Paul or no Paul. That is the question.

[q27]

Shalom

I am enjoying the thread.

Personally, I think Sha'ul has been misunderstood - and in some cases deliberately so - I refer particularly to Martin Luther who used Sha'ul's teachings to support his own action again the RC church.

I have also been confronted with those who believe that Sha'ul is very non-Jewish and supporting such a view because other than Sha'ul's own references there is no independent primary source supporting his claims to Rabbinical teaching.

I am wondering if anyone has good primary reference material accessible that supports Sha'ul's Jewishness.

For myself, I have no problems with Sha'ul's antecedents but would like to be in a position of confronting those who insist that Sha'ul was not all that he said he was .. (sorry 'bout the bad grammar).

[RoRK]

Personally, I think Sha'ul has been misunderstood - and in some cases deliberately so - I refer particularly to Martin Luther who used Sha'ul's teachings to support his own action again the RC church.

I dont understand what it is that you are alluding to with regards to Martin Luther. Perhaps you should read more about him. Follow the following links:

Edited by Admin.
Message: Please do not post links promoting the Lutheran Church here on the forums.
[/b]

Shalom
RoRK

[q27]

Shalom RoRK

Thank you for the references - but - that is not what I am meaning.

Luther utilised Sha'ul's message regarding 'faith' as opposed to 'works' to justify his opposition to certain RC church practices - particularly that of selling indulgences. Luther was anti 'work's - that is, he was against the notion that through actions one was 'saved'. You can see how this particular 'reading' of Sha'ul worked in Luther's facvour - indulgences were 'works'. Luther apparently went so far as to avoid reading James because James compromises the belief that one need only 'faith'.

I use Luther here to illustrate how Christians side step the matter of keeping - they would claim that like the matter concerning selling indulgences which were unnecessary - one only needed 'faith'.

This is a complete misreading of Sha'ul's letters as the posts on this thread point out and in which I am complete agreement.

What I would like to know if anyone has references concerning Sha'ul's credentials other than his own.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

What I would like to know if anyone has references concerning Sha'ul's credentials other than his own.

I would say that besides the truth found in Sha’ul’s (Paul’s) writings, I would say that his respected contemporary Kefa (Peter) would be the strongest reference regarding Sha’ul’s credentials…

"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

The fact that Kefa regards Sha’ul as a brother in good standing and that Sha’ul’s letters are not being condemned…rather we see Kefa engaging in a little apologetics regarding his beloved brother tells me that Sha’ul’s writings were legitimate. If they were not, than I believe Kefa would have gave us a warning regarding Sha’ul’s writings. But, he does not such thing. Although, Kefa does warn that people twist the writings of Sha’ul…this tells me that until someone twists them….Sha’ul’s writings are straight and upright.

Shalom,

Reuel

[RoRK]

The fact that Kefa regards Sha’ul as a brother in good standing and that Sha’ul’s letters are not being condemned…rather we see Kefa engaging in a little apologetics regarding his beloved brother tells me that Sha’ul’s writings were legitimate.

The fact of the matter is that we dont really know which letters of Paul, Peter is alluding to here. It is not prudent to accept all of Paul's letters based on Peter's graciousness as Paul talks alot about many things.

At the end of the day, Paul's letters and teachings have to stand on their own plus be put into view in relation to established Scripture.
Shalom

rork

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

No doubt Kefa was aware of what Sha'ul was teaching as he knew him in person and would have known much more about Sha'ul than what is contained in all his letters.

Shalom,

Reuel

[Chizuk Emunah]

I agree with Reuel here. In fact, we actually see Kefa stand up in defense of Rav Sh'aul in Acts 15 in front of Ya'akov HaTzeddik and the entire Nazarene Sanhedrin. He definitely would not have done such a thing if he thought Sh'aul was out of line.

[NaildWithHim]

mark said:

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.

Hi Mark,

Perhaps I should have been a little more specific? Sacrifices for sin have ceased for those who are "In Messiah" (Members of His body).

Also, seeing as how there is no longer a Temple, sacrifices have ceased to be offered according to . I'm a Messianic and as observant as I can possibly be, I do not embrace what most dub as the doctrines of "The Church". The Church has never had it's roots in the Romans anyway. They were NEVER the Lord's Ekklesia, so their doctrines are rejected by me. To be more specific I'm refering to the Catholic (Roman) Church (so-called).



Shalom,
Naild

[NaildWithHim]

notzriyehudi said:

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.

Genesis 32:28
And he said: 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.'

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).

The Subject of Shaul's teaching:
- If Shaul was not teaching , then what was he teaching?

The New Covenant as already stated. The New Covenant is NOT the Old Covenant no matter how hard one tries to force it.

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.

Yeshua was born "Under the Law":

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,


The Essenes community of which the Dead Sea Scrolls came were involved in many different forms of ritual cleansing. I see no historical or Biblical evidence to support that the Rabbinical Jews adopted such rituals other than the many washing of hands. Are you insinuating that Yeshua was born under Essene ritualism? Just curious.


Peace!
Naild

[Chizuk Emunah]

And he said: 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.'

So I suppose that when we say, "May the G-d of our fathers, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov...", we should instead be saying, "May the G-d of our fathers, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yisrael..."
Sorry brother, but I disagree with your logic. If Ya'akov's name was replaced with Yisrael, then the name Ya'akov would not be included in the traditional bracha.

As for Shimon Kefa, I believe it's very obvious that Shimon was not given a new name, but in fact given a sort of 'nick-name.' Shimon who is called Kefa, that in no way proves that Shimon stopped using his given name. Just like I have a given name, but usually go by a 'nick-name.'

The New Covenant as already stated. The New Covenant is NOT the Old Covenant no matter how hard one tries to force it.

Again I disagree. There is no place in the "New Testament" that would indicate that Sh'aul was teaching the 'New Covenant.' If Yeshua taught and lived according to , and told his talmidim to do the same, and if Shaul was indeed one of the talmidim, then it stands to reason that Shaul would also be teaching . And if Sh'aul wasn't teaching , then he most definitely would not have been welcome into the many Synagogues he traveled to.

Yeshua was born "Under the Law":

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,


The Essenes community of which the Dead Sea Scrolls came were involved in many different forms of ritual cleansing. I see no historical or Biblical evidence to support that the Rabbinical Jews adopted such rituals other than the many washing of hands. Are you insinuating that Yeshua was born under Essene ritualism? Just curious.

I find it incredulous that in order to support your claim you look to one specific passage in Galatians instead of looking to the B'sorah Tovah (Good News). Therefore, I could reject your claims on that ground alone. One should keep in mind that Sh'aul's letters were written after the B'sorah and therefore should only be used as a secondary reference, not a primary one.

Brother, you have missed my point. My point was not that Yeshua was an Essene, but rather that in using the very specific term "Under the Law", Sh'aul was in fact responding to a believer with an Essene background (which was not uncommon by the way).

Keep in mind that when you read Sh'aul's letters, you are only getting Sh'aul's response and not the full context of the dispute. Also remember that whenever Sh'aul wrote a congregation, he wrote to address a specific issue.

Shabbat Shalom.
Netzar Y'hudi

My apologies if I came across too harsh, that is not my intent.

[NaildWithHim]

notzriyehudi said:

My apologies if I came across too harsh, that is not my intent.

Don't worry about it Netzar Y'hudi, I'm pretty thick skinned. If you aren't convicted in what you say, and exhibit passion while saying it then there would be a problem. LOL

So I suppose that when we say, "May the G-d of our fathers, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov...", we should instead be saying, "May the G-d of our fathers, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yisrael..."
Sorry brother, but I disagree with your logic. If Ya'akov's name was replaced with Yisrael, then the name Ya'akov would not be included in the traditional bracha.

As for Shimon Kefa, I believe it's very obvious that Shimon was not given a new name, but in fact given a sort of 'nick-name.' Shimon who is called Kefa, that in no way proves that Shimon stopped using his given name. Just like I have a given name, but usually go by a 'nick-name.'

The whole 'name thing' isn't even worth arguing over. I think we both have a point to be honest with you. Jacob was in fact called Israel on many occasions though, just as by the name Jacob (I don't normaly use Hebrew in posts, it confuses those who have no knowledge of the language).

Again I disagree. There is no place in the "New Testament" that would indicate that Sh'aul was teaching the 'New Covenant.'

Then your reading a completely different N.T than me. Space would utterly fail me to provide all the passages where Rav Shaul compares the New Covenant with the Old Covenant. Have you ever read the book of Hebrews? Or the allegory in Galatians .....etc.....etc?

And if Sh'aul wasn't teaching , then he most definitely would not have been welcome into the many Synagogues he traveled to.

He wasn't! LOL

Again, you must have a different copy of the New Covenant writings than me. He was often times threatened with his very life. He got so frustrated he quit preaching the Gospel to the Hebrews altogether! Now, I could give you clear cut Scriptural references for all these statements, but would it change your point of view?




Peace!
Naild

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Where did Sha'ul (Paul) ever teach against true observance? We need to keep in mind that all the covenants are a compound unit and that they compliment each other. Sha'ul was teaching the compound covenant known to many as the "New Covenant". Just as the Holy men of G'd before Him taught their new covenant (Noach, Avraham, Moshe, ect.)...But, it was never to the degradation of the previous covenants. The addition to the covenants only added better promises each time. This is how the language in the book of Hebrews and many of the other writings of Sh'aul should be understood. The problem was not with the previous status of the compound covenant...it was because we broke it. Because it was us breaking the covenant that was the problem, the better promise that was added was that of the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit) so that we would be given power to walk in righteousness, that we would have His written on our heart...that we would keep it...

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my ordinances, and do them."
- Yechezkel (Ezek.) 36:26-27

Do not be confused with the language found in the book of Hebrews as it is not unique to the recent addition to the compound covenant.

Shalom,

Reuel

[NaildWithHim]

admin said:

Where did Sha'ul (Paul) ever teach against true observance? We need to keep in mind that all the covenants are a compound unit and that they compliment each other. Sha'ul was teaching the compound covenant known to many as the "New Covenant". Just as the Holy men of G'd before Him taught their new covenant (Noach, Avraham, Moshe, ect.)...But, it was never to the degradation of the previous covenants. The addition to the covenants only added better promises each time. This is how the language in the book of Hebrews and many of the other writings of Sh'aul should be understood. The problem was not with the previous status of the compound covenant...it was because we broke it. Because it was us breaking the covenant that was the problem, the better promise that was added was that of the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit) so that we would be given power to walk in righteousness, that we would have His written on our heart...that we would keep it...

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my ordinances, and do them."
- Yechezkel (Ezek.) 36:26-27

Do not be confused with the language found in the book of Hebrews as it is not unique to the recent addition to the compound covenant.

Shalom,

Reuel

Now that was perfectly stated! I couldn't agree more with you Reuel. Perhaps I'm being misunderstood here because it seems we are in agreeance.

There were many changes to the Old Covenant. We are now the Temple that the Spirit resides in. We do not need another priest other than Yeshua to go behind the viel into the presence of YHVH. We can approach the throne through His flesh (The body, which is the Ekklesia).....etc....etc. These are the things that Rav Shaul taught, and they are New Covenant doctrine.

That is the point I've been driving at this whole time. I do not teach Lawlessness, and NEVER will. The previous Covenants do in fact "Co-Exist" with the New Covenant. It was the previous Covenants that have the promise of eternal life, the Kingdom being established on Earth once again, Messiah sitting on David's throne....etc....etc. So of course they are still valid. But a proper perspective is in order.



Shalom
Naild

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom NaildWithHim and thank you for clarifying. Have you had a chance to read the following thread?

theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=messianic&action=display&n=1&thread=65

[RoRK]

Anyone who takes Paul's writings as Scripture really doesn't know much about how his writings came to be found in the New Testament.

Paul may be good, possibly great but the fact of the matter is that his writings MAY have been tainted by the early church to serve their purpose. Worse off, his writings may have been tainted by Marcion, a gnostic and who was the most famous supporter of Paul's teachings/writings.

Everytime, Paul's writing's seem to be an issue there is sure to be a roundabout way to excuse his writings as being misrean or misinterpreted.

But I put it to you that no where is there more confusion in so-called Scipture as those attributed to Paul.

If not for Paul's writings, we would not have the Church or the "re-formed church".

If one cannot feel saved without Paul's teachings/writings, then I propose that something is wrong with that someone.

Leave Paul's teachings out of Scripture. There is nothing to be gained from it but confusion. YHWH's teachings are always clear albeit subject to interpretation for the sole purpose of applying the teachings to specific times or changing times.