1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

New Perspective on Paul.

Discussion in 'Messianic Judaism' started by Messianic Jewboy, Mar 19, 2012.

  1. Chaplain David

    Chaplain David CF Chaplain Staff Member Chaplain Supporter Recovery Team

    +2,256
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Isn't what we know about God, Jesus Christ, Paul, in fact God's written word entirely from Scripture?
     
  2. Phillip Hawley

    Phillip Hawley Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic Jew Supporter

    +389
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    Not entirely. To attempt to understand any written work, it must rightly be understood from the context of the time, culture and individual biases, both of the author and the gentle reader.

    The point of this work is to explore what happens when we first examine what our own biases and preconceived notions. Next we must try to determine the author's perspective. Approaching a written work with an open mind is not enough. We must identify what our biases are beforehand. We must also try to identify the cultural, social, political, etc., environment and the personal perspective of the author within that framework too.

    So whether scripture or no, to interpret the intentions of an author from a completely different cultural perspective, philosophy and time generally yields at least some profound misunderstandings. In some cases, the result can be completely antithetical.
     
  3. Chaplain David

    Chaplain David CF Chaplain Staff Member Chaplain Supporter Recovery Team

    +2,256
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Wasn't the intention of every Biblical author to write what God inspired (told) him to write?
     
  4. Messianic Jewboy

    Messianic Jewboy Senior Veteran

    +112
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Whether you agree with the NPP, for the most part they try to get the context and try hard.
     
  5. Messianic Jewboy

    Messianic Jewboy Senior Veteran

    +112
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Yes Paul got his writing from scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit. Let's take Acts 15 as an example. They didn't get what they decreed out of thin air.
     
  6. mishkan

    mishkan There's room for YOU in the Mishkan! Supporter

    +240
    Married
    US-Republican
    I don't know that one could prove that assumption, "from the Bible, alone". Where does any author in the histories claim to be writing the words of God? Where does Paul assert that he is doing any more than giving rabbinic advice to communities he founded?

    The evidence is sparse, at best. What you have stated here is a post-Reformation assumption Luther phrased as the doctrine of "sola scriptura".
     
  7. Phillip Hawley

    Phillip Hawley Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic Jew Supporter

    +389
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    Yes. Of course there are places where Paul wrote that he was speaking from his own understanding. But that's not the point.

    Here is an extreme example purely for the sake of illustration. Let's say that somewhere in scripture (this is just an example) that it is written, 'Get down on the floor', in the context of fall on your face and worship. Then a couple of thousand years later those words are read by an adherent to Detroit funk and Disco roller-skating. His conclusion might be that the author was advocating Roller Disco. See what I mean? It's not about what was written. It is about who wrote it and in what context. It is also about the preconceived notions that the reader brings to the page.
     
  8. Phillip Hawley

    Phillip Hawley Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic Jew Supporter

    +389
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    I believe that is what I was saying. Perhaps I am not being very clear. Sorry.
     
  9. Phillip Hawley

    Phillip Hawley Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic Jew Supporter

    +389
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    In this article, there is the following:
    For Sanders the language of justification is “transfer terminology.” To be justified is to enter into the covenant people. The distinction between “getting in” and “staying in” is important in this regard. The debate between “faith” and “law,” he writes, is a debate about entry requirements, not about life subsequent to conversion. The law is excluded as an entry requirement into the body of those who will be saved; entrance must be by faith apart from the law. Once Gentiles are “in,” however, they must behave appropriately and fulfill the law in order to retain their status. Elements of the law which create social distinctions between Jews and Gentiles — circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, food laws — also have to be discarded, even though Paul never sought a rational explanation for such a selective use of the law.

    I find it difficult to understand how the author could come to the understanding that Paul advocated that Gentiles, once entered in, would selectively disregard Torah requirements such as Sabbath and Kashrut. I know that circumcision is bound up in controversy, but I have not found any evidence of the sort for the latter two mentioned. Can someone help me out here?
     
  10. Messianic Jewboy

    Messianic Jewboy Senior Veteran

    +112
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Sanders position is old. while Jews did believe that their covenant obligation was to live by Torah (nomos in Greek), they did not believe that their efforts earned them salvation. Salvation came only through God’s grace. On this essential point -- one may not become righteous in God’s eyes through works -- Paul and his Jewish contemporaries agreed.

    This is where you are addressing; Sanders calls it covenantal nomism. Membership in the Jewish covenant isn't sufficient for salvation. Both Jews and gentiles stood in need of the salvation that came only through Christ. This pertains to Gentiles. I think this is Sanders stance.
     
  11. Henaynei

    Henaynei Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai Echud! Al pi Adonai...

    +1,658
    United States
    Widowed
    US-Constitution
    Hmm... Re: Shabbat, Rav Sha'ul said to the Gentile believers, "Moses is taught in the Synagogue." This a clear reference to Shabbat.

    Re: kosher, when "Moses" was taught that would include kashrut, and additionally the entry level of observance for the Gentile believers, as said by the Counsel in Jerusalem, included a kosher restriction among the four prohibitions.

    b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}
     
  12. mishkan

    mishkan There's room for YOU in the Mishkan! Supporter

    +240
    Married
    US-Republican
    Absolutely!
     
  13. Messianic Jewboy

    Messianic Jewboy Senior Veteran

    +112
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Well yeah the NPP doesn't support that. As I said in another post the NPP at least is swinging towards the middle in relation to the aspect of Paul still being a Torah observant Jew and that the exegesis of 'to the Jews I became like a Jew and to the Gentiles I became like a Gentile'.

    The above is what I'm interested in.

    If you're are one that believes that all believers are to keep the Law then that aspect of the NPP you wouldn't agree with.

    I usually take the good stuff and leave the bad. The likes of Nanos are not silent on the addressing of non Jewish believers in Christ. Wright is somewhat silent because of probably a different aspect.

    I think the aspect of the NPP like Nanos is come to be called Extreme NPP. Where exergesis are made in addition to the likes of Wright on that Paul taught the Torah on how it applied to non Jews in Christ and that not all the commands of the Torah applied to non Jews as they do for Jews in Christ.

    I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the what is called the hyper NPP. I'm more interested in Paul not leaving Judaism.
     
  14. Phillip Hawley

    Phillip Hawley Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic Jew Supporter

    +389
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    Thanks for that. But I wonder just how pervasive that understanding was. If you read the story of Nicodemus, he seemed fully convinced that salvation was a result of his being a Jew. Since he was of the Sanhedrin and was called a teacher of Israel by Y'shua, perhaps it was more pervasive than you might think.

    As Y'shua posited otherwise, He indicating the process of being mikvahed in both water and the Spirit as being further requirements of salvation. Care to comment?
     
  15. Phillip Hawley

    Phillip Hawley Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic Jew Supporter

    +389
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    Oh, I almost forgot. While Sanders' position was the topic of the paragraph, it was the conclusions of Mark M. Mattison, the author, that I was really addressing. It was his conclusions about Paul's selective observance for Gentiles I questioned, because my take on Paul's instructions were a little different. Frankly I don't see the inconsistencies that Brother Mattison evidently does.
     
  16. Jerushabelle

    Jerushabelle Well-Known Member

    +486
    Messianic
    Married
    Of course, I regard all of Paul's words as God's teaching to us through him.
    I tend to doubt that Yeshua would go to all the trouble to pick him out for His purposes and then abandon him to fend for himself, don't you? Hence, Paul's resource could very well have been the Lord Himself, the author of all Scripture. Paul was God's tool; His emissary to the Gentiles, a small insight into the justice and wisdom that God employs as Paul was a member of the Prushim. Oh well, anyway, after I printed and read the article before making my first comment, I saw that Scripture was consulted. IMO, however, far too much was read into the black and white of it.
     
  17. Jerushabelle

    Jerushabelle Well-Known Member

    +486
    Messianic
    Married
    I believe so, Chaplain, but I also believe from Scripture's lesson that God and Yeshua can choose to work/communicate through us individually via Ruach HaKodesh or, in Paul's case, directly. And since Ruach HaKodesh, who leads us into all understanding of Scripture, is in all time and place and culture just as God and Yeshua are, His leading is applicable to God's people in whatever time they exist.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2012
  18. Lulav

    Lulav Older than ZIP Codes Supporter

    +6,741
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    I guess I'll preface this with: I know I'm being ignored for the most part but can any here deny I have logical questions?

    Marc what 'time' period are you referring to, the first century or now? Wouldn't that mean like bringing everyone to the same page, but if Paul taught Gentiles didn't need to do as the Jews did, how would that bring Tikkun olam?


    No, if you are referring 'Scripture' as the 66 books. There are many other writings, such as the DSS. There are also other historical documents including writings like the War of the Jews

    I don't see how that can be applied to every book. For instance Luke's books, both the gospel and the acts were written for Theopolus. Much of which was information gathered by Luke's investigative skills. I think the only book we have that was directly written down besides the Torah books is the book of Revelation.

    The book is prefaced with this:

    John tells us:

    Acts 15 was not written by Paul, nor was the decree made by him. ;)

    I agree that Moses being taught refers to the commandments, however Paul did not teach that. James is the one who made that statement and it was because it was common understanding of the Jewish believers that they should be taken to the synagogues on Shabbat to learn more. :)
     
  19. Jerushabelle

    Jerushabelle Well-Known Member

    +486
    Messianic
    Married
    Yes, I'm happy to explain my thoughts on this. The relationship of God to His Son, God to His people or Yeshua to His people, can hardly be deemed "alien". We are Yeshua's bride. He is the lover of our souls. I was trying to be open minded as I read the article, despite that which the author read into Scripture, always allowing that Ruach HaKodesh is the One who opens our eyes when we read it, but as soon as I got to this particular statement, (the one I have bolded) my mind and heart became closed to the author's viewpoint. I guess that's the long and the short of it. Except that by reducing the special relationship God, Son and Ruach HaKodesh has with Paul and us, the author is stating IMO, that we or Paul are non-Jewish and non-Christian. I hope that clarifies the thoughts behind my statements.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2012
  20. Lulav

    Lulav Older than ZIP Codes Supporter

    +6,741
    United States
    Messianic
    Married

    Some questions for you belle,

    How can you be a Christian and Messianic? I am asking so I can better understand your posts.

    There are many other writings that mention Paul, in fact I think I read somewhere that Paul is mentioned more in secular literature than Jesus. Some believe he is also mentioned in the DSS.

    I'm having some trouble understanding this part of your post:

    You say the four witnesses to Paul being an Apostle of Yeshua are
    Ananias, Peter and Barnabas and Yeshua. Three were Christians, what was the forth?

    Also can you give passage reference where these four say he was chosen by Yeshua?
     
Loading...