Help me understand this

[Lulav]

Was that written when he believed Yeshua would return in the lifetime of those he was teaching?

 

[daq]

Was that written when he believed Yeshua would return in the lifetime of those he was teaching?

Please understand that with this I am not pointing any fingers or trying to be rude. Nevertheless I am quite sure that some will desire to ostracize me for saying it. Neither Paul nor any of the original talmidim/apostles of Yeshua were looking for him to return according to the flesh whether "glorified-resurrected flesh" (if there is such a thing) or not:

2 Corinthians 5:15-17 KJV
15. And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
16. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.[Revelation 21:4-5]

"Wherefore henceforth, (from now on) know we no man after/according to the flesh: yea, though we have known Messiah after the flesh, yet now henceforth (from now on) know we him no more (no more according to the flesh)."

For the same reasons the following is more likely written and probably not for the reasons that most people now like to attribute to it:

1 John 4:1-6 KJV
1. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

One of the main reasons why the above is probably written is because a man can only give his flesh and blood once, (and therefore we test the spirits which are testimony-doctrines). The "futurist" dispensational mindset requires that Yeshua return in a physical form which imho is flirting with disaster by undermining the above passage and the fact that Yeshua gave his flesh for the life of the world as he said, (John 6:51) and likewise to confirm his Testimony by his own blood. I know this sounds like a whole lot more work than watching the skies for the heavens to open up and a physical manifestation of Messiah to suddenly appear but the alternative is that all of the Apostles and Yeshua himself were wrong about him coming in the first century and especially with the clouds of heaven, (a reference to the cloud of incense during Yom Kippurim and why Caiaphas and the rest accused him of blasphemy for saying it in Matthew 26:64-66). Even in the first century every true talmid-disciple of Yeshua did in fact receive the Promise as foretold to them because Yeshua clearly said that he and the Father would come and make their abode with the one who loves the Master and keeps his commandments, ("If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him, John 14:23). If now the Father and the Son truly make their abode with anyone then surely that one does not say that the TaNaK Word of the Father is "done away with".

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Focus on the facts first:

Yeshua did not do away with any part of the Law, whether ceremonial or civil, and if He did, then He is not the Messiah, disqualified.

Thus, Yeshua cannot even have His own commandments or instructions, in the sense, that they contradict the Torah. If His commandments or instructions contradict the Torah, then He sinned.

This is what I ALWAYS say, it IS the bottom line.

A Messiah who comes contradicting the law of God and teaching a new religion against the commandments of God has to be an antichrist.

He could not possibly be the Messiah if he did not stand on the law and the prophets.

He comes teaching secrets to the Torah, he does not take it away.



Jesus came an imposed a stricter keeping of Torah.


Anger becomes murder, lust becomes adultery, revenge and justice against your enemies becomes a demand to love them.

There is no secret list of Jesus laws, that's incredible.

 

[visionary]

90% of Paul's arguments have to do with rabbinical laws... You would have to be a Jew to understand the situation. Ask Peter, as he explained that the law says he is not to associate with Gentile, yet you will not find it anywhere in Torah.

 

[yonah_mishael]

90% of Paul's arguments have to do with rabbinical laws... You would have to be a Jew to understand the situation. Ask Peter, as he explained that the law says he is not to associate with Gentile, yet you will not find it anywhere in Torah.

According to this assumption (which is unproven), Paul was writing about rabbinic laws to gentile believers who would never understand what he was writing in the first place. Why would he talk about such things with non-Jews? I have no idea where you get this idea. His writings are perfectly intelligible without having access to rabbinic law.

 

[visionary]

Remember the saints of Revelation are they that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Yeshua.

 

[visionary]

According to this assumption (which is unproven), Paul was writing about rabbinic laws to gentile believers who would never understand what he was writing in the first place. Why would he talk about such things with non-Jews? I have no idea where you get this idea. His writings are perfectly intelligible without having access to rabbinic law.

Exactly... Paul's writings are perfectly intelligible if someone is without having any access of understanding to Rabbinical Law. .... and that was the biggest barrier for the Gentiles whom Paul was trying to help. The Gentiles were being confronted with the fence of Rabbinical law. Jews, themselves, were taught that Oral Torah is Torah but it is not, it is commentary not The Law of God. The Judaizers were there in the local synagogues where the Gentile believers were going for their instructions of the Law of Moses.

 

[Lulav]

It depends on what you mean by "the time of Messiah". If you mean Paul speaks of the first advent of Messiah then I would strongly suggest that Paul does not use "time appointed", (the compound word "prothes-mias") in that manner. Prothes is to purpose, to prepare, to put forth, and sometimes even used for the Shewbread which is put forth or "presented" in the presence, the secondary Holy Place). Prothes, (without mias) is used more often in the following manner and context:

Ephesians 1:11-14 KJV
11. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose [prothes] of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12. That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Likewise in this context there is a stated goal, a telos-end, which is a point aimed at rather than an "abolition" of anything: in other words, a set appointment, (receiving of the promise in this instance which is the same goal of Galatians 4:1-2). There is a process which has only just begun when a person first believes as the above clearly states. It begins with the holy Spirit of Promise, (the full Testimony of Yeshua which must be consumed-absorbed). However this is only an "earnest" like a down payment or "earnest money" on the purchase of a house. We know by other passages that the receiving of the Promise is not something that occurs immediately upon a simple first confession of faith:

Hebrews 10:35-39 KJV
35. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
36. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
38. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Paul agrees with the "will of God" statement from the passage above:

1 Thessalonians 4:1-6 KJV
1. Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
2. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4. That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
5. Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
6. That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

This is by appointment only and no one decides the day . . .

So what do you think he meant by this:

36. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

Who is 'he that shall come'?

 

[Lulav]

Please understand that with this I am not pointing any fingers or trying to be rude. Nevertheless I am quite sure that some will desire to ostracize me for saying it. Neither Paul nor any of the original talmidim/apostles of Yeshua were looking for him to return according to the flesh whether "glorified-resurrected flesh" (if there is such a thing) or not:

2 Corinthians 5:15-17 KJV
15. And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
16. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

I've never known you to be rude daq, hard to fathom at times, but never rude.

Anyway before tackling your whole post this stood out to me.

Paul claims to have known 'Christ' in the flesh. When do you suppose that was? I have seen many commentators say that he never knew Yeshua pre resurrection.

And how is it he say 'henceforth we know him no more'?

 

[Lulav]

Focus on the facts first:

Yeshua did not do away with any part of the Law, whether ceremonial or civil, and if He did, then He is not the Messiah, disqualified.

Thus, Yeshua cannot even have His own commandments or instructions, in the sense, that they contradict the Torah. If His commandments or instructions contradict the Torah, then He sinned. Yeshua was born under the Law, and had to keep the Law perfectly, in order to be the sinless offering that He was, He could not add or take away. If anyone teaches that Yeshua changed the Torah or did away with it or did away with certain parts, then they are teaching and preaching a false Messiah and diminishing His ministry.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Exactly... Paul's writings are perfectly intelligible if someone is without having any access of understanding to Rabbinical Law. ....

Wrong. Romans 14 and Avodah Zarah are hand in glove. Without rabbinics people have made Romans 14 into whatever they want.

 

[Steve Petersen]

According to this assumption (which is unproven), Paul was writing about rabbinic laws to gentile believers who would never understand what he was writing in the first place. Why would he talk about such things with non-Jews? I have no idea where you get this idea. His writings are perfectly intelligible without having access to rabbinic law.

If Acts is reasonably accurate history, some Gentiles had converted to Judaism and then become believers in Jesus. Some Gentiles were just God-fearers who also became believers. The locus of both those groups was the local synagogue. There is not a clear indication that they split from the synagogue after they became believers (aside from one instance where they formed their own assembly.) I think most recent scholarship would indicate that the schism between believers in Jesus and the synagogue happened somewhat later in history.

If you haven't I would recommend reading Nanos on Galatians and Romans for more on this topic.

As I said in a previous post, try reading Romans 14 alongside Avodah Zarah from the Mishnah and I think you will find many congruities. To me this indicates that Paul was writing to mixed groups of mainstream Jews and believers socializing at least.

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

This is something I've been struggling with for a while and I've even been having a related discussion on another forum.
I don't know how to deal with it without risking huge disrespect of Paul.

Here's my problem.....

Matthew 5: 17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

1 John 2:
3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

Revelation 22: 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

Now after reading these words from our Messiah - and not just while he walked the earth but even after his resurrection (Revelation 22) how can we justify Paul teaching that the Law is our old schoolmaster and we're dead to the law, etc?

My understanding is that, of course, the Law can't save us - nothing but the blood of Yeshua can save us, but the LORD's Law is eternal.

Also, as I understand it, Ceremonial Law (sacrifices) is fulfilled and Civil Law was intended for Israel only.
Where am I wrong in all this?

To start isn't Yeshua included in Isaiah 44:6...

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
“I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.

If Messiah is included then nowhere did Messiah say we are not to keep His Father’s commandments. And nowhere does Messiah give any commandment that is not His Father’s commandment. Nowhere does Messiah contradict any of His Father’s commandments in any of His commandments.

 

[visionary]

Wrong. Romans 14 and Avodah Zarah are hand in glove. Without rabbinics people have made Romans 14 into whatever they want.

I am agreeing with you... I even repeated your statement when I said "exactly"....

 

[Lulav]

Wrong. Romans 14 and Avodah Zarah are hand in glove. Without rabbinics people have made Romans 14 into whatever they want.

Steve, instead of proclaiming Visionary 'wrong' please explain to those not sauvy as you are how Romans 14 and Avodah Zarah are related.

 

[daq]

So what do you think he meant by this:

36. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

Who is 'he that shall come'?

That is a pretty sharp eye you have Lulav.

If it does not match what we already know from other sources than it is likely not what the majority believe it to be. We know for instance that the Father is not slack concerning his Promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, (2 Peter 3:9). The one from Hebrews 10:37 is therefore something or someone else who does not tarry; for as the Father does so also does the Son, and the Son bares our burdens with us to lead us in the Way and bring us up to the time appointed of the Father, and the Father is longsuffering toward his children. The one of whom you ask then has already received his commandment from the Master in the upper room, and his commandment is thus; "That thou doest do quickly!" That one therefore can do only as he is commanded and likewise I suppose that even if he desired to tarry he could not because it is not in his nature to do so, (and also when he comes he must continue briefly, Revelation 17:10). That one is like every `orev-raven after his kind, (which is the seventh of the eight). No master puts his servant in charge of all his goods before the servant is proven worthy just as no Father would put his child in charge of his house before the child is proven a worthy son. Now the just shall live by faithful trusting: "But if any man draw back, My Soul shall have no pleasure in him", (says the Father). But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; like the sons of perdition, but rather we are of them that faithfully trust unto the saving of the soul. When the appointed time has come the one overcoming in that hour will know of it; and in the after days the same will consider it perfectly.

I've never known you to be rude daq, hard to fathom at times, but never rude.

Anyway before tackling your whole post this stood out to me.

Paul claims to have known 'Christ' in the flesh. When do you suppose that was? I have seen many commentators say that he never knew Yeshua pre resurrection.

And how is it he say 'henceforth we know him no more'?

Verily Paulos is an anthropos, (man-faced countenance) of no mean city!

Romans 16:13 KJV
13. Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

Who is then is Simona Kurenaion?

 

[etZion]

Wrong. Romans 14 and Avodah Zarah are hand in glove. Without rabbinics people have made Romans 14 into whatever they want.

While I think Rabbinics can definitely help us some times. Romans 14 in most cross references found in your average bible, directly link to 1 Cor 8, which is in reference to idols. So in this case, it is very easy to make a clear connection between idolatry in Romans 14 with 1 Corinthians 8, as the exact same language is being used or repeated, without the need of Rabbinic literature. It is not because people are without the literature, that they come to such erroneous conclusions, instead it is because they have other agendas in mind.

 

[Steve Petersen]

While I think Rabbinics can definitely help us some times. Romans 14 in most cross references found in your average bible, directly link to 1 Cor 8, which is in reference to idols. So in this case, it is very easy to make a clear connection between idolatry in Romans 14 with 1 Corinthians 8, as the exact same language is being used or repeated, without the need of Rabbinic literature. It is not because people are without the literature, that they come to such erroneous conclusions, instead it is because they have other agendas in mind.

Avodah Zarah is the tractate about idolatry. How Gentile food and drink was perceived by Jews is the crux of the issue in Romans 14. Avodah Zarah gives you the details the NT does not contain.

 

[Lulav]

While I think Rabbinics can definitely help us some times. Romans 14 in most cross references found in your average bible, directly link to 1 Cor 8, which is in reference to idols. So in this case, it is very easy to make a clear connection between idolatry in Romans 14 with 1 Corinthians 8, as the exact same language is being used or repeated, without the need of Rabbinic literature. It is not because people are without the literature, that they come to such erroneous conclusions, instead it is because they have other agendas in mind.

Or they just believe what they've been taught it means.

 

[Lulav]

Exactly... Paul's writings are perfectly intelligible if someone is without having any access of understanding to Rabbinical Law. .... and that was the biggest barrier for the Gentiles whom Paul was trying to help. The Gentiles were being confronted with the fence of Rabbinical law. Jews, themselves, were taught that Oral Torah is Torah but it is not, it is commentary not The Law of God. The Judaizers were there in the local synagogues where the Gentile believers were going for their instructions of the Law of Moses.

Not really, the oral law was based on how to keep the Torah and not trespass it. Oral law shows the way to keep from trespassing the Torah.

If you think about it, Yeshua's teachings were Oral law as he spoke about what they really meant.

and ppPlease don't use the term 'Judaizers' as it is derogatory and offensive. Sadly I think that when we see this word in the bible it is being used against Yeshua's own talmidim and family.

I know you've had a question about Peter and his vision in Acts and where the law was about not having social intercourse with gentiles.

You will find it in the same tractate Steve spoke about.

Here is a site where you can read it translated into English.

Babylonian Talmud Abodah Zarah