|
|
Post by Mark on May 28, 2005 5:25:32 GMT -8
But when I saw that they are not walking straight according to the truth of the Good News, I said to K?pha before them all, “If you, being a Yehud?ite, live as a gentile and not as the Yehud?im, why do you compel gentiles to live as Yehud?im?
(Gal 2:14 The Scriptures '98)
Galatians 2:14 seems to suggest that gentiles are not under the same "yoke of bondage" as the Jews are under because Paul tells Peter that gentiles oughtnot be compelled to "live like Jews."
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Jun 2, 2005 11:04:41 GMT -8
I believe that in regards to Gentiles Sha'ul (Paul) is not speaking of the Word Of G'd, but the tradition of the Father's as found in Talmud and Mishnah that was just about as authoritative to the Jewish people and which defined Judaism during the time. If Sha'ul was speaking of the Word of G'd (TeNaKh), than he would indeed be a hypocrite and a liar based on his words and the following passages... "Every writing inspired by G'd is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of G'd may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." - 2Timothy 3:16-17 The passage above most definitely includes  and identifies "the man of G'd" as the person it applies to. Unless someone does not believe a Gentile can be a man of G'd, they have some explaining to do.  "Even so, let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. "Don't think that I came to destroy the or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the , until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least mitzvot, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." - Mat. 5:16-19 Did Sha'ul forget the words of Messiah as found above? Is Sha'ul teaching others to break even the least of the commandments and therefore becoming least in the Kingdom of Heaven? Does Christianity live there lives by a writer whom is least in the Kingdom of Heaven? "Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast; who keeps the Sabbath from profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the foreigner, who has joined himself to YHVH, speak, saying, YHVH will surely separate me from his people; neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus says YHVH of the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and hold fast my covenant: To them will I give in my house and within my walls a memorial and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the foreigners who join themselves to YHVH, to minister to him, and to love the name of YHVH, to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath from profaning it, and holds fast my covenant ." - Yeshayahu (Isa.) 56:2-5 The above passage refers to Gentiles. Is the Sha'ul doing away with this passage? Is not the word of G'd unto a thousand generations as scripture testifies? If Sha'ul is in disagreement with the above passage, we should reject his writings as apostate. But, a closer reading will reveal that Sha'ul by no means is speaking of the word of G'd, but the traditions that characterized the Judaism of his time. This is what the phrase, "live as Jews" means. Shalom chaverim, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Jun 2, 2005 14:13:29 GMT -8
I would agree with your interpretation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jun 3, 2005 5:13:43 GMT -8
This was somewhat slimy of me and I apologize; yet I think that it is important that we know the arsenal of Scripture that the antinomian folk hold against us. I believe that this Scripture is the most damaging to our understanding of faith and conviction: that Christianity is an intrinsically Jewish faith and the adopting of a Jewish understanding of context is necessary to gain a full appreciation of New Testament doctrine.
This verse specifically tells us (in English) that gentiles need not and ought not adopt anything intrinsically Jewish- that they ought to refuse anything culturally Jewish and adapt the Scriptural interpretations to fit within their own cultural perspective.
Remember that the subject of the book of Galatians is circumcision, specifically, the argument that in order for one to obtain an inheritance in the kingdom of YHWH, one had to become a Jewish proselyte (become "of the circumcision).
When Peter avoided gentile fellowship when James' friends showed up from Jerusalem, he re-inforced the idea that gentile believers were second class citizens, that they did not have equal inheritance and justification based upon faith alone.
The Greek text doesn't copy well into this forum, so I'll try to make this plain using English; but hang with me because it's a little tedious. Remember that the English translators ate pork. The idea that unclean meats are still abominable was not in good fashion with the English court... neither were Jews. Here was an opportunity, by one slip, to draw a full distinction between the lifestyle of Jews and the appropriate lifestyle of non-Jew believers. In English it reads, "Why do you (you who are a Jew) compel those who are not Jews to live a Jewish lifestyle when you (you who are a Jew) have no problem living a non-Jewish lifestyle." In Greek there is a distinction between becoming a Jew (ee-o-dai-idz-o) and living like a Jew, or in a Jewish manner (ee-o-dai-kose). If properly translated, it would read, "Why do you (you who are a Jew) (ee-o-dai-os), who have no problem living in like with manner with gentiles (eth-ni-kose), compel those who are gentiles (ethnos) to become Jews (ee-o-dai-idz-o)."
Do you see the difference? The subject is still circumcision, the argument that you don't have to become a Jew in oder to be saved, exactly the same argument that Peter, himself, would later use in Acts 15:7-11.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 3, 2014 17:54:32 GMT -8
... When Peter avoided gentile fellowship when James' friends showed up from Jerusalem, he re-inforced the idea that gentile believers were second class citizens, that they did not have equal inheritance and justification based upon faith alone. The Greek text doesn't copy well into this forum, so I'll try to make this plain using English; but hang with me because it's a little tedious. Remember that the English translators ate pork. The idea that unclean meats are still abominable was not in good fashion with the English court... neither were Jews. Here was an opportunity, by one slip, to draw a full distinction between the lifestyle of Jews and the appropriate lifestyle of non-Jew believers. In English it reads, "Why do you (you who are a Jew) compel those who are not Jews to live a Jewish lifestyle when you (you who are a Jew) have no problem living a non-Jewish lifestyle." In Greek there is a distinction between becoming a Jew (ee-o-dai-idz-o) and living like a Jew, or in a Jewish manner (ee-o-dai-kose). If properly translated, it would read, "Why do you (you who are a Jew) (ee-o-dai-os), who have no problem living in like with manner with gentiles (eth-ni-kose), compel those who are gentiles (ethnos) to become Jews (ee-o-dai-idz-o)." Do you see the difference? The subject is still circumcision, the argument that you don't have to become a Jew in oder to be saved, exactly the same argument that Peter, himself, would later use in Acts 15:7-11. I believe this passage to be one of the heviliest redactions in a book of heavy redactions. It would have been foolish for Rav Sha'ul to have dressed Peter down in such a public manner. First off, no leader worth the mantle would ever do that to another in leadership. Second, Sha'ul would have probably been introduced to the sandals of the Jews there, whose families he had until fairly recently been killing were he so arrogant. I am guessing that, after learning the enormity of the crimes he'd been commiting from none other that Yeshua Himself, Rav Sha'ul was a bit more humble than that about this time. The scripture you quoted itself backs up thie idea that the Galations verses were redacted by their Greek interpreters: Acts 15:7-11 "7 After lengthy debate, Kefa got up and said to them, "Brothers, you yourselves know that a good while back, God chose me from among you to be the one by whose mouth the Goyim should hear the message of the Good News and come to trust. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore them witness by giving the Ruach HaKodesh to them, just as he did to us; 9 that is, he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their heart by trust. 10 So why are you putting God to the test now by placing a yoke on the neck of the talmidim which neither our fathers nor we have had the strength to bear? 11 No, it is through the love and kindness of the Lord Yeshua that we trust and are delivered-and it's the same with them.""
So Kefa did agree with Rav Sha'ul's position. Furthermore, we see in verse 7 that Kefa is the one commissioned to take the word to the gentiles ... but wait! Isn't the same discourse in Galatians the same one where the Christians get their claim that Rav Sha'ul is " Their Guy"? The apostle to the gentiles? Whenever scripture starts to not add up, or makes no sense, I start to ask "why?" The answer is obviouse- the book of Galations was re-written by the church fathers when they translated it from Hebrew (or Aramaic) into Greek. The historical and other biblical evidence of this has been discussed in the thread on Glations, What's Wrong Here? Galations is a tough read, and full of pagan snares set by the early church fathers. But the truth is there, we just have to keep the entire context of scripture in mind when we read it. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Apr 4, 2014 5:25:44 GMT -8
Matt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Why read something that is heavily redacted? Just through it away.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 4, 2014 8:33:30 GMT -8
Why read something that is heavily redacted? Just through it away. Because it originally was scripture, and the truth of God cannot be erased from it. But to understand that truth we must use discernment and read in the context of the entire Bible- STARTING with . Besides, by that logic you'd have to throw out the entire B'rit Chadasha as it all was redacted when translated into Greek. I'm not willing to do that. I am willing to think about what I read there to search out the truth. Dan C |
|
and identifies "the man of G'd" as the person it applies to. Unless someone does not believe a Gentile can be a man of G'd, they have some explaining to do. 
