Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your understanding is wrong.
The way I understand it, anyone who would choose to live under the Torah would have to do as you have done - to reject Paul's writings. A choice has to be made: either choose to follow what Paul taught and not observe the law; or keep the law and reject Paul. I don't think that both can be done, despite the attempts of many within the Messianic Movement.
So then, you three unanomously agree that Paul taught NOT to observe the Torah, to both Jews and Gentiles?
Are you three agreeing together that Paul taught anyone and everyone (Jews and Gentiles) not to observe the law?
That anyone who choses to 'live under Torah' as a Jew, would have to reject the preaching of Jesus? Since Paul preached Jesus as opposed to Torah observance (Judaism)?
Are you three in agreement that Paul taught that neither he nor anyone else is to observe Torah and be considered Jewish (required to keep Torah) after Jesus? If we follow Jesus we are no longer obligated, even as Jews, as proved by Yonah's example of Paul above? ie. Paul 'was' required to keep the law but after Jesus he taught that he and 'anyone' who followed Jesus was free as well?
You see, this is what I see you agreeing on. Do Jews become Christians and never the two will meet? Once you become Christian you loose your Jewishness (observance of law)? Paul was teaching that Jesus made him and the Gentiles free from the requirements of Torah observance (Judaism)?
I just want to make sure that my eyes are seeing what I believe is being said here.
Paul taught that once you become a Christian (believer in Yeshua Messiah) no one (anyone) is not required to observe the law? Paul taught 'anyone' not to observe the law?
No, she is exactly right. Most bible versions that carry the phrase are at least honest enough to put in parentheses to mark where it was added. It is the same type of added interpretation as that where the Messiah supposedly declared all foods clean.
That is because you choose to try to interpret them without applying the same standard you would use for the Torah. All scripture must agree with other scripture. If they don't seem to agree, either one is not scripture, or you are applying the wrong interpretation to it.
Since you cannot read Greek, I would think that your opinion of what is found in the Greek text and what isn't is only your opinion and carries no weight. I actually read the text and posted it above - and it's definitely in the Greek - as even visionary confirmed after she looked it up.
Your assumption is your assumption. I do not labor under such assumptions when I read and interpret the Bible. Each author - in fact, each book - speaks for himself, and I do not force an interpretation on the text that isn't there.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)After the first clause, to them that are under the law as under the law, the following words, mee oon autos hupo nomon, not being myself under the law, are added by ABCDEFG, several others; the later Syriac, Sahidic, Armenian, Vulgate, and all the Itala; Cyril, Chrysostom, Damascenus, and others; and on this evidence Griesbach has received them into the text.
The phrase "not being under law myself" was probably accidently omitted by a mistake of the eye when copyists' eyes jumped from "under law" to "under law" Textual Variants: 1 Corinthians 1:4-16:24
Originally Posted by yonah_mishael
Yeah, I don't know about anyone else, but that sounds exactly like 1 Corinthians 9:20 to me. (insert sarcastic smiley here)
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
"Torah observant" is another way of saying "under the authority of the law." One will not observe the law if there is no requirement to do so. This "I myself am not under the law" (אֵינֶנִּי כָּפוּף לַתּוֹרָה - μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμονis exactly what Paul meant, that he was not under any requirement to keep Torah - and, thus, he didn't. I still do not understand how this isn't clear from Paul's letters. He preached Jesus, not Torah.
It looks like it depends on which greek text a Bible version uses.My understanding is the the stuff in brackets is not Paul's but what a translator is putting his understanding into Paul's writings.
1 Corinthians 9:20
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
In my research, I ran across one explanation that didn't stand up well under scrutiny,,
Much appreciated... thanksIt looks like it depends on which greek text a Bible version uses.
Look at the KJV/Young's and NASB/Rotherham for example. The W-H and Alexandrian texts are the same as what is used in the NASB/Rotherham it seems. I generally don't see 4 greek texts split evenly like this.
Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version
KJV) 1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
Young) 1 Corinthians 9:20 and I became to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might gain; to those under law as under law, that those under law I might gain;
NASB) 1 Corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
Rotherham) 1 Corinthians 9:20 Therefore became I to the Jews as a Jew,--that Jews I might win; to them who were under law as under law, not being myself under law,--that them who were under law I might win;
1st Corinthians 9 - Parallel Greek New Testament - HTML Bible by johnhurt.com
Textus Rec.)
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw
Byz./Maj.)
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw
W-H )
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon mh wn autoV upo nomon ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw
Alexandrian
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon mh wn autos upo nnomo ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw
So then, you three unanomously agree that Paul taught NOT to observe the Torah, to both Jews and Gentiles?
But it was plainly stated in the paragraph, as I identified, and as Yonah confirmed. Though I had considered the very real fact that I was misunderstanding the context of your agreements.That wasn't what I was agreeing to.
Thank you very much CM, honorable as always. And as always, much appreciated.I was saying that the term "law" is used in different ways in the NT, so saying that one is "Torah observant" or not is really not a good term to use. Of course we are all "Torah observant", but not every part of the Torah binding on Christians. So, we need to be clear on what part of the Torah we are under.
The Gospels and the rest of the NT teach clearly that all mankind in the New Covenant is bound to the moral Torah (the two great commandments cover this) The NT writers do not teach that we are under obligation to wear tzitzis, kill animals and each other for religion, celebrate the Holy days given to Israel and so forth.
As for your questions concerning identity and Torah obligation, I believe the NT teaches that we maintain identity but we are all under the same Covenant. Only one Gospel, one faith, one baptism, one Covenant.
Anyway, I hope I have made my understanding of what I thought we were agreeing on clear.
But it was plainly stated in the paragraph, as I identified, and as Yonah confirmed. Though I had considered the very real fact that I was misunderstanding the context of your agreements.
Thank you for your clarification here:
Thank you very much CM, honorable as always. And as always, much appreciated.
If I may furthur this from what you responded and ask, in your opinion, how do we maintain our identity within this covenant? TYIA
The pro paul indoctrinated people won't see his lies and obvious faults, while those who don't accept him see these so passionately we want to trash him completely, but it's not as though he hasn't said many things which are true, the best deceivers always do, and in Romans Paul admits many things concerning "That his lie may abound."
Jesus said not one jot of the law has changed...
You have a snarky attitude (to put it politely) and your opinions do not impress me very much either.
On 1 Corinthians 9:20
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)After the first clause, to them that are under the law as under the law, the following words, mee oon autos hupo nomon, not being myself under the law, are added by ABCDEFG, several others; the later Syriac, Sahidic, Armenian, Vulgate, and all the Itala; Cyril, Chrysostom, Damascenus, and others; and on this evidence Griesbach has received them into the text.
Alexandrian texts for this reading: א (Sinaiticus) A (Alexandrinus) B (Vaticanus) C (Ephraemi Rescriptus)
Western texts: D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis) Augustine[sup]Latin[/sup] Vulgate[sup]Latin[/sup]
Byzantine texts: Chrysostom John-Damascus
The NA reading is supported by important witnesses in three different families of manuscripts. Do you really think it's just a fluke?
Not a fluke, a fake. There are enough manuscripts without the phrase that the question should be, "Was the phrase added in some or left out of the others?" There was no reason for the church to delete the phrase, as it aligned with their anti-Torah bias. There was every reason for some scribe along the way to add it.
Not a fluke, a fake. There are enough manuscripts without the phrase that the question should be, "Was the phrase added in some or left out of the others?" There was no reason for the church to delete the phrase, as it aligned with their anti-Torah bias. There was every reason for some scribe along the way to add it.
So, how then do you understand the fact that the cohen hagadol has been changed, along with the way he administers the atonement? Has not the pattern and shadow been 'fulfilled' in the death and resurrection of Yeshua? Did this not cause a change in the way the Torah was administered to it's people? Hasn't the Torah been modifided by the works of Messiah? Hasn't he done something that changed the way his people attain a relationship with God? Before we had Levi'im who died and were in need of cleansing themselves before they could stand in for the others. Now we have a high priest who made those instructions of cleansing obsolete. We no longer need to have the temple cleansed by the blood of animals because now we have a living temple that is cleansed by a living God, daily, every second you breathe. Yeshua made the way into the holy of holies and administers Torah for all God's people. Quite a change from the way things were in Yisrael with Moshe, no? The giving of the Spirit upon ALL who seek him diligently?Jesus said not one jot of the law has changed...
Hebrews 10 said:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; 6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. 7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'" 8 When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, 16"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds," 17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more." 18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?