Proving Paul is Pro-Torah

[rick357]

Planet Post-Torah, aka earth.

Points like this are meaningful to us, but don't exactly impress Christians who have God whispering in their ear that God's law is bad.

I think the problem is the opposite they have Adam whispering to them but those who truly desire YHWH may say they are not under law but they also know that they can not break His law...much of this confliction in them is because they have been taught Messiah was paying YHWH off instead of understanding He was carrying them into death so they could obtain the life described in the law. They have been told the law is bondage instead of the sin of self from Adam. But again how can the law be bondage when it describes the life they seek to obtain...Adam has a self because he sought to be his own life generating power but found only death...Messiah came to restore oneness with YHWH...He breathed into Adam and he became a living soul...I believe the faith that Messiah will live the life described in the law in them is there but Adam does not go to Messiahs cross easily hence the epistles of His apostles but we can encourage the faith in them for YHWH knows how to save men

 

[Truthfrees]

God points, clever ideas.

Reminds me of the definition of Rabbi Mizrachi on the categories of sin:

Chet - to miss the mark, an unintentional sin.

A Jewish court was traditionally required to try to judge the crimes presented before them as uninentional if at all possible, hence a court was considered a cruel or strict court if one person was executed in 70 years.

In Texas, a court that executed only or less than one person every 70 years would be considered a lenient court, or no court at all !

But if you ask Texans, they would probably assume that ancient Israel was constantly killing people.

Avera - a real sin, an intentional sin, much rarer.

In the historical Christian form of piety, one may like to impute sin onto oneself, and get a kick out of confession, especially public confession of sin, which is comparatively rare in other cultures. Traditionally, a person might confess to sin, but would have more of a tendency to label their sin as unintentional rather than intentional, because the idea of intentional sin is taken MUCH more seriously in the Biblical culture. Hence even David's deeds against Bath-Sheba and Uriah are reframed as not being entirely Avera in the Jewish culture.

This ultimately points to God's mercy, since Chet is more easily forgiven than Avera. So to label as many sins as possible as Chet (rather than Avera) means that there will be more forgiveness, more mercy, in the world.

Pesha - an intentional sin committed specifically to provoke or to "prove" something to God. However you really have to be a Keruv or a Sage in order to commit this sin. Very few humans in this generation are capable of this one. It more or less equates to high treason against God, committed by his own servants.

It may perhaps be compared to the "blasphemy of the holy spirit" in terms of being "the biggest sin" and in terms of requiring you to be a servant of God first in order to commit this treason.

This is very good. Thanks. I hadn't come across this yet.

"But if you ask Texans, they would probably assume that ancient Israel was constantly killing people."

So much more reason for Jews and Christians to interact and demolish the crazy ideas people have about Jews and Torah.

When I joined a Jewish community in November 2014, I was constantly being culture shocked.

Everything is so much better than I'd been told.

The Siddur is the perfect amalgamation of praise, prayer, Scripture, blessings.

The mercy and grace paradigm is hugely prevalent in Judaism.

No lashon hara like what plagues many churches.

Too busy doing mitzvot I guess.

All the Torah talks are focused on personal introspection and repentance.

No matter what kind of atrocities occur against Jewish communities around the world, after prayers for the victims families, our Rabbi always turns it around to "What can we do to make peace."

The Jewish commission of being a light to the world, fixing what's broken, is really being taken seriously.

I've been so impressed with everything I've witnessed.

 

[Truthfrees]

"If we don't have to keep the law
that means that heaven and earth have passed away.
So what planet are we on?"

Very nice!

I've been quoting that verse a lot lately.

"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." - Matthew 5:17-19

So many people overlook "heaven and earth pass away" and say "but Jesus fulfilled everything".

I have to remind them He's coming back again so obviously He still has some things to do. He hasn't fulfilled EVERYTHING yet.

And when He does fulfil everything, the present heaven and earth will pass away.

Lots of people are thinking hard about that one.

There's just no way to get around it.

Planet Post-Torah, aka earth.

Points like this are meaningful to us, but don't exactly impress Christians who have God whispering in their ear that God's law is bad.

IS there ever post Torah?

Yeshua didn't actually say Torah would cease.

He said heaven and earth will pass away before Torah ceases.

Torah is eternal isn't it?

 

[Truthfrees]

I think the problem is the opposite they have Adam whispering to them but those who truly desire YHWH may say they are not under law but they also know that they can not break His law...much of this confliction in them is because they have been taught Messiah was paying YHWH off instead of understanding He was carrying them into death so they could obtain the life described in the law. They have been told the law is bondage instead of the sin of self from Adam. But again how can the law be bondage when it describes the life they seek to obtain...Adam has a self because he sought to be his own life generating power but found only death...Messiah came to restore oneness with YHWH...He breathed into Adam and he became a living soul...I believe the faith that Messiah will live the life described in the law in them is there but Adam does not go to Messiahs cross easily hence the epistles of His apostles but we can encourage the faith in them for YHWH knows how to save men

Yes. This perfectly describes what I used to believe prior to March 2014. I could give a good scriptural argument for it too.

I'm still thanking YHWH for this forum. The Jews and MJs here answered my questions and got me on the right track.

My head was spinning for a few months, trying to make sense of all the scriptures that had been used so successfully to make me anti-Torah.

We were told we were set free from Torah, but then were told to obey YHWH and not sin.

We were never told about the rewards for doing mitzvot either.

Lots of prayer used to go toward asking for miracles.

Now, doing mitzvot brings so many rewards, the prayer focus has changed to fellowshipping with YHWH. I'm experiencing Mitzvot miracles now.

I love the new blessings of the Re-New-ed covenant, but removing Torah from it causes so much needless trouble. Torah keeping and Mitzvot actioning deal so automatically and effortlessly with many of the situations I used to spend so many hours of prayer on.

 

[Lulav]

When I joined a Jewish community in November 2014, I was constantly being culture shocked.

TF, perhaps you could take the time in another thread to share this with us. You just kinda appeared here in this forum and seem to be trying to lead it even though you subscribe to the Word of Faith as you main beliefs. How exactly did you 'join a Jewish community'?

 

[visionary]

I've been quoting that verse a lot lately.

"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." - Matthew 5:17-19

So many people overlook "heaven and earth pass away" and say "but Jesus fulfilled everything".

I have to remind them He's coming back again so obviously He still has some things to do. He hasn't fulfilled EVERYTHING yet.

And when He does fulfil everything, the present heaven and earth will pass away.

Lots of people are thinking hard about that one.

There's just no way to get around it.



IS there ever post Torah?

Yeshua didn't actually say Torah would cease.

He said heaven and earth will pass away before Torah ceases.

Torah is eternal isn't it?

How can one make righteous determination without the guidelines.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

I agree with you on this.

 

[Elionai]

In two years of my absence, you guys are still arguing this one?

I suppose it's improved slightly from the previous "Paul is bad" sentiment that was rife here.

Paul didn't have a word group in the Greek of his time to match the modern day English "Legalistic, Legalism, Legalist" so he had to make words up to portray the idea of Legalistic Observance of Torah.

He always said Torah is good. The reason he took the Nazarite Vow was to prove that. He said Legalistic Observance of Torah was bad because the Legalistic Observance is not what saves. Yeshua saves. That salvation and the Holy Spirit enables us to live out the Torah. I am on the beginning still of this walk after being a believer for 15 years in terms of walking with Yeshua biblically, not denominationally. Yeshua is not the end of the Law/Torah, but the goal of the Torah. That's where I stand anyway.

The Torah is good, maybe not all of it applies to a Gentile like me. I'm still working that out.

Saturday Shabbat however, well that was put in place BEFORE the commandments so it MUST apply to me. that's my conclusion these days. (By the way, it's going great, it really is a blessing for my whole family).

My two cents; not trying to offend. It's just a little disheartening to see the same old threads being thrown around after all this time.

 

[yonah_mishael]

In two years of my absence, you guys are still arguing this one?

I suppose it's improved slightly from the previous "Paul is bad" sentiment that was rife here.

Paul didn't have a word group in the Greek of his time to match the modern day English "Legalistic, Legalism, Legalist" so he had to make words up to portray the idea of Legalistic Observance of Torah.

He always said Torah is good. The reason he took the Nazarite Vow was to prove that. He said Legalistic Observance of Torah was bad because the Legalistic Observance is not what saves. Yeshua saves. That salvation and the Holy Spirit enables us to live out the Torah. I am on the beginning still of this walk after being a believer for 15 years in terms of walking with Yeshua biblically, not denominationally. Yeshua is not the end of the Law/Torah, but the goal of the Torah. That's where I stand anyway.

The Torah is good, maybe not all of it applies to a Gentile like me. I'm still working that out.

Saturday Shabbat however, well that was put in place BEFORE the commandments so it MUST apply to me. that's my conclusion these days. (By the way, it's going great, it really is a blessing for my whole family).

My two cents; not trying to offend. It's just a little disheartening to see the same old threads being thrown around after all this time.

Where in the NT does it say that Paul took a Nazirite vow? It says that he paid for the completion of the vow of others, but it doesn't say that he took such a vow. Indeed, it says that in Acts - which misrepresents Paul completely.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

Where in the NT does it say that Paul took a Nazirite vow?

Acts 18:18

It says that he paid for the completion of the vow of others, but it doesn't say that he took such a vow. Indeed, it says that in Acts - which misrepresents Paul completely.

I'm confused, are you saying Acts isn't part of the NT?

 

[Elionai]

Yonah, with respect - because you're a long-time member here and I have greatly respected your contributions to this forum while I was more active - when I say I disagree with you, I mean after reading it again, I don't see at all how anything in Acts 17 to Acts 18 (I wanted to read in context as much as possible) I don't how any of the accounts misrepresent him even partly, let alone completely.

Acts 18 and Acts 21 see him taking vows on separate occasions. Acts as you know is New Testament.

I would like to know what about these vows suggests to you that it is a misrepresentation of Sha'ul/Paul. Do you mean in character or observance or something else?

 

[yonah_mishael]

Yonah, with respect - because you're a long-time member here and I have greatly respected your contributions to this forum while I was more active - when I say I disagree with you, I mean after reading it again, I don't see at all how anything in Acts 17 to Acts 18 (I wanted to read in context as much as possible) I don't how any of the accounts misrepresent him even partly, let alone completely.

Acts 18 and Acts 21 see him taking vows on separate occasions. Acts as you know is New Testament.

I would like to know what about these vows suggests to you that it is a misrepresentation of Sha'ul/Paul. Do you mean in character or observance or something else?

I'm really not allowed to explain here what I mean when I say that Acts misrepresents Paul. The SoF on this forum says that all the books of the OT and NT are "kosher," as it were, and it's out-of-bounds to make arguments to the contrary. That said, I am convinced that the Acts is a complete fabrication and misrepresents Paul on multiple occasions. Why? It is propaganda that is designed to make Peter look like Paul and Paul look like Peter - in order to bring Paul's congregations under the control of the Jerusalem church or those who inherited their authority from them. That's as far as I'll go here. If one reads Paul's letters with open eyes, you see what he says for himself - and the Acts does not represent him faithfully (even in the broadest of details).

IMHO, the real Paul would never have circumcised his friend (as he boasts in his letters), nor would he have submitted to the appearance of keeping the Torah in order to pacify those who wanted to stir up trouble for him. I believe he had a backbone.

Cheers,
YM

 

[Lulav]

In two years of my absence, you guys are still arguing this one?

I suppose it's improved slightly from the previous "Paul is bad" sentiment that was rife here.

Paul didn't have a word group in the Greek of his time to match the modern day English "Legalistic, Legalism, Legalist" so he had to make words up to portray the idea of Legalistic Observance of Torah.

He always said Torah is good. The reason he took the Nazarite Vow was to prove that. He said Legalistic Observance of Torah was bad because the Legalistic Observance is not what saves. Yeshua saves. That salvation and the Holy Spirit enables us to live out the Torah. I am on the beginning still of this walk after being a believer for 15 years in terms of walking with Yeshua biblically, not denominationally. Yeshua is not the end of the Law/Torah, but the goal of the Torah. That's where I stand anyway.

The Torah is good, maybe not all of it applies to a Gentile like me. I'm still working that out.

Saturday Shabbat however, well that was put in place BEFORE the commandments so it MUST apply to me. that's my conclusion these days. (By the way, it's going great, it really is a blessing for my whole family).

My two cents; not trying to offend. It's just a little disheartening to see the same old threads being thrown around after all this time.

Well, new people come around and it gets rehashed. Anyway.

'Legalistic Observance of Torah' kinda oxymoronic term, wouldn't you say?
Following G-ds Torah laws are promised to us to be the way to live. Otherwise we are lawless.

I agree with YM somewhat, Paul did not take the Nazarite vow, he was instructed to pay for the sacrifices for those who had taken one. But I've never been able to figure out just how that proves one is Torah observant and seems odd that James would suggest such a thing as proof.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

 

[Lulav]

Acts 18:18

I'm confused, are you saying Acts isn't part of the NT?

It doesn't specify Nazarite vow.

Some believe it is another kind of vow of uncertain nature. In favor of this option are the facts that the circumstances of Paul's haircut don't all fit well with the Nazarite vow - and though they can be made to fit, it is argued by some that the better option is to see this as a different kind of vow.

The Mishnah (written by Pharisees) says that a nazarite vow cannot be ended outside of Israel, and gives the example of Queen Helena who herself decided to end a 7-year nazarite vow outside Israel and was forced to be a nazarite for another 7 years. Furthermore it was common practice to throw the shorn hair in with the sacrifice - yet Paul who cut his hair outside of Jerusalem probably did not have a baggie with which to carry it there unharmed. To prove he was obedient to Torah, Paul would have probably been certain to carry it out to the letter.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

It doesn't specify Nazarite vow.

Some believe it is another kind of vow of uncertain nature. In favor of this option are the facts that the circumstances of Paul's haircut don't all fit well with the Nazarite vow - and though they can be made to fit, it is argued by some that the better option is to see this as a different kind of vow.

The Mishnah (written by Pharisees) says that a nazarite vow cannot be ended outside of Israel, and gives the example of Queen Helena who herself decided to end a 7-year nazarite vow outside Israel and was forced to be a nazarite for another 7 years. Furthermore it was common practice to throw the shorn hair in with the sacrifice - yet Paul who cut his hair outside of Jerusalem probably did not have a baggie with which to carry it there unharmed. To prove he was obedient to Torah, Paul would have probably been certain to carry it out to the letter.

Oh.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Numbers 6:1-21

The Nazirite vow

1The Lord said to Moses, 2“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of dedication to the Lord as a Nazirite, 3they must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or other fermented drink. They must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. 4As long as they remain under their Nazirite vow, they must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.

5“ ‘During the entire period of their Nazirite vow, no razor may be used on their head. They must be holy until the period of their dedication to the Lord is over; they must let their hair grow long.

6“ ‘Throughout the period of their dedication to the Lord, the Nazirite must not go near a dead body. 7Even if their own father or mother or brother or sister dies, they must not make themselves ceremonially unclean on account of them, because the symbol of their dedication to God is on their head. 8Throughout the period of their dedication, they are consecrated to the Lord.

9“ ‘If someone dies suddenly in the Nazirite’s presence, thus defiling the hair that symbolizes their dedication, they must shave their head on the seventh day—the day of their cleansing. 10Then on the eighth day they must bring two doves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 11The priest is to offer one as a sin offeringa and the other as a burnt offering to make atonement for the Nazirite because they sinned by being in the presence of the dead body. That same day they are to consecrate their head again. 12They must rededicate themselves to the Lord for the same period of dedication and must bring a year-old male lamb as a guilt offering. The previous days do not count, because they became defiled during their period of dedication.

13“ ‘Now this is the law of the Nazirite when the period of their dedication is over. They are to be brought to the entrance to the tent of meeting. 14There they are to present their offerings to the Lord: a year-old male lamb without defect for a burnt offering, a year-old ewe lamb without defect for a sin offering, a ram without defect for a fellowship offering, 15together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and a basket of bread made with the finest flour and without yeast—thick loaves with olive oil mixed in, and thin loaves brushed with olive oil.

16“ ‘The priest is to present all these before the Lord and make the sin offering and the burnt offering. 17He is to present the basket of unleavened bread and is to sacrifice the ram as a fellowship offering to the Lord, together with its grain offering and drink offering.

18“ ‘Then at the entrance to the tent of meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that symbolizes their dedication. They are to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering.

19“ ‘After the Nazirite has shaved off the hair that symbolizes their dedication, the priest is to place in their hands a boiled shoulder of the ram, and one thick loaf and one thin loaf from the basket, both made without yeast. 20The priest shall then wave these before the Lord as a wave offering; they are holy and belong to the priest, together with the breast that was waved and the thigh that was presented. After that, the Nazirite may drink wine.

21“ ‘This is the law of the Nazirite who vows offerings to the Lord in accordance with their dedication, in addition to whatever else they can afford. They must fulfill the vows they have made, according to the law of the Nazirite.’ ”

 

[Elionai]

Well, new people come around and it gets rehashed. Anyway.

'Legalistic Observance of Torah' kinda oxymoronic term, wouldn't you say?
Following G-ds Torah laws are promised to us to be the way to live. Otherwise we are lawless.

I agree with YM somewhat, Paul did not take the Nazarite vow, he was instructed to pay for the sacrifices for those who had taken one. But I've never been able to figure out just how that proves one is Torah observant and seems odd that James would suggest such a thing as proof.

1. That must get boring.

2. Not an oxymoron, at all, He was (in a similar way to Shakespeare) inventing or creating hybrid terms to explain that observing Torah without the faith and relationship with God behind it cannot justify a person. He did not say the Torah itself was bad, but doing it like a teenager who hates doing the dishes or laundry for his parents isn't going to get you anywhere.

3. So in Acts 21:26 when it says he purified himself along with them, you don't take that to mean he took the vow also?

 

[Lulav]

1. That must get boring.

You would think, but I've found that after being here almost a decade and a half that there is always something new to discuss on a subject. Sure some things are redundant and some need to be explained to newbies coming in but when you are studying the bible I find that there is always something new to learn and we each have our own times to learn it.

2. Not an oxymoron, at all, He was (in a similar way to Shakespeare) inventing or creating hybrid terms to explain that observing Torah without the faith and relationship with God behind it cannot justify a person. He did not say the Torah itself was bad, but doing it like a teenager who hates doing the dishes or laundry for his parents isn't going to get you anywhere.

Funny you should compare Paul to Shakespeare but I understand what you are saying, however when the Torah was given the biggest part of the instructions were that you were to love G-d, not have faith in Him. Now faith in Him can be part of love, but it shouldn't usurp it. You keep his commandments because you love him. But Paul didn't teach that, wonder why?

Gal 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."


Romans 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

1John taught :

Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar.

and

We know we love God's children if we love God and obey his commandments.

and

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

Which of those two writers meshes with what Messiah taught?

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

3. So in Acts 21:26 when it says he purified himself along with them, you don't take that to mean he took the vow also?

No, at first glance and a brief reading it sounds like it, but if you go through all the preceding chapters, it seems unlikely.

 

[Lulav]

3. So in Acts 21:26 when it says he purified himself along with them, you don't take that to mean he took the vow also?

Just to add a bit more to this.

In Acts 18 we read that 18 Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken. 19They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20 When they asked him to spend more time with them, he declined. 21But as he left, he promised, “I will come back if it is God’s will.” Then he set sail from Ephesus. 22 When he landed at Caesarea, he went up to Jerusalem and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch. ----- This has been dated to circa 52-53

Paul was come to Jerusalem in Acts 21 circa 58CE that is at least 5 years later.

Some say that they allowed a person with a Nazarite vow to cut their hair somewhere else and then bring it to Jerusalem when they could, but from verse 22 in chapter 18 we see that Paul was already in Jerusalem shortly after cutting his hair, so why would he save it for five years later?

 

[Hoshiyya]

I think the real issue is not that Paul can be proven to be pro-Torah.
I think the issue is that he HAS to be proven to be pro-Torah, because it is not already obvious. Nobody needs to take the time to prove Jeremiah is pro-Torah, because it is already clear that he is.