|
|
Post by Dogface Of Judah on May 22, 2006 11:46:22 GMT -8
Brother Reuel; I do get upset or  when G-d's word is attacked or devalued. Psa 119:140 Thy word [is] very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. Pro 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Hbr 10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. It's a very serious mistake in attacking the word of G-d. Nothng personal. We can debate the meaning of the word(  ,Holy Bible) but to attack Paul or anyone else(in the Holy Bible, KVJ1611 for me personaly) is not very nice. Acts 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, Act 9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Act 9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought [him] into Damascus. Act 9:9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. Act 9:10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I [am here], Lord. Act 9:11 And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for [one] called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, Act 9:12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting [his] hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Act 9:13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: Act 9:14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Act 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Act 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. Act 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. Act 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. Act 9:21 But all that heard [him] were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? Act 9:22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. The bolded part is a little helper to the confused.  Ed |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on May 22, 2006 23:07:44 GMT -8
I am not sure what I would take personal in your remarks. I believe we are on the same page and are in agreement.
Shalom achi,
Reuel
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogface Of Judah on May 23, 2006 12:04:51 GMT -8
I just want to clarify; While i may disagree on some things, that's all it is, a disagreement. At the end of the day we are family, having a meal, playing with the kids, yappin it up, edifying(trying to) one another. I maybe wrong on things(part of being human) and i feel like Yeshua as led me here for study/interaction and i am greatful for this board so i can learn and maybe help out myself. So if i disagree with someone, know that it is just that individual statement not the person. So feel free to give me a lovingly,brotherly,sisterly smack in the face at any time if i slip up. 1Jo 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 1Jo 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. 1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not [his] brother abideth in death. Jhn 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. Jhn 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Jhn 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another. 1Th 4:9 But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another. 1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently: 1Jo 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 1Jo 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 1Jo 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another 1Jo 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Have a great day!!  Ed |
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Nov 15, 2009 19:54:30 GMT -8
I simply can't understand from reading Paul's letters (or at least the letters traditionally attributed to him) can be excepted as scripture. Paul attacks circumcision constantly! He even goes as far as wishing those who insisted on gentile circumcision castrate themselves!!! Gal 5:12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! Also, you say Gentiles should be circumcised and follow the whole of the (as they should) , while Paul said the opposite. Gal2: 3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: I just can't reconcile Paul with the gospel of Yehoshua. I appreciate any input. We should remember that required circumcision to be done on the eighth day after birth. (Leviticus 12:3) Any male circumcised on the ninth day or later wouldn't be in compliance with the Law. This is most likely a major reason why Paul and the other Apostles didn't require it of new gentile believers. Simple but rather obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by davidwiseman on Nov 15, 2009 20:27:12 GMT -8
I simply can't understand from reading Paul's letters (or at least the letters traditionally attributed to him) can be excepted as scripture. Paul attacks circumcision constantly! He even goes as far as wishing those who insisted on gentile circumcision castrate themselves!!! Gal 5:12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! Also, you say Gentiles should be circumcised and follow the whole of the (as they should) , while Paul said the opposite. Gal2: 3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: I just can't reconcile Paul with the gospel of Yehoshua. I appreciate any input. We should remember that required circumcision to be done on the eighth day after birth. (Leviticus 12:3) Any male circumcised on the ninth day or later wouldn't be in compliance with the Law. This is most likely a major reason why Paul and the other Apostles didn't require it of new gentile believers. Simple but rather obvious. I'm afraid I cannot agree. While it is true that the primary commandment is for a child that is eight days old, there is also clearly provision for those who are older. Our father Abraham circumcised himself when he was well advanced in age. I am going to side with the New Perspective scholar E.P. Sanders and say that most of what is in Paul's letters that appears antinomian is actually "transfer terminology" as Dr. Sanders puts it. Paul is not arguing that gentile converts should never be circumcised, but rather that they should not be circumcised immediately. There was a school of thought at the time, apparently, that insisted that circumcision was one of the first steps in conversion. Paul disagrees, arguing that it should only come further down the line. |
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Nov 16, 2009 20:48:41 GMT -8
Shalom David, I think I agree with you and Dr. Sanders. Circumcision is good as an outward sign of inner faith. If I had a young son who had not been circumcised on his eighth day (for whatever reason), I would have it done as a sign of faith. My point was regarding being observant. Being that it is not possible for gentile converts to keep this aspect of , the Apostles didn't treat it as a matter of disobedience to Elohim but rather as a way to express their faith in Him; even as Abraham was circumcised as an expression of faith after he had been blessed by Elohim. Welcome back.  |
|
|
|
Post by Inspired Faith on Feb 3, 2010 19:24:11 GMT -8
There seems to be two subjects here. First I read the question about Paul as "Is the Bible imperfect?" Is the Holy Scripture not breathed from the Father? Is the Father imperfect?
He is perfect so His Word must be perfect so if we see something that appears contrary to His Word in His Word then it is not what He is teaching us that is imperfect but how we are looking at it is imperfect.
Blessings
|
|
|
|
Post by hamashiachagape on Sept 9, 2010 11:23:15 GMT -8
I have read or heard somewhere that Paul's letters are exactly that - they are Paul's letters to the different churches and that they aren't really "scripture" perse'. Has anyone else heard this? I would be interested in hearing what others have to say about this. I think the NT cannot contradict the OT. If it does then there is an error in translation or in our understanding. Does this tie in with "there is nothing new underneath the sun?" Thank you I see them as a reconfirmation of the . |
|
|
|
Post by hamashiachagape on Sept 9, 2010 11:24:02 GMT -8
I simply can't understand from reading Paul's letters (or at least the letters traditionally attributed to him) can be excepted as scripture. Paul attacks circumcision constantly! He even goes as far as wishing those who insisted on gentile circumcision castrate themselves!!! Gal 5:12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! Also, you say Gentiles should be circumcised and follow the whole of the (as they should) , while Paul said the opposite. Gal2: 3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: I just can't reconcile Paul with the gospel of Yehoshua. I appreciate any input. We should remember that required circumcision to be done on the eighth day after birth. (Leviticus 12:3) Any male circumcised on the ninth day or later wouldn't be in compliance with the Law. This is most likely a major reason why Paul and the other Apostles didn't require it of new gentile believers. Simple but rather obvious.  Spot on! |
|
|
|
Post by hamashiachagape on Sept 9, 2010 11:25:49 GMT -8
I have three answers to this. Romans 3:31 - 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. Acts 24:14 - 14However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, And Acts 21, where Rav Shaul had a perfect opportunity to state that the no longer applied, and instead complied with the . |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Sept 9, 2010 13:25:51 GMT -8
We should remember that required circumcision to be done on the eighth day after birth. (Leviticus 12:3) Any male circumcised on the ninth day or later wouldn't be in compliance with the Law. This is most likely a major reason why Paul and the other Apostles didn't require it of new gentile believers. Simple but rather obvious. Spot on! Not exactly. There are many instances where believers were circumcised after the eighth day, which was a covenant requirement of [The word "Law" for is a horrible translation to begin with]. Here's but one such example, and includes the Goyim who sojourned with Israel... (Joshua 5:3-8 Complete Jewish Bible) So Y'hoshua made himself knives of flint and circumcised the people of Isra'el at Giv'at-Ha'Aralot [the hill of foreskins]. The reason Y'hoshua circumcised was that all the people who had left Egypt who were males, all the fighting men, had died in the desert along the way after leaving Egypt. For although all the people who left Egypt had been circumcised, all those who had been born in the desert on the way as they went on from Egypt had not been circumcised; because the people of Isra'el walked forty years in the desert until the whole nation, that is, the fighting men who had left Egypt, had died out; because they had not heeded what ADONAI said. ADONAI had sworn that he would not allow them to see the land which ADONAI swore to their ancestors that he would give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. So he raised up their children to take their place, and it was these whom Y'hoshua circumcised; till then they had been uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised while traveling. When all the nation had been circumcised, every one of them, they stayed where they were in camp until they had healed. If Sha'ul was so vehemently opposed to bris milah [as many erroneously suppose] he most certainly would not have circumcised Timothy... (Acts 16:1-3 Complete Jewish Bible)Sha'ul came down to Derbe and went on to Lystra, where there lived a talmid named Timothy. He was the son of a Jewish woman who had come to trust, and a Greek father. All the brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of Timothy. Sha'ul wanted Timothy to accompany him; so he took him and did a b'rit-milah, because of the Jews living in those areas; for they all knew that his father had been a Greek. Without question, circumcision is a covenant stipulation all throughout the Tanakh, and nowhere do the Gospel accounts attempt to change this fact. The problem/misunderstanding begins with the writings of Sha'ul, which are greatly misunderstood [especially by the Goyim]. Sha'ul was not opposed to bris milah, he was opposed to the twelve edicts of Shammai. This is where the confusion lies. If Sha'ul would have been opposed to bris milah as a covenant obligation [which he wasn't] then he would have been a heretic. The is crystal clear regarding bris milah as a covenant obligation, and I'm sure nobody will argue that point. So, if you believe that Sha'ul was opposed to bris milah, then there are some serious questions you need to ask yourself. Mainly these... 1.) Why was bris milah suddenly changed, or done away with? 2.) Exactly where is this change, or abbrogation, clearly layed out in Scripture? 3.) Where did Sha'ul get the authority to change an obvious commandment of HaShem? Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 7, 2015 10:49:01 GMT -8
Rav Sha'ul is probably the most mistranslated and misunderstood character of the entire Bible. Much of the problem stems from the fact that there was a new movement with a new doctrine that Rav Sha'ul saw as extremely dangerouse to both the Jewish people and to new believers, Jew and Gentile alike. This ideology, this way of thinking, being new had no name in either Hebrew or Greek at the time. We now call it legalism, but the only word he had was "law." Since he (as has been pointed out here) upheld the law, his discourses against legalism were often convoluted, sometimes sarcastic, and generally hard to understand.
2 Peter 3:16 (ESV) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
This verse not only affirms that Rav Sha'ul is difficult to understand, but brings to light another problem and that is that there are those who would twist his words to their own ends. The "church" has done this from its inception, and the ignorant masses have simply accepted their twist on things as fact. There was another problem however that the Apostle Peter could not have foreseen, and that is not only were "Paul's" letters completely mistransliterated at times, many of them were redacted- intentionally changed!
I not too long ago was talking to two AoG ministers and told them that, according to my wife's Moody course on the New Testament there were almost 5700 source documents used to piece together the New Testament, and many disagreed! They both acknowledged this was true, but said "We don't tell people this because we don't want to destroy their trust in the Bible!"
You can go here for a discussion on Galations, where most misunderstanding of Rav Sha'uls writings occurs:
theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3329/galations-wrong
As I've said, God's truth is stronger than man's attempts to tamper with it. It is still there, but it requires thoughtful, prayerful work to dig it out. But Rav Sha'ul was NOT anti-:
Romans 7:7 (ESV) What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
Romans 3:31 (ESV) Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Acts 24:14 (ESV) But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,
And he did NOT hate the Jews! He had a deep love for his own people:
Romans 9:1-5 (ESV)I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
So to those who would twist his words or who would simply give up and condemn Paul because it is too difficult to try and understand him:
2 Corinthians 13:5 (ESV) Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
Dan C
edit: I've said this before, but it bears repeating- much of what I say here reflects the teachings of Rav S, and much is from my own research and study, and very much of both are in absolute agreement!
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 7, 2015 15:02:42 GMT -8
I'm curious why Paul was the key instrument used by the holy men of his day to carry out the persecution of the believing jews? Why, if he was such an unworthy jew or a greek-smacking jew was he given such a role of authority? ;D
Dan C
edit: I should say I'm not that ashamed of this part of my heritage as I've always been pro Hebrew/Jewish/Israel (truth be told as much due to the works of Leon Uris as to the Bible, but there you have it ...  ).  for what someone before me did had nothing to do with my decision to become Messianic. God said it, I believe it, here I am. Simple. |
|
|
|
Post by john75 on Sept 29, 2015 7:03:47 GMT -8
[If only it were that simple these days.I want to become circumcised but I don't know where to turn. It's looking like a private operation in a very expensive clinic to get the job done. Not that I mind the expense,I'm reminded of Yeshua'so parable of the priceless pearl that a man spent all his worldly wealth on. I just wonder if there another way? Even in the UK? I mean are there messianic rabbis in the UK that have sharp enough knives to do the job? author="@admsource="/post/2181/thread" timestamp="1141457134"]Shalom Blake, Please start new individual threads (if they don't already exist) on the passages that confuse you. We would be happy to discuss them with you and help to clear up a few things. I find Sha'ul (Paul) to be consistant with and the teachings of Yeshua. One thing to keep in mind is that Sha'ul was writing letters (G'd inspired in my estimation) to various congregations that had issues going on in which we did not know the whole story. So, it is hard to say what the exact circumstances were. In regards to Titus, we don't know how long he had been a believer and what point he was in his sanctification. Furthermore, I believe the point of Shaul's letter in this regard was concerning those pressuring others to be circumcised in order to be saved. I believe this angered Sha'ul because new believers could first come to Messiah and later be sanctified in the word as time passed...But, first they had to have a chance to come to Messiah before being scared off by men with beards and knives trying to cut something that would freak most Gentiles out. In other words, these Gentiles needed a little breathing and growing room after coming to Messiah...Sha'ul did not want to over water these tender plants...and neither should we. But, if the plant looks thirsty...let them have it!  Shalom, Reuel[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by john75 on Sept 29, 2015 7:16:54 GMT -8
I'm curious why Paul was the key instrument used by the holy men of his day to carry out the persecution of the believing jews? Why, if he was such an unworthy jew or a greek-smacking jew was he given such a role of authority? ;D
Dan C
edit: I should say I'm not that ashamed of this part of my heritage as I've always been pro Hebrew/Jewish/Israel (truth be told as much due to the works of Leon Uris as to the Bible, but there you have it ... ). for what someone before me did had nothing to do with my decision to become Messianic. God said it, I believe it, here I am. Simple.But Pauls letters contradict even each other. They espouse the law and other times criticise people for espousing it. There is a problem there. |
|
when G-d's word is attacked or devalued. 
,Holy Bible) but to attack Paul or anyone else(in the Holy Bible, KVJ1611 for me personaly) is not very nice.
). 
for what someone before me did had nothing to do with my decision to become Messianic. God said it, I believe it, here I am. Simple.
