Questions for Paul.

[SonWorshipper]

Kelsey, you need to stay away from Scotts site, I think you have read through it way too much. I too was in agreement with all the things he said and this was quite awhile ago, when I talked to others about it I got blasted. But I still had nagging problems about certain scriptures that felt perfectly "right" to me, from the Ruach HaKodesh, so I remained in this quandary until I read this



Saul/Paul the two-edged sword of Yeshua



and I completely understood. Now I knew why I had a problem with Paul, and it was not his fault, but his mission. I praised HaShem when I understood this because I was right in my feelings of what was wrong about him and what was right and that is the solution to Paul. Many times he spoke in riddles and as Peter said, "Hard understandings" but that was his specific assignment given straight from the L-rd. He said:



Rom. 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not;
but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I
consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do
it, but sin that dwelleth in me.



Not this sounds like Paul is schizophrenic but only those who really know the Bible would think that , and that is were the truth lies.



Let me paraphrase what he is trying to convey here, pretend that he is among captures and needs to get a message out without speaking plainly because he is not allowed to give away his position, so used a code, a round about way to confuse those "not in the know".



What I am doing - I don't' allow anyone else to do ( because it's wrong)

What I want to do ( living a pure life following the L-rd in all I do) I don't do it

What I hate doing, I am doing, ( I hate it because it is deceiving in a way)

If I am doing what I am doing that I don't want to do ( but doing it because Yeshua told me to) I am doing it because the Law is good

But What I am doing ( because Yeshua told me to) is not because I want to nor I that am doing it ( because it is breaking the law which I would not do) but the sin that is in me ( the other side) is what is doing it , by G-ds will.



Now I was trying to make that easier to understand but it may be more difficult.

You must understand Jacob's blessing for Saul's tribe.



Also it is no coincidence that he called himself Paul, but his name was Saul.



Paul did not write a Gospel like Matthew, but he penned many letters to different congregations scattered about, the L-rd spoke to those that had them to rewrite them and preserve them.



What you must see is that he was a different Apostle than the 12. He was given a special assignment, and was chosen because he was a scholar, or "lawyer" as well as incited to persecute this new sect that threatened the hierarchy of the Jews. Those two alone qualified him for this job as no one else could. Remember that Yeshua told Ananias his "penalty" for his sin (persecution of the new believers) that he would show him (Paul) "how great things he must suffer for my name's sake"



This the L-rd showed him and Paul knew that if he did this he would be forgiven of all he had done, which once he met the L-rd and realized what he had done he must have been horrified.



He was indeed given his own gospel to preach but it comes directly from the L-rd it is what the L-rd himself said he came to do and Paul was the continuation of it, IN Matthew 10:34 he tells them to not think that he came to bring peace ( for that is to come later, after all have chosen whose side they are on) but he came to bring a sword. He came to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, etc. It did not end at the cross, but continue on through Paul.



Please read that whole link I gave and pray before reading that the L-rd bless you with the understanding he gave to me. For I was just like you, only more rabid against Paul, but now I have the utmost respect for him and also and more importantly I have a greater understanding of the L-rds plan and He perfection and greatness.



How Great thou Art O L-rD!!!!!!!

 

[KelsayDL]

SW, this last question I posed is the only one I Had from Scotts site.

I think DaTsar handled it nicely (though I disagree). I would like to see what Scott had to say in response.


Toms site that you posted the link for is an excellent study.

And if he has it right is quite awesome, and left me dumbstruck the first time reading it.

But if he doesn't have it right, then many many questions remain.

I just read this from his site again;

Jer. 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day
of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth,
and shall say, SURELY OUR FATHERS HAVE INHERITED LIES, vanity, and things
wherein there is no profit.


Thats awesome considering the context, and the false teachings we have inherited...

I treat him just as David treated Saul: I may be guilty of cutting the edge of his garment, but I will NOT slay him. I also will not hold onto his coattails
either.

Sound advice.

 

[SonWorshipper]

The main thing is to know how to divide the word, and Paul tells you this as well, Peter, bless him, was guided by the Holy Spirit to write this so we would know. Remember the truth must be really desired, not to be given lightly by ear tickling, but by learning and searching and authenticating to be sure it is of G-d.


This is very important so I will post it so all can easily read it without reaching for a Bible.

2 Peter 3
1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.



Peter, is giving a clue here as well that those that only see what they want to see ( the gospel of Paul) will perish, the gospel of Paul is that the law is dead, we are free from it and making up things to our own satisfation of what we think is ok is fine with the L-rd.

 

[Achichem]

Well, Pardon me Kelsey if I am just sounding disrespectful, repetitive or annoying, that not what I am intending at all, but I sometimes sound that way when I am confused.



First, I will mention I look at Rabbi Saul as a teacher, look at him with the same caution and benefit of the doubt as I would any Preacher and/or Rabbi of today day and age.

Paul clearly wants his readers to believe that God hated Esau before he was born, AND, this picture is impossible to find in the Tanach

That is a bit of a strech, Paul likley never tried to make the inclination that G-d hated anyone before they were born. And to take it as such is to miss the context, like doen because of the poor translation.

The very fact that Paul anticipates the revulsion of his readers to this picture of someone being hated by God before they are born and asks the obvious question himself proves that this is exactly what he wants us to believe. The remaining text goes on to build on this premise. If it were not what he intended for us to believe, the rest of the text becomes perfectly meaningless.

An, interesting take, however an Invalid one(IMO).



However is not the point he is trying to make at all in Romans 9:1-15



First we see a question posed:

Romans 9:4

Who are Israelites / what are Israelites?

IF that is the question being that he is answering, why then would it his focus be on hating/or loving a child before birth.



IMO, It is talking then about why the Word of God speak of a flesh even when:

Romans 9:6

Not of the manner, but since the falling!

For the word of God, not for everyone that is out of Israel!

(That is This Israel)Nor because they are seed of Abraham, for everybody is child. But because of Isaac calling

This is reinforce by his concluding comment on this subject:

Roman 9:15

Therefore then it is not the desire nor those who strive hard, but the mercy of God, which makes a spiritual Israelite

In my opinion, he is talking about how some Jews are like Esau and despite the bloodline, or being children of flesh, they are not children of promise:

Not as child of the flesh, but the child of God, nevertheless the child of promise, counted into seed.

+

or

Romans 9:27:

Isaiah also cries concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel is as the sands of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.

However the question still begs on if that was his intent by the statements:

For they being not yet born, neither practiced certain good or evil,
This being in order that it be according to choosing.
You see, God’ decision was not being decided out of acts but out of calling.

Utter Him that “the older shall serve the younger.”

According to the writings: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau Detested”

Really the decision is simple, you either believe that he was talking on a tangent, and hence that is why the next statement was made as suggest by that site. However you would then have to answer why he went on a tangent from his original question of “what makes an Israelite?” and then where he get back to his point which he does do.



Or you can accept that there is flow, and Paul is by saying “What then shall be said, Not injustice from our God, Not ever!” he is continuing that God’s definition of an Israelite is one of justice not in justice.



So if you do wish to disagree, fin but please then answer why you think he went on a tangent.

It is safe to say that all Christians agree this is correct and Paul wants us to believe God hated Esau before he was born. It simply can’t be argued with!

One who does not accept his enemy as powerful, but as without power, has put light on their own weakness. -Rameod the III

Now try to prove this picture from Scripture. Paul supposedly proved this picture from Scripture himself and for nearly all Christians this is good enough.

Once again where does Paul poses the question of judgment before birth? It my be indicted to some but it still must be noted the question was never the one on the table, the only questions that were:

-Children of flesh v. children of promise

- What is an Israelite?

In Paul’s context, the second of the two phrases appears to have been spoken by God in the very next—if not the same—breath

I would object.



In one he put: “Utter Him:”

On the other he put: “according to what was written”



To me that is a clear divide, Paul never put God words as “according to what was written or as it is written”

On the contrary, Paul always (as most people of God) wrote something equivalent to: “thus says the Lord” or “God said”

The first phrase was indeed spoken before they were born. So it would make sense that if God did hate Esau before he was born as Paul wants us to believe, God probably spoke the next phrase at that same time. Guess what? The first quote comes from the first book of the Bible, Genesis 25:23, and the second comes from the very last book of the Tanach, Malachi 1:1-4, and was spoken over a thousand years after Esau had died! And it is obvious from the context in which it is found that God is speaking of Esau’s descendants the nation of Edom and not Esau himself. And this is long after Esau's descendants had the opportunity to do "any good or evil”. God spoke this after Edom had proved to be evil and deserving of God’s hatred.

I spoke about this in my last reply

One prophecy, ones proof

The fact is, God said He would make a great nation of Esau.

If you take my approach to looking at this he is saying the same this about the children of flesh (which are not of promise).

Just because God promised to make an even greater nation of his brother is in no way a curse on Esau or evidence that God hated him. If this is the way God expresses hatred toward someone, I hope He hates me likewise and makes a great nation of my descendants! And being a servant of Israel would be a great honor, not a curse. Only jealousy and envy can turn such a blessing into a curse.

To this I remark:



Romans 9:1-3

Because, The sorrow in me is great and this heart in continual grief I pray for, myself to become accursed for you brethren.



I this kin, I according to flesh, ask: What is an Israelite?

If you want to miss the point, fine.



But please, if your going to say he went on a tangent please explain why it cannot fit in the context it was placed in.

-Datsar

 

[KelsayDL]

You don't need to repeat yourself.

I comprehend what you are saying, fully.

Again, I invite you to email scott with what you have said, if you don't want to allow me to email him what you have said.

As I said, I'm interested in what his response will be.

 

[Achichem]

You don't need to repeat yourself.

I comprehend what you are saying, fully.

Again, I invite you to email scott with what you have said, if you don't want to allow me to email him what you have said.

As I said, I'm interested in what his response will be.

I thought I might just be repeating myself,
but you see I went back and read over the original greek, and thats still a huge chore for me to do,so I felt I wanted to post somthing so that that effort would(in my mind) not have to be in vain.

Anyways, shalom,

and I sent it off, and we can both wait to see the reply.

 

[Eben Abram]

Shalom Alecheim

Sorry to be "gone" so long, but...,

Circumcision of itslef is nothing for as was stated if it were ONLY circumcision then we could tank modern medicine for circumcising all kinds of people into the Kingdom of God.....

So since it is a "common" practice, that one indicator of a covenant between G-d and Jew is now null and void through abuse and has become inclusive of a "vanity" as oposed to a choice.

Who chose and why?

Now as Paul built the case for the legal contract he was designating certain legal aspects of contractual law between two parties that cannot be held as binding and went on to state why, but also show how a more excellent agreement had been enetered inot by the parties as an arbitrator had come to reconcile the contract default, Jew and Gentile failing the agreement and since sentence of default was inclusive on all parties irrespective of renogiation, arbitration was set forth by the awarded party of the contract holder to set forth new conditional clauses to allow the full contract to hold as binding and yet penalty to be set aside under arbitration that fulfilled contract specificity.

Was that better Kelsay?

(smle)

Any Contract Lawyers out there?
Hebrews, Pauls answer to default by you and me.

Alecheim Shalom

Eben Abram

 

[Kalanit]

hum... G-d hated Esau but loved Jacob... I'd say that is a pretty clear example of G-d choosing some but not others. Now, he could have looked into the future, seen Esau sell his birthright, and thus, designated him as "unfit" to be the proper heir. Who knows? But I believe predestination has some validity.

 

[Kalanit]

After Jehovah showed his acceptance of Gentiles into the Christian congregation, and since many from the nations were responding to the preaching of the good news, a decision had to be made by the governing body at Jerusalem on the question, Is it necessary for Gentile Christians to get circumcised in the flesh? The conclusion of the matter: The "necessary things" for Gentiles and Jews alike did not include circumcision.—Ac 15:6-29.​

Paul circumcised Timothy shortly after the decree was issued, not as a matter of faith, but to avoid prejudicing Jews to whom they were going to preach. (Ac 16:1-3; 1Co 9:20) The apostle dealt with the subject in several letters. (Ro 2:25-29; Ga 2:11-14; 5:2-6; 6:12-15; Col 2:11; 3:11) "We are those with the real circumcision [of the heart], who are rendering sacred service by God’s spirit," Paul wrote Gentile Christians at Philippi. (Php 3:3) And to those in Corinth he wrote: "Circumcision does not mean a thing, and uncircumcision means not a thing, but observance of God’s commandments does."—1Co 7:19.

I do not agree.

Gentiles were NOT required to circumcise their flesh. Jews STILL were. Timothy was circ'd because one of his parents was Jewish, and in order to walk in the fullness for his JEWISH calling, he HAD to be circ'd.

Paul didn't cut off a grown mans foreskin just to be accepted into a certain group for missionary work! Moses, being raised in Egypt, had not circ'd his own children- G-d was about to KILL him for it! His wife did the circ and saved Moses' life.

You cannot walk in your Jewish calling and not be a Jew. And to be a Hebrew/Jew- according to the everlasting covenant G-d made with Abraham- one MUST be circumcised. BOTH in flesh and in spirit.

 

[Kalanit]

The best way to understand Paul is to carefully note who his audience is... and how his words apply to the culture of that day.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Did Paul die for your sins?

 

[Eben Abram]

Shalom Alecheim

The best way to understand Paul is to.....

Well Yes, and No.

As application is relevent to today, how do you proceed with Only circumstancial relevancy given we have no Galatians, but we do have the same circumstances and Same Ruach/Spirit to which G-d affirms the W-rd to us today both coporeally and individually.

If not, then we are our own judge and our own religion and likeminded to having good intentions but going the wroing direction, creating our own code of conduct and claiming to be....Truth.

Awesome responsibility, history of Jew and Christian shows the result if we neglect G-d having an active part in our understanding and application.

Alecheim Shalom

Eben Abram

PS. Paul if you can receive this died over and over again for our sins......but no to atone for them, but that we could find salvation in the One who provided for them.

And if he were resurrected, he would die AGAIN for them.

Eben