Paul From A Messianic Perspective: Greastest or False Apostle?

[koilias]

BS'D




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!

Again the historical situation of Judaism in the first century will clear things up.

"Hasid" in first century means "a pious miracle worker" who has a "father-son" relationship with HaShem.

Honi the circle-drawer is a wonderful example you can read about in the Talmud. And so is Paul.

The Pharisaic side of Paul is on his insistence that Ritual Purity does not make one "justified" before HaShem. "Justification" is solely HaShem's to give.

B'rucheem

 

[koilias]

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!!!!!

If the book reflects the site, I've read enough to understand where Tom is coming from. I do agree that there are some wonderful insights raised. I just disagree with the view that Paul's role was "to divide". If anything, he united. He was not set up by HaShem for a harmful purpose. Yes, he disagreed with Yeshua and the disciples, but that's the norm in Judaism. I wish we had the same forgiving attitudes. Tom's argument only adds rancor to the debate.

It's sad to see that the spirit to divide is so persistent in the anti-Pauline crowd. Why foster more disunity by throwing words of resentment and vile against Paul's annointing?

 

[YatzivPatgam]

Again the historical situation of Judaism in the first century will clear things up.

"Hasid" in first century means "a pious miracle worker" who has a "father-son" relationship with HaShem.

Honi the circle-drawer is a wonderful example you can read about in the Talmud. And so is Paul.

The Pharisaic side of Paul is on his insistence that Ritual Purity does not make one "justified" before HaShem. "Justification" is solely HaShem's to give.

B'rucheem

The Titus quote stands that he had anything but a Pharisaic side. I doubt if the man knew Hebrew or Aramiac to begin with, given his letters.

 

[koilias]

The Titus quote stands that he had anything but a Pharisaic side. I doubt if the man knew Hebrew or Aramiac to begin with, given his letters.

He not only knew Hebrew and Aramaic, he had the entire Torah memorized in Hebrew: the very basic requirement for every student who ever entered a Rabbinic academy...especially Gamaliel's! The man translates from his head (not the LXX mind you!)...he doesn't have a pocket scroll in his back pocket! And he strings together scriptures fluidly by their Hebrew diction and Rabbinic tradition. To do that you need the Tenakh and the Mishnah memorized. Very Rabbinic that Paul.

I do think the Titus quote reflects an impatience in Paul for all things scholarly. You are right, Paul was no Pharisaic scholar in the right sense of the word, in love with his learning--he despised the trappings of his Pharisaic status. But he was zealous for the Law all his life. And when he discovered Yeshua, he was completely won over to the Notzrim. He didn't forsake the Law--he wanted to practice it more completely! (This is the silent side of Paul people miss behind his letters, but which he assumes his audience full well understands). In other words, he forsook the academic Pharisee in him (which did shape and influence his theology nonetheless--especially how he looks at Scripture) in favor of becoming a Hasid. A Hasid cares more about the practice than the study.

 

[SonWorshipper]

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.

DaTsar, where did they decide this?

Acts 15
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.


In other words, "Here is what they need to get started, no sex outside of marriage, and as far as eating, they are to eat no blood, no animals that have been killed by strangling, and no food offered up to a pagan idol, that is enough to start them with as they will learn the rest of Torah in synogogue each week (Sabbat).

 

[koilias]

In other words, "Here is what they need to get started, no sex outside of marriage, and as far as eating, they are to eat no blood, no animals that have been killed by strangling, and no food offered up to a pagan idol, that is enough to start them with as they will learn the rest of Torah in synogogue each week (Sabbat).

In general it was also assumed that Torah observance is the norm among the gentiles, so much so that it wasn't necessary to legislate! What this ruling did was to ensure that all matters of Torah were really practiced from the heart! None of the Torah is to be "a requirement", force-fed down anybody's throat, Torah observance is instead to be an act of devotion.

There are four different things being "demanded" however. Christians often misinterpret the meaning of the Acts 15 commands, conflating the second and third into one command. But they are merely the Noachide precepts:

1) Refrain from idolatry
2) Refrain from (the spilling of) blood: this is Hallakhic shorthand for "refrain from murder"--the Noachide precept!
3) Refrain from strangled foods (animals): This is Christian halakha for interpreting "flesh with blood in it"--what was important for the early Christians is guarding against the cruel slaughter of animals not the guarding against ritual impurity, the physical act of eating blood. They were interpreting Torah in the amazingly humane spirit of Yeshua and Hillel!
4) Refrain from sexual immorality

 

[Achichem]

DaTsar, where did they decide this?

Acts 15
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.


In other words, "Here is what they need to get started, no sex outside of marriage, and as far as eating, they are to eat no blood, no animals that have been killed by strangling, and no food offered up to a pagan idol, that is enough to start them with as they will learn the rest of Torah in synogogue each week (Sabbat).

Thanks so much for clearing that up,

I have yet to do a good study of the book of Acts,
and being born a catholic, I still have a lot of false truths in me, but they should all come out in time.

Thanks again,
DaTsar