Proving Paul is Pro-Torah

[yonah_mishael]

Really? that's not how I read the word ἀσθενής

Used here too,



Were Paul and the apostles given to superstition?

Was Peter calling all women, wives, superstitious?

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Besides, pretending to be a Gentile to the Gentiles while teaching about the Jewish G-d and Messiah doesn't make sense either.

Well, of course he didn't mean it that way all the time.

But when he was talking about those who believed in demons, he said that they were weak. He was talking about their conscience when it comes to eating things sacrificed to idols - since idols are nothing. Those who are "strong" in their faith know that idols are nothing because the gods behind them have no power (or real existence). Those who are "weak" in their faith still hold to the fears that these idols represent something real. Thus, "weak" = "superstitious," but not in every single occurrence of the word.

He didn't pretend to be a Gentile. However, he declared a righteousness that was apart from works of the law and that was available to all through faith - no matter if one was a Jew or a Gentile. This righteousness has nothing to do with Torah, which is how he became like one without Torah when he preached to them. Paul stated that circumcision is nothing, and he wasn't exaggerating in his own book. It didn't matter to Paul at all if a person was a Jew (circumcised) or a Gentile (uncircumcised). If they had the faith of Jesus Christ, they were approved by God.

 

[yonah_mishael]

That said, Lulav, I hadn't mentioned it before, but I'm really happy to see you taking an interest in learning Greek.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Nanos is of the opinion that the 'weak' in Romans 14 are Jews who do NOT believe in Jesus.

http://www.marknanos.com/elliott-review-mystery-jbv.pdf

 

[pat34lee]

Besides, pretending to be a Gentile to the Gentiles while teaching about the Jewish G-d and Messiah doesn't make sense either.

I doubt Paul ever pretended to be something he was not. He was a Jew, but also a Roman citizen. He could speak as either, where most of the original disciples could not.

Acts 22:25
And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by,
Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?
​

As for being weak, I think Paul stressed that to keep himself humble and to prevent others from lionizing him, and giving him credit or praise that belonged to God.

 

[Lulav]

Well, of course he didn't mean it that way all the time.

But when he was talking about those who believed in demons, he said that they were weak. He was talking about their conscience when it comes to eating things sacrificed to idols - since idols are nothing. Those who are "strong" in their faith know that idols are nothing because the gods behind them have no power (or real existence). Those who are "weak" in their faith still hold to the fears that these idols represent something real. Thus, "weak" = "superstitious," but not in every single occurrence of the word.

How did you jump to demons on this? I was quoting from Corinthians 9 where Paul was defending himself. It sounds like you are mixing up his letter to the Romans where he says "One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables." Or in Corinthians 8 where Paul basically says it's ok to eat foods sacrificed to idols as long as someone that has a weak conscience doesn't see you? Is that what you are speaking about?

So you are saying that Paul to gain these weak ones, stopped eating food sacrificed to idols while around them? for their consciences sake? He became superstitious about this so those who believed it was wrong to eat foods sacrificed to idols would listen to his gospel and follow him?

He didn't pretend to be a Gentile. However, he declared a righteousness that was apart from works of the law and that was available to all through faith - no matter if one was a Jew or a Gentile. This righteousness has nothing to do with Torah, which is how he became like one without Torah when he preached to them. Paul stated that circumcision is nothing, and he wasn't exaggerating in his own book. It didn't matter to Paul at all if a person was a Jew (circumcised) or a Gentile (uncircumcised). If they had the faith of Jesus Christ, they were approved by God.

I beg to differ.

'To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews."

Explain how a Jew 'becomes' like a Jew?
ἐγενόμην means to change oneself , if it can mean 'being born', coming into being' then it's even more than pretension isn't it?

"To those not having the law I became like one not having the law"

So here we read he basically became lawless. How do you 'become' lawless and remain pro torah and in obedience to Torah?

'To the weak I became weak, to win the weak."

If we are to understand ἀσθενής as meaning superstitious as you say, that means that Paul became likewise.

But the main object is κερδαίνω, this was Paul's objective, to win, to gain for himself.

However going through all those machinations like a chameleon is not how Jesus describes 'being saved'.

He said:No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him to life on the last day.

So it is the Father that ἑλκύω, not one pretending to be something he's not.

 

[Lulav]

I doubt Paul ever pretended to be something he was not. He was a Jew, but also a Roman citizen. He could speak as either, where most of the original disciples could not.

Acts 22:25
And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by,
Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?
​

As for being weak, I think Paul stressed that to keep himself humble and to prevent others from lionizing him, and giving him credit or praise that belonged to God.

Pat read what I posted above, Paul himself says he ἐγενόμην a Jew, a Gentile and a 'weak' one meaning one who went by Acts 15:20

 

[pat34lee]

Pat read what I posted above, Paul himself says he ἐγενόμην a Jew, a Gentile and a 'weak' one meaning one who went by Acts 15:20

First, Acts 15:20 had nothing to do with weakness. It was about new believers who had not yet heard all the law, much less lived by it. It was the basics spelled out.

When I debate here, should I use the same style and the same arguments as if I were on a Jewish board, a Catholic board or an atheist board? I would think not, though I would be going to the same place. Pointing to the truth.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Lulav,

He "became" like a Jew because in his normal life post-conversion he did not live like a Jew (that is, he did not live a Torah lifestyle).

 

[Lulav]

First, Acts 15:20 had nothing to do with weakness. It was about new believers who had not yet heard all the law, much less lived by it. It was the basics spelled out.

When I debate here, should I use the same style and the same arguments as if I were on a Jewish board, a Catholic board or an atheist board? I would think not, though I would be going to the same place. Pointing to the truth.

Oy~

Pat I never said Acts 15 had to do with weakness, but in that passage it speaks about abstaining from food polluted by idols, that is what I was talking about. YM said this was what Paul meant by weak that there were those who were 'superstitious' and believed that there was something bad about eating food sacrificed to idols because they believed in demons. It seems to me that you are skimming over what I am writing and therefore responding to what you think I said. Please re-read what I wrote. It is rather intense and does include some Greek because I was basically answering to what YM said.

"20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."


James made an edict to tell the Gentiles to keep from eating any food polluted by idols which means:
dedicated to, grown in the field to, sacrificed to, offered in the pagan temples.

Paul thinks those who abide by this are 'weak'.

1 Now regarding your question about food that has been offered to idols. Yes, we know that “we all have knowledge” about this issue. But while knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church. 2 Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. 3 But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. 6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.7 However, not all believers know this. Some are accustomed to thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences are violated. 8 It’s true that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat. We don’t lose anything if we don’t eat it, and we don’t gain anything if we do.
9 But you must be careful so that your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble. 10 For if others see you—with your “superior knowledge”—eating in the temple of an idol, won’t they be encouraged to violate their conscience by eating food that has been offered to an idol? 11 So because of your superior knowledge, a weak believer for whom Christ died will be destroyed. 12 And when you sin against other believer by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ. 13 So if what I eat causes another believer to sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live—for I don’t want to cause another believer to stumble.
--------------------------

Can you tell me what in &$^@^@ are believers doing in a pagan temple???

Those who believe that G-d says to stay away from idolatrous things and James said just about the same, are 'weak'?

Is it about what we believe to be wrong VS what G-d tells us is wrong?

If it is true that "An idol is nothing at all in the world”

Then why did Israel fall astray over and over? Why are there so many negative commandments about idolotry? Why did James specifically say to stay away from things polluted by them?

Seems to me that the L-RD is pretty serious about this. The first thing he commands us after saying HE is our G-d is to not have any other gods above him and he's very specific about what all this entails. Even those born generations after one who is an idolator will be punished.

I am the L-RD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the L-RD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

There is so much in Torah about idolatry and staying away from it that it is impossible to say it is nothing.

 

[Lulav]

Lulav,

He "became" like a Jew because in his normal life post-conversion he did not live like a Jew (that is, he did not live a Torah lifestyle).

So you are saying that Paul was not Torah observant but had to act like he was when around Jews to 'gain' them?

Hypocrites, Isn't that what Jesus called the Pharisees? The original word for actors.

But it also begs the question, if he became as a Jew, why did he have to become as one not under the law (Gentile) if he was already living as they did?

 

[yonah_mishael]

So you are saying that Paul was not Torah observant but had to act like he was when around Jews to 'gain' them?

Hypocrites, Isn't that what Jesus called the Pharisees? The original word for actors.

But it also begs the question, if he became as a Jew, why did he have to become as one not under the law (Gentile) if he was already living as they did?

If one were to go to Bangkok in order to seek converts to a new religion, would one win them over by just saying "your gods are all false; you're superstitious and backwards; stop burning that incense and turn to the god that I'm preaching!"? No. Such a person would get very few followers indeed. However, if one somehow found a way to befriend them despite their beliefs by eating at their celebrations, taking on some of their dress and appearance, winning favor with them as a person - before preaching at them... such a tactic for evangelization might be useful.

You say that it's hypocrisy, though it is the entire reason that MJ ever came about! Christians realized that head-on preaching was not winning Jews to Christianity, and they dressed up the evangel (gospel) in Jewish terms, Jewish habits, Jewish perspectives - and used it to convert Jews to "the most Jewish thing in the world" - Christianity!

The fact that an offshoot sprang from this that changed the stance of the original group should not be all that surprising. MJ began to reframe it so that they were not only "Christianity in Jewish style" but they actually saw themselves as a distinct group within larger Christendom - and then later even opposed to Christianity (like the majority on this forum). You now think that MJ is free of hypocrisy, though it started with the same type of hypocrisy as you now accuse Paul of displaying by misapplying my words.

I don't think Paul was a hypocrite in the slightest. I think he was a smart preacher of a new gospel. His gospel was about freedom and was opposed to strictures and legalities. However, he was able to present it by argumentation from the perspective of those who were obligated to legal rulings and scriptural delimitations. He could present his argument both as if he were bound to keep the same law - or as if he were free from such a law and speaking with philosophers. His gospel was that flexible, but it indicated nothing about hypocrisy in his position. If you read me as saying such, then you don't read me correctly.

 

[pat34lee]

Oy~

Pat I never said Acts 15 had to do with weakness, but in that passage it speaks about abstaining from food polluted by idols, that is what I was talking about. YM said this was what Paul meant by weak that there were those who were 'superstitious' and believed that there was something bad about eating food sacrificed to idols because they believed in demons. It seems to me that you are skimming over what I am writing and therefore responding to what you think I said. Please re-read what I wrote. It is rather intense and does include some Greek because I was basically answering to what YM said.

"20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

James made an edict to tell the Gentiles to keep from eating any food polluted by idols which means:
dedicated to, grown in the field to, sacrificed to, offered in the pagan temples.

Paul thinks those who abide by this are 'weak'.

1 Now regarding your question about food that has been offered to idols. Yes, we know that “we all have knowledge” about this issue. But while knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church. 2 Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. 3 But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. 6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.7 However, not all believers know this. Some are accustomed to thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences are violated. 8 It’s true that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat. We don’t lose anything if we don’t eat it, and we don’t gain anything if we do.
9 But you must be careful so that your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble. 10 For if others see you—with your “superior knowledge”—eating in the temple of an idol, won’t they be encouraged to violate their conscience by eating food that has been offered to an idol? 11 So because of your superior knowledge, a weak believer for whom Christ died will be destroyed. 12 And when you sin against other believer by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ. 13 So if what I eat causes another believer to sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live—for I don’t want to cause another believer to stumble.
--------------------------

Can you tell me what in &$^@^@ are believers doing in a pagan temple???

Those who believe that G-d says to stay away from idolatrous things and James said just about the same, are 'weak'?

Is it about what we believe to be wrong VS what G-d tells us is wrong?

If it is true that "An idol is nothing at all in the world”

Then why did Israel fall astray over and over? Why are there so many negative commandments about idolotry? Why did James specifically say to stay away from things polluted by them?

Seems to me that the L-RD is pretty serious about this. The first thing he commands us after saying HE is our G-d is to not have any other gods above him and he's very specific about what all this entails. Even those born generations after one who is an idolator will be punished.

There is so much in Torah about idolatry and staying away from it that it is impossible to say it is nothing.

First, Acts was not a good example for what you were trying to show. You have the advantage of knowing what you meant. I am limited to what you write. Second, is it that hard to put in 1 Corinthians 8 or other book/verses?

Why would believers be in a pagan temple? Have you thought about where they were at the time? Rome. Even if it was in Israel. The markets would be filled with meat that was offered to idols. Meat was butchered in temples, not a butcher shop. Did that change the meat, or make it less filling? No. Idols are nothing. I don't care if Tyson's waves their chickens to that Muslim deity. He is nothing, so my chicken is still good.

In Acts, they are talking about new believers, many of which were gentiles and former pagans. What would a newly baptised former Muslim think if he saw me eating that chicken?

The problem with idols are not that they have power, but that they are used as a substitute for Yahweh. They are something else to credit with good fortune, life, health, etc.

 

[pat34lee]

If one were to go to Bangkok in order to seek converts to a new religion, would one win them over by just saying "your gods are all false; you're superstitious and backwards; stop burning that incense and turn to the god that I'm preaching!"? No. Such a person would get very few followers indeed. However, if one somehow found a way to befriend them despite their beliefs by eating at their celebrations, taking on some of their dress and appearance, winning favor with them as a person - before preaching at them... such a tactic for evangelization might be useful.

You say that it's hypocrisy, though it is the entire reason that MJ ever came about! Christians realized that head-on preaching was not winning Jews to Christianity, and they dressed up the evangel (gospel) in Jewish terms, Jewish habits, Jewish perspectives - and used it to convert Jews to "the most Jewish thing in the world" - Christianity!

The fact that an offshoot sprang from this that changed the stance of the original group should not be all that surprising. MJ began to reframe it so that they were not only "Christianity in Jewish style" but they actually saw themselves as a distinct group within larger Christendom - and then later even opposed to Christianity (like the majority on this forum). You now think that MJ is free of hypocrisy, though it started with the same type of hypocrisy as you now accuse Paul of displaying by misapplying my words.

I don't think Paul was a hypocrite in the slightest. I think he was a smart preacher of a new gospel. His gospel was about freedom and was opposed to strictures and legalities. However, he was able to present it by argumentation from the perspective of those who were obligated to legal rulings and scriptural delimitations. He could present his argument both as if he were bound to keep the same law - or as if he were free from such a law and speaking with philosophers. His gospel was that flexible, but it indicated nothing about hypocrisy in his position. If you read me as saying such, then you don't read me correctly.

That is probably mostly true of the denomination created by the Baptists a few decades ago. That was not the beginning of messianism or Hebrew Roots or Nazarene, whatever you want to call a return to the faith of Yeshua and the apostles. There have always been a few who kept the feasts, the Sabbath and the Torah and yet believed in Yeshua.

Paul never taught against the Torah, because if he did, he would have been a false teacher, as some claim already.

As you said, he was no hypocrite. He spoke to people on their level. He didn't preach at them, or use clever words. He would have reasoned with a Jew using things a Jew understood; the Torah and traditions. With pagans, he would have used his knowledge of their culture to make them understand why they needed Yeshua.

 

[AbbaLove]

He spoke to people on their level. He didn't preach at them, or use clever words. [1] He would have reasoned with a Jew using things a Jew understood; the Torah and traditions [Messianic Judaism]. [2] With pagans, he would have used his knowledge of their culture to make them understand why they needed Yeshua [Christianity].

Are you implying that gentile(pagan) converts to Christianity realized their need for Yeshua more than they realized their need for Jewish traditions? Did Paul (as empowered by the Holy Spirit) put more emphasis on knowing Yeshua or more emphasis on knowing Jewish traditions when reasoning with Gentiles?

Romans 11:25-26
25 For, brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but has now revealed, so that you won’t imagine you know more than you actually do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Isra’el, until the Gentile world enters in its fullness;
26 and that it is in this way that all Isra’el will be saved. As the Tanakh says,

“Out of Tziyon will come the Redeemer;
He will turn away ungodliness from Ya‘akov"

 

[pat34lee]

Are you implying that gentile(pagan) converts to Christianity realized their need for Yeshua more than they realized their need for Jewish traditions? Did Paul (as empowered by the Holy Spirit) put more emphasis on knowing Yeshua or more emphasis on knowing Jewish traditions when reasoning with Gentiles?

Romans 11:25-26
25 For, brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but has now revealed, so that you won’t imagine you know more than you actually do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Isra’el, until the Gentile world enters in its fullness;
26 and that it is in this way that all Isra’el will be saved. As the Tanakh says,

“Out of Tziyon will come the Redeemer;
He will turn away ungodliness from Ya‘akov"

Of course. They needed new traditions as much as they needed new idols. Which is to say not at all.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I think that the OP has a problem from the start. It shouldn't say "Pro-Torah" when it means "Torah observant." One can be very pro-Torah without observing its commandments. The argument is not that Paul was anti-Torah or that he was not pro-Torah. The argument is generally that Paul did not believe that the Torah was binding for believers. That's very different from being anti-Torah, and I thought that this needed pointed out. Sometimes the terminology that we use biases the discussion in a very profound way.

 

[pat34lee]

I think that the OP has a problem from the start. It shouldn't say "Pro-Torah" when it means "Torah observant." One can be very pro-Torah without observing its commandments. The argument is not that Paul was anti-Torah or that he was not pro-Torah. The argument is generally that Paul did not believe that the Torah was binding for believers. That's very different from being anti-Torah, and I thought that this needed pointed out. Sometimes the terminology that we use biases the discussion in a very profound way.

I agree with the distinction, but I don't believe Paul was either anti-Torah or against Torah for everyone.

Telling a new believer that he must follow the whole Torah without being trained first is setting them up to fail.

 

[danny ski]

If one were to go to Bangkok in order to seek converts to a new religion, would one win them over by just saying "your gods are all false; you're superstitious and backwards; stop burning that incense and turn to the god that I'm preaching!"? No. Such a person would get very few followers indeed. However, if one somehow found a way to befriend them despite their beliefs by eating at their celebrations, taking on some of their dress and appearance, winning favor with them as a person - before preaching at them... such a tactic for evangelization might be useful.

You say that it's hypocrisy, though it is the entire reason that MJ ever came about! Christians realized that head-on preaching was not winning Jews to Christianity, and they dressed up the evangel (gospel) in Jewish terms, Jewish habits, Jewish perspectives - and used it to convert Jews to "the most Jewish thing in the world" - Christianity!

The fact that an offshoot sprang from this that changed the stance of the original group should not be all that surprising. MJ began to reframe it so that they were not only "Christianity in Jewish style" but they actually saw themselves as a distinct group within larger Christendom - and then later even opposed to Christianity (like the majority on this forum). You now think that MJ is free of hypocrisy, though it started with the same type of hypocrisy as you now accuse Paul of displaying by misapplying my words.

I don't think Paul was a hypocrite in the slightest. I think he was a smart preacher of a new gospel. His gospel was about freedom and was opposed to strictures and legalities. However, he was able to present it by argumentation from the perspective of those who were obligated to legal rulings and scriptural delimitations. He could present his argument both as if he were bound to keep the same law - or as if he were free from such a law and speaking with philosophers. His gospel was that flexible, but it indicated nothing about hypocrisy in his position. If you read me as saying such, then you don't read me correctly.

For what I read of Paul it is clear that he was a wonderful preacher. Convincing, slick and difficult to pin down.

Are you implying that gentile(pagan) converts to Christianity realized their need for Yeshua more than they realized their need for Jewish traditions? Did Paul (as empowered by the Holy Spirit) put more emphasis on knowing Yeshua or more emphasis on knowing Jewish traditions when reasoning with Gentiles?

Romans 11:25-26
25 For, brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but has now revealed, so that you won’t imagine you know more than you actually do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Isra’el, until the Gentile world enters in its fullness;
26 and that it is in this way that all Isra’el will be saved. As the Tanakh says,

“Out of Tziyon will come the Redeemer;
He will turn away ungodliness from Ya‘akov"

How does one build on a misquote? How can any "truth" be revealed based on that?

 

[AbbaLove]

I think that the OP has a problem from the start. It shouldn't say "Pro-Torah" when it means "Torah observant." One can be very pro-Torah without observing its commandments. The argument is not that Paul was anti-Torah or that he was not pro-Torah. The argument is generally that Paul did not believe that the Torah was binding for believers. That's very different from being anti-Torah, and I thought that this needed pointed out. Sometimes the terminology that we use biases the discussion in a very profound way.

"We believe that the books of B'resheet (Genesis) to the book of Revelation to be the
inspired Word of Elohim." (SOP)
​

The assumption then has to be that Paul is both "Pro-Torah" and "Torah Observant" and that his letters are not his theology, but rather the true essence of Elohim's expression of "Torah Observant" for both Jew and Gentile followers of Yeshua.

The challenge then is to allow the Holy Spirit to teach us the essence of being "Torah Observant." Paul's (as well as the other Apostles) writings as inspired/taught by the Ruach HaKodesh, are in effect a clarification of the essence of being "Torah Observant" which apparently the Pharisees had convoluted. Is it a stretch to say that this "clarification" is what some call the New Testament or New Covenant?

Luke 10:26-27
26 But Yeshua said to him, “What is written in the Torah? How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “You are to love Adonai your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your understanding; and your neighbor as yourself.”
28 “That’s the right answer,” Yeshua said. “Do this, and you will have life.”
(Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)

John 14:26 CJB
But the Counselor, the Ruach HaKodesh, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything; that is, He will remind you of everything I have said to you.
1 John 2:27 CJB
As for you, the Messianic anointing you received from the Father remains in you, so that you have no need for anyone to teach you. On the contrary, as His Messianic anointing continues to teach you about all things, and is true, not a counterfeit, so, just as He taught you, remain united with Him.

According to the SOP ... Followers of Yeshua agree that these verses apply to Paul's letters as inspired teaching from the Ruach HaKodesh (not Paul's theology) that does not contradict the essence of being both "Pro-Torah" and "Torah Observant" according to the New Covenant (Renewed Covenant) of Mashiach Yeshua.


​

 

[visionary]

Are you implying that gentile(pagan) converts to Christianity realized their need for Yeshua more than they realized their need for Jewish traditions? Did Paul (as empowered by the Holy Spirit) put more emphasis on knowing Yeshua or more emphasis on knowing Jewish traditions when reasoning with Gentiles?

Romans 11:25-26
25 For, brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but has now revealed, so that you won’t imagine you know more than you actually do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Isra’el, until the Gentile world enters in its fullness;
26 and that it is in this way that all Isra’el will be saved. As the Tanakh says,

“Out of Tziyon will come the Redeemer;
He will turn away ungodliness from Ya‘akov"

Yeshua went after traditions that made the Law of God void, and we should do likewise, like the current "saved by grace" crowd who void the Law of God.