Paul or no Paul. That is the question.

[Mark]

Paul was without question comfortable and fluent in Hebrew; but giving the breadth of his travels, there is no reason to believe he was less comfortable with Greek. Remember, while he was a Hebrew scholar, the recipients of many of his letters were not. It would make more sense to me that, when addressing Greeks, he wrote to them in Greek. There's little (or no) doubt that the book of Matthew and the book of Hebrews were written originally in Hebrew. There is little evidence to prove the original penned tongue for other books either way.

Rork, you are right to not make too much out of the word "scriptures" in 2nd Peter. Such language would be a courtesy extended from one rabbi to another; but it would only be extended if the two were in agreement that the teaching aligned with .

[Mark]

I'd just like to add, while it is very possible that Paul communicated in Greek, he unquestionably thought in Hebrew. It is meritorious, if not altogether necessary, to consider the Hebrew perspective of Paul's writings to gain a proper and consistent understanding of it.

At the same time, I shudder at the idea of bewildering people who wouldn't know a Greek symbol from a Hebrew from an Arabic. The Bible is folded over and over upon itself in such a way as to protect it from misinterpretation. In any language, it is designed to line up consistently. Where there is apparent contradiction, we must believe that there is no contradiction, and in those points strive to look deeper to gain the proper understanding. Where the Sriptures line up in agreement: through the , the Psalms, the prophets, the gospel and the letters, we may stand confident that there is where the truth lies.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Rork, you are right to not make too much out of the word "scriptures" in 2nd Peter. Such language would be a courtesy extended from one rabbi to another; but it would only be extended if the two were in agreement that the teaching aligned with .

[RoRK]

Shalom
Who was it that was asked to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles? If we listen to Yeshua it is Peter, if we listen to Paul, it is none other than himself.
In God's Grace

[Eli Yeshua]

Firstly, Sha'ul was not a perfect man, and in his writings he openly admits this. Despite this, I have not found anywhere in his writings where he contradicts or Yeshua in his teaching, though many claim he does this, without putting forth Scriptural proof to back up their allegations.

I have gleaned tremendous light and truth from Sha'ul's writings, and they are not stumbling blocks to my walk, Praise Yah. In fact, reading his work has made me see the more clearly, especially as regards the Spirit of , which is of greatest importance now. Sha'ul, for example, explains the covenants allegorically:

²²For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. ²³But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. ²⁴Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar. ²⁵For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Yerushalayim which now is, and is in bondage with her children. ²⁶But Yerushalayim which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

--Galatians 4:22-26

This has caused me to look at the Scriptures in a new light. I'm simply saying that when Sha'ul is misunderstood, it is easy to find fault with him, but when we see the light shinning through in his writings we can but Praise YHWH for truth revealed.

Eli Yeshua

[The 614th Mitzvot]

We must see that Rabbi Shaul's (Paul's) writings are with a hebrew mindset in Greek. We can see it so obviously when he writes and people who did not have a hebrew mindset were entirely thrown aback by this. They began to pervert scripture and Rabbi Shaul's ideas. I am not saying the gentile churchs did this, because when they recieved Yohshuah HaMoshiach, they also recieved his . So they would have had a hebrew mindset from the , however, the Catholic Church, based in mother-son cult followings and many other political plans would have not seen the of truth and Yohshuah HaMoshiach, but only a few really good ideas.

[Chizuk Emunah]

We must see that Rabbi Shaul's (Paul's) writings are with a hebrew mindset in Greek.

Exactly. That is why it is impossible for those who do not have a Hebraic mindset to interpret his letters properly. Without the proper background, it is far too easy to interpret Rav Sh'aul's words into Torahlessness.

I am not saying the gentile churchs did this, because when they recieved Yohshuah HaMoshiach, they also recieved his . So they would have had a hebrew mindset from the , however, the Catholic Church, based in mother-son cult followings and many other political plans would have not seen the of truth and Yohshuah HaMoshiach, but only a few really good ideas.

Although I agree with your statement 100%, keep in mind that the "church" did not begin to evolve into it's own entity until after 98 C.E.

~snip~
It would make more sense to me that, when addressing Greeks, he wrote to them in Greek. There is little evidence to prove the original penned tongue for other books either way.

I disagree on two counts:
1. Wherever Rav Sh'aul went in his travels, the first place he always went to was the Synagogue. Whenever he wrote a letter, it was meant to be read to the assembly in the Synagogue. Therefore, I believe it is highly probable that he wrote his letters in Hebrew & Aramaic.
2. Because of this statement:
Jerome
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.

Lives of Illustrius Men, Book 5

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

1. Wherever Rav Sh'aul went in his travels, the first place he always went to was the Synagogue. Whenever he wrote a letter, it was meant to be read to the assembly in the Synagogue. Therefore, I believe it is highly probable that he wrote his letters in Hebrew & Aramaic.

Good point. Most likely they were written in both. We have to keep in mind that the Septuigent was also read in the synagouges and it was a Greek manuscript.

Shalom,

Reuel

[Mark]

I hadn't thought of that; but as I read your post, it reminded me of Acts 15:21 where we learn that gentile believers learned in the synagogues. They definitely had to have been exposed to a Hebrew influence. I'm not ready to throw out my Greek material; but it is a perspective that I will definitely keep in my mind during my studies.

[Chizuk Emunah]

We have to keep in mind that the Septuigent was also read in the synagouges and it was a Greek manuscript.

True, but the reading and Siddur service are conducted in Hebrew....

I'm not ready to throw out my Greek material; but it is a perspective that I will definitely keep in my mind during my studies.

And I wouldn't suggest you do. There are still nuances to be found in Greek, but we need to keep in mind that the original context was most likely in Hebrew & Aramaic.

[NaildWithHim]

Shalom All,

I find it peculiar that when the writings of Paul (He was no longer Rav Shaul, that was his Rabbinical Judaism name) are discussed in a Messianic forum, the subject of the Law gets twisted. No, Paul did not teach against , but he was NOT a Law teacher either. He was an able minister of the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:6) and went about planting the Lord's Ekklesia. If Paul yet preached circumcision he would not have been persecuted by the Hebrews, who found it offensive (Gal 5:11).


Rork,
In my opinion you have chosen a dangerous position regarding the writings of Paul. He was commisioned to this end by the risen Meshiach Himself. Your comment that Paul adds nothing to Tanakh absolutely blew me away. Without the writings of Paul the mystery of the body of Messiah and it's relation to the New Covenant would not have been revealed to the Saints, and are uniquely Pauline. The most intimate relationship in all of Scripture is the body relationship and it's goal of election. Of course, this doctrine is just the most important of Pauls teachings. He wrote of many more, and time would fail me to list them all. The teachings of 'shadows' for instance is but one example.


Paul does not in any way shape or form teach two seperate Gospels. That is an unlearned statement. He was an absolutely brilliant man, though he spoke harshly on occasion he would lay down in on coming traffic for the Brethren.


For the most part I have found that when someone misunderstands Paul it is usually a translational error, or the student does not understand the New Covenant conditions.


BTW, "Under the Law" refers to the Mosaic sacrificial system that was abrogated for those in Messiah. More times than not when you see a negative annotation toward G-d's Law in the writings of Paul that is what he is refering to. The New Covenant which was cut with the precious blood of Yeshua has absoloutely no place for the blood of bulls and Heifers.





Naild

[RoRK]

Shalom

Thank you for your comments. However, I am comfortable with my statement that Paul's epistles provide nothing more to Scripture than what is needed.

Do you mean to say that without Paul's epistles, Messianic Judaism would not have come about or would be handicapped in some way?

Paul himself said, on occasions, that he spoke on his own and he was not inspired by the Spirit.

I am certain that if Paul could speak today, he would be surprised that his epistles have been cannonized as Scriptural and by the Roman Catholic, no less, during the Nicea crede of AD325. Further Paul's greatest and earliest supported was none other than Marcion, a man steeped in pagan teachings and thoughts.

I put it that without Paul's epistles, the world will be a better place. Does that mean that Paul's epistles/teachings are bad? I think they have value but they also have de-value in that it is so convoluted and at times bothering on contradiction that I cannot see YHWH inspiring such thoughts and writings.

When Yeshua taught his talamid, he used parables so that people could understand him. Paul seems to prefer to use verbose and convoluted thoughts. I see no alignment, in terms of 'spirit' and style between Paul's writings and the other Scriptures.

I put it to you that without Paul, we would not have anti-semiticism, Catholic Church, Christianity, and all the evil and death that came about from these thoughts and teachings.

He has also misquoted Scripture, spoken ill-will of Peter in a most unguided manner and is too boastful for my liking.

Of course, I speak from my own will.

[Mark]

Hi Nailed,

There a couple of passages I'd like you to consider regarding your position on sacrifices and Paul.

First, Paul, in Acts 21:20-24 went at charges with men who were under a vow. This process involved animal sacrifice in the Temple (Leviticus 22:21).

In Zechariah 14, Adonai condemns all nations who do not come to the celebration of Tabernacles and offer sacrifices- this is prophecy not yet fulfilled. There are other references thoughout the prophets that one day the nations of the earth will come to worship in Jerusalem and offer sacrifices.

Yeshua said that until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law. Would this not include sacrifices?

I understand that these questions open a whole new discussion that should be addresed elsewhere and if we continue this discussion it will have to be moved; but I want to suggest to you that your "New Covenant" perspective may be remnant of church doctrine- not biblical exegesis.

[Chizuk Emunah]

Naild, you raise a couple of issues that that I would like to respond to.

I find it peculiar that when the writings of Paul (He was no longer Rav Shaul, that was his Rabbinical Judaism name) are discussed in a Messianic forum, the subject of the Law gets twisted. No, Paul did not teach against , but he was NOT a Law teacher either. He was an able minister of the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:6) and went about planting the Lord's Ekklesia. If Paul yet preached circumcision he would not have been persecuted by the Hebrews, who found it offensive (Gal 5:11).

Shaul's name:
- Like many Jews born in the Diaspora, Shaul had a hebrew name and a common name. His hebrew name was and remains Sh'aul. His common name was Paulus. For those that use both names, they can be addressed using either name. If one was to search the scriptures, there is only one instance of a person's name actually being changed, and that was Avraham Avinu.

The Subject of Shaul's teaching:
- If Shaul was not teaching , then what was he teaching? And if he wasn't teaching , then he should be rejected as a false teacher. The only reason he got flak for what he taught is because some perceived him (even then) of teaching against .

BTW, "Under the Law" refers to the Mosaic sacrificial system that was abrogated for those in Messiah. More times than not when you see a negative annotation toward G-d's Law in the writings of Paul that is what he is refering to. The New Covenant which was cut with the precious blood of Yeshua has absoloutely no place for the blood of bulls and Heifers.

I disagree with you here. From studying the Dead Sea Scrolls I can already tell you that the term "Works of the Law" is a very specific term used by that group. Based on that information, I have drawn a reasonable conclusion that the term "Under the Law" was a specific term used by that group as well. Therefore whenever we see Rav Shaul use those terms, it is because his opponents used those terms. I also disagree with you on the sacrifice issue, but please see my response under Practical Observance for more on that issue.

[Rick]

Well said Netzar Y'hudi,

I disagree with you here. From studying the Dead Sea Scrolls I can already tell you that the term "Works of the Law" is a very specific term used by that group. Based on that information, I have drawn a reasonable conclusion that the term "Under the Law" was a specific term used by that group as well. Therefore whenever we see Rav Shaul use those terms, it is because his opponents used those terms.

I came to the same conclusion.
Shalom
Rick