Paul or no Paul. That is the question.

[RoRK]

Hi Mark
Thank you for your response. I fully concur with you that one should read Paul's Epistles as though one were reading a personal letter. That should then beg the question; Should they be part of God's Testament to Mankind?" or should it best be left as something personal, between two or more parties for an occasion at a point in time for a specific purpose and very much unlike God's Word which is what we attribute the Scriptures to. God's Word is for all Mankind for all eternity.

In my previous post, I pointed out that God's Word would be for the better should we disregard Paul's teachings (including his Epistles). Nothing Paul mentions adds to God's Word. Rather, as we have all agreed , it only confounds God's Word and His Message.

My take on Paul is that he was preaching two Gospels, one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles. If one were to work with this premise, all of Paul's actions and teachings would be consistent.

But hitherto, all sides (those for and against Paul, and those for and against Paul but for and against the Tanakh, in whatever permutations they convey) insist on Paul's consistent gospel. But as I have mentioned, Paul has two gospels; one for the Gentiles and one for the Jews.

I have major issues with Paul's teachings. Not only has he shown himself to be outrightly abrasive towards God's annointed but he has been brash and boastful on many occasions. I cannot see how The Almighty will sink so low to prove a point. He is the Great, "I Am". The Greatest of All, The First and the Last. Need more be said???

Should we expect Him to sink to sarcasm and outright accusation against those that He Himself annointed???

As far as I am concerned, it has been most unfortunate that Paul's teachings has rose up to the ranks that it has, for all who believe in Jesus' divinity.

I suggest that everyone do some research on how the New Testament was first brought together. Pay special attention to Marcion and the Roman Empire. Try to have an understanding of the interest of the Roman Empire.

Should you know why there is no Sabath but Sunday worship; why there is Easter worship and Christmas and all the paganistic-like rituals that exist in Christianity today, then you need only look back to the Romans.

I want to end by saying that I have not yet decided (100%) on how to deal with Paul's teachings. I do have major issues but as of yet, I have not known any other way but to interpret and to acknowledge his teachings as wayward.

I must stress that this is not a personal attack on Paul. It would be terribly unfair on him as his writings may have been tampered with. But taking what we have, I have no alternative but to disregard his teachings as wayward, pretentious, superfluous, boastful and unnecesarily confusing.

In God's Grace
RoRK

[Mark]

I'd like to recommend to you the book, "The Letter Writer" by Tim Hegg. It is offered for about $20 through Fitst Fruits of Zion.

ffoz.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=31&products_id=98&osCsid=f9cbe828f505e8d462b6271bcd5693cb

You may be able to get it at a lesser price through Tim's site: www.Torahresource.com

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom RoRK,

You stated...

My take on Paul is that he was preaching two Gospels, one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles.

I would say that a closer reading of Rav Sha'ul's (Paul's) writings would prove otherwise. Do you claim to understand all the writings of Rav Hallel or many of the other great Rabbi's? As it sounds like you have not totally closed the door, perhaps you should give Rav Sha'ul another try. There are many great studies at www.theloveofgod.net found by clicking on the Bible Study button that handle many of Sha'ul's writings. I would also be happy to discuss any one of the passages written by Sha'ul in separate threads dedicated to each particular passage. I do consider his writings to be more of divine commentary on much of the TeNaKh. Nonetheless, I do believe that His writings are considered scripture just as Kefa (Peter) has testified....

"Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Sha'ul (Paul) also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you; as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
- 2Kefa (Peter) 3:15-16

You stated…

We see that Paul is upset at Peter. We should ask, why was Paul upset with Peter and why did Paul use such harsh words against Peter, "The Rock". One whom Jesus chose to build his church on.

I am against Paul for using such strong words against Peter. I do not see how the Spirit could have led Paul to write such words against Peter.

Obviously in 2Kefa (2Peter) 3:15-16 Kefa (Peter) did not seem too upset at Sha'ul. Perhaps he considered Sha'ul to be correct in his rebuke? At any rate, also in this passage we see Kefa state, "as they also do the other scriptures" thereby recognizing Sha'ul's writings as part of the scriptures. We also see that Kefa does not disregard Sha'ul's writings and I don't think we should either. Kefa just adds a caution for those whom are not well learned and thereby twist the scriptures. I think that we should follow Kefa's example and give that same warning without disregarding Sha'ul's writings.

So you see, you would also have to disregard Kefa's testimony to believe that the writings of Sha'ul are irrelevant. Before starting a new thread please check to make sure there is not already a thread in the area designated for the writings of Rav Sha'ul you wish to discuss.

Berachot b'Yeshua
(Blessings in Yeshua),

Reuel

[RoRK]

Shalom
and many thanks for your replies.

Obviously in 2Kefa (2Peter) 3:15-16 Kefa (Peter) did not seem too upset at Sha'ul. Perhaps he considered Sha'ul to be correct in his rebuke?

I feel that it is unfair to account for Peter's lack of rebuttal as a sign of his agreement towards Paul's very serious accusation.

2Peter could have been written before Peter read Paul's accusations or Paul's accusations may have been added in at a later time - much later by evil doers trying to discredit Peter and the true followers of Yeshua.

I do believe that all of us do agree that Christians and Messianic Jews read the same Pauline words and yet both camps come out with different conclusions.

I hope that we can all also agree that both sides have believers familiar with the Tanakh and that to call one side more learned in the Tanakh is superflous, misleading and is akin to hiding the facts behind a clouded veil.

I say this without malice but only to ensure that all sides start off on an even keel. This is to preclude prejudices from clouding and confounding any issue(s) that requires nothing more but a clear understanding and agreement to God's written Word.

I suggest that those more learned start by creating two lists; one to point out Pauline teachings that call for the end of the Law and another that uses Pauline teachings that DO NOT call for the end of the Law.

Additional points where Yeshua or even early-time prophets have made about the Law which may 'help' either side should also be added as an addendum.

I will add my own points to both lists. Reuel, does this exercise sound like something you would like to pursue further?

In God's Grace
RoRK

[Mark]

"I suggest that those more learned start by creating two lists; one to point out Pauline teachings that call for the end of the Law and another that uses Pauline teachings that DO NOT call for the end of the Law."


I've seem the strategy you've suggested used many times; but I have a great deal of trouble withthe logic in it. If Paul is contradicting himself, then Paul is irrelevant to us. Yet, as Reuel stated, even Peter placed Paul's writings at a level higher than your average correspondence. If we simply read from the letters what Paul is saying and not read into them things that we've been taught to believe, there is no contradiction. Proper exegesis is not to weigh the volume of the way something is written, just as it is not to pick three or four verses of Scripture out of its given context to defend one's personal agenda. Both are strategies used by those wanting an academic defense of their theological position, not of those with a desire to walk closer to God by walking closely to the writings of a man of God.

This is not an intellectual exercise. It is not a drawing lines to defend one's own theological camp. It is our life- the Word of Truth. Rork, please don't consider these comments directed specifically at you; but rather at the methodology of teaching that comes from theological schools of today. Men are taught how to shore up their position, not understand the Word of God, much less walk in fellowship with Him through that Word.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Mark, I concur. RoRK, feel free to discuss specific passages by Rav Sha'ul (Paul) in their designated areas as we would be happy to discuss them with you. In my view, the list you suggested would not be possible as I cannot find one place that Sha'ul calls for end to ...And, I have searched.

Shalom,

Reuel

[RoRK]

Shalom Mark & Reuel
Perhaps we can agree that the majority of Christians use Paul's teachings as the basis for calling for the end of observance.

Should we agree on that, then we have to ask ourselves not only why but what can we do to assist them. Rather then having a defeatist strategy, let's put the Word out. Nothing wrong can be had from using God's Word to put things right.

There is so much to gain should Christians have an opportunity to learn the truth of Paul's teachings. Even I myself have begun to take on Paul's teachings with a different light.

Therefore, I am suggesting for a more concerted and organised treatment of the matter.

It is perfectly fine should an individual have only one ide to add to the propsed list. That shouldn't be at all surprising, neither should it preclude the list from being created.

Thus far, I have seen that parts of Paul's teachings have been mistranslated and thus has led to the difference in conclusions drawn from both Christians and Messianic Jews with regards to Paul's teachings.

We shouldn't just tell a Christian that Paul's teachings have been mistranslated and/or misunderstood. We should expound to them, expose it to them. Only then will they be able to make a learned decision and also to discuss it amongst themselves.

That would be a great thing.

In God's Grace.
RoRK

[Chizuk Emunah]

Shalom all,
My studies of Rav Sh'aul's letters have led me to the conclusion that when the phrase *"under the Law" is used, he is not referring to the itself, but rather legalistic observance of . Knowing that, we can determine that anytime it seems as though he is talking about in a negative manner, he is referring to legalistic observance.


*The actual phrase used is 'tkheikot .' It means 'legalization of .'

[RoRK]

Shalom

My studies of Rav Sh'aul's letters have led me to the conclusion that when the phrase *"under the Law" is used, he is not referring to the itself, but rather legalistic observance of . Knowing that, we can determine that anytime it seems as though he is talking about in a negative manner, he is referring to legalistic observance.

*The actual phrase used is 'tkheikot .' It means 'legalization of .'

Thank you. Can you provide any links that may have helped you to come to this understanding and/or the verses you are alluding to - these would be very helpful.

In God's Grace
RoRK

[Mark]

It's interesting that I have had the phrase "under the Law" come up at least three times this week- all suggesting that it not be referring to . I disagree. I believe that, within my understanding of the Greek language, the direct participle does not have to be present to be clearly implied. When Paul speaks of the Law, I believe that he is clearly discussing .

Yet, if we read what Paul is clearly saying within the contexts of his letters, he cannot be understood as being against . He is simply stating that you cannot be saved by the works of your own righteousness. The Law () doesn't teach us how we can get good enough to be saved. It sends us screaming to the Messiah for grace.

Rork, you seem to have dismissed the Pauline epistles as being more trouble than they are worth. I can understand your frustration with the letters, as well as with the manipulation and misuse of them. For your own study and edification, I see no heresy in avoiding them. Scripture is powerful where ever you find it and God's grace is replete. If you never left Deuteronomy, if you spent your entire life studying the book of John, there's enough to keep you busy and keep your eyes focused clearly upon the Messiah. Yet, for apologetics and for sharing the value of to the Church, Paul is where it's at. If we dismiss these letters we only discredit ourselves in their eyes. And, rightfully so. We are picking and choosing from Scripture what we want to believe and what we understand while we are dismissing the rest.

[RoRK]

Shalom my brothers
With regards to - 2Kefa (Peter) 3:15-16

Can someone provide a strict (proper) translation to the extend where we can ascertain the Word of God to truly mean "Scripture" when Peter is alluding to Paul's writings? Or is there another meaning

In God's Grace
RoRK

[Chizuk Emunah]

Here's something to chew on:
The "New Testament" was not even canonized until the Council of Nicea convened in 325 CE. By then, Christianity was a completely separate religion, and the "church" had apostacized.
It is hard to know now what was considered to be Scripture back then. We know that the B'sorah Tovah was used, as well as the Jewish Epistles and Revelations. What we don't know is exactly how many letters Rav Sh'aul wrote, and the context in which they were written. I would surmise that the letters that are included today were included for a specific reason: without close examination, it is very easy to twist the meaning of them into a position of Torahlessness. The majority of Christians are taught strictly from the "New Testament." I believe this is done because it allows those doing the teaching to impart a message of Torahlessness.

I believe that, within my understanding of the Greek language, the direct participle does not have to be present to be clearly implied.

Keep in mind though, that most, if not all of the Ketuvim Netzarim ("New Testament") was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and later translated into Greek by those who had apostacized. So those rules would not necessarily apply. Given the fact that I translated that phrase from Aramaic into Hebrew, I would say that at least that specific letter was originally written in Aramaic. (Sorry for not having the reference handy, I'm not on my computer at the moment.)

He is simply stating that you cannot be saved by the works of your own righteousness. The Law () doesn't teach us how we can get good enough to be saved. It sends us screaming to the Messiah for grace.

I would agree 100%. No-one can make themselves righteous in the eyes of HaShem.

[Chizuk Emunah]

Given the fact that I translated that phrase from Aramaic into Hebrew, I would say that at least that specific letter was originally written in Aramaic. (Sorry for not having the reference handy, I'm not on my computer at the moment.)

Can you provide any links that may have helped you to come to this understanding and/or the verses you are alluding to - these would be very helpful.

Got the reference: It's Romans 6:1-2, 14-15.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Keep in mind though, that most, if not all of the Ketuvim Netzarim ("New Testament") was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and later translated into Greek by those who had apostacized.

I wouldn't necessarily say that all of the Greek versions of the scriptures were translated by apostates. The Septuigant is quoted all the time in the Brit Chadashah (New Test.) and was translated by observant Jewish men from older copies of the TeNaKh than what we currently have in our posession. I believe that it was translated into Greek for the nations to be able to read by the good and perfect will of the Father. But, I agree that the thoughts and style are thoroughly Hebrew. The foundational underlying language is what needs to be interpreted.

Shalom,

Reuel

[Chizuk Emunah]

Perhaps I should re-define my statement. Given the source material available to us, it is highly probably that most of the translations were done under the authority of those who had apostacized.
For example:

Jerome (382 C.E.)
- He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.

Take a close look at the time-frame in which he lived. This was well after the beginning of apostasy.