[REPORT FREE THREAD] staff/member(MJ members) discussion "Discrediting Paul"

[ContraMundum]

Okay, sorry that I misinterpreted you. But JCPro was just making an observation and comment.

Yeah....all good.

 

[Heber]

Vis - You cannot remove Paul from Christianity and still call it Christianity, as I have explained to you quite adequately

I am not engaging in your attempts at flaming.

 

[yedida]

Vis - You cannot remove Paul from Christianity and still call it Christianity, as I have explained to you quite adequately

I am not engaging in your attempts at flaming.

Well, if you say so. But we sure the dickens could have Messianic Judaism!!

 

[Heber]

Well, if you say so. But we sure the dickens could have Messianic Judaism!!

That certainy seems to be the case for some, though it's a bit like eating a toffee with the paper still on. You may get a few tasty bits but, on the whole, it will not really edify the people.

A secondary point is that if G_d has called Paul to do the work he did (as Scripture would indicate) and folk are happy to dismiss that, totally, including those witnesses to Paul's call: Luke, John, James and all the other apostles, how can you have confidence in any other part of the Bible. If you can't trust most of the Latter Testament, how you can be sure the Gospels are true - given all the supposed errors they contain? It is a very, very slippery slope. Most Messianic declarations of faith do NOT exclude any part of the Bible whatsoever.

 

[visionary]

Vis - You cannot remove Paul from Christianity and still call it Christianity, as I have explained to you quite adequately

I am not engaging in your attempts at flaming.

Christianity should be based on Christ alone... all others are commentary.

 

[Desert Rose]

Vis - You cannot remove Paul from Christianity and still call it Christianity, as I have explained to you quite adequately

but what about before the written Latter Testament came into being?
And all the people thru history, under RCC authority, in small villages etc. thatcouldnt read for themselves and had some subliteral semi-clergy for "pastors" that never taught them anything about Paul, etc? You know history better then I do.
I am with Vis, Paul is commentary, Even of course,us,modern smartypants, have no excuse not the consider him.

PS Heber, and you know how immensely I respect and value the fact that you and ContraMundum, being pastors, are here. Usually people of your caliber of theological knowledge dont hang out on online forums.

 

[Heber]

but what about before the written Latter Testament came into being?
And all the people thru history, under RCC authority, in small villages etc. thatcouldnt read for themselves and had some subliteral semi-clergy for "pastors" that never taught them anything about Paul, etc? You know history better then I do.
I am with Vis, Paul is commentary, Even of course,us,modern smartypants, have no excuse not the consider him.

PS Heber, and you know how immensely I respect and value the fact that you and ContraMundum, being pastors, are here. Usually people of your caliber of theological knowledge dont hang out on online forums.

This thread shows the need for us, but we are leaders, as was Paul et al, so no one will listen with any serious thought about what we say, which is why G_d wrote the law he wrote. They did the same to Moses, A'aron, all the prophets and to Yeshua too. We are much smaller fry, as was Paul etc., but it still happens, two millennia later.

Re the part in bold: that's fine but... then you have to contend with, and address, in a clear, systematic and conclusive way, that G_d did NOT call Paul to do the work he did. However, by so doing you are declaring that Scripture is nothing but a lie in places! If Scripture is a lie on any one point then it all fails. There can be no division. We have seen half hearted declarations that Paul's words can be ignored but that leaves big holes elsewhere and absolutely no one has tried to address, seriously, this issue, in a clear, systematic and Biblical way instead of just using throw-away comments that have more holes than a sieve, and that tickle peoples ears, as the Bible says would happen.

If you guys want to convince CM and I on this (and the rest of the world) you will have to come up with something new that has not been revealed to us in over 2000 years! On your marks, get set, go....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I seriously wonder how the slippery slope of ignoring Paul/treating him as if he can be ignored can be taken seriously without ever questioning what to do with other texts. One would have to ignore the Gospel of Luke (which was made by the very man accompanying Paul, advocating for His ministry/Christ's approval of it and DISCUSSING its history in the Book of Acts).

One could also say that the other scriptures supporting Paul by the other apostles must be thrown out, as is the case with Peter---the one whom Christ said in Matthew 16 and John 21 he'd build the Church upon/gave leadership of it to. II Peter 3:15-16 shows where Peter told the believers to listen to/support Paul. By the time of Peter's writing, Paul's letters already had a widespread reputation....and Peter spoke of Paul's letters as if they were on the same level as with the other "Scriptures." And although Paul emphasized salvation by grace, not law, Peter preferred to talk about Christian service and life. The two men did not contradict one another and always had each other in high esteem.....and when false teachers tried to intentionally misuse Paul's writings by distorting them to condone lawlessness (which Paul condemned in Romans 6:15), Peter spoke clearly on it being wrong and echoed many of the same things that Paul said plainly.

2 Peter 3:10



14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.


16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.





​

Of course, the latest thing is claiming that I and II Peter were forgeries and therefore there's no way that Peter would ever be supporting Paul in either leadership or influence of the Church. That's always an interesting discussion to get involved---and thankfully, it has not been the case that it hasn't been addressed. For some good articles on such:

• Is II Peter Forged? « The Good News

• The Authenticity of 2 Peter — Michael J. Kruger j
  
  
  
  
• Is 2 Peter Peter's? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
  
  
  
  

With Peter in His blantant support of Paul, it seems odd whenever there's claim that one should accept what Peter said and then treat what Paul wrote as if its a matter of simple commentary that can be dismissed. Even with saying that one should only go with what Yeshua did, the reality is that what Yeshua did was directly IN LINE with the example of Paul---and thus, its not really accurate when trying to make it out as if Paul was counter to Christ since they both had the same mindset---and if taking the text of Acts literally, then ONE MUST acknowledge where Acts 9-10 makes clear that Christ appeared to Paul and said that He would use Him for his glory in reaching out to the Gentiles. One cannot be selective in saying that wish to take the book of Acts/the history of the Church in action seriously...and yet be selective with what they BELIEVE about it.
For a good read on what Jesus may've held to and how what he did was very much in line with the Spirit of Paul in how he treated Gentiles, one book that may be a blessing to investigate is entitled "Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus" by Harvey Falk. He did an excellent job on discussing the reality of what has often been said in Judaism when it came to the Noahide Laws. To see snippets of his work, one can go online/research an article that can be found under the name of "Khirbet Qumran, the Essene Community along the Wadi Succacah near the Dead Sea -- The Essenes, the Hasidim and the Righteous Gentile of the Nations”"and here to Rabbi Harvey Falk defends “Jesus the Nazarene’s Mission to the Gentiles: Divine Mission to Bring the “Good News” to the Gentiles








For more review on the book, one can go here to Book Review: Jesus The Pharisee by Harvey Falk | Grasping Mashi'ach.


As that Messianic stated:

Jesus the Pharisee; A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus by Harvey Falk

Since mid-July I have been in a state of contemplation — thus the silence of posting on this blog. This contemplative state was and still is the result of an article that came to my attention shortly after the ninth of Av. During this time when the days of summer were growing shorter and a time of repentance prior to the high holy days was anticipated I found myself impacted by Paul’s Rule in all the Churches by David Rudolph. Forwarding the paper to a couple of people I correspond with and highly respect regarding Messianic apologetics, resulted in quick dismissal of Rudolph’s thesis as just another Bilateral Ecclesiology viewpoint that inevitably reduces Gentile believers to a life of secularism and that displays ignorance of the rabbinic nomenclature Paul employs in 1 Corinthians 7:17-27.



Reading the article multiple times I could not so easily dismiss it. A quote attributed to 18th century scholar Jacob Emden, regarding the halacha behind Timothy’s circumcision, was particularly interesting. The footnote from this quote led me to an article by Rabbi Harvey Falk regarding Emden’s views of Christianity. From this I discovered that Falk had written a book regarding “Jesus the Pharisee”.



Although subtitled as a “New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus”, Rabbi Falk’s work is a reintroduction of Jacob Emden’s original thoughts expanded and applied to Jesus teachings based on various Talmudic and historic rabbinic texts. In the 1700’s Emden wrote favorably of Christianity by expressing his view that Jesus and Paul had acted completely within halacha in creating a religion for the Gentiles based on the Noahide Commandments while yet considering Jewish law eternally binding upon the Jew.



From this thesis of Rabbi Emden — long forgotten and disregarded by scholars in general (yet brought to attention again in Rudolph’s Paul’s Rule paper) — Falk goes on to weave a fascinating and intriguing picture of Jesus as a Pharisee in the first century CE world in which he lived. Each chapter presents intricate details of various Talmudic and rabbinic writings that the author uses to present Jesus as an adherent of the school of Hillel and member of the sect of the Essenes. In Falk’s view the debate of the Eighteen Measures between the school of Hillel and school of Shammai, in which numerous prophets of Hillel were killed, followed shortly after by the death of Hillel in 10 CE, resulted in Hillel’s disciples going “underground” by joining the sect of the Essenes. This allowed the house of Shammai to gain dominance until the close of the first century.



Falk presents Jesus mission as the establishment of a religion for the Gentiles based on the Noahide commandments, a mission presented in both the Talmud and Maimonides as something Moses obligated Israel to accomplish once they had gained a position of prominence as a nation. Because Israel had not gained such a position by the time of the first century CE the obligation never went into effect. Jesus, in spreading the knowledge of HaShem and the Noahide commandments to the Gentiles did so as a means of creating Hasidim of the Nations, by going beyond the letter of the halacha as given to Moses.


This mission was consistent with Hillel’s philosophy of Hesed (mercy) toward Gentiles and the desire to draw them near to the Torah through the Noahide Commandments, by which they would merit a share in the World to Come.


Jesus confrontations with the “Pharisees” throughout the Gospels are understood to illustrate his differences with the dominant Shammaite school, especially regarding Gentiles — who were utterly unable to merit any share in the World to Come according to Shammai. In Falk’s opinion the school of Shammai was so dominant that the “lost sheep of Israel” was used by Jesus to refer to the nation as a whole whom Jesus desired to bring back to the teachings and philosophy of Hillel. With this basic picture of Jesus mission and viewpoint established, Falk goes on to present unique thought provoking expositions of numerous gospel passages.



Jesus statement of Matthew 5:20 regarding “righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees” is understood to speak of the halacha concerning the righteous of the nations, which exceeds the letter of the law of Moses as the Noahide commands are contained within the law of Moses. Jesus allowing his disciples to desecrate the Sabbath in Matthew 12 is presented as a means of illustrating that Gentile followers’ of his new faith should not observe the weekly Sabbath in the same manner of the Jew. This is defended by Falk as a one time concession for “constructive religious purposes” which did not transgress permissible Talmudic halacha.



Jesus attack against the moneychangers of the Temple is understood as a reaction against the ruling of Shammai that Gentile offerings would only be accepted if they were verbally vowed “for the Temple” or “for the Altar”. Often unknowing Gentiles would not make a proper vow when presenting their offering which was then used for personal gain rather than presented to HaShem, turning the Temple into a “den of thieves” rather than a “house of prayer” for all nations.
Most interestingly, Falk presents the understanding of Rabbi Emden regarding Jesus halachah on divorce, as a means of distinguishing between Jewish and Gentile divorce. Because Jesus did not wish his followers to observe the details of written divorce as given in Torah, yet unequivocally upheld the authority of every detail of Torah (in Matthew 5), his teaching must have Gentiles in mind. Using Genesis 2:4 as the proof text regarding divorce indicates Jesus desire to establish a religion for the Gentiles based on the Noahide system which has its origins with Adam and Eve.


But perhaps the most intriguing exposition presented by Falk involves Jesus brooding over the impending destruction of the Temple and attributing this to Israel’s “not knowing the time of their visitation” (Luke 19). In this way Jesus expresses that his mission would have averted the impending doom, if it had been embraced by the Jews as a nation. Although the Talmud clearly states that the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE was due to “hatred without cause” among the people, the nature of this hatred, or to whom it was directed is never specified. Popularly this hatred is understood as being against fellow Jews. The Tosefta however, citing Isaiah 2 and Jeremiah 31 indicates that the “hatred without cause” which caused the Temple destruction was hatred of the Jews toward the Gentile world. Therefore, if Jesus mission of mercy toward Gentiles focused on bringing them near to Torah through a religion based on the Noahide laws would have been embraced by Israel, the destruction of the Temple could have been avoided.





​

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.

Though I agree that Christ came to create something entirely new that would be inclusive to the Gentiles, there's the reality that Jesus often emphasized making certain that the Jews would come first in those he reached out to. This is seen, in example, when he gave the command to his twelve disciples to not "go in the way of the Gentiles or Samaritans," but instead to bring the gospel "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5ff /Matthew 10:4-6 ) when ministry began.


Apart from that, though, I think Harvey's thoughts are well worth considering.

 

[Heber]

...and, of course, almost all we know about Yeshua was written by those whom he 'called' or would you dispute that? So, if being a 'called' person, as Paul and they were, disqualifies a person, then all that they wrote must be disqualified, too. One must also bear in mind that no one, in the whole of the Bible, disputes what Paul says. None of the other Apostles have written in their letters that they never met with him and approved what he said, he is not shown to be anything other than G-d's appointed witness.

If we argue that Paul somehow managed to block all criticism, it doesn't explain why Josephus is silent on this, or any other writer of the period. I'm sure the Judaisers would have loved to show he was a false prophet, as would the secular authorities - especially the Romans. Christianity would have died at birth.

But folk on this thread seem to know better than all these other people down 2000 years! The balance of history says you are simply wrong.

PS the RCC inherited Messianic Judaism as it was in its infancy. If Paul was discredited big time they would not have used his material because Christianity would not have been accepted with such a flaw at it's centre.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Why not the 73 books per the Roman Catholic view? Or the 78 books of the Eastern Orthodox? Or the 80 of the Armenian Orthodox, or the Egyptian Copts? The 81 of the Ethiopian Orthodox?

Why only 66 books (I assume, according to the general evangelical Protestant view)?

If I may say, something interesting to consider is how within all of those groups, differing cannons does not mean that they denounce Paul...for they all include HIS works/scripture in their cannons---and on that, for anyone saying that Paul is not to be either respected or adhered to, they'd all be united in resistance.

Some of the discussion gets interesting because even in the days of Christ, the SAME discussions and debates were going on----and for those saying "Well, WE ONLY NEED JESUS'S WORDS!!!", the reality is that he would not be using the same cannon that we have today. Moreover, as the Jewish world had differences of thought in what was to be considered the "proper cannon", discussion needs to happen on what Cannon of scripture the Lord used if saying only His words are the standard.

For there has been debates amongst many when it comes to Jesus referencing the Psalms (especially Messianic Ones) and calling them "Law" and others noting that Jesus Himself often referneced things from the Talmud itself--despite the fact that it wasn't considered "Torah" or "Law" either. His discussion in Matthew 23 is evidence of that when it comes to him denouncing the Pharisees.. as discussed elsewhere in #1 .

As the Jews often had discussion on some of the things that have been discussed here on the boards as edifying--such as debate about the role of Esther and whether or not that should be considered apart of the Cannon"

it concerns the Ketuvim (The Writings ), its understandable to argue that the definition of scripture that the Jewish people had (including Jesus) was radically different than what we have with us today....and of course, that doesn't mean one cannot be certain of what Christ/other Jews used in their early communities. Even in saying that what's considered a part of the "Holy Scriptures" today is different because of how the other Writings were not yet compiled, one cannot escape the fact that the Psalms were already in use (alongside the story of Daniel)...and thus, with the Torah (1st 5 Books) and the Prophets, there's already a good indicator of what was their version of "cannon" ....and of course, one can add to that the dynamic of the Oral Law.

For more in-depth discussion, one of the best references on the issue can be found if going online/looking something under the name of "Writings Section of Original Bible of the Jews - a knol of Staford Rives" ( ).

As said there (for a brief excerpt):

The Sadducees only accepted the Torah as inspired, and the "other books were prized and read as edifying books." The Jews of Alexandria and Egypt accepted the Torah as inspired, but also "revered the Prophets and Writings." The Samaritans only accepted the Torah as inspired and to be revered. Thus, Sadducees and Samaritans rejected the Writings section as inspired. It was edifying.


The latter view predominated by the time of Christ. Books that claimed to be prophetic but which did not yet have any prophecy fulfilled were thus kept in the Ketuvim section to reflect their as yet unproven inspired status. The most important example and proof of this fact is the book of Daniel:

The book of Daniel is found in the third section of the Hebrew Bible known as the 'Writings,' rather than the second section 'the Prophets.' (Joel Osteen, Hope for Today Bible (2009) ...

​

Who accepted the Writings section as more than edifying? The Pharisees. One scholar notes that the "Pharisaic Jewish historian" gives a picture of canon where the Law, Prophets and Writings were all sacrosanct. (Hayes, supra, at 22.)

Jesus spoke of the "Law and the Prophets" never fading away. He never spoke the same about the "Writings" (Kevutim) which would have meant to adopt the Pharasaical view of the Bible. Jesus thereby deliberately drops off the expanded Pharisaical view of the Bible when Jesus speaks only of the validity of the "Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 5:17.) See also Acts 28:23.

The way the ancient Jews divided canon was also done by explaining three levels of inspiration with the Law and Prophets clearly trumping the third level. While for a Christian these three levels would all appear equal, the point is that this is how Rabbis back then explained the three tiers of the canon so that "Writings" (Ketuvim) would never be on par with the Law and Prophets. In an article entitled "Inspiration" by Rev. James Gardner from 1858, we read:

The Jews were accustomed to speak of three different degrees of inspiration. Moses, they alleged, possessed the highest degree, with whom God spake mouth to mouth; the second, according to their view, was the gift of prophecy; and the lowest, the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, from which proceeded the holy writings or Hagiograplia. (Rev. James Gardner, "Inspiration," The faiths of the world: an account of all religions and religious sects, their doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs (A. Fullarton & co., 1858) ...

​

It is possible Jesus makes a reference to the third level of inspiration Himself in Matthew 22:43 where He says that David composed Psalm 110 "in the Spirit." This would be very consistent with the Jewish view of the Psalms which belonged to the Ketuvim. They are written "in the Spirit," but this is distinct from a claim of any claim of equivalence to the Torah or Prophets.

Indeed, Job is a book that illustrates the issue the Jews had with the Ketuvim and why they place Job within the Ketuvim despite Moses authoring Job (according to Jewish tradition).

First, in Moses's account in Job, the words of the man Job are clearly not inspired like a prophet. This is because God does not appear until very late in the story, and then speaks directly only to Job, and then says 'who is this darkening' God's counsels. (Job 38:2.)[4] The immediate next verse is God angrily saying to Job: "Brace yourself like a man; I will question you." This would have to mean God rejected the accuracy of Job's earlier conversation with his friends. Hence, quoting the man Job as a prophet cannot possibly be correct. While God praises Job for his steadfast faithfulness under dire stress, God never tells us the words of the man Job are true and prophetic.

Hence, for reasons such as this, the Jews obviously did not regard the book of Job as 100% inspired. It had moments of inspiration when God speaks, but one cannot lift quotes out of context, and say words from Job, for example, are a prophetic true message from God. Thus, this is likely why it was placed in the Ketuvim section of the OT, and not even the Prophetic section even though Moses wrote it. (Moses also wrote Psalm 90, and that too is not in the prophetic section of the OT canon. Psalm 90 is placed with David's psalms written many centuries later.) Thus, Jews must have regarded certain writings, even by inspired prophets, as not worthy of being treated on par with prophecy because only distinct portions were inspired and some portions were obviously not. The solution was to place them in the Ketuvim section.


​

Outside of that, there's also the issue of how Christ celerated Holidays not found in the Prophets or the Torah, as seen in his celebration of Channakuh---recorded in the Book of I-IV Maccabbessa and condoned by many Jews at the time.

On the ways "Law" seemed to be defiend differently, some things to consider are John 10:31-33, within its larger context:

John 10:20-33
Further Conflict Over Jesus’ Claims
22 Then came the Festival of Dedication[a] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[c]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
​

With John 10:31-33, remember that the Jews had already made clear that they claimed the ENTIRE Torah was theirs and that they were going to stone Jesus for it when he seemed to break it for claiming He was God. They felt that the Law God had given them in Exodus 20 was being broken when it came to Jesus doing what it was that they were going to stone Him for previously in John 8:59...and that issue was self-identificaiton as God, which they understood to be blasphemy. Their understanding of BLASPHEMY was based on how claiming to be God and, specifically, pronouncing God's name (as Yeshua had just done) were punishable by death (Leviticus 24:15-16 and Mishna Sanhedrin 7:5, "The blasphemer is not guilty until he pronounces the NAME.")

With John 10:34-36, the phrase "Your Torah" is something that is often read without other considerations. For here, "Torah" means "Tanakh, " since the passage quoted is from the Psalms, not the Pentateuch. When Jesus says "You people are Elohim", here Greek theoi ("gods"), in the Hebrew text of Psalm 82 the word "elohim" may be translated "God," "gods," "judges" or "angels." Yeshua's rabbinic mode of Bible citation implies the context of the whole psalm (Matthew 2:6), which plays on these meanings:

"Elohim [God] stands in the congregation of EL [God]:
He judges among the elohim [judges/angels/gods]: How long
will you judge unjustly?..I have said , "You are elohim [judges/angels/gods],
All of you are sons of the Most High."
Nevertheless you will all die like a man
And fall like one of the princes.'
Arise, Elohim [God (the Judge)], and judge the earth,
For you will inherit all the nations." (Psalm 82:1-2, 6-8).


​

And again, to be clear, it needs to be understood that in Judaism the citation of a Scripture text implies the whole context, not merely the quoted words. And with what Jesus quoted on Psalm 82, the first and last "Elohim" mean "God," but the others should be rendered "judges," "gods" or "angels." Yeshua's wordplay implies a rabbinic-style kal v' chomer argument (Matthew 6:30): if humans, who do evil works as they "judge unjustly" are elohim, how much more is Yeshua, who does good works (John 10:25, John 10:32-33, John 10:37-38, etc) Elohim; and if "all of you are sons of the Most High," how much more does the description "Son of God" apply to Yeshua.



But it is interesting to see the ways that Jesus would show His Divinity by referring to Himself in the Psalms---things that are not exclusively based IN TORAH....

Moving beyond that, one can also consider again John 15:24-26

John 15:24-26

24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’[a]




The phrase "Their law ..." stresses the inordinate regard the priests had for the external features of Moses' law (which is what Christ was frequently against when it came to the Pharisee's interpretation of the Law in legalistic/"Letter of the Law" thinking rather than the intent of the Law---Love, which is what God has repeatedly noted is the TRUE Law. With the religious leaders, it was "theirs" in the sense of the affectionate regard they professed for it, while actually denying it by their sinful conduct. Note that the quotation ascribed to "the law" was not from the Pentateuch, thus revealing that the term "law" was a reference to the entire Old Testament.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

...and, of course, almost all we know about Yeshua was written by those whom he 'called' or would you dispute that? So, if being a 'called' person, as Paul and they were, disqualifies a person, then all that they wrote must be disqualified, too. One must also bear in mind that no one, in the whole of the Bible, disputes what Paul says. None of the other Apostles have written in their letters that they never met with him and approved what he said, he is not shown to be anything other than G-d's appointed witness.

If we argue that Paul somehow managed to block all criticism, it doesn't explain why Josephus is silent on this, or any other writer of the period. I'm sure the Judaisers would have loved to show he was a false prophet, as would the secular authorities - especially the Romans. Christianity would have died at birth.

But folk on this thread seem to know better than all these other people down 2000 years! The balance of history says you are simply wrong.

PS the RCC inherited Messianic Judaism as it was in its infancy. If Paul was discredited big time they would not have used his material because Christianity would not have been accepted with such a flaw at it's centre.

Honestly, if Paul had discussed only observance of the Law, I don't think that there'd be issue--but as it seems, most assume that his discussion on grace is counter to the Law...that the LAW did not have included in it pictures/predictions of what Paul was preaching later and shaped the church with (as it concerns the original intent of the Law/limitations and the New Covenant dynamics)...and they also believe that the other apostles/Jesus Himself differed from Paul in how they interacted with the Law. Because that assumption is being held, it affects all other factors

Good post by the way..

 

[ananda]

If Scripture is a lie on any one point then it all fails. There can be no division. We have seen half hearted declarations that Paul's words can be ignored but that leaves big holes elsewhere and absolutely no one has tried to address

Did Elohim fail when He put the Tree of Conscience in the Gan Eden? Did He fail when He allowed Satan in the Garden? Did He fail when Messiah chose Judas to be part of His inner circle? Did He allow Paul's words to enter our "Bibles"? I suggest yes, it is all for His glory, and for us to demonstrate our love for Him, when we discern and choose right from wrong.

I would ask you to list things I (or other non-Paulines) have not addressed, but unfortunately I am not allowed to respond.

 

[ananda]

One must also bear in mind that no one, in the whole of the Bible, disputes what Paul says. None of the other Apostles have written in their letters that they never met with him and approved what he said, he is not shown to be anything other than G-d's appointed witness.

I would dispute this, but I cannot, due to forum policy.

But folk on this thread seem to know better than all these other people down 2000 years! The balance of history says you are simply wrong.

An appeal to the preponderance of Pauline supporters as evidence of fact is invalid. Even Messiah suggests so: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. " (Mt 7:14)

 

[Desert Rose]

Re the part in bold: that's fine but... then you have to contend with, and address, in a clear, systematic and conclusive way, that G_d did NOT call Paul to do the work he did.

no, it doesnt follow. I reread my post twice.I cant conprehend how you can possibly derive that from what i said.

Try again , maybe rephrase yourself or so. If we fail to understand each other , I will respectfully bow out of debate with you on this subject.

 

[ananda]

If I may say, something interesting to consider is how within all of those groups, differing cannons does not mean that they denounce Paul...for they all include HIS works/scripture in their cannons---and on that, for anyone saying that Paul is not to be either respected or adhered to, they'd all be united in resistance.

I don't dispute the fact that, as far as I know, all of those denominations I've listed has Paul in their canons. Then again, there are smaller groups which do not follow Paul. As I quoted in a previous post, the majority is not always right: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Mt 7:14).

 

[Heber]

no, it doesnt follow. I reread my post twice.I cant conprehend how you can possibly derive that from what i said.

Try again , maybe rephrase yourself or so. If we fail to understand each other , I will respectfully bow out of debate with you on this subject.

I believe you agreed with Vis that Paul's writings, the largest part of the Latter Testament, are just commentary and not Scripture, as the Bible claims. If that is the case, and you are quite within your rights to believe it, then, to be fair to all, a really convincing argument needs to be produced to show that what Paul wrote was of value only as commentary, and has no value whatsoever as Scripture. That is what I am saying. If a systematic, Biblical answer proving that a large part of the Latter Testament is nothing more than commentary, can be produced that is fine - if not then we have to accept what the Bible claims, at face value. Our word is not sufficient.

 

[Heber]

I would dispute this, but I cannot, due to forum policy.

An appeal to the preponderance of Pauline supporters as evidence of fact is invalid. Even Messiah suggests so: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. " (Mt 7:14)

You are permitted to ask any question - so put your thoughts into question format. I do not quite understand your last few posts.

 

[visionary]

I believe you agreed with Vis that Paul's writings, the largest part of the Latter Testament, are just commentary and not Scripture, as the Bible claims. If that is the case, and you are quite within your rights to believe it, then, to be fair to all, a really convincing argument needs to be produced to show that what Paul wrote was of value only as commentary, and has no value whatsoever as Scripture. That is what I am saying. If a systematic, Biblical answer proving that a large part of the Latter Testament is nothing more than commentary, can be produced that is fine - if not then we have to accept what the Bible claims, at face value. Our word is not sufficient.

Just for clarification, I never said that Paul's letters are not in scripture.

 

[Desert Rose]

Just for clarification, I never said that Paul's letters are not in scripture.

yeap. Neither did I . Heber, maybe you just misunderstood us, brother.
Thats now what we are saying.

Of course they are scripture.

 

[Heber]

yeap. Neither did I . Heber, maybe you just misunderstood us, brother.
Thats now what we are saying.

Of course they are scripture.

Originally Posted by Heber

Vis - You cannot remove Paul from Christianity and still call it Christianity, as I have explained to you quite adequately
​

but what about before the written Latter Testament came into being?
And all the people thru history, under RCC authority, in small villages etc. thatcouldnt read for themselves and had some subliteral semi-clergy for "pastors" that never taught them anything about Paul, etc? You know history better then I do.
I am with Vis, Paul is commentary, Even of course,us,modern smartypants, have no excuse not the consider him.

PS Heber, and you know how immensely I respect and value the fact that you and ContraMundum, being pastors, are here. Usually people of your caliber of theological knowledge dont hang out on online forums.



Paul is here relegated to mere commentary. Commentary is not equal to Scripture. Apart from the post above Vis NEVER refuted my comments that Paul is an integral part of Scripture, to the extent that if there is no Paul then there is no Christianity because he was called by G_d to be one of his people to spread the word.

I note Vis' slight, but very significant, change in what she has said: that Paul's word is IN Scripture - not a distinction she has made before, either in argument or in correction. Of course the Bible is Scripture and Paul's words are IN it - it's called the Bible - G_d's full and complete revelation of himself to us! I said that Paul's words ARE to be seen as Scripture and NOT mere commentary. In other words the whole Bible is Scripture with the words of many writers who are bit-players in the great scheme of things, but they are still Scripture - G_d's word to us. To remove one is to cast doubt on the validity of all the writers, hence my comments that to prove otherwise needs a decent systematic etc etc etc etc.