 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"—
1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.


Enjoy.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Actually danny, as usual you are being inaccurate. Paul valued circumcision- for Jews (Acts 16:1-3). Not for Gentiles (Gal). Same as your rabbi does today. The real reason Rabbinic Jews then and now have a problem with Paul is that they aren't converted.

I think Paul states enough times his opposition to circumcision as a ritual act (for all) to disagree with you here. Your argument holds up only if we take the Acts as an accurate representation of Paul's thinking and actions. Paul himself, judging from his own writings alone, would never have done this in actuality.

 

[ContraMundum]

I think Paul states enough times his opposition to circumcision as a ritual act (for all) to disagree with you here. Your argument holds up only if we take the Acts as an accurate representation of Paul's thinking and actions. Paul himself, judging from his own writings alone, would never have done this in actuality.

Here's the clincher- I do take Acts as an accurate representation of Paul's thinking and actions. So, yes, from my POV the argument holds just fine. Paul's reasons for circumcising Timothy may be open for debate, but I believe there is no reason to doubt Luke's account of it actually happening.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Here's the clincher- I do take Acts as an accurate representation of Paul's thinking and actions. So, yes, from my POV the argument holds just fine. Paul's reasons for circumcising Timothy may be open for debate, but I believe there is no reason to doubt Luke's account of it actually happening.

And I'm convinced that the representation of Paul in the Acts is politically motivated and does not really reveal anything about who he really was. It represents him in opposition to his own opinions as expressed in his personal correspondence. The opposition must be brushed aside in order to turn Paul into a supporter of circumcision.

 

[ContraMundum]

And I'm convinced that the representation of Paul in the Acts is politically motivated and does not really reveal anything about who he really was. It represents him in opposition to his own opinions as expressed in his personal correspondence. The opposition must be brushed aside in order to turn Paul into a supporter of circumcision.

I accept the canon, you don't. We knew that already. No problem, bro.

 

[Shimshon]

Now that was an interesting and respectful discussion between three Jews holding differing opinions and views.

 

[Pentateuch and Yeshua]

<Staff Edit>I am only interested in constructive discussion of views, and I would be happy to engage with you in any discussions in which we may have similar or differing views, without pushing any opinions upon the other. Cheers

 

[danny ski]

Interesting watching non-Jews lecturing Jews about Judaism.

What next? Talmud burning? After that?

Talmud burning? That's an old hat

 

[danny ski]

And I'm convinced that the representation of Paul in the Acts is politically motivated and does not really reveal anything about who he really was. It represents him in opposition to his own opinions as expressed in his personal correspondence. The opposition must be brushed aside in order to turn Paul into a supporter of circumcision.

After reading the Acts and his letters, I agree.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I accept the canon, you don't. We knew that already. No problem, bro.

Yes, my friend, but my point is that it isn't exactly right to say that danny's positions are most always wrong when it comes down to presupposition. It would be difficult to confirm one position right and the other wrong when it comes down to what you must assume upon no basis. That was my point.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Now that was an interesting and respectful discussion between three Jews holding differing opinions and views.

Well, I think that CM and I are special cases. We have disagreements on everything under the sun and maintain a high level of respect for one another. I consider him a dear person and a friend.

 

[yonah_mishael]

<Staff Edit> I am only interested in constructive discussion of views, and I would be happy to engage with you in any discussions in which we may have similar or differing views, without pushing any opinions upon the other. Cheers

I think that Paul is the person in the NT with the most integrity and consistency. I thoroughly enjoy his writings and think they should be taken with even more seriousness than they generally are. (I say this as someone who disbelieves in Paul's writings and theology.)

 

[HebrewVaquero]

Shalom Shabat!
(Actually, if one uses the same calendar as the Hebrew ancients , the Sabbath would be 18/19th of November rather than the 14/15th. *Just say'n*)