Help me understand this

[yeshuaslavejeff]

...
[/COLOR]

YHVH never showed you that.
...

yes He did. and if you read the Bible, you will see that it is exactly as it is written also.
I didn't say it is written, because Yhwh showed me clearly that not only is it written in His Word, but those I've watched who in the last 5 years have rejected Paul have all rejected Yeshua also, without exception(the Jews first, and also the gentiles), so the experience in life has been exactly as Scripture says. There may be some, Yhwh knows, who have not accepted Paul was chosen and sent by Yeshua, yet who claim to accept Yeshua still, and for a while that may be so, but in the past those who make that claim have all rejected Yeshua within a year or two.

 

[Avodat]

yes He did. and if you read the Bible, you will see that it is exactly as it is written also.
I didn't say it is written, because Yhwh showed me clearly that not only is it written in His Word, but those I've watched who in the last 5 years have rejected Paul have all rejected Yeshua also, without exception(the Jews first, and also the gentiles), so the experience in life has been exactly as Scripture says. There may be some, Yhwh knows, who have not accepted Paul was chosen and sent by Yeshua, yet who claim to accept Yeshua still, and for a while that may be so, but in the past those who make that claim have all rejected Yeshua within a year or two.

It is a convention here, when you claim something is in Scripture, to quote the text (or where it can be found). It saves a lot of awkward posts

 

[annier]

yes He did. and if you read the Bible, you will see that it is exactly as it is written also.
I didn't say it is written, because Yhwh showed me clearly that not only is it written in His Word, but those I've watched who in the last 5 years have rejected Paul have all rejected Yeshua also, without exception(the Jews first, and also the gentiles), so the experience in life has been exactly as Scripture says. There may be some, Yhwh knows, who have not accepted Paul was chosen and sent by Yeshua, yet who claim to accept Yeshua still, and for a while that may be so, but in the past those who make that claim have all rejected Yeshua within a year or two.

Rejecting Paul, is to reject the Gospel he preached to the uncircumcision period.

 

[mercy1061]

Rejecting Paul, is to reject the Gospel he preached to the uncircumcision period.

Pharisee Shaul as a Pharisee, had a ministry to the jew first....

 

[annier]

Pharisee Shaul as a Pharisee, had a ministry to the jew first....

And???? How does that speak to what I said?

 

[mercy1061]

And???? How does that speak to what I said?

It is the same ministry to both the jew and gentile....

 

[yonah_mishael]

check your reps.

Danke schön.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Again, you avoid my questions. You do not know how I would answer you, because you do not know me. I do not teach the Word of G-d in secret. The rules are in place for a reason, maybe your predecessors have already failed to disprove the torah? You are on a torah observant forum, claiming contradictions; portaying a "faith: judaism" icon? Are you sure you are not contradicting yourself? You may not have the proper equipment to argue with me; like Goliath did not have the right weapons to argue with David. Goliath was an experienced warrior probably equipped with both sword and armor. David fought Goliath (in public view) with a "stone" that caused his enemy to stumble. In other words, it is against the forum rules to argue against the torah; you must debate in favor of torah.

1 Peter 2

7 Now to you who keep trusting, he is precious. But to those who are not trusting, “The very stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone”; 8 also he is a stone that will make people stumble, a rock over which they will trip.

Perhaps you wouldn’t mind repeating your question? I don’t recall having avoided answering a question directly. As regards contradictions, though, I might just ask these things in the form of a question and see what answers your put forth. I can already assume that there will be complex juggling responses that attempt to divert attention away from is clearly unsettling.

(1) Did Paul go to Jerusalem after his conversion to “the Way”? If so, how long was it before he went up to the city to see the disciples? (Compare Acts 9 [especially verses 19-30] and Galatians 1.17-20)

(2) Where did Paul go directly after his conversion? Did he hang around Damascus and then go to Jerusalem, or did he go away into Arabia for three years before going to Jerusalem to meet the apostles for the first time? (Compare same verses as above.)

(3) What were the circumstances surrounding Paul’s being let down the wall of the city of Damascus in a basket? (Compare Acts 9.23-26 and 2 Corinthians 11.32-33.)

This is really only the tip of the iceberg. I have plenty of other questions where these came from, and I’d be happy to have your answers. I’m looking forward to your response – and to you redirecting me to the question(s) that I seem to have missed recently in our exchange.

YM

 

[annier]

It is the same ministry to both the jew and gentile....

Yes, the same Gospel concerning the heavenly inheritance in Christ. But Gentiles were not firstborn son's sharing in the inheritance of the worldly kingdom. The wrath of God was coming upon the firstborn. Think Passover.
The Gospel was preached to them in Moses.....

Heb 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
This is why keeping the covenant of circumcision was so important. The earthly promises unto them by the fathers, have brought them back today................

Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

 

[mercy1061]

Perhaps you wouldn’t mind repeating your question? I don’t recall having avoided answering a question directly.

What is the foundation for a tent made outside in the wilderness?

As regards contradictions, though, I might just ask these things in the form of a question and see what answers your put forth. I can already assume that there will be complex juggling responses that attempt to divert attention away from is clearly unsettling.

You are making assumptions without giving me the opportunity to answer your question. That is not good for "profitable" dialogue. If you can not judge me fairly, how can I trust you to judge the ancient scriptures fairly without prejudice? You made an assumption about me before I responded to your question. What is your hypothesis concerning our discussion?
Is your hypothesis simply to tell me about contradictions in the scripture, and tell me how I will answer your question before asking me the question? If you were to somehow prove that there are contradictions, does that now justify your behavior of dishonoring torah? When I plainly read the scriptures, I read to learn, I dont read them seeking to find fault with them.

(1) Did Paul go to Jerusalem after his conversion to “the Way”?

Now if we look at Acts 9:3, Pharisee Shaul has almost reached Damascus; so he was not actually in Damascus when his conversion occured.

3 He was on the road and nearing Dammesek, when suddenly a light from heaven flashed all around him.

Your question: Did Paul go to Jerusalem after his conversion to “the Way”?

Did Pharisee Shaul immediately go to Jerusalem after his conversion?
Why would Pharisee Shaul immediately go to Jerusalem, when he had not yet reached Damascus? It would logically follow that if Pharisee Shaul was on the road to Damascus, that he would try to reach his goal or destination which would be Damascus, after his conversion. Pharisee Shaul immediately went to Arabia and afterwards returned to Damascus. Now if he returned to Damascus, then he must at some point reached Damascus.

If so, how long was it before he went up to the city to see the disciples? (Compare Acts 9 [especially verses 19-30] and Galatians 1.17-20)

Let us review Acts 9:19-30 to see if I can answer your question, to determine how long it was before Pharisee Shaul went up to the city.

Acts 9
19 then he ate some food and regained his strength.
Sha’ul spent some days with the talmidim in Dammesek, 20 and immediately he began proclaiming in the synagogues that Yeshua is the Son of God. 21 All who heard him were amazed. They asked, “Isn’t he the man who in Yerushalayim was trying to destroy the people who call on this name? In fact, isn’t that why he came here, to arrest them and bring them back to the head cohanim?” 22 But Sha’ul was being filled with more and more power and was creating an uproar among the Jews living in Dammesek with his proofs that Yeshua is the Messiah.
23 Quite some time later, the non-believing Jews gathered together and made plans to kill him; 24 but their plot became known to Sha’ul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to do away with him; 25 but under cover of night, his talmidim took him and let him down over the city wall, lowering him in a large basket.
26 On reaching Yerushalayim, he tried to join the talmidim; but they were all afraid of him — they didn’t believe he was a talmid. 27 However, Bar-Nabba got hold of him and took him to the emissaries. He told them how Sha’ul had seen the Lord while traveling, that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Dammesek Sha’ul had spoken out boldly in the name of Yeshua. 28 So he remained with them and went all over Yerushalayim continuing to speak out boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 He talked and debated with the Greek-speaking Jews, but they began making attempts to kill him. 30 When the brothers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.

I am sorry I dont read a definite time period in Acts 9:19-30, I see the words "some days" and "quite some time later".

(2) Where did Paul go directly after his conversion?

Damascus, Arabia, back to Damascus.

Did he hang around Damascus and then go to Jerusalem, or did he go away into Arabia for three years before going to Jerusalem to meet the apostles for the first time? (Compare same verses as above.)

Damascus, Arabia, back to Damascus. Then three years later he went to Jerusalem; I don't see in the verses you mentioned, where he stayed anywhere for three years, I don't stay in any one particular town for three years and not travel anywhere. Considering that Pharisee Shaul was an apostle, he may have traveled around during those three years, why are you so concerned about Pharisee Shaul's location over 2000 years later?

(3) What were the circumstances surrounding Paul’s being let down the wall of the city of Damascus in a basket? (Compare Acts 9.23-26 and 2 Corinthians 11.32-33.)

There were jews trying to kill him; so Pharisee Shaul's followers let him down over the city wall in a large basket. I don't understand your question.

This is really only the tip of the iceberg. I have plenty of other questions where these came from, and I’d be happy to have your answers. I’m looking forward to your response – and to you redirecting me to the question(s) that I seem to have missed recently in our exchange.

YM

Do you live in a cold place, where there is an iceberg? What happens when that iceberg melts, will the famers receive nourishment for their crops?

 

[mercy1061]

Yes, the same Gospel concerning the heavenly inheritance in Christ. But Gentiles were not firstborn son's sharing in the inheritance of the worldly kingdom. The wrath of God was coming upon the firstborn. Think Passover.
The Gospel was preached to them in Moses.....

Heb 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
This is why keeping the covenant of circumcision was so important. The earthly promises unto them by the fathers, have brought them back today................

Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

You do understand that Abraham was a gentile before he became a jew.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

There are no contradicions. Did you know Noah's ark looked like a coffin? Non-living things were placed inside the ark of the covenant.

If the following are not contradictions, please explain to me how they agree so I can forget about it and be at peace:

Revelation 2: (NKJV)14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.
This was James' ruling at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:20 and the decision all agreed upon..

Then Paul clearly teaches three times that there is nothing wrong in itself eating meat sacrificed to idols. (Romans 14:21;1 Corinthians 8:4-13, and 1 Corinthians 10:19-29.) The first time Paul addresses the question of "eating meat sacrificed to idols," Paul answers: "But food will not commend us to God; neither if we eat not...." (1 Cor. 8:8.)

Paul then explained it is only necessary to abstain from eating such meat if you are around a "weaker" brother who thinks an idol is something. (1 Cor. 8:7, 8:10, 9:22.) Then, and only then, must you abstain. The reason is that then a brother might be emboldened to do something he thinks is sinful. The brother is weak for believing eating meat sacrificed to an idol is wrong. This is thus a sin for him to eat, even though you know it is not sinful to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Thus, even though you know better than your weaker brother that it is no sin to do so, it is better to abstain in his presence than cause him to sin against his weak conscience and be "destroyed." (1 Cor. 8:11.).

Paul's Contradictions of Jesus

I'm not looking to prove anything, but what I read seems to be a contradiction and it would make me truly happy to have someone show me that it is not in contradiction.

 

[annier]

If the following are not contradictions, please explain to me how they agree so I can forget about it and be at peace:

Revelation 2: (NKJV)14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.


This was James' ruling at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:20.

Then Paul clearly teaches three times that there is nothing wrong in itself eating meat sacrificed to idols. (Romans 14:21;1 Corinthians 8:4-13, and 1 Corinthians 10:19-29.) The first time Paul addresses the question of "eating meat sacrificed to idols," Paul answers: "But food will not commend us to God; neither if we eat not...." (1 Cor. 8:8.)

Paul then explained it is only necessary to abstain from eating such meat if you are around a "weaker" brother who thinks an idol is something. (1 Cor. 8:7, 8:10, 9:22.) Then, and only then, must you abstain. The reason is that then a brother might be emboldened to do something he thinks is sinful. The brother is weak for believing eating meat sacrificed to an idol is wrong. This is thus a sin for him to eat, even though you know it is not sinful to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Thus, even though you know better than your weaker brother that it is no sin to do so, it is better to abstain in his presence than cause him to sin against his weak conscience and be "destroyed." (1 Cor. 8:11.).

Paul's Contradictions of Jesus

I'm not looking to prove anything, but what I read seems to be a contradiction and it would make me truly happy to have someone show me that it is not in contradiction.

There is a difference between eating meat sacrificed to Idols, and joining in the sacrificial rites

 

[Rachel Rachel]

There is a difference between eating meat sacrificed to Idols, and joining in the sacrificial rites

Did you notice the part where Yeshua said not to eat meat sacrificed to idols?

 

[annier]

Did you notice the part where Yeshua said not to eat meat sacrificed to idols?

You might want to check out the Greek in all those passages Rachel.

 

[Laureate]

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?

I believe a part of Paul's plight was finding the right words to express a relatively new concept to his audience, even to this day, many seek to put a concept into words that have up to this moment are (or have been) ineffable, Peter noted how many try to twist his (Paul's) words.

Eventually, I believe finally found the proper words in which to express his new comprehension, i.e., the New Covenant comes with a change of the priesthood, which is to many synonymous with the Law;

 

[Avodat]

RR - re apparent contradictions about food that you quote, use other versions of The Book to see what is being said, in context. It is not a difficult concept that Paul addresses.

I've already commented on the Law question - did you follow the debate in the link I gave you?

 

[Rachel Rachel]

You might want to check out the Greek in all those passages Rachel.

I don't read Greek but the translators who do read Greek (probably over 100 translations) have all translated it the same way.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

RR - re apparent contradictions about food that you quote, use other versions of The Book to see what is being said, in context. It is not a difficult concept that Paul addresses.

I've already commented on the Law question - did you follow the debate in the link I gave you?

What version do you recommend? It doesn't seem difficult to me either....it just seems he's clearly and plainly saying it's okay to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols after Yeshua and the Jerusalem Council said otherwise.

I plan to go through the link this weekend. I haven't had the chance to do it yet and thank you for providing it.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

I believe a part of Paul's plight was finding the right words to express a relatively new concept to his audience, even to this day, many seek to put a concept into words that have up to this moment are (or have been) ineffable, Peter noted how many try to twist his (Paul's) words.

Eventually, I believe finally found the proper words in which to express his new comprehension, i.e., the New Covenant comes with a change of the priesthood, which is to many synonymous with the Law;

You may be right. I'd like to find a way to understand how he is not countermanding Yeshua's clear instruction not to eat meat sacrificed to idols.