Replacing the 12th Apostle

[mishkan]

You cite the Clementine Epistles as authoritative, and then dare call into question the existing canon, suggesting it has been manipulated by later Catholic writers??? And you aren't even citing anything that mentions Sha'ul. The supposed adversary in that text is a fellow named, "Simon". What's your point in quotng that section here?

Even the Catholics view as "spurious" the alleged Clementine Homilies by Clement of Rome.

Your bias is showing.

This sounds like someone wanting to be an Apostle without being a true witness.

The Evidence of the Senses More Trustworthy Than that of Supernatural Vision.

And he said: “You proposed to speak to one point, you replied to another. For your proposition was, that one is better able to know more fully, and to attain confidence, when he hears in consequence of an apparition, than when he hears with his own ears; but when you set about the matter, you were for persuading us that he who hears through an apparition is surer than he who hears with his own ears. Finally, you alleged that, on this account, you knew more satisfactorily the doctrines of Jesus than I do, because you heard His words through an apparition. But I shall reply to the proposition you made at the beginning. The prophet, because he is a prophet, having first given certain information with regard to what is objectively said by him, is believed with confidence; and being known beforehand to be a true prophet, and being examined and questioned as the disciple wishes, he replies: But he who trusts to apparition or vision and dream is insecure. For he does not know to whom he is trusting. For it is possible either that he may be an evil demon or a deceptive spirit, pretending in his speeches to be what he is not. But if any one should wish to inquire of him who he is who has appeared, he can say to himself whatever he likes. And thus, gleaming forth like a wicked one, and remaining as long as he likes, he is at length extinguished, not remaining with the questioner so long as he wished him to do for the purpose of consulting him. For any one that sees by means of dreams cannot inquire about whatever he may wish. For reflection is not in the special power of one who is asleep. Hence we, desiring to have information in regard to something in our waking hours, inquire about something else in our dreams; or without inquiring, we hear about matters that do not concern us, and awaking from sleep we are dispirited because we have neither heard nor inquired about those matters which we were eager to know.”

“If you maintain that apparitions do not always reveal the truth, yet for all that, visions and dreams, being God-sent, do not speak falsely in regard to those matters which they wish to tell.”

“You were right in saying that, being God-sent, they do not speak falsely. But it is uncertain if he who sees has seen a God-sent dream.”

“If he who has had the vision is just, he has seen a true vision.”

“You were right. But who is just, if he stands in need of a vision that he may learn what he ought to learn, and do what he ought to do?”

“Grant me this, that the just man alone can see a true vision, and I shall then reply to that other point. For I have come to the conclusion that an impious man does not see a true dream.”

“This is false; and I can prove it both apart from Scripture and by Scripture; but I do not undertake to persuade you.
Thus to me also was the Son revealed by the Father.

Wherefore I know what is the meaning of revelation, having learned it in my own case. For at the very time when the Lord said, ‘Who do they say that I am?’ and when I heard one saying one thing of Him, and another another, it came into my heart to say (and I know not, therefore, how I said it), ‘Thou art the Son of the living God.’ But He, pronouncing me blessed, pointed out to me that it was the Father who had revealed it to me; and from this time I learned that revelation is knowledge gained without instruction, and without apparition and dreams.

And this is indeed the case. For in the soul which has been placed in us by God, there is all the truth; but it is covered and revealed by the hand of God, who works so far as each one through his knowledge deserves. But the declaration of anything by means of apparitions and dreams from without is a proof, not that it comes from revelation, but from wrath.

Finally, then, it is written in the law, that God, being angry, said to Aaron and Miriam, ‘If a prophet arise from amongst you, I shall make myself known to him through visions and dreams, but not so as to my servant Moses; because I shall speak to him in an outward appearance, and not through dreams, just as one will speak to his own friend.’ You see how the statements of wrath are made through visions and dreams, but the statements to a friend are made face to face, in outward appearance, and not through riddles and visions and dreams, as to an enemy.

 

[yedida]

And why is that? Perhaps because the ruling group who became the RCC
killed off all that didn't believe as they did? Today the church doesn't have the same power it once did.

And to say that the true believers believe Paul is slanderous to them who Love HaShem and his son. There is no where in all 66 books that says to be a true believer one must believe what Paul taught.

And numbers are not a true example of anyone's credentials as to be from G-d.

• How many people attend Benny Hinn's revivals?
• How many people attend those big, 'feel good' Mega-churches. like the one in Lakewood,Texas? they preach a lot of love too.
• How about Todd Bentley? How many 'true believers' flocked to his revival meeting to 'experience and receive the Holy Spirit', mainly by kicking them in the face, or stomach, knocking them on the ground to roll around, laughing hysterically, and modestly, like animals? They lined up from around the world to do so.

Great numbers, but true believers? not what G-d says, he speaks of a remnant and a remnant is not the majority. He spoke of it to Elijah, when he was disheartened, he told of the 700 of all Israel who had not bent the knee to Ba'al. That is what all those 'true believers' were doing when going to these 'feel good' services with signs and wonders.


A story about the Lakewood church, that pulls in millions per month, a girl I knew online, made it her life's calling to move from Arizona where she had a wonderful job, to Texas, just so she could attend this Lakewood church. She ended up losing her job there, and apartment and asked for help from the church, and they would give her none, not a penny.



Benny Hinn? I haven't ever seen him in person but I have seen his brother who does the same kinds of campaigns as big brother, only on a smaller scale. I went to see him as I knew that my undiscerning Rabbi had encouraged members of the congregation, along with some Gentile 'elders' to go there and see him as he was doing 'marvelous works of the Spirit'. A woman who attended a church and our congregation, who had CP eagerly went. I knew she wanted a 'healing' but as I sat there, the spirit within me cryed out clearly there was nothing about this 'show' to do with the real one True G-d of Israel. I was urged to pray against the power that sought to take over that place and the people there.



You see he had a 'warm up' band, that played 'Christian songs' but the music was horrific, changed your brain waves, and got the people 'ready to receive'. Reminded me of Nebuchadnezzar and the Golden idol where all were to bow down when they heard certain music from the musicians.



I got me a pair of earplugs and endured all I could while watching those around me, in ecstatic song, but I also watched the group. They played way too long, seemed to be confused, since they still had to keep playing till things were just right. Henry (Benny's brother) finally came out. Promised that the 'spirit' would be there, and tried, with the band to bring it on, but nothing happened, so he ended up telling stories about big Brother Benny's miracles, and some he had performed as well. But people didn't come to sing songs and hear stories, they were getting restless. They had a 'break' where after we were already there for over an hour, he told everyone to shake hands or hug, something that involved touching. Knowing this was part of the process, I avoided it as much as possible, covering myself and hubby in prayer. It's funny, many of them ran to each other, not knowing the person, and started hugging, etc, but when they turned towards us, they hesitated, some just said 'hello' some hesitantly reached out a hand to shake, but most turned around looking for someone else. We just smiled.



He then went back to the music, and it got louder, and I wondered how these other people were tolerating it, it hurt our ears and we had earplugs in! The beat was driving, pulsing. Yet I could see he was struggling and confused as to why he was having trouble doing his signs and wonders. We were sitting in the back and right behind us were his 'sound crew'. I caught some of the things they were saying to each other, and they knew it wasn't going as planned. I was praying constantly against the power he was trying to evoke the whole time.



After another hour of this and nothing happening, we decided to leave. I found out later that no 'signs and wonders, healing or miracles' occurred that night, yet all seemed glad they were there. I have never felt like that before, I could actually feel some animosity towards myself and husband while we were there, as if some of them knew I was the source of this hindrance. I know it sounds hokey, but it happened.



We are to question, it doesn't matter who it is, we are responsible for using the gifts he gave us, not to our betterment, but for our protection.


And there are believers, and followers. There is a difference, even Yeshua said so.

I can identify. The places I've been lately (the last 8 years) not so big, but you get in these types of places/meetings and you just "know" it's not the God of Israel they're waiting upon.....it's an extremely uncomfortable feeling to say the least.

 

[Avodat]

Length of time studying something is not always a valid indicator of understanding when you see things through a veil of doctrine. If you have been taught that the law was done away with, and that the Torah, while good, is not for us, you find scripture that supports that doctrine.

One problem with Paul's books is that they are letters, not books. They were written to specific churches due to problems or questions that the church had. We do not have any letters to Paul explaining what the problems were, or why he would write them on certain subjects. There is only what he explains, which he does not always do in detail.

I have looked up some of the problems that people have with Paul's writings, and most seem to be either bad translations (NIV and NASB in particular), or misunderstanding what he is saying. Another problem is that when he says law, he could mean Torah, ceremonial law, civil law or tradition.

I agree. There is no guarantee that we have all his letters, it is well within the realms of possibility that this great writer wrote more than we know about. There were, I am sure, letters and messages by word of mouth that went to other Churches and / or people. It is ventured by some academics that Paul wrote seven letters to the Church at Corinth for example - this knowledge is gained from a careful reading of the letters we have, but there is no concrete evidence of that. He may also have written to other people in other places at other times - we have no knowledge one way or the other on that. What we do know, without any doubt, is that we only have a fraction of what he wrote and said, as is the case with all the other people in The Book. When Paul wrote his letters he would have taken it for granted that the recipients would have the knowledge to understand what he wrote about - especially if they have written to him asking questions, as they obviously did. I am unsure why, then, he is condemned on the basis of these handul of letters he wrote - and condemned without the mandatory two witnesses to refute everything he said.

 

[ananda]

His own letters show there were constant problems of contention between him and the appointed ones in Jerusalem. Those who tell you to go and find out about him by reading a website by someone who has learned in seminary what he was teaching and has not studied for themselves just doesn't understand.

I agree ... I recommend that everyone should approach both sides with an open mind, judiciously weighing the evidence either way before coming to a reasoned conclusion. Isn't this issue of the utmost importance in regards to our beliefs, that such an approach should not only be recommended, but indeed be required? I personally doubt that most (those who promote the orthodox position & vociferously exclaim that we're wrong) can claim to have inspected the "other side" of this particular issue to any significant degree, before shrugging it off.

It is easy to make a sermon on some of his writings, piecemeal it sounds good, can be edifying and teaching, but taken as a whole as literature should be, is another story, it becomes a divide.

There are some believers I've met, and I use that term loosely, that believe in Jesus, but not the 'god of the OT' , as Jesus was all about love and the 'god of the OT' was one of wrath and murder ,etc. This is because they have listened to teachers preach this 'loving Jesus', without including how many times he spoke of keeping Torah.

The reason they would give you, if asked, would be that he preached that way before the crucifixion, after that all was done away with.

Now of course that was not what Yeshua taught, and really if one has a brain to do their own thinking would notice that this, the son of G-d would waste his time teaching others to follow his father's commandments, only to also know he would be dying to do away with them? Does not make any logical sense, it is confusing and we know that confusion does not come from above.

If John, who basically called him the living Torah also said that we were to keep his commandments? what else but those that were given at Sinai?

 

[mishkan]

If John, who basically called him the living Torah also said that we were to keep his commandments? what else but those that were given at Sinai?

I agree completely with this conclusion. But throwing Sha'ul under the bus is an incorrect methodology to getting there.

You incorrectly lump him in with those who abuse his material. That's like calling Martin Luther a Nazi because they used his material to support their agenda.

It is easy to divorce a writer from the times in which he lived, and make his texts say anything you want them to say. That's what the Gentile church has done to Rav Sha'ul.

 

[yedida]

I don't disagree with either of you guys, I just don't put the blame on Paul, only his writings and Luke's. People ask me how I can distrust his letters and not the rest of the NT and the fact is, I don't trust the NT. I must choose to believe the words of Yeshua, and they don't contradict Torah - if they did, we wouldn't be having the conversation. But from Acts to Jude, I treat as man-written commentary, some God-inspired, some not so much and some that should just be put in the famous "file 13." After all, even Paul said that the scriptures are the Tanakh, not the second half of the Book. The second half of the Book is commentary on the first half, it cannot be anything but that.

 

[ananda]

Length of time studying something is not always a valid indicator of understanding when you see things through a veil of doctrine.

Do you come with any preconceived notions about Paul?

One problem with Paul's books is that they are letters, not books. They were written to specific churches due to problems or questions that the church had. We do not have any letters to Paul explaining what the problems were, or why he would write them on certain subjects. There is only what he explains, which he does not always do in detail.

It should give us pause before basing our doctrines & eternal destiny on hearing only one side of the story.

I have looked up some of the problems that people have with Paul's writings, and most seem to be either bad translations (NIV and NASB in particular), or misunderstanding what he is saying.

Would you say you have spent equal amounts of effort studying both sides of this issue?

Another problem is that when he says law, he could mean Torah, ceremonial law, civil law or tradition.

I disagree. On something so basic and important, why, in his writings, would Paul fail to clearly distinguish between the various "law"s as we see & categorize them today?

My contention is this: Paul, as a Pharisee, likely referred to the whole of Oral & Written Tradition whenever he spoke about the "Law". Torah, as interpreted through his Pharisaical traditions & training, equalled "Law" to Paul, and to the Pharisees. He mixed up Torah & traditions & referred to the whole body of material as "Law"! I believe this explains why so many experience difficulty when attempting to identify which "law" he was speaking about.

 

[visionary]

My contention is this: Paul, as a Pharisee, likely referred to the whole of Oral & Written Tradition whenever he spoke about the "Law". Torah, as interpreted through his Pharisaical traditions & training, equalled "Law" to Paul, and to the Pharisees. He mixed up Torah & traditions & referred to the whole body of material as "Law"! I believe this explains why so many experience difficulty when attempting to identify which "law" he was speaking about.

I can see that..By the context around it you can get some illusion as to which he is referring to but you really have to know the different branches of the law to know what he is referring to.. for example.. the "law of the ordinance done away with" ... if you do not even know what an ordinance is how is a person to know which law qualifies?

 

[pat34lee]

Do you come with any preconceived notions about Paul?

Only that if he was guided by YHWH in what he wrote, then it would necessarily line up with the Torah.

It should give us pause before basing our doctrines & eternal destiny on hearing only one side of the story.

If you mean we cannot apply something he wrote about a specific problem to all situations, I agree. Much of what he wrote was generally applicable to everyone though. 1 Corintians 13 comes to mind here, where he speaks of the attributes of love.

Would you say you have spent equal amounts of effort studying both sides of this issue?

I spent enough to determine that all of the objections that I have seen written about him were baseless using the standard that Paul knew the scripture and did not go against the Torah. If a translated reading can be read both for and against Torah, then the pro-Torah stance must be understood.

I disagree. On something so basic and important, why, in his writings, would Paul fail to clearly distinguish between the various "law"s as we see & categorize them today?

I think most of the problem here is in the translation, not the original. Hebrew would have shown the differences, but the Greek did not.

My contention is this: Paul, as a Pharisee, likely referred to the whole of Oral & Written Tradition whenever he spoke about the "Law". Torah, as interpreted through his Pharisaical traditions & training, equaled "Law" to Paul, and to the Pharisees. He mixed up Torah & traditions & referred to the whole body of material as "Law"! I believe this explains why so many experience difficulty when attempting to identify which "law" he was speaking about.

Paul may have been more open to the oral tradition as a Pharisee, but he would have known which parts were against scripture. If you have some time, here is an study on 'nomos', the Greek word used for law.

A Study of <I>Nomos</I> (Law) in Galatians 3:11

 

[Avodat]

I don't disagree with either of you guys, I just don't put the blame on Paul, only his writings and Luke's. People ask me how I can distrust his letters and not the rest of the NT and the fact is, I don't trust the NT. I must choose to believe the words of Yeshua, and they don't contradict Torah - if they did, we wouldn't be having the conversation. But from Acts to Jude, I treat as man-written commentary, some God-inspired, some not so much and some that should just be put in the famous "file 13." After all, even Paul said that the scriptures are the Tanakh, not the second half of the Book. The second half of the Book is commentary on the first half, it cannot be anything but that.

But, in reality, we do not have the words of Yeshua - we have the words of men who have written what they recall him saying, or what they have learned from others about what he said. Don't forget that much of what Luke and Matthew wrote was from a totally unknown source that man has labelled 'Q'. Other parts they stole from Mark's writings, which he only got by making notes about what Peter said in his sermons, it seems. And they did all this much later than when Paul wrote the words of Yeshua.

So where does the 'I only believe the words of Yeshua' come from, because all I see are words that men have ascribed to Yeshua, just as Paul is a man doing the same, in places, and like the gospel writers, claiming Yeshua spoke to him, too.

 

[Lulav]

You cite the Clementine Epistles as authoritative, and then dare call into question the existing canon, suggesting it has been manipulated by later Catholic writers??? And you aren't even citing anything that mentions Sha'ul. The supposed adversary in that text is a fellow named, "Simon". What's your point in quotng that section here?

Even the Catholics view as "spurious" the alleged Clementine Homilies by Clement of Rome.

Your bias is showing.

1. I never posted one word for or against the 'CH', all I said was "This sounds like someone wanting to be an Apostle without being a true witness." That is the only thing in that whole post you can challenge me on.
2. I 'dare'??? not from this post, but I did post it further back, do you uphold how the RCC treated the manuscripts? Are you a KJV only?
3. I didn't cite anything that was written by any name. Please show me where any names were mentioned in that post. You can't because I carefully edited them out to prevent bias. And I prefaced it all with "This sounds like someone wanting to be an Apostle without being a true witness".
4. My point is address in my preface to that section, referred to in point 1 and 3.
5. Of course they would for it goes against their theology. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. And calling them 'alleged' to cast aspersions is pointless. We have in the canon many a book given a title without any true validation to who wrote it. Shall I list them, or do you concede?

If anyone's bias is showing it it yours, you refuse to look at things differently or look at all the writings we have available because they could challenge the words you've put to paper, or keyboard and you'd have to start all over.

Saul was not a Rabbi, as the Christians will tell you he planted churches, he did not teach students. The book of Acts says he sat under Gamaliel but there are plenty of scholars, many Jewish that say this wasn't possible and the most incriminating evidence comes from Paul himself as one who is quick to tout his credentials in most of his letters to people who already know who he is, he not once, not once, mentions who he studied under.
Haven't you ever wondered (if you've studied Hillel and Gamliel) how a Rabbi with open views and tolerant could be claimed the teacher of the student who was after watching Stephen being stoned, was 'still breathing murderous threats'?

 

[yedida]

Paul may have been more open to the oral tradition as a Pharisee, but he would have known which parts were against scripture. If you have some time, here is an study on 'nomos', the Greek word used for law.

A Study of <I>Nomos</I> (Law) in Galatians 3:11

He says even less with more words than someone else I know.

 

[pat34lee]

Haven't you ever wondered (if you've studied Hillel and Gamliel) how a Rabbi with open views and tolerant could be claimed the teacher of the student who was after watching Stephen being stoned, was 'still breathing murderous threats'?

How could Peter, after studying under Yeshua, draw sword and attack when they came to arrest Yeshua? People do not always follow their teachers examples perfectly.

 

[yedida]

How could Peter, after studying under Yeshua, draw sword and attack when they came to arrest Yeshua? People do not always follow their teachers examples perfectly.

There's a major difference between the two scenarios: one was fighting for the life of another human being, the other was committing murder for an ideal.

 

[pat34lee]

There's a major difference between the two scenarios: one was fighting for the life of another human being, the other was committing murder for an ideal.

Committing murder for an ideal. That is a theme in the Tanakh. Moses, Phinehas, Samuel, Judah Maccabee (not Tanakh, but still an accepted story).

 

[yedida]

Committing murder for an ideal. That is a theme in the Tanakh. Moses, Phinehas, Samuel, Judah Maccabee (not Tanakh, but still an accepted story).

The fact remains that the scenarios are different. Do you think the Holy Wars were of God? or for an ideal?

 

[Lulav]

How could Peter, after studying under Yeshua, draw sword and attack when they came to arrest Yeshua? People do not always follow their teachers examples perfectly.

Why did Peter have the sword in the first place?

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38 And they said , Lord, behold , here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

It is one thing to lose your head in a moment of chaos, the Apostles were reeling under all he had spoken to them that night, and they didn't want to loose their Rabbi. Which is a lot different than someone going on a murderous campaign that lasted quite awhile in a one man vendetta.

 

[pat34lee]

It is one thing to lose your head in a moment of chaos, the Apostles were reeling under all he had spoken to them that night, and they didn't want to loose their Rabbi. Which is a lot different than someone going on a murderous campaign that lasted quite awhile in a one man vendetta.

It wasn't quite a one man thing. The religious leaders wanted this movement stopped by any means. Some, if not many of Paul's later persecutors were probably those he worked with prior to his conversion.

 

[yedida]

Why did Peter have the sword in the first place?





It is one thing to lose your head in a moment of chaos, the Apostles were reeling under all he had spoken to them that night, and they didn't want to loose their Rabbi. Which is a lot different than someone going on a murderous campaign that lasted quite awhile in a one man vendetta.

Thank you! for saying it much better than I managed.

 

[pat34lee]

The fact remains that the scenarios are different. Do you think the Holy Wars were of God? or for an ideal?

Let's take Maccabees. If the temple were desecrated and destroyed, wouldn't it have to be a judgment from YHWH? And if he is judging the people, who was Judah Maccabee to stand in the way? Would he have been better off leading the people to repent rather than to fight?