Paul fought the circumcision, Messianic Judaism.

[Frogster]

Paul's on-the-record statement to Messianic Jews --


Acts 21
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

(Many here would argue - "yeah... that is EXACTLY what Paul was doing!" - Paul goes out of his way to disprove it.



22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.
.

read this on Acts 21, then offer a sound rebuttal.






Pro law people love to shout out happily…

Paul went to the Temple and took the ritual!

Lol…they forget that he did not go to Jerusalem for 14 years as per Gal 2:1, which says “again”, presumably after the Peter visit of Gal 1:18, 3 years after Paul’s conversion, and it was for just 15 days, no temple time there, so really 17 years total, Acts 9 leaves no temple information either.

So no feasts, no cleansing, no practicing Judaism for 17 years.



Acts 21. Paul goes to Jerusalem with his heart wide open, even bringing money he collected from the Gentiles, to show good will and unity. Paul arrives in Jerusalem, only to hear from James that the thousands there, many law following believers, thought Paul taught apostasy in verse 21, the Greek for “forsake” Moses, same word used in Thessalonians about the “Antichrist”, serious accusation. Did Paul preach it was ok to commit adultery or steal? No. Did Paul preach apostasy? No. In Romans 3:8 Paul said they lied about his teaching making like Paul said “do evil, so good will come”. He said their condemnation will be deserved. This confirms that James knew what many thought, incorrectly of course, concerning what Paul taught. And Paul knew it too (Rom 3:8), hence answered sin questions are seen in Romans 6. Do we continue in sin Paul asked, then said no! James and Paul both knew what the masses thought.




James, understandably fearing the thousands said, "do what we tell you", to Paul. Did Paul have to? No, but the language sounds strong, James saying do what we tell you, not an order, but an emphatic emphasis, a tone, stress, a very concerned James, can not be denied in those words. So Paul, who said in 1 Corinthians 9, that he did certain things to further the gospel, become as a Jew or Gentile etc, along with 2 Corinthians 4, while saying he commended himself to others, he then commended himself to James in Acts 21. Keep in mind, after James wanted Paul to take the ritual, James reminded Paul how he helped Paul earlier at the council meeting in Acts 15. So now it was Paul’s turn to reciprocate with James. Fine, both helped each other.

So yes, Paul did the ritual, no big deal really, so what!? In a transitional stressful time, in an unfolding history of the apostleship of Paul and the church, along with the integration of Jew and Gentile populations, and all of the other things going on then, Paul did not want to freak out James, he took the vow. So what? It was the way for thousands of years anyway, it is not like he worshipped an idol or pagan God or something. Besides, that whole temple was going down soon anyway. People get so carried away with Acts 21, for no reason, other than to think they “got Paul”!



I say, good for Paul! He can't win anyway, if he didn't take the vow, people today, would find fault with that too. They would say….

"Evil Paul, would not show love to James"

"Proud Paul!"

"Big shot apostle!"

When he takes the vow, they cry hypocrite.

 

[Frogster]

I've not personally run across any MJ's who deny the trinity or Paul's letters, so I don't think it is widespread, though my sample size is relatively small.

it is, trust the frog.

 

[Frogster]

Why would it?

please, the temple was alot to let go of...

 

[Soyeong]

red, you started debating me on your saying it was "oral law", then recently you started saying written law, now why are you back on oral law again?

How could gentiles keep the law, but not the law?

Do you really think the pharisees by 49 Ad would even think that gentiles would keep oral law?

They were trying to judaize ,not t be persecuted, a per gal 6:12, that would have to be the law, no one could be persecuted for just keeping the oral law!

Not only that, but why would Paul and crew, go to Jerusalem, before Peter, James, and John, to argue that one is on a Christian by oral aw? No one would even take that argument seriously!

*sigh*

I cited my first post to prove to you that it had been oral law and written law since I fist started talking about it, but I see you don't really care about evidence at would rather keep straw manning me. I've been pointing out that the Jews thought you couldn't properly teach the written law without teaching the oral law, so the written law was necessarily included in what the circumcision group wanted Gentiles to keep in order to be saved. It's just that what Paul rejected was their oral laws and the idea that Gentiles had to keep the laws of Moses in order to be saved. He was not rejecting the written law that he said our faith upholds and that is holy, righteous, and good.

It's like when a bill is rejected that has a bunch of bad laws on it, but it has one law tacked on at the end for helping grandmas, so now the other political group accuses them of hating grandmas. You can reject a bill that has good laws on it if it comes with other laws that are bad.

 

[Frogster]

If you want to be real, then back up that assertion with some evidence. I see no prevalence of denying Paul as inspired among MJ and I'm not even aware of another MJ is does. There are no doubt some who do deny Paul, you would need to show that there is even correlation and then show that MJ lead the way.

do you want me to believe that your perspective is right?

Then prove it!

See what I mean? So do for me as you want me to do for you. Ask around, it is a fact that some reject Paul, big time! Go ask around the MJ section, I would, but if the frog goes there he is reported!

 

[Frogster]

Forgive me for holding a minority viewpoint. Thankfully MJ is rapidly growing as more Christians are starting to gain a better understanding of the Bible's cultural context.

Proves nothing, other splinter groups came, then went.


Ats 21:38 Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?”

Also there are verses about that in the end days text.

 

[Frogster]

It's quoting for Hosea, so tell me why do you think God commanded Moses and the Israelites to perform sacrifices when he didn't desire them?

refute the text!

Can you?

 

[Soyeong]

paaaaleeease, there were no pharisees in the time of Moses! Peter said the fathers could not bear the law yoke, there were no pharisees way back then in the Time of Moses, Peter in Acts 15 was about the law, Paul called the law a yoke too in gal 5.

I didn't claim there were Pharisees at the time of Moses, but rather I quoted Jewish literature where they claim the oral law traced to him. The Pharisees were not the inventor of the oral law, nor were they the only ones teaching it.

A "yoke" means to be in in service to something. If someone was in service to the law, then they would take on the yoke of the Torah. Or if they were a disciple of a rabbi, they would take on his yoke. It was a rabbi's job to teach and explain how to understand and follow the law, so a rabbi's yoke set of interpretations for how to understand and obey the law. So when Jesus taught his disciples to follow the law, they were learning his yoke, which he said was easy and his burden was light. The Pharisees had their own set of interpretations for how to for how to understand and obey the law, which was called the yoke of the Pharisees. This is what Jesus and Paul referred to as a heavy burden.

 

[Soyeong]

refute the text!

Can you?

There's no need to refute that, there's only a need for you to understand it, which is why I was trying to get you to think about it.

 

[Frogster]

They were living in violation of the man-made laws that forbade Jews from associating with Gentiles (Acts 10:28).

Acts 11, in Antioch was not the same event as with Peter in Acts 11, if you read the flow you will see what I mean.

Paul was about the law in gal 2 in his correction of of Peter, he went into the law in Gal 2, not oral law in Gal 2, it is the Antioch event recorded in Gal 2, not the Cornelius event!

 

[Soyeong]

NO! I posted who to keep the passover a gentile had to convert it is in Exodus~

They said be circumcised, to keep the law in Acts 15, Paul said circumcised, keep the law in Gal 5, so you are wrong.

And I pointed that requiring Gentiles to become circumcised to eat of the Passover lamb is hardly a requirement for all Gentiles to become circumcised. Nor does the passage say anything about converting to Judaism.

 

[Frogster]

*sigh*

I cited my first post to prove to you that it had been oral law and written law since I fist started talking about it, but I see you don't really care about evidence at would rather keep straw manning me. I've been pointing out that the Jews thought you couldn't properly teach the written law without teaching the oral law, so the written law was necessarily included in what the circumcision group wanted Gentiles to keep in order to be saved. It's just that what Paul rejected was their oral laws and the idea that Gentiles had to keep the laws of Moses in order to be saved. He was not rejecting the written law that he said our faith upholds and that is holy, righteous, and good.

It's like when a bill is rejected that has a bunch of bad laws on it, but it has one law tacked on at the end for helping grandmas, so now the other political group accuses them of hating grandmas. You can reject a bill that has good laws on it if it comes with other laws that are bad.

no, you were just about oral law, then you started to say written law, because I was right.

 

[Soyeong]

it is, trust the frog.

You haven't shown that you are willing to try to understand what I'm talking about, let alone that you understand what you're talking about. So you'll forgive me if I don't take you're word about something which you've put no effort into studying.

 

[Soyeong]

please, the temple was alot to let go of...

Indeed, but their identity was not wrapped up in the Temple. None of them ceased to become Jews after its destruction, or after the destruction of the previous Temple for that matter.

 

[Frogster]

I didn't claim there were Pharisees at the time of Moses, but rather I quoted Jewish literature where they claim the oral law traced to him. The Pharisees were not the inventor of the oral law, nor were they the only ones teaching it.

A "yoke" means to be in in service to something. If someone was in service to the law, then they would take on the yoke of the Torah. Or if they were a disciple of a rabbi, they would take on his yoke. It was a rabbi's job to teach and explain how to understand and follow the law, so a rabbi's yoke set of interpretations for how to understand and obey the law. So when Jesus taught his disciples to follow the law, they were learning his yoke, which he said was easy and his burden was light. The Pharisees had their own set of interpretations for how to for how to understand and obey the law, which was called the yoke of the Pharisees. This is what Jesus and Paul referred to as a heavy burden.

yes you did.

Peter and Paul agreed, and the law was the yoke, and the fathers could not bear it, those are facts.

Acts 15 could not be oral law, Paul and crew, and the Jerusalem council would laugh if Paul came there to argue against oral law for gentiles!

 

[Frogster]

There's no need to refute that, there's only a need for you to understand it, which is why I was trying to get you to think about it.

I am trying to get you to think about the facts, not sentimentality, facts.

 

[Soyeong]

do you want me to believe that your perspective is right?

Then prove it!

See what I mean? So do for me as you want me to do for you. Ask around, it is a fact that some reject Paul, big time! Go ask around the MJ section, I would, but if the frog goes there he is reported!

I'm sorry, you do not have free reign to make up whatever you want about MJ and then expect others to believe you. If you make a claim then the burden is on you to support it. I do my best to support my claims. As I've said before, I have no doubt that there are some MJ's who reject Paul, but that's also true of some non-MJ Christians.

 

[Frogster]

And I pointed that requiring Gentiles to become circumcised to eat of the Passover lamb is hardly a requirement for all Gentiles to become circumcised. Nor does the passage say anything about converting to Judaism.

Institution of the Passover
Exodus 12:43-48 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. 45 No foreigner or hired servant may eat of it. 46 It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.

 

[Frogster]

Indeed, but their identity was not wrapped up in the Temple. None of them ceased to become Jews after its destruction, or after the destruction of the previous Temple for that matter.

But they could not live as Jews, of course no one can change their race, but Judaism ended.

 

[Soyeong]

Proves nothing, other splinter groups came, then went.


Ats 21:38 Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?”

Also there are verses about that in the end days text.

I didn't say it proved everything, I was just being thankful for it.

And yay for ripping verses out of context.