Paul or no Paul. That is the question.

[Mark]

Hi Rork,

I'm a little disappointed that we have not as yet convinced you that there is value to be gleaned from Paul's writings.

At the same time, I think you give him too much credit. Heresy didn't begin in the first century with Paul. It had been around and will continue to thrive. You can count on it. People were taking the writings of Joel and Isaiah out of context and running with them in order to prove their own points long before the Messiah came.

Marcion's endorsement of Paul doesn't discredit Paul. Paul, actually said, "Be a follower or me even as (or insomuch as) I also am a follower of Messiah." (1st Corinthians 11:1) Anything in his life or writings that you suppose are contrary to the teachings of Messiah, Paul would tell you to shed, or at least try to figure out before putting it into practice. Saying this, is strong evidence to me that Paul believes that his writings are pro- and in alignment with the rest of Scripture.

Another perspective that is worth discussing is that there are two levels of authoritative Scripture: there is (defined in this context as the five books given through Moses) and there is commentary regarding - under which the Prophets and the Brit Hadashah are described. This would make everything after Deuteronomy lesser Scripture than the five. They are authoritative only in that they reach back to and encourage us to live accordingly. They give us further understanding but not further revelation. They are commentary upon . This seems to be Isaiah's perspective in Isiah 8:20 when he said, "To the Law and to the testimonies. If they speak not according to his word it is because there is no light in them."

Rork, you're committed to the understanding that Paul has rejected and teaches contrary to it, though we have tried to convince you from his writings that he believed and taught within . I suppose I'm disappointed that you choose to believe the church's interpretation of these epistles rather than ours.

If you choose not to use Paul's writings in your own study and teaching, I don't have any problem with that. There's plenty of Bible left from which to glean truth- and the truth existed long before Paul ever came up. Yet, your specific passion for defaming Paul is of great concern to me. It seems that your feelings toward this man outshine your love for all men ( not that your love doesn't exist; but it is not so clearly manifest).

I know that in my own ministry, I try never to teach against error so much as focus on truth. If people who hear me get a firm grasp on what is true, then the error will be evident to them. I don't have to do any bashing.

[Chizuk Emunah]

Shalom Naild,
Glad you clarified things. I was under the impression that you were trying to say that the Old Covenant (there are actually several), had been done away with and replaced with the New Covenant.

When I said that Sh'aul did not specifically teach the 'New Covenant', I mean that he did not teach anything new. He used the TaNaK as his Scriptures and teaching tool.

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).

Feel free to use as much Hebrew as you want. Although I am not fluent, my knowledge of Hebrew gets better the more I use it.

Heresy didn't begin in the first century with Paul.

Nope, it sure didn't. The great thing is that we can actually pinpoint the beginning of the heresy with the rise of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch in 98 C.E.

[Sean]

I really think that we need to get away from the phrase "new covenant", to me it is the same covenant refreshed by the power of the Spirit and renewed through the sacrifice of Yeshua, and thus it is related to in a different way..., but "New Covenant"?
New Covenant is a term that switches off Jewish people instantly and perhaps it's time that we bury that one.