Replacing the 12th Apostle

[mishkan]

Not all included Paul's writings in their canons, as was pointed out, the Ebionites, or the Nazarenes.

Unfortunately, even that point comes to us from secondary sources. We have no primary source from such groups demonstrating your case.

Which canon do you identify to be "Scripture", and why?

I regard "Scripture" to consist of the 66 books/letters we have in our modern Bibles. By "Scripture", I mean writings that accurately record the interactions between Hashem and his chosen people, Israel.

As long as one properly interprets each writing according to its chronology and form, I see no conflict anywhere within those 66 books. They are one singular revelation, each reflecting its times and the needs of its audience, using whatever literary forms were available to the author.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The rest of the NT, to my knowledge, does not contradict the Torah or the Prophets. There is no difficulty there. I don't keep or discard the Gospel of Luke because of the nature or relationships of its author. The test of authenticity is not the author, but whether the author speaks for or against the Torah and the Prophets.

The author of Luke never spoke out against the TORAH or the Prophets, just as the others did as well. They were in harmony and unison---and the nature of Torah is also something that is to be considered, as many speak of Torah only in regards to the Mosaic Code when it was always far more than that, with differing versions given from the days of Noah till now. There was never anything remotely in regards to saying that anything not always being done according to the Mosaic code is not Torah.

When people speak of things not lining up with the prophets or Torah, what they often do is speak of things not lining up with their own interpretation of the TOrah--which many times can be selective in practice.

I disagree. I believe that there are a number of things Yehoshua & Messiah did & said that were quite different.

If that is your choice, by all means. Nonetheless, I disagree....and as said earlier, I find it interesting when seeing how many Jewish scholars have noted that what Paul actually lined up with Peter on most issues when it came to the Gentiles...with Peter doing the same thing Paul said in his letters when seeing Acts 10-11 and Acts 15 in his acknowledgements that the Holy Spirit would fall on Gentiles as well as Jews and that the Lord was not a respector of persons, but favored all who sought His face---and he noted that the Gentiles were never to feel as if they had to keep all aspects of Mosaic since it was not given to them.

Paul later confronted Peter on the issue, seeing that Peter didn't do as Christ commanded in going into all the world and treating others the same as Christ treated Gentiles...and Paul taught exactly what Christ lived out--be it in his work in Mark 5 with the demonized Gentile he healed/told to remain with his people and proclaim who he was...or with the Roman Centurion whose servant he healed and whom he noted had greater faith than all in Israel in Matthew 8...or with the woman in Matthew 15 who was a Gentile/had her daughter healed due to her great faith in Messiah...or with the woman at the Well who was a Samaritan/remained one even though she came to trust in the Messiah (and Samaritans differed from Jews at multiple points). The same thing goes for the ways he touched those with skin diseases/issues of blood and even dead bodies (as seen in Mark 6 with the little girl healed in Mark 9:18-26/Luke 8:26-56 and Luke 7:11-13 when he touched the dead body matt didn't become unclean even though the Torah warned against it...and the ways he ate with tax collectors/sinners and other unclean Jews and was willing to be criticized for it because God's Love was more important than the regulations alone.

There's also the issue of his working on the Sabbath in healing/doing good--which bothered MANY (Luke 13:13-15 and John 5:14-34 ) and the ways he noted that those who kept/fulfilled the ultimate commandments were those who loved their neighbor...with him referencing an "unclean" Samaritan as the one who fulfilled the Spirit of the Law above the priest/Levite who kept the other regulations and yet were failing at doing as the Lord commanded---as seen in Luke 10:25-39. There are many other places besides this (more discussed in #15 #35 #62 #62, #66 , #68 ,#69 #77 , #179 and #180 )

Again, whenever it seems like others try to pit Paul against the other apostles, I don't see where the logic really lines up---and the same thing goes for trying to pit Paul against all of Judaism as if he was disqualified. As said before, Paul himself was a Pharisee and never ceased being one in practice. He simply was one who joined the ranks of other Pharisees (such as Nicodemus and Joseph ) that supported Christ (more discussed here on that issue ). We know that Paul was a student of the Tana Talmudic Sage Rabban Gamliel, who was the grandson of Hillel the founder of Beyt Hillel Pharisees, and we know that the 12 Shlichim (Apostles) were students of Yeshua. We know that Yeshua was largely a Hillel Pharisee (really a Sage more so than a Rabbi since he didn't go to any schools like the others and yet was well learned) and Paul supported the same strand of Pharisee culture that Christ did when it came to opposing Pharisees of the camp of Shemai (who were very much against Gentiles being included as God's people and advocated for complete conversion of Gentiles in order for them to be acceptable before the Lord)----and Paul was one who had the education to get the job done that was required for reaching Gentiles/finding unique ways of presenting the Kingdom of God to them and the Transcultural Judaism he taught (as shared here, here and here)

As it concerns the ways that Paul mirrored Yeshua's form of Judaism, we know thatYeshua was a rabbi Himself, abeit different from all of the others (even though he often referenced thought from the other camps). In some of what he noted, you see thoughts that the Essenes taught....and at times, language utilized was akin to what the Zealots would say when it came to militant terminolgoy. Most scholars have noted where Christ Himself often spoke directly in line with the Pharisees, specifically the school of Hiliel....often directly at odds with the School of Shemai (which had a very LOW view of Gentiles and happened to be one that many Pharisees in the days of Christ were with).

Hiliel was involved with the school advocating for the Gentiles to not live fully as the Jews in order to achieve salvation...with their salvation being tied to things expressed to Noah and known generally amongst mankind. But Shammai's school felt Gentiles would be doomed for an eternity apart from the Lord if they didn't convert FULLY to Jewish lifestyles/law. And because of that, both schools often fought. It was this context that Yeshua stepped into, seeing how some of the Pharisees were of the Hiliel school and others of Shammai...and the latter felt Christ was often stepping over the line for daring to say the things He did with Gentiles--just as it was with Paul.

More was discussed here in #15 and #167 ...as it concerns the book by scholar, Harvey Faulk, called "Jesus the Pharisee. Time Magazine did an excellent review on the subject as well. The book by Harvey Faulk has truly been a blessing/good way to build dialouge between those who are Christians and Jews----as its often the case that both sides miss the Mark when trying to polarize. Of course, I don't agree with all of his conclusions. In example, I don't think he really grapples with those areas in which Jesus and the School of Hillel did most definitely part company---and for more, go here. Christ, as a teacher/rabbi, would be taken in His teachings (IMHO) as having his own form of Halacha whenever He challenged that of others while referencing what they did at the same time....such as with the Good Samaritan Story (more discussed here, here, here, here, and here ) or Matthew 23 when he essentially quoted directly from rabbinical law/Talmud on the differing kinds of Pharisees. As God, He didn't merely rely only upon what scholars and teachers debated on...but as a Man, he didn't simply say what He felt divorced from cultural context--or ignoring the reality that the Lord could work through men in discussions and the teachings they developed could be emphasized.

What should one believe if the various accounts of Paul's conversion experience disagree with one another?

When one makes false scenarios to make things seem more of a problem than they really were, one will always be asking "What should one believe?" as if things were wrong---and the same principle applies to the Gospels themselves, which had differing accounts of the same situations and yet they connected. Many people, using the same logic they do with Paul in accounts, have tried to apply the same methodology to the Gospels themselves when it comes to noting that they should not be trusted since (in their mind) they don't always line up.

John, in the verses you provided, does not say that YHWH's Torah is summed up in what Yehoshua identified as the second-most important commandment: loving your neighbor.

John noted that repeatedly throughout I John 3-4 when it came to noting that His commandment was loving your neighbor and the Lord...in confirmation with what Christ noted in Luke 10:25-39 and other parts of the Gospel Accounts when it came to noting that loving God/neighbor were the greatest commandments. One would have to be intellectually dishonest with the text to say otherwise.

Mark 12:33

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.”
Mark 12:32-34

John 13:34-35
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
​

James 2:8
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right.

1 John 3:2
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.
More on Love and Hatred

11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters,[b] if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death.

15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.
19 This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he

1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
1 John 4
​

I completely trust in everything Messiah identified as Scripture

Logically, that'd also mean one needs to trust in what was identified in the scriptures such as the Epistles, be it of Paul or Peter or John and others since the principles line up directly with what Christ taught in the scriptures and what He pointed to in example.

 

[ananda]

Unfortunately, even that point comes to us from secondary sources. We have no primary source from such groups demonstrating your case.

I consider Paul's own writings the primary source in this matter

I regard "Scripture" to consist of the 66 books/letters we have in our modern Bibles ...

How did you personally determine that the Protestant canon was the "correct" one?

 

[Avodat]

So, if I may assume, your canon is the Protestant canon. What motivated you to choose that as your standard, instead of the Catholic canon, or the Ethiopian Orthodox canon, etc.?

Errrrm, I aint a Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox - go figure

 

[ananda]

Errrrm, I aint a Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox - go figure

Well, I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.

There are multiple competing canons among Christianity today, which leads to the following questions:

1. Which is the correct one, and
2. What gives you, or mishkan, or netzarim, or anyone else, the authority to choose one or the other?, and
3. Why should I not have the individual right & ability to choose a non-Pauline canon when you have the individual right & ability to choose a pro-Pauline canon?

 

[Avodat]

Well, I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.

There are multiple competing canons among Christianity today, which leads to the following questions:

1. Which is the correct one, and
2. Who gives you, or mishkan, or netzarim the authority to choose one or the other?, and
3. Why should I not have the individual right & ability to choose a non-Pauline canon when you have the individual right & ability to choose a pro-Pauline canon?

a) What gives you the right to challenge what I, Mishkan, or anyone else, may choose to hold to? What we hold to is that which is acceptable to CF and to the majority on these fora, whether Protestant, Catholic or EO.

b) From where did a non-Pauline Canon arise, and when. If that is what you truly hold to, you should not be on these fora. It is a violation of CF rules to argue against Paul being included in the Canon of Scripture. On that basis you should not be debating or teaching on here.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I know what you are saying. But let's call it for what it is here- there's no such thing as Ebionite theology. All we know about this group is second hand knowledge at best. It seems to me that there is a romantic myth about them that is being promoted by people who find NT living a bit too hard. There are no systematic theologies or lasting written masterpieces by any Ebionite..

Regardless of whether it's second hand information or firsthand, the reality is that there is information on them--and that is something to consider when it comes to many of the ways others live out certain things.

As far as “beliefs” of the Ebionites, the documents of the New Testament, critically evaluated, are our best sources, including some of the fragmentary traditions still embedded in the book of Acts (7:37-53). There are fragments and quotations surviving from their Hebrew Gospel tradition (see see A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, E. J. Brill, 1992), the so-called Pseudo-Clementine materials, as well as some of the traditions reflected in texts such as the “Hebrew Matthew” preserved by Ibn Shaprut, and now published in a critical edition by George Howard (The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Mercer University Press, 1995). Based on what we can reliably put together from these sources we can say the Ebionite or Nazarene movement could be distinguished by the following views:

1) Jesus as a human being with father and mother but designated a “Prophet like Moses,” or “the Anointed of the Spirit,” who will be revealed in power as the “Son of Man coming in the Clouds of heaven,” following his rejection and death (Acts 7:37; Luke 4:18-19; Mark 10:35-45; 13:26-27).

2) Disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals, preferring the ideals of the pre-Flood diet and what they took to be the original ideal of worship (see Genesis 9:1-5; Jeremiah 7:21-22; Isaiah 11:9; 66:1-4). This reflects a general interest in seeking the “Path” reflected in the pre-Sinai revelation, especially the time from Enoch to Noah. For example, divorce was shunned, as violating the Edenic ideal, even though technically it was later allowed by Moses (Mark 10:2-11).

3) Dedication to following the whole Torah, as applicable to Israel and to Gentiles, but through the “easy yoke” or the “Torah of liberty” of their Teacher Jesus, which emphasized the Spirit of the Biblical Prophets in a restoration of the “True Faith,” the Ancient Paths (Jeremiah 6:16; Matthew 11:28-30; James 2:8-13; Matthew 5:17-18; 9:13; 12:7), from which, by and large, they believed the establishment Jewish groups of 2nd Temple times had departed.

4) Rejection of the “doctrines and traditions” of men, which they believed had been added to the pure Torah of Moses, including scribal alterations of the texts of Scripture (Jeremiah 8:8).
​

Generally, the movement came to have a very negative view of Paul as an “apostate from the Torah,” though it is possible that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries there were branches of the Nazarenes who were more tolerant of Paul as the “apostle to the Gentiles,” but who as Jews, nonetheless, insisted on Torah observance.

Noting the rise of Ebionite theology again doesn't mean that others are seeking to study them/live that out as if there is an organized system of thought. Rather, the same tendencies that led to the development of Ebionite practice/actions, be it in denying that Christ was God/Man (as some have done on the forum) or denying that Paul was legitimate and thus seeking to attack his theology (as is STILL happening) or declaring that the only way believers line up with Torah is to ensure Gentiles live fully as Jews do in practice so that they can get approval (as has happpened many times
here)....all of that has its roots in the thinking of Ebionite ideology.

And the level of aggression toward Paul is not surprising seeing how the same happened back in the day of the early church. Seriously, in a forum where the moderators have explicitly asked that no bashing of Paul is allowed and threads have been shut down, the same insistence in bringing up those topics blatantly, be it in hinting on it or outright bringing up the same in dishonor of what the Mods have done (against the rules ) and dishonoring what CF has noted as Law is what most of the Ebionites did when told of what was accepted in certain areas....and yet they still tried to bring the same arguments that were refuted into the synagouges/fellowships of believers against it repeatedly----all in the name of trying to get others to understand the Torah.

We've already had a couple of threads locked up on the issue whenever discussion arises saying that Paul was false and things got very harsh from the mods before on the issue...as seen in places like Opinion Of Paul, Not Paul bashing and [REPORT FREE THREAD] staff/member(MJ members) discussion "Discrediting Paul" ..but the dedication others still place into going against what Paul said and what the Mods have asked is the same type of agre'"ssion shown in previous times when people were determined to "prove" that Paul was false/others needed to hear it.

As said before, it's not Messianic Judaism in what they do when arguing for such------but they are trying to redefine the movement to suit their desires. In many ways, the real battle is discussing what is the BEST kind of Messianic Judaism--and in that regards, the conversation (IMHO) becomes more focused if examining the claims of differing camps of the early church/1st century Judaism and seeing what they all felt about Yeshua....and how all had differing beliefs on how to express their devotion to the Messiah, yet they were all "Messianic"--and one of those camps had the best solution.

As said before, alot of the differing stances that're said by others on the boards claiming to be "Messianic Jewish" do have a historical basis if examining some of the earlier camps....specifically the Ebionites when it came to the early church and certain groups saying that anything of Paul was counter to Torah. Although the Ebionites were very diverse/didn't all see the same, Paul’s oppoments were often those who were “Ebionites” ..just as it is with many here in their stances against Paul on a host of issues and choosing to be aggressive in noting it. With the Ebionites, as many here also believe, they felt that only certain books in the NT Gospels could be trusted while Gentiles were bound to keep all of the OT laws as the Jews were. Much of what they held to was shot down by the early church--and some felt that their lack of being accepted was a sign of God's approval.......and although there were many Gentiles who joined with them believing they had to observe all aspects of the Torah in order to have acceptance before the Lord, those Gentiles within the Ebionite version of Christianity and the Ebionite Jews would collectively be a different kind of "Messianic" altogether.

If I'm alone in that viewpoint, cool..but IMHO, it truly does seem to be a resurrgence of such thought on the forums when seeing the side of "Messianic Jew" you come at and the other side others reside..akin to Neo-Ebionites --of Christ and others discussed how one could discuss and some of which was discussed elsewhere in places like #91 .

Again, my referencing them doesn't mean that they are idolized by myself in any way..as many of them, if in our times, would probably be going to war against mostly all of the people on the boards---including those supporting them--since many of them were against the apostles as well. The variations amongst the groups cannot be ignored, of course, as some were in support of the apostles (though more strict) whereas others went to war---and vehemently hated Pauline thought.

As much as there is a romanticized notion, I think the same thing can be said in having unecessary notions that demonize all things about them simply because many of the Church fathers spoke negatively of them..and we in our times take that commentary/make our own conclusions even though the amount of evidence to know fully what was going on is often uncertain/speculation on many points. In light of that, I greatly appreciate others such as Derek Leman for his work in trying to address the issue graciously---both with those seeking to idolize all things "Ebionite" and those who demonize all things "Ebionite"...for either end of the specturm is a matter of historical slander, IMHO, that doesn't need to happen if simply going through the facts and seeing the Mosaic that existed in the early world of Jewish Christianity. And I take that seriously in light of how Derek is one who doesn't even believe that Gentiles are in any way required to live the same as Gentiles ( as seen here, here , here , here and here ).

The leader of the Messianic Fellowship I attend has also noted some of the same things---and for him as one who was a priest within Eastern Orthodoxy (where some things by the Ebionites were condemned with their views of Christ), I'll take that seriously.

Let's look at false teacher identifying mark no.1 here: try to find some ancient friends so you don't look like the person inventing a new religion. If you get enough of them, maybe your religion might fly. However, every sect and cult I know of tries to find their friends in history but always have to cover up the whole story. This is the elephant in the room here. While people want to hang their hats on ancient sects, those sects are long gone. They did not proceed or survive in God's blessing. Why? The usual answer is to demonize those who continued to thrive and still do (eg. the church), but that still makes God a weakling unable to maintain His truth and sustain His people. Looks like God's favor rests upon the NT and the Gospel taught by Paul in complete agreement with the other Apostles

I agree...and in noting where others may identify with the Ebionites, that is in no way an endorsment of that belief system.

The notion that these guys were "ok" because they allegedly stuck to the Law is besides the point. They erred on many more serious matters of theology, including promoting heretical Christology and heretical soteriology, and that's just for starters. What is an issue is that just because they had the outward appearance of being Torah keepers all is forgiven by the 21stCentury student who may be desperate to find validation for his or her rejection of the full Gospel in the early Christian Faith. ..even though they were ultimately deniers of God's revelation.

 

[ananda]

a) What gives you the right to challenge what I, Mishkan or Netzarim, or anyone else, may choose to hold to?

I'm merely pointing out that the challenge can go both ways. If one can challenge me on my canon, then I should have the right to do the same.

What we hold to is that which is acceptable to CF and to the majority on these fora, whether Protestant, Catholic or EO.

Undoubtedly. However, might doesn't make right! Is the magisterium of CF, the Pope, the 4th century fathers, or the Protestant leaders infallible?

b) From where did a non-Pauline Canon arise, and when. If that is what you truly hold to, you should not be on these fora. It is a violation of CF rules to argue against Paul being included in the Canon of Scripture. On that basis you should not be debating or teaching on here.

I don't see where "belief in Paul" is a necessary part of CF rules. However, if a majority here voices their desire to excommunicate me, then I will leave.

 

[Avodat]

Please read the parts I have highlighted and make up your own mind whether you should be posting here, or not.

1. This is a Torah Observant forum where those in Judaism as well as the Gentiles who are coming to Messiah, and those who already know Him, may come and grow and learn more about a Torah observant life in Messiah. We advocate Torah Observance as part of our walk with Messiah Yeshua, since He is our example and was Torah Observant, along with the disciples. This can be an area of great division with much misunderstanding, so we must realize that we are all at different points in our walk and that the Ruach Elohim (the Spirit of God) will lead people to The Truth. We realize that not all Messianics have equal levels of Torah observance. The disputes concerning this matter will not be tolerated.

2. Realize that we will not all agree with each other, or with everything we see on this forum. If an issue or topic comes to an impasse and you are frustrated, all parties involved should agree to dis-agree and let the issue or topic drop. Each poster should then take the issue to our Heavenly Father in prayer and let Him speak to each individual about it.

3. Lo L'shon Hara will be permitted. That means no evil speech on the forum or links leading to it. No personal attacks, no insulting, talking down to another poster (or any individual not involved with this board), insulting their integrity or their walk with Messiah Yeshua. Those who engage in lashon hara will be warned and their accounts actioned. Any links or posts that violate this rule may also be removed or censored without warning. Also, no remarks anti-semitic or anti-messianic in nature. Address the topic of the post or the discussion, not the person posting or responding to the topic. Please consider these things before posting.

4. Please keep in mind that we consider Messianic Judaism to be a completely valid form of Judaism that doesn't need the permission or affirmation from any other sect of Judaism to exist. Therefore, we don't believe it is necessary to convert to Orthodox Judaism or any other branch of Judaism to belong. Although there are different expressions of Messianic Judaism, as there are in other Judaisms, we believe Messianic Judaism; a Torah observant Judaism who believes Yeshua is the Messiah and believes the Apostolic writings hold authority, to be the true expression of Judaism that the scriptures and the God of Yisrael intended.

5. Anti-missionaries who come here to try teach that Yeshua is not the Messiah will not be permitted.

6. Anti-torah observant missionaries will not be tolerated. If you have a honest question about a scripture passage that seems to be in contradiction to a Torah pursuant faith, and would like to have an answer from us in regards to how we view it, we are happy to answer your questions and search the scriptures with you. And although this is a place where you can have your questions answered regarding a Torah pursuant faith in Yeshua The Messiah...it is not a place to pro-actively teach anti-Torah observance. Also there are certain doctrines that although we will discuss to show the truth of the matter, will not be allowed to be freely promoted here at the forum.
*Any theology that teaches Torah has been done away with (Mattityahu/Matthew 5:16-19).
*Any theology that teaches that Torah is not for those of the nations whom have put their trust in Yeshua The Messiah (B'midbar/Numbers 15:15-16, Ephesians 2, Romans 3:31).
*Any replacement theology that teaches that any group of people has replaced Israel or the Jewish people.

7. We believe that the books of B'resheet (Genesis) to the book of Revelation to be the inspired word of Elohim. Any teaching that attempts to invalidate these books of the Bible as being the authoritative inspired word of God will not be acceptable here on the forum.

8.In addition any doctrine or teaching that is not consistent with the following statement of faith shouldn't be promoted here. Those on a mission to disprove these things and draw others away from these beliefs will have their posts removed and their accounts actioned for disrupting the peace and harmony of this forum.

In addition to our CF SOF

~ STATEMENT OF FAITH
*We believe the Bible, both the TaNaKh and Brit Hadashah (Torah, Prophets, Writings, and New Covenant), to be the inspired authoritative Word of God. Yeshua The Messiah is the memra, the very word of God (see Yochanan/John chapter1)

*We believe in one God in three persons: The Father, The Messiah (The Son), and The Holy Spirit.
The Shema (Deut. 6:4) teaches that God is one (Echad). He was, He is and He will be. He is the first and the last, the Aleph (Alpha) and the Tav (Omega), and besides Him there is no other.

*We believe that Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus The Messiah) is The Annointed One all of the scriptures point to, and also the primary builder of The Kingdom Of Heaven. We believe in His virgin birth, His miracles, His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, His bodily resurrection, His ascension to the right hand of The Father, and in His personal return in power and glory to judge the living and the dead.

*We believe man was created in the image of God. Although, through disobedience man fell from his first state and became separated from God. All men since Adam's fall are born with this "fallen" sinful nature (Tehillim/Psalm 51:5) and as such are creatures under the wrath of God.

*We believe, for the redemption of "fallen" sinful men, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential. Repenting of personal sin and turning to God's ways, a personal faith in the Lord Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus The Messiah), and the fruit of the Spirit manifesting itself in a holy life are evidences of this regeneration. God's redemption has always been accomplished by a personal faith and trust in Him. Works of The Law (Torah), or any righteous acts has not and will not redeem anyone from sin and it's consequences.

*We believe in the present ministry of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) by Whose indwelling the believer is enabled to live a holy life unto God.

*We believe all the words of the biblical Prophets are true.

*We believe in the resurrection of both the redeemed and the lost; they that are redeemed unto the resurrection of life, and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

*We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus The Messiah).

*We believe in spiritual gifts given through the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) to the individual believer.

*We believe the Torah (The Law) is holy, just, and good as the apostle Sha'ul (Paul) has stated (Romans 7:12). The Torah is profitable for instruction in righteousness (2Timothy 3:16), not as a means of justification or salvation, but as a path of sanctification.

*We believe God rewards those who keep his commandments and punishes those who transgress them (Devarim/Deuteronomy 5:9-10, Mishlei/Proverbs 28:9, 1Yochanan/John 3:22).

*We believe God has given his people the Moedim (sacred calendar of feasts/festivals). This calendar is a "shadow of things to come", and teaches spiritual truths about our Lord Yeshua The Messiah and God's Plan for mankind. These holy days are the "testimonies of God" (Devarim/Deut. 6:17) and are a great benefit to building the faith of the believer. They speak of God's faithfulness and deliverance therefore we observe and celebrate them with great joy.

*We believe the Sabbath was given to mankind at creation for our good and that it is a delight to observe. The Sabbath is the only one of the Ten Commandments God cautions us to remember. Yeshua The Messiah testified that the Sabbath was created for man, and intended as a blessing.

*We believe it is the calling of all believers to share the "Good News" of the coming Kingdom and to live a life transformed by the Spirit of God following our Lord's example of love toward God, and all mankind.

House Rules:
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here:
http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_rule_0
In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic and subject to staff action. __________________

Congregational Forum Restrictions, Christian Only Forums, and Off-Topic posts
Do not teach or debate in any Congregational Forum unless you are truly a member and share its core beliefs and teachings. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.

Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.

Respect and become familiar with each forum's Statement of Purpose. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose; submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion. Off Topic posts will be moved or removed.

 

[mishkan]

I consider Paul's own writings the primary source in this matter

Paul mentions the Ebionites, does he? Funny, I've never noticed that. And he is actually referred to as "a ringleader of the Nazarenes". Oh, but that is only his buddy's account, so we have to dispose of that.

As I see it, you are following a path of paranoia and suspicion that has little to do with reality.

How did you personally determine that the Protestant canon was the "correct" one?

Well, let's first get a couple of things out of the way.

• I think we all agree that the Tanakh is canon, yes? Despite having its own share of flaws and apparent contradictions? That takes care of the "Jewish canon".

• The only other major issue regarding what is canonical comes from the Catholic claim that the apocrypha is canon. When we say "the Protestant canon", the point is to differentiate from "the Catholic canon". I have no problem with reading the apocrypha. You'll find I wrote extensively on "Hannah and Her Seven Sons" on my blog last year. But, as much as I delight in reading that uplifting story, I do not count it as part of Scripture. It was more like the Harlequin romance novel of its day.

So, the question boils down to, what conflicting "canons" are you talking about?

Wiki contains a surprisingly thorough discussion of the development of the canon. The record shows that the process was complex and meandering, but the idea of rejecting Sha'ul en toto seems to have never entered the picture. There is no reason whatsoever to assert such a conspiracy theory into any discussion of the early canon.

There are numerous collections of early Messianic Writings, all of them containing largely the same books, with one-off differences between each. The major feature relevant to our discussion, however, is that all (or almost all) of Sha'ul's letters appear in all the lists. Unless you have some specific source telling you that Sha'ul's writings were rejected by a significant portion of the Messianic population, and why, I find it difficult to justify making the rejection of the Pauline epistles a cornerstone of one's thinking.

 

[mishkan]

There are multiple competing canons among Christianity today, which leads to the following questions:

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. The only "competing canons" today differ only in their acceptance or rejection of the apocrypha. And that distinction really goes back to how much weight one gives to either the LXX or Jerome. It certainly has nothing to do with Sha'ul.

1. Which is the correct one

Since almost no one actually reads the apocrypha, that question is pretty much academic.

2. What gives you, or mishkan, or netzarim, or anyone else, the authority to choose one or the other?

Historically, the decision was never so much about individuals as it was about up to community leaders. But your point is fair, I suppose. We all need to determine by what principles we will accept any of the major collections.

3. Why should I not have the individual right & ability to choose a non-Pauline canon when you have the individual right & ability to choose a pro-Pauline canon?

You are an independent entity, and you will always have the right to make whatever choice you wish, regardless of how correct or incorrect that choice may be.

What you are encountering here, however, are people who are following the oldest recorded choices regarding Rabbi Sha'ul and his letters. It is a case where you are advancing a strange and unusual proposition, while failing to provide evidence of sufficient weight and caliber to justify such a choice. Being cynical or suspicious does not make you correct.

 

[ananda]

Historically, the decision was never so much about individuals as it was about up to community leaders. But your point is fair, I suppose. We all need to determine by what principles we will accept any of the major collections.

Yes, we can either:

1. believe in what a magisterium tells us to believe, with blind faith, or
2. test it out for ourselves, in obedience to the mitzvot.

Either way, the choice still rests on the individual to choose.

you are advancing a strange and unusual proposition, while failing to provide evidence of sufficient weight and caliber to justify such a choice.

Have you examined the evidence against Paul to the same level you may have examined pro-Pauline evidence?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

perhaps they just withered and died out because most heresy has a short life span. The more likely story is that they all became orthodox, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

.

For many, it's more of a matter of Fate vs Chance. Some could say that it was a Divine Accident for things to have turned out as they did---but as God is the one in control of History and guides it toward His own ends, one must consider. And I've often considered if it could be the case that the Lord will often allow for certain groups to not succedd due to something He desires.

The folks over at "Archaic Christianity" did an excellent job in discussing this when considering the works of others whose intent is to focus on the "losers" of proto-orthodoxy , those whose ideas were stamped out by the proto-orthodox before the formation of much of what was considered "Orthodox" within the early church (as seen here and here/here)...and I'm glad for others who've tried to discuss the issues as well, for there has been much discussion over that issue for a good bit now as the years have gone by.

Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be reformed or stamped out....and some of the things that others often see today are simply the same ancient forms of thought repackaged/"remixed" for our times

For many, the question isn't so much about who came out on top/won---but instead, the question is this: Should the proto-orthodox have won? Truly, that is the question unless you just want to look at all this as a bunch of historical data.

For many, seeing the alternatives that many ancient forms of Christianity offered in place of Pauline Christianity or that of the other apostles, it didn't seem as if it was truly something of the Lord...and for many, the mindset was that the groups may not have succedded due to the Lord's intervention and his allowance of them perishing.

But for other groups, they feel that just because a group had a majority does not mean that they necessarily had the approval of the Lord upon their actions....and others have often noted how many things done in history have been justified in the name of claiming an event to be ordained. I'm reminded of things that I'd say whenever I had discussions with my teachers---many of which were HYPER-Calvinists and assumed that all events in history, good or bad, were the work of God being "sovereign." To me, it always seemed odd that there could never be a consideration that the Lord caused certain events to be set up (like one would set up an stage) and let things play out...yet intervened to stop it. There was one time when someone said to me that it was God's Will for my ancestors to be born as slaves in the West Indies and the America's .with their basis being what Paul noted once when he said that the Lord chose the times/places we were born into in Acts 17:26-27 ( Isaiah 46:9-11).

In their views, it could not be accident that my ancestors were placed where they were.....and it was not by chance that some were born into harsh situations/having to deal with severe situations for the glory of the Lord....seeing how the scriptures seemed to indicate to them that the Lord did so to others(Romans 3:4). (Romans 9:11-21; Daniel. 4:34-35)--and, for others, it was by the Blessing of the Lord that slave masters were allowed to have the position they did, thus meaning (in their views) that slaves should not have tried to seek out their freedom/resist. Historically, the people advocating such would condemn the other ministers of God who said that slavery was a grevious sin and believed (as John Wesley did) that man determined the fate of others/was charged by the Lord to respond as scripture commands instead of assuming that all events unfold as they were meant.

With those groups of Calvinists although I disagreed with MUCH of what they said (in light of how I came from a Charismatic background that didn't emphasize sovereignty to the point of all things being "fated"), I could see some of what they mentioned. In example, it's interesting seeing how the Conquistadors who destroyed civilizations when the New World was discovered are often painted as "cruel" for their actions--though the flip side is that for them, they honestly believed they were doing a service to Natives many times...."improving the savages", so to speak (just as it was with people owning slaves believing "But we're doing them a favor..."

And as many believers have noted, many of the civilizations were truly evil/corrupt---such as the Aztecs, who continually slaughtered others in their own nations and others for the sake of blood sacrifices and violence. Some have said that what the Conquistdors did was an act of Judgement from God...

And much of what was done WAS BENEFICIAL--though I'd say it was moreso in spite of things rather than because of it many times. People got educated, knew how to use technology.

If believing that all of what happens in life---as it concerns evil or good---is a matter of choice/chance, something to consider is that much of the roles could've been reversed----and the conversations/threads about the oppression of other groups would've been on how American Indians can harmed cultures outside of theirs.

Ecclesiastes 9:11

I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.
Ecclesiastes 9:10-12 / Ecclesiastes 9​

It could be said that much of reasons why one side was dominant was indeed based on "luck"/chance rather than a matter of God intervening to have things develop that way.

And perhaps one can't know the ultimate reason things occurred, with it being best to not assume that the Lord had anything to do with events occurring. Rather than saying "Yes" or "No", mabye it was a matter of simply fortunate events favoring one side...

From a historical/secular perspective, there was was a really in-depth book on the matter that really gave some food for thought. It's called Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies--and for the actual video discussion:

Guns Germs and Steel_1 of 3​

Guns, Germs and Steel (Part 2)​

Guns, Germs and Steel (Part 3)​

It's an series from "National Geographic" that I had to learn of/watch during an Anthropology class for college, but it was a trip viewing it. As an excerpt:

Why were Europeans the ones with all the cargo? Why had they taken over so much of the world, instead of the native people of New Guinea? How did Europeans end up with what Diamond terms the agents of conquest: guns, germs and steel? It was these agents of conquest that allowed 168 Spanish conquistadors to defeat an Imperial Inca army of 80,000 in 1532, and set a pattern of European conquest which would continue right up to the present day.

Diamond knew that the answer had little to do with ingenuity or individual skill. From his own experience in the jungles of New Guinea, he had observed that native hunter-gatherers were just as intelligent as people of European descent -- and far more resourceful. Their lives were tough, and it seemed a terrible paradox of history that these extraordinary people should be the conquered, and not the conquerors.

To examine the reasons for European success, Jared realized he had to peel back the layers of history and begin his search at a time of equality -- a time when all the peoples of the world lived in exactly the same way.

​

Some of it is interesting to consider when it comes to the evils of Colonialism/Imperialism and how many kingdoms or peoples have been wiped out by other dominant ones---for one could say that the Lord had nothing to do with it....and yet, its hard (IMHO) to escape from the fact that even people in their freewill could only choose to do certain things because they had access to certain resources that would never have been reached....unless God Himself had placed people there to begin with.

All of that's said with this in mind:

Psalm 22:28
for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations.
Psalm 22:27-29

Acts 17:26
From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
Acts 17:25-27 / Acts 17


​

The same dynamics that've played themselves out in the history of nations/kingdoms with God's Sovereignty could've easily played themselves out within the early church when it came to the ways in which certain groups were not as successful in growth as others.

Philip Jenkins has done some excellent work in some of his other works--one of which is entitled Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way" ( ) and opens discussion on all the occurences over the years on who isn't "orthodox" and how that has led to an endless search on what was actually the "right" view.

Within that work, Jenkins helpfully draws implications from his study for the work of scholars like Bart Ehrmann (as well as others like Elaine Pagels), who have sought to rehabilitate early Gnostic writings as containing legitimate "alternative Christianities;" Christianities which were supposedly suppressed by the church....although Jenkins remains unconvinced: "The... conservatism of these [eastern] churches, so far removed from papal or imperial control, makes nonsense of claims that the church...allied with empire to suppress unpleasant truths about Christian origins" (88). Jenkins expands upon some of those thoughts from a differing perspective in one of his books covering what often occurred in the context of the fourth and fifth centuries (As seen on p.g 67 of "Jesus Wars )--and with his work entitled ["Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years " ( ). There, Peter Jenkins, argued that the official orthodoxy of Christianity today was predominately forged by the political machinations of certain key political players of the fifth century. ...and often the cannon that is accepted is due more so to which group was able to survive the longest. Others may disagree with the premise, but I do appreciate the amount of work he put into researching the isue.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

God has blessed the works of Paul, and true believers have always understood his writings as in concord with the rest of scripture.

Can't be said enough

 

[Lulav]

It wasn't quite a one man thing. The religious leaders wanted this movement stopped by any means. Some, if not many of Paul's later persecutors were probably those he worked with prior to his conversion.

Then why do we have Paul's companion and doctor Luke, telling us that Paul's Rabbi, Gamaliel was against any violence towards this new sect?

Acts specifically states that once Paul was 'converted' the church had rest. Seems to me it was a one-man vendetta. It also clearly states that Paul went to them to gets 'letters' it wasn't they who called him to do this.

 

[Lulav]

Thank you! for saying it much better than I managed.

You're welcome but you did just fine!

Let's take Maccabees. If the temple were desecrated and destroyed, wouldn't it have to be a judgment from YHWH? And if he is judging the people, who was Judah Maccabee to stand in the way? Would he have been better off leading the people to repent rather than to fight?

Are you saying that you think HaShem allowed pagan worship in his Temple? That he allowed a pig to be slaughtered on the holy altar? That this was his doing for punishment?

As far as repenting instead of standing up for the L-RD, do you remember the story of Phinias? or Pinchas?, the grandson of Aaron? did not his act that day save many from the wrath of G-d? Yes, many died for their sins, but all may have if it hadn't been for what Pinchas did. The L-rd made a special covenant with Phinias that day, for him and his children.

Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned My wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was very jealous for My sake among them, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy.
Wherefore say: Behold, I give unto him My covenant of peace;and it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.'

 

[Lulav]

..and perhaps they just withered and died out because most heresy has a short life span. The more likely story is that they all became orthodox, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Sure, they could have, but because one group opposed to them called them heretics, must we take that position at face value and not look into it ourselves? They believed that Paul did away with Torah, today's Messianics are promoting (against the Christian church) that he didn't , that he was a 'Rabbi' and keep calling him that and spouting his words over the true and only Rabbi, Yeshua. All challenges against MJ are to do with the Torah, and those who have held reign over the book have always taught that Shabbat is no longer the Sabbath, you can eat whatever you want, and many other ways of life that Paul did not teach.

As I said in the post above...God has blessed the works of Paul, and true believers have always understood his writings as in concord with the rest of scripture.

So then what am I a 'false believer'? I am one who believes in the one who came, as was prophesied to come, from Israel, who would speak the words of G-d and we were to listen to him. The man, Yeshua, not the vision.
So be it. It is only your label, but I'm sure G-d isn't influenced by your perception of me, or my faith, or my obedience, or allegiance.


You claim to have a Jewish "mindset" and you don't understand that God sustains His people and His truth?????????????????

I do? Where have I ever said that? I think you have me mixed up with someone else. Surely G-d is all powerful, but that doesn't mean that he interferes with humankind. He does as he laid out in the Torah. He told us what we should do and if we did so, what he would do, it's called a covenant. But when we break it we have to deal with the consequences.

No, I don't believe that we have the originals of any of the books in the bible. It is clear from the many manuscripts we do have that scribal error, as well as translation, redaction and more have happened. We can't deny that.

I am awaiting the day of the discovery of the stones which Joshua wrote upon the words of the L-RD. I'm sure he has preserved them somewhere along with the original and second set of commandments. He guarded the DSS for almost 2,000 years, but why? There are things that man has kept hidden so as not to upset the apple cart.

You have a 19thC liberal Protestant mindset.

That's a new one, haven't been called that before, I'll add it to the growing list of names I've been called, maybe right next to Satan's brother ......

All the things you mention are fads, they will pass. The scriptures- including all 27 books of the NT- will remain.

I don't believe it is a 'fad' to search for truth, nor to keep Yeshua's instructions to keep the commandments. *shrug*, being a woman this may be hard for you to understand but I've never gone with the 'in crowd', neither following fads of fashion, hairstyle, decorating, status cars, religions, or anything else that most people do. I am an odd ball, I don't go along with the crown, even ones saying they love G-d, yet their every act speaks otherwise. Sorry, to disappoint you CM, but even being raised as a Christian with a Jewish Grandmother who had to keep her mouth shut about who she was, and listened to the Gentile side of the family put down Jews while saying they loved Jesus, even at an very early age I knew this was wrong. And with all the sermons I've heard, in church, on the radio, on the internet, and all the books I've reads, which are numerous, I still believe the same way. I've come to recognize it that I am hard-wired that way. I don't know what that means, but I haven't budged from my belief or love for G-d and Yeshua in over half a century and I don't suspect I ever will.

 

[Lulav]

This part of your post reads like something from an alternate reality. How's that? I didn't come up with this stuff from 'visions and revelations'.

Paul taught students.

He did? I can't find one place where he refers to anyone as his talmidim. Students, disciples, Paul never calls anyone that, not even Timothy. And if he did indeed have them and considered himself a Rabbi, then he is not the follower of Yeshua is he? For Yeshua taught his disciples, his students, that there was only one Rabbi, Teacher and master, and that was him.

He wrote long letters of teachings. He wrote long letters, teachings? sure there are some, but mostly when you read them as a whole instead of piecemeal you find that most of these letters are about defending himself and his 'gospel. To the point sometimes of threatening them.

We have them today. - Yes we do

They're in the Bible. - Of mans choosing, no?

The Book of Acts mentions Paul teaching in synagogues.

Yes it does. It also mentions that he was numerous times thrown out, beaten and threatened. Why? Of course his defenders say it was because these 'jews' hated the message. But what Jew would hate the message that the Messiah had come? Really, think about it. Sure in Jerusalem there was the status quo with the Temple and the Sanhedrin, but Paul went to the Diaspora, there wasn't that stigma there of believing or not.

I'd say the reason that he was thrown out was the same one that he was accused of, in the book of Acts. James spoke of this, and then many others did, that he taught Jews to forsake Torah. I can certainly see where this would make righteous Jews (who not would be in the synogogues?) to take after him, for this is a false prophet that teaches against the Torah, as G-d himself told us.


Obviously, the people who knew him knew of his credentials. All they had to do to find out if he was lying about them was to ask in Jerusalem, and the whole thing would have been over immediately.

Then why was he always posting his resume in his letters? puffing himself up, making himself sound of import when Yeshua taught you should be humble, and no one is above anyone else? We are all brothers. They may have thought if he was so important they would make fools of themselves by checking him out. Just like today, any man can make himself look like he's sent from G-d, in some venues this is called a snake oil salesmen. One is conditioned to believe anything they say and not question. So that strawman doesn't fly.


This is the same for of argumentation for the resurrection of Jesus- they could have pointed to His body and the whole religion crumbles immediately.

Another strawman. But now that you mention it, how at the time could Paul preach a man resurrected if he never saw or knew him in the first place? Yet there were hundreds of men alive at the time who had? Could this be why there was constantly the hints of 'different gospels' being preached that Paul fought against saying his was the only true one?

Let's get this straight. You've never attended a real Jewish yeshiva. You haven't studied Hillel or Gamliel, so don't try to claim to be an expert on this.
Another Strawman, and really not one you should use against a woman as they are not allowed to study Talmud. I never claimed to be an expert on anything, but I do know how to read, not just listen to someone tell me what something means.

Let's look at this logically.
I love logic, let's use some, shall we?

Whatever Shaul did at Stephen's martyrdom was not done with the blessing of his teachers.

Logically, you don't know that, nor who his teachers were or if he even had any. As I said, he never in his own words, says he was trained under him. And logically if he was brought up in Jerusalem, and studying under Gamaliel, would he not have been seen many a time in the temple complex? Would he not have been aware of this new Rabbi from Galilee? Would he not have accompanied or heard from those who went out to hear him teach as well as shared Rabbinical style discourse? Why did no one (according to him) know what he looked like in all of Jerusalem? These are logical questions that come to the fore when reading these books without bias, without colored glasses telling you what you see.

We have no evidence to suggest that they escorted him everywhere.

That is neither here nor there. If he was so indoctrinated in the ways of Hillel, then where did this murderous leaning come from? It was ongoing, not a one time thing, this was a vendetta, this was someone looking to get approval from someone. I don't believe it was from G-d.

Shaul freely admits to having sin in his life, as we all do.

Logical reasoning? no, defensive, yes, you'd make a good lawyer.
What he did, in the words of the writer of the Acts, was to 'wreak havoc' with the 'church'. Breathing out murderous threats, going outside of Jerusalem, after making all but the Apostles leave, is not just someone who sins.


While some may argue that the stoning of Stephen was completely scriptural and within the law, I'm not one of them.
This is hard to understand, considering that at that time, according to the gospels the Jews could not initiate capital punishment. Also we have records that very few were ever given the death sentence, that trials would ensue and it was very hard to convict someone?

However, one thing I know- the characters of the Bible are largely rotten people redeemed by God's mercy. I think the story of Paul, read without prejudice and presumption, puts him in that category. Just like me.

Why do you assume that there is prejudice and presumption? Why do you not give sound reason? Why would I have any prejudice? Why couldn't it be after years of being read only certain parts of the letters, and listening to many individuals tout Paul's praises (over Yeshua's even) that I would have come to my senses and read these letters without bias, without careful editing? The only reason I can fathom is that for you to grant me that courtesy, it would invalidate your beliefs.

 

[mishkan]

Is it really unjustified if there is evidence to support my position?

If there were evidence. I haven't seen anything credible in the past 30 years. Do you have something new?

Most of what I've seen presented as evidence against Sha'ul goes along the lines of, "Look at this horrible thing he wrote!" But then I look at the text, and find it is one of the standard Church misinterpretations. Ho-hum.

7% of the Bible is used 50% of the time ... that says alot about the pro-Pauline position.

No, it really doesn't. It says that people tend to gravitate towards that which they think justifies their position.

About 10 years ago, I realized that everytime a Christian tried to attack the Messianic position, s/he came at me with one of about 5 "standard" texts. All from Paul, and all misunderstood. Sometimes the problem is in the translation. Sometimes it is with poor understanding of Greek. Sometimes there is lack of understanding the Hebraic background. But always, there is a classic error with interpreting Sha'ul.

But that's just the way Church teaching goes. You can trace it back to the earliest of the church fathers. Read Justin Martyr (150 CE), and you can bypass every pastor and televangelist out there. They are all just repeating the same basic mistakes.

 

[ananda]

I don't believe it is a 'fad' to search for truth, nor to keep Yeshua's instructions to keep the commandments.

... this may be hard for you to understand but I've never gone with the 'in crowd', neither following fads of fashion, hairstyle, decorating, status cars, religions, or anything else that most people do. I am an odd ball, I don't go along with the crow[d] ...

... sounds like my wife and I