Paul From A Messianic Perspective: Greastest or False Apostle?

blessed,

I know how you feel, the yearning in your spirit and so forth. I am new to this faith as well. I've come from 20+ yrs as a non-denominational protestant.

I believe God is calling his people back to his faith. The faith Yeshua walked and talked, lived and breathed, and taught others. You being here is testimony to that, as am I and others.

Rest assured, the majority of those in Messianic Judaism do not agree with my thoughts concerning Paul. In fact, the majority of them show great acrobatic skill when it comes time to defend him!

But I no longer hold to every word of the NT to be the infallible word of God, especially concerning Paul. Not since studying the NT and how it has come about. It's a rather frightening study, but rewarding as well. My signature pretty much reveals what I believe to be the inspired word of God.


This thread wasn't even the thoughts of Anthonyforchrist, he copied and pasted them from an online book which I referred in my first response in this thread.

The man raises some very important issues concerning Paul and his teachings, in much better detail and context.

Kelsay,
Coming from where we do, I find it frightening just knowing that there are hundreds of books non- cannonized and that someone chose for us what we were to recieve of them and what to withhold from us...when what we have is all we've got, what to do?
How long have been been involved with MJ and where did you star? Any tips, hints and direction and yes...even correction would be so appreciated.
Thank you for your light

My two cents:

Paul must be studied in light of the historical situation of Judaism in the mid-first century. Then one will find a humble man, powerfully annointed by the Holy Spirit to become a leader in retaining the Hasidic heart of the Jesus movement. At the time Paul was preaching, the Church was undergoing a tremendous struggle to keep it's Pharisaic/Hasidic roots. An onslaught of theological fallacies was creeping in to the Church because the movement was drawing in many converts from Essene Judaism. Paul's letters should be read in light of this struggle. He adopts a theological language that was meant to be understood by his disciples in their arguments with their Essene coreligionists. These letters cannot be understood today, and weren't for centuries, but thankfully, HaShem preserved the writings of the Essenes and now, since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many theological arguments lost to history have suddenly been discovered. Scholars are now combing painstackingly through the ancient fragments to reconstruct Essene doctrine and the results so far have been most revealing!

For example, the Essenes taught that one's justification before HaShem rested solely on one's ability to punctiliously fulfill Torah. Paul has to forcefully argue against this. The Essenes called this doctrine "the Works of Torah" (you can read this in 4QMMT -- A scroll titled "Some of the Works of the Law"). With Paul, the "Torah" is always GOOD! What he is against rather, is the doctrine that one's justification depends on "the Works of Torah". With Paul this term is always negative! Paul is forcefully defending the Pharisaic doctrine that the world rests on the pillar of Hesed v'emet (Grace), that one's "justification" depends rather on HaShem's lovingkindness towards us. Knowing the Hebrew background of the argument is essential in understanding Paul.

History will redeem Paul, HaShem's humble defendant.

B'rucheem

KelsayDL said:

Do I believe that every word in the New Testament is the infallible word of God?

No.

Click to expand...

Just one quick question here. How exactly does sola scriptura work if you don't hold the NT to be the literal, divinely-inspired word of God?

Why are you addressing me about Sola Scriptura nyj?

Hello?

Ok there no way I am going too read all that, If you have a problem with Paul’s teaching please show me, and I will do my best to explain?

What is wrong with Paul!



Paul was a great teacher, he is the teacher of understanding that the law is not faith, but instead the armour of God. And that faith is salvation. I do not think anyone of Us doubt that.



It is ultimately too bad that the Jerusalem council did not keep on the amour and in so doing open the front gate for the deceiver.



However, I should not blame a man, it was a honest mistake, and made in the object of love.
datsar

Hi datsar,

When you say the Jerusalem council, of whom do you speak? Are you referring to James, John, Peter and the rest?

If so, how did they not keep on this armor you speak of?

There are many things I can question Paul about, but I'm curious as to why you lend credence to the spurious belief that it was the Jerusalem council that was out of line with Messiah.

When they are the men who walked this earth with him and were taught by him. They were given the great commission.

KelsayDL said:

When you say the Jerusalem council, of whom do you speak? Are you referring to James, John, Peter and the rest?

Click to expand...

I speak of the decision by the council (as a whole) to not teach the new gentiles converts the full laws of Moses or to guild them In understanding of them.

I am planning a post on the subject (armour of God = law of God) soon

If so, how did they not keep on this armour you speak of?

Click to expand...

They keep it on themselves, but took it off the church as a whole.

There are many things I can question Paul about, but I'm curious as to why you lend credence to the spurious belief that it was the Jerusalem council that was out of line with Messiah.

Click to expand...

They did not, but it was them who did so open the door (even if it was ever so slightly) to the Deceiver.

When they are the men who walked this earth with him and were taught by him. They were given the great commission.

Click to expand...

And did well, but left a church with weakened armour to defend against the enemies of God.



-Datsar

I did read all of what Anthony had posted and I thank him very much. I also see that many by admittance or by the fact of the ignorance in their posting that most did not read the whole thing. It was not a slam on Paul, but showed the reason for the so called "inconsistances" of his "Gospel". It addressed many problems that I have had with this apostles inconsistant writings. I have run across many that uphold the "Gospel of Paul" in differening degrees and now I understand completely the reason for it. OUr G-d is an awesome G-d and all his ways are perfect. Those who truly seek him will understand that it is not he that will divide the wheat from the tares, but rather the person themselves will reveal wiether they are a wheat or tare by this two-edged sword.

Again Anthony thank you for posting this and giving me a true understanding of something that has been bothering me for awhile.

Baruch HaShem!

Kelsey, you posted a site that Anthony got some of his information from, that was not all though and may be misleading to others, this site also was posted and speaks of Paul and King Saul and both being from the Benyamin tribe. http://www.yahuah.org/Benyamite.html

Dividing the spoil, that is what it is all about I'd say. And this is the L-rds way of doing it.

Seems obvious to me that Jesus intended for his followers to reform Judaism from the inside.

If written by Paul's sidekick, Acts is most unsympathetic to Paul. The Jerusalem Church agreed to almost anything to keep Paul away from them and when Paul was arrested didn't go to his aid. I suspect they were all pleased.

But the Jerusalem Synod lost control when the Temple fell and the side that wins the war writes the history books - and the Bibles. Probably no way to recover Jesus'es origional intent

True SW. I hadn't noticed that.

The second site looks interesting.

There are a bazillion sites out there, that are anti-Paul. I cannot stand reading the ones that slam Paul and fling every kind of accusation imaginable at him, some even calling him the very anti-christ that was to come. Insane.

Personally, I believe a conflict between the Apostles of Yeshua, and Paul is evident throughout the epistles.

When I read Jude I see it plainly, and again in James where he speaks of a double minded man.

Was anyone mentioned in the "New" testament more obviously double minded than Paul?

I believe in the Revelation of John, that Yeshua sides with his apostles in his letters to the 7 churches throughout asia.

Paul himself admits he is eventually rejected by all of Asia. Yet the Lord still claims the churches as his.

I find that disturbing, when trying to defend Paul. And I have for a long time.

Seems obvious to me that Jesus intended for his followers to reform Judaism from the inside.

Click to expand...

What do you mean reform? If you mean to change or do away with the law, then no. Thats not what he intended.

If written by Paul's sidekick, Acts is most unsympathetic to Paul.

Click to expand...

It is. For the most part. To Lukes credit. But luke was merely a note taker, he was loyal to Paul until the end.

The Jerusalem Church agreed to almost anything to keep Paul away from them and when Paul was arrested didn't go to his aid. I suspect they were all pleased.

Click to expand...

Indeed they didn't go to his aid. For they knew full well it would be to no avail. Not even James who was called James the Just by all, could have freed Paul.

But the Jerusalem Synod lost control when the Temple fell and the side that wins the war writes the history books - and the Bibles. Probably no way to recover Jesus'es origional intent.

Click to expand...

Not if you believe his original intent was to start a new religion.

I don't believe it was. If it was, he is not the Messiah and one only need read Deuteronomy chapter 13 to see why.

AnthonyForChrist,

Well since everyone is taking so well to what you are saying I will read and respond to it but please be patient with me, I will need to read/responed to it in stages.

First off I must say I may have come off to harshly, so if any took it as so I am sorry, it is just, I take great liking to the teachings of Paul, and his insights into the gospel, he certainly takes a different angle then most, but all and all it is the same gospel. Or, I would have taken it out long ago.(not to say I do not see why you owuld not, consistering the use of it, to justify other gospels)

Also,If you have covered my response, please refer me to the place where my conclusions are countered.

I would like it noted before hand, I would be willing to admit you conclusion if evidence is brought that he in-fact has a different gospel.

1.His apostleship was unrecognized by others.
I do not know how you define an apostle, but I keep similar to a saint and so I define it as anyone who is set apart to teach the true gospel of Y-shua. Thought I would not likely use the word.

With my definition, Peter in 2 peter two recognizes Paul as a fellow teacher of the same gospel as Peter. However, It has been brought to my attention that it is unlikely Peter at the time, had know exactly what Paul was saying.
Either way, this should still be noted.

2.His focus was uniquely self-ward.

A good point, and I agree he did not write Hebrews, however one should note that this was in-fact just a writing style, and considering his upbringing one should not be all that surprised.

I ask: Does his actions reflect this feeling?Answers will vary.
I any case, it was a thin line he was on, a very thin line.



3.His claim of apostleship stands alone.
It is clear we have different definitions of the word, however, I think we should give Paul the benefit of the doubt and believe he took it liberaly to express that he had the true gospel.

Our view of early church is polarized.
Is it? Paul dominates most of the NT, simply because the council which assemble such was ones which were twisting what Paul had said to justify themselves to follow a false gospel. These people were allow into the inner circle because the Jerusalem council had agreed to allow in gentiles which were ignorant of the protection given to us by the laws of Moses.We should not put blame on Paul, for a decision upheld by a council of believers in the true gospel.

I would say: just be happy that by Grace of God, they kept what was good and pure and not heretical (which I know you hold to be un-true, but I am convince otherwise).

Paul's claims of apostleship
Apostolos just means a delegate, messenger, sent forth with orders.

What is so wrong with calling one self a messenger sent forth to teach the true gospel, to all peoples?
Unless of course you are challenging the merit of his work (which I am sure you are), in which case, please present some of that to which you find so blasphemes or I do not understand your case.

On your other point, which is very validly, I agree, It was wrong of Paul to declare himself. But I would argue it is because of a combination of upbringing and passion over his newfound revelation.

Paul, the greatest apostle!
I argue, translational misunderstanding from the original texts.

2 Corinthians 11:5
Logizomai gar Medeis Hustereo ho Huper Apostolos:

for[gar] take in to account that[Logizomai] no one[Medeis] inferior to[Hustereo]

that [ho] higher [Huper] apostles [Apostolos].

First point, No subject noun(I[egos]) was actually mentioned. thought that is unimportant, other then the fact it gave the translators a lot of room to translate.

There is however a Adjective for a subject noun used, that is:
Medeis strong number 3367
Definition:
1. Nobody, no one, nothing

Translated word usage, in KJV:
no man 32, nothing 27, no 16, none 6, not 1, anything 2, [others used 7]

I would argue that it should read:
"For consider that I am a no one, inferior to the most eminent apostles"

not

"For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles"

This is because:
1) it is the noun not the verb adjectives affect.
2) it more consistant with Paul other statements on the subject

No other quote you provided in this section,sounds as if he put himself on a higher level, other then the incident with Peter, which was addressing a really problem seen in Peter.

I see it more as a helping gesture, not an offensive one.

Anyways, that is enough for now, I think.
For, As I said I think this should be done in segments.
and I wish to hear your response to this segment,

God bless,
Datsar

SonWorshipper said:

I also see that many by admittance or by the fact of the ignorance in their posting that most did not read the whole thing.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's the view expressed in the statements. One need only read as far as the claim that Paul was possessed by a satan.

I think that you should really read this to get the whole picture, it gave me the clearest understanding of Paul and the work that the L-rd commisioned him to do that I have ever had, I truly have love and respect for Paul now: Please read this: http://www.yahuah.org/Benyamite.html But you really need to read Anthony's first three posts to fully understand. The author of the first three posts did not get it, he writes about it but does not get the understanding about it.

If you don't read the whole book, how do you know its no good? You must read all of this to come to full understanding, much of which I have recieved by reading all of Anthonys beginning posts. As well as new insights to other writings of Pauls that never made sense but now do perfectly. I praise the L-rd for his two edged sword, that divides the spoil, and separates the wheat from the tares.

Halleluyah!!!!!

The statements "chosen vessel" and "The God of our fathers appointed you to know His will" and "you shall be a witness for Him to all men" are definitive statements here.

Click to expand...

Higher Truth, indeed after reading all this I do believe that Paul was a chosen vessel, one who did what no one else could do, different from the twelve yet hand picked by Yeshua, to do his will. He even got to go to heaven to recieve his commision, something he wasn't allowed to talk about, lest he reveal his full commission, which is not what the L-rd would allow.

Have you ever not been allowed to speak? I have, I wanted to speak out in a prayer meeting, but the L-rd kept me silent. it was very disconcerting, but later I realized it was because He wanted my husband to speak and not myself. The L-rd allows what He will allow, with all his creations. ( Remember Job).

I think that the main point in all this is that Paul deliberatly ( by G-d) wrote these inconsistancies, to "divide the spoil". He makes protests to any that are carefully searching and trying to figure him out in many of his writings. Paul was chosen to be a testing devise, to see if we would seek out and test everything that comes from a man's mouth if it matches up with Torah or not. If not toss it out. This was to be the test down the ages, and as a warning for those that just warm a pew listening to what a man tells them the L-rd teaches, instead of checking it as a Berean themselves to see if it matches up with the word ( Torah) from the neverchanging G-d.

SonWorshipper said:

I think that the main point in all this is that Paul deliberatly ( by G-d) wrote these inconsistancies, to "divide the spoil". He makes protests to any that are carefully searching and trying to figure him out in many of his writings. Paul was chosen to be a testing devise, to see if we would seek out and test everything that comes from a man's mouth if it matches up with Torah or not. If not toss it out. This was to be the test down the ages, and as a warning for those that just warm a pew listening to what a man tells them the L-rd teaches, instead of checking it as a Berean themselves to see if it matches up with the word ( Torah) from the neverchanging G-d.

Click to expand...

I agree, however there is not things you need to throw out, but understand them in the context of the torah, not free of it as some would have you believe.

BS'D

Paul must be studied in light of the historical situation of Judaism in the mid-first century. Then one will find a humble man, powerfully annointed by the Holy Spirit to become a leader in retaining the Hasidic heart of the Jesus movement.

Click to expand...

I about fell out of my chair when I read this.

Titus 3:9(KJV) - But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.


Where is exactly is the Hasidic heart in that?

Romans 3:7: If through my lies G-d’s truth abounds to His glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

Baal Shem Tov would be proud!

Oy!