The Mystery of Pauls Writings

[Lulav]

The following posts were edited out from the Messianic Affiliation thread in order to keep that thread On Topic.

These posts are speaking of the NT books and how they relate to our beliefs. Please remember the SOP rules when posting in this thread.

and Please try and keep this thread OT.

Thanks!

 

[Pentateuch and Yeshua]

Hi, I'm new to the forum and this seemed like an interesting thread to introduce myself in. I am an Israelite who belongs to no church, synagogue or organisation. Very few people seem to agree with my stance, primarily because I do not accept any of the writings accredited to Paul, which often leads to being cast aside, as everyone seems to love Paul to the max. I follow Torah as close to the letter as possible, I love reading the Tanakh although question the validity of Esther, I love the Gospel of Matthew although accept that parts of it have probably been adapted in places over the centuries, and I love the letter written by James.
I love the Dead Sea Scroll accounts that fit in with Genesis-Joshua, about the pre flood world, the nephilim and early post flood world, I am interested in the writings that are contained within the deuterocanon - the books that are included in the Catholic bibles but were cut from the protestant ones, although I haven't read them all, but the one that really sticks out to me is The Wisdom Of Solomon. I am also interested in reading the letters so-named "The Clementine Homilies" which potentially contain some writings actually written by Peter himself, but I don't know much about them other than select chapters that I have been given by people, though I plan to sit and read it all in its entirety at some point and scrutinise it and see what can be gained from it.

I am also very interested in scriptural science, creationism, as truly studying the various sciences really does unlock scripture, and refutes all atheistic/secular/Darwinist arguments that are supposedly based on science, and actually strongly supports scripture, particularly Genesis, but all of it, and archaeological finds, when viewed objectively really do support the historical events of the bible and the extra biblical texts.

I know that among people who claim to be "Messianic Jewish" there are people who push ideas about having to pronounce and write "sacred names" just so, in their own conspiracy-theory-busting way that they have uncovered and bla bla bla and throw out the idea that anyone who doesn't use that name is condemned, and I refute that, and even have a few controversial views based on some study that I won't post right now on the origin of the Tetragrammaton, but all I can say is that Moses was told "Ehyeh / Asher Ehyeh" (I am / What I am) was His name,which may be literal or may be a way to say that who He is is what matters, not a word used (note, many references to revering His name don't necessarily refer to spoken name, the word Shem has so many connotations) and He also states that Abraham knew Him as El Shaddai (the modern equivalent of which is saying "God" in an English speaking Judeo-Christian country) which was the name used for the main god of Ur, Canaan and nearby areas, and He never rejected Abraham nor felt it prudent to correct him despite communicating with him directly, and so I don't believe that wasting time arguing about the names we use is constructive use of our time, nor can any Tetragrammaton-based name be proven true,so i don't waste my time with sacred name discussions with people trying to push their Yehowah or Yahuah or whatever name on myself or others.

It's nice to find a forum with a "Messianic Jewish" section, and so it's nice to meet you, and I look forward to having some interesting discussions with you in the future. Have a nice Shabbat for those who observe it

Feel free to call me Jason as my username is a bit of a mouthful/keyboardful!

 

[FredVB]

I do not get this nonacceptance of Paul, though I know there are certainly others who are the same way in that, nor the nonacceptance of most of the new testament, and acceptance of apocrypha instead, when the new testament when understood correctly, including the things in there written by Paul, is not contradicting the rest of the Bible, and when the new testament is with fulfillment of what is written in the old testament of the Bible, which that doesn't have otherwise, with people being restored to Yahweh through the Messiah, Christ. I say this with it still understood that new testament faith, with all of basic essential Christianity with it, is with Jewish basis, which I accept.

<SE>

 

[visionary]

I think we can all agree Paul is a hard one at times to be in one hundred percent agreement with, mainly because interpretations bounce both ways depending on the interpretation.

 

[Pentateuch and Yeshua]

As we are on the subject: Why is it that everything else is easy to understand, even a 5 year old can understand the majority of the Tanakh, and Matthew, James etc, it's all clear, concise and all very easy to understand, then Paul comes along with writings than can be interpreted how the reader sees fit, and certain interpretations have lead to 41,000 denominations of Torah rejection, and certain interpretations require mental gymnastics, word dancing and tonnes of historical, theological and other specific knowledge, unverifiable guesses (ie ad hoc theory) and tonnes of excuses in order to make fit and to avoid the clear and obvious contradictions between what he says and everything that can be understood and seen from Genesis-Matthew?
Why the sudden change in style, why the sudden education level requirement, jump in learning curve, shift in fruit of followers, personal interpret-ability and self-contradiction/contradiction of everything that came before him, why would that be?

 

[Lulav]

As we are on the subject: Why is it that everything else is easy to understand, even a 5 year old can understand the majority of the Tanakh, and Matthew, James etc, it's all clear, concise and all very easy to understand, then Paul comes along with writings than can be interpreted how the reader sees fit, and certain interpretations have lead to 41,000 denominations of Torah rejection, and certain interpretations require mental gymnastics, word dancing and tonnes of historical, theological and other specific knowledge, unverifiable guesses (ie ad hoc theory) and tonnes of excuses in order to make fit and to avoid the clear and obvious contradictions between what he says and everything that can be understood and seen from Genesis-Matthew?
Why the sudden change in style, why the sudden education level requirement, jump in learning curve, shift in fruit of followers, personal interpret-ability and self-contradiction/contradiction of everything that came before him, why would that be?

I believe it is there, in the way it is for the purpose of G-d. When you study Torah you see that G-d tests his people to see not the outward but the inward.
It is all about interpretation, a litmus test so to speak. You really don't need all you mentioned above to understand it, you just need a good solid foundation in the Torah of Moses (to be succinct.)

 

[BukiRob]

As we are on the subject: Why is it that everything else is easy to understand, even a 5 year old can understand the majority of the Tanakh, and Matthew, James etc, it's all clear, concise and all very easy to understand, then Paul comes along with writings than can be interpreted how the reader sees fit, and certain interpretations have lead to 41,000 denominations of Torah rejection, and certain interpretations require mental gymnastics, word dancing and tonnes of historical, theological and other specific knowledge, unverifiable guesses (ie ad hoc theory) and tonnes of excuses in order to make fit and to avoid the clear and obvious contradictions between what he says and everything that can be understood and seen from Genesis-Matthew?
Why the sudden change in style, why the sudden education level requirement, jump in learning curve, shift in fruit of followers, personal interpret-ability and self-contradiction/contradiction of everything that came before him, why would that be?

Paul is a scholar. Paul approaches much of his writing from a scholars perspective.
There is no question and not even the RCC will disagree that from the late 1st century on there was a decided anti Semitic bias that only increased in its intensity. MUCH of the early church doctrine comes out of that anti Semitic bias.

When you read Paul from a Torah observance understanding there is no conflict.

Additionally, in MANY/MOST cases many people quote passages of scripture to support an anti Torah perspective either failing to cite the cultural context in which the letter paul is writing is reflected OR the are unaware.

For example in Galatia Paul is dealing with a sect of Gnostic who are harassing the believers because this sect of Gnostic believed you should abstain from all things physical. Paul reminds them to not take to heart how they criticize their observance of Sabbath or the new moon (lunar calendar) or the feasts of Adonai.

To yet another audience he is writing to believers who are trying to tell gentiles that they must first convert and become Jews because only the Jew can be saved... this first appears in ACTS 15 yet Paul is dealing with these in Collsia.

 

[ContraMundum]

As we are on the subject: Why is it that everything else is easy to understand, even a 5 year old can understand the majority of the Tanakh, and Matthew, James etc, it's all clear, concise and all very easy to understand, then Paul comes along with writings than can be interpreted how the reader sees fit, and certain interpretations have lead to 41,000 denominations of Torah rejection, and certain interpretations require mental gymnastics, word dancing and tonnes of historical, theological and other specific knowledge, unverifiable guesses (ie ad hoc theory) and tonnes of excuses in order to make fit and to avoid the clear and obvious contradictions between what he says and everything that can be understood and seen from Genesis-Matthew?
Why the sudden change in style, why the sudden education level requirement, jump in learning curve, shift in fruit of followers, personal interpret-ability and self-contradiction/contradiction of everything that came before him, why would that be?

I don't struggle with Paul. *shrugs*

 

[ContraMundum]

For example in Galatia Paul is dealing with a sect of Gnostic who are harassing the believers because this sect of Gnostic believed you should abstain from all things physical.

Doesn't say that in the text. Who taught you this?

 

[Pentateuch and Yeshua]

With respect, that doesn't answer the question, rather you're giving your perspective on how you interpret Paul, and not answering why Paul reads how he does.

Secondly, what source do you have to say that the Galatians were gnostics? A quick Google search terns up several results, none of which give any indication of them being gnostics, the first example of which is linked here:
http://christianity.stackexchange.c...tians-hold-when-paul-first-preached-the-gospe

Thank you for your answer, please don't think that I'm being rude, I jut feel that you've answered a totally different question than the one that I've asked.

 

[BukiRob]

With respect, that doesn't answer the question, rather you're giving your perspective on how you interpret Paul, and not answering why Paul reads how he does.

Secondly, what source do you have to say that the Galatians were gnostics? A quick Google search terns up several results, none of which give any indication of them being gnostics, the first example of which is linked here:
http://christianity.stackexchange.c...tians-hold-when-paul-first-preached-the-gospe

Thank you for your answer, please don't think that I'm being rude, I jut feel that you've answered a totally different question than the one that I've asked.

https://www.google.com/#q=galatians+gnosticism

The link provided shows several resources some of which are from academia....

I thought pretty much every serious bible student knew that Gnostic beliefs were an issue Paul dealt with in Galatia as well as other places Paul ministered too.

 

[Pentateuch and Yeshua]

I can not speak for the MJ movement only my particular synagogue. In fairness to them, the Rabbi is a former President of the UMJC and the leadership of the congregation is mature.

I know Rabbi believes that scripture from Genesis to Revelation is the inerrant, divinely inspired word of G-d.
I know they believe scripture and reject the traditions of man.

The Talmud is NOT scripture, the commentaries when viewed properly in the clear light of scriptures can be helpful. The Talmud NEVER is on equal footing as scripture just the same as the mishna and other writing of the sages.

Sabbath is defined by scripture for us... it is the 7th day of the week. Scripture tells us when a day starts and when it ends.

Strict observance of the Torah is impossible in the diaspora. It is also impossible in the land without the Temple.

Which canon? Some have as few as 66 books, some have as many as, well, as far as I know, around the 80-100 mark, and there are even canons that ever removed the books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls such as 1 Enoch. There are even canons, which I don't believe are still used, that have revelation and James taken out (Marcion and Luther both wanted them out, and Revelation was taken out and put back in many times during the first millennium). Marcion also wanted the entire Tanakh removed from Canon, and wanted "Paul's nice, all loving God" to be the only focus, and a New Testament-only canon, and he hated the "bloodthirsty Old Testament God", according to many sources that I've read and heard/seen in documentaries.
When people say "the bible" is inerrant, it's like saying they love McDonalds because "the meal" is yummy lol, there are so many bibles, and that's before you even look into translation differences.

 

[yonah_mishael]

The difference is that Paul's writings probably were intended for an initiated group. It has the sense that there were "basic teachings" that everyone would be taught (the "milk" that is mentioned) and the deeper teachings for those who are fully initiated - and probably even more spiritually discerned teachings for those who are leaders. I imagine that the mystery religion that Paul was part of had levels of initiation, so what is basic and written for public consumption was less easily discerned, since it was somewhat coded and less direct.

 

[AbbaLove]

I imagine that the mystery religion that Paul was part of had levels of initiation, so what is basic and written for public consumption was less easily discerned, since it was somewhat coded and less direct.

It wasn't such a mystery to the many Jews that came to understand it as taught by Yeshua and the Jewish Apostles almost 2000 years ago. Thousands of Jews today are still coming to understand the "mystery" that Paul refers to in Ephesians. It isn't a mystery to those thousands and thousands of Jews affiliated with today's Messianic organizations.

 

[BelieveTheWord]

The difference is that Paul's writings probably were intended for an initiated group. It has the sense that there were "basic teachings" that everyone would be taught (the "milk" that is mentioned) and the deeper teachings for those who are fully initiated - and probably even more spiritually discerned teachings for those who are leaders. I imagine that the mystery religion that Paul was part of had levels of initiation, so what is basic and written for public consumption was less easily discerned, since it was somewhat coded and less direct.

That is quite a contradiction to your previous claims that Paul's writings are the most direct and consistent of "new testament" authors.

 

[Pentateuch and Yeshua]

Isn't it fair, one could argue, that he is consistent in being the antithesis of anything else ever included in the entire biblical canon, perhaps? If so, I'll drink to that.


On the other hand, Matthew, that is, besides the clear editions made by the Vatican, is in perfect harmony with all previous scripture, as is James, with no song and dance, no backflips, suppositions and "here, he isn't saying what he's saying, what he means is what I need him to mean in order to fit with my belief" like Paul requires.

I love that I can totally use Paul to both prove Torah to be necessary to keep today, and to prove that it has been done away with.

Isn't it also fair to say that any argument trying to prove that Paul was pro Torah by posting lots of out of context passages reads like someone posting lots of random ingredients from a chicken and ham pie, while ignoring anything that doesn't support the claim that they're making that it is unclean for an Israelite;

"Look, this is kosher! It contains: Fortified Wheat Flour [Wheat Flour, Calcium Carbonate, Iron, Niacin (B3), Thiamin (B1)] , Chicken (24%) , Whole Milk , Water , Palm Oil , Salt, Brown Sugar, Antioxidant (Sodium Ascorbate), Preservative (Sodium Nitrite)] , Single Cream (from Milk) (4.0%) , Unsalted Butter (from Milk) , Full Fat Hard Cheese (from Milk) (1.9%) , Rapeseed Oil , Onions , Cheddar Cheese (from Milk) (1.0%), Free Range Egg , Modified Maize Starch , Leek , Salt , Cornflour , Tapioca , Crispy Fried Onion [Onions, Palm Oil, Wheat Flour, Salt] , Flavouring , Parsley , Black Pepper . See, Kosher! Anyone getting anything unclean from eating it are eating it wrong, they are unlearned and unstable!"

Perhaps that's a bad example any way, because, isn't it a sign of weak faith and conscience to not eat the unclean or anything sacrificed to idols, according to Paul?

I'm sure that no one would call this Kosher
http://groceries.asda.com/product/i...s-chicken-smoked-pulled-ham-pies/910001508251
But many deny that Paul is teaching people to reject Torah from one side of his mouth, while teaching pro Torah teachings through the other... This is NOT an attack on Paul as per the rules, this is an objective observation, hence the questions, so that if anyone believes that I'm mistaken in my observations and can show them to be demonstrably false, they can address the questions.


in my experience thus far, no one has been able to address these problems with Paul, regardless of whether they accept him 100% as a source of scripture worthy to define theology, whether they consider him a useful added extra to the scripture or whether they reject him.

 

[big macher]

Isn't it fair, one could argue, that he is consistent in being the antithesis of anything else ever included in the entire biblical canon, perhaps? If so, I'll drink to that.


On the other hand, Matthew, that is, besides the clear editions made by the Vatican, is in perfect harmony with all previous scripture, as is James, with no song and dance, no backflips, suppositions and "here, he isn't saying what he's saying, what he means is what I need him to mean in order to fit with my belief" like Paul requires.

I love that I can totally use Paul to both prove Torah to be necessary to keep today, and to prove that it has been done away with.

Isn't it also fair to say that any argument trying to prove that Paul was pro Torah by posting lots of out of context passages reads like someone posting lots of random ingredients from a chicken and ham pie, while ignoring anything that doesn't support the claim that they're making that it is unclean for an Israelite;

"Look, this is kosher! It contains: Fortified Wheat Flour [Wheat Flour, Calcium Carbonate, Iron, Niacin (B3), Thiamin (B1)] , Chicken (24%) , Whole Milk , Water , Palm Oil , Salt, Brown Sugar, Antioxidant (Sodium Ascorbate), Preservative (Sodium Nitrite)] , Single Cream (from Milk) (4.0%) , Unsalted Butter (from Milk) , Full Fat Hard Cheese (from Milk) (1.9%) , Rapeseed Oil , Onions , Cheddar Cheese (from Milk) (1.0%), Free Range Egg , Modified Maize Starch , Leek , Salt , Cornflour , Tapioca , Crispy Fried Onion [Onions, Palm Oil, Wheat Flour, Salt] , Flavouring , Parsley , Black Pepper . See, Kosher! Anyone getting anything unclean from eating it are eating it wrong, they are unlearned and unstable!"

Perhaps that's a bad example any way, because, isn't it a sign of weak faith and conscience to not eat the unclean or anything sacrificed to idols, according to Paul?

I'm sure that no one would call this Kosher
http://groceries.asda.com/product/i...s-chicken-smoked-pulled-ham-pies/910001508251
But many deny that Paul is teaching people to reject Torah from one side of his mouth, while teaching pro Torah teachings through the other... This is NOT an attack on Paul as per the rules, this is an objective observation, hence the questions, so that if anyone believes that I'm mistaken in my observations and can show them to be demonstrably false, they can address the questions.


in my experience thus far, no one has been able to address these problems with Paul, regardless of whether they accept him 100% as a source of scripture worthy to define theology, whether they consider him a useful added extra to the scripture or whether they reject him.

You have to look at Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles. A lot of what Paul says doesn't apply to Jews except Romans.

 

[yonah_mishael]

It wasn't such a mystery to the many Jews that came to understand it as taught by Yeshua and the Jewish Apostles almost 2000 years ago. Thousands of Jews today are still coming to understand the "mystery" that Paul refers to in Ephesians. It isn't a mystery to those thousands and thousands of Jews affiliated with today's Messianic organizations.

"Mystery religion" is a specific type of religious institution that was popular at the turn of the millennium. It isn't saying that faith in Jesus was a mystery. It's saying that the original form of Christian faith conformed to a certain style of religious practice that focused on initiation and ritual levels. It's a type of faith practice, not saying whether or not we can know what they believed.

 

[big macher]

It wasn't such a mystery to the many Jews that came to understand it as taught by Yeshua and the Jewish Apostles almost 2000 years ago. Thousands of Jews today are still coming to understand the "mystery" that Paul refers to in Ephesians. It isn't a mystery to those thousands and thousands of Jews affiliated with today's Messianic organizations.

Well it was a mystery or Paul wouldn't have said it was a mystery.

 

[yonah_mishael]

That is quite a contradiction to your previous claims that Paul's writings are the most direct and consistent of "new testament" authors.

Where exactly is the contradiction? Paul was part of a religious system. What he said should be read as his real opinions. However, it should also be kept in mind that he didn't write everything that he thought!