The inspired writings of rav Sha'ul...

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

This is a continuation of a current discussion taking place in the Gospel category. The question is, are rav Sha'ul's writings authoritative, and inspired? I will post the previous comments already made on this issue....

A much more interesting question, surely, is this:

Is the latter covenant Scripture in the sense that the Law is Scripture, or is it a series of halachic decisions by Rabbi Yeshua, Rabbi Sh'aul and others based on the Law?

If it is Scripture, why does it contains words that Sh'aul says quite specifically are HIS and NOT Yeshua's? Can a mere man's words be counted as Scripture?

« Last Edit: May 20th, 2004, 02:46am by DoveMinistriesUK » 81.79.85.27

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Namron Naiviv


Re: Did Yeshua come to do away with His Father's T
« Reply #4 on: May 20th, 2004, 05:22am » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a mere man's words be counted as Scripture?

I'd guess if the "mere" man is Rav Sh'aul a writer inspired by the Ruach HaKodesh, chosen of G-d, who
produced 13, most would argue 14 of the 27 books of the Brit Hadashah... oh yeh... a "mere" man's words could be counted as Scripture...

ps.
I mean no disrespect... if my reply is offensive in any way I apologize... my intent is only to present an opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kwbush


Re: Did Yeshua come to do away with His Father's T
« Reply #5 on: May 20th, 2004, 10:05am » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:I mean no disrespect... if my reply is offensive in any way I apologize... my intent is only to present an opinion.


Keith,

I think you have a good point. Rav Sha'ul just like any other prophet in the TeNaKh was a tool used of G-d. All of the men whom Adonai used to write the scriptures where "mere" men. Yet, G-d uses the lowly things of the world to show forth His glory...

"But G-d hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and G-d hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath G-d chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."
- 1Corinthians 1:27-29

DoveMinistriesUK,

Do you reject the writings of Rav Sha'ul? Perhaps we need to start another thread on this subject in the proper category. I would be open to discussing this with you if you like.

Shalom brothers,

Reuel
« Last Edit: May 20th, 2004, 10:07am by Reuel » Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re: Did Yeshua come to do away with His Father's T
« Reply #6 on: May 20th, 2004, 3:05pm » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shalom aleichem!

I'm afraid you miss the points I made.

The first point is to ask whether the group of books called 'the new testament' are Scripture on the SAME BASIS as the Law or are they halachic decisions which rest on the Law? If they are the former then their words are clearly an integral part of Scripture - if they are the latter then they may be a record decisions made by Sh'aul and Yeshua as any other Rabbi might make decisions on the application of the Law, but might not be regarded as Scripture ON THE SAME BASIS AS THE LAW.

I am NOT saying that G_d cannot use a man to write his words - I fully accept that he does that - but that is NOT the point I am making!

The second point is that, if the answer to the above question is that all in the new testament is Scripture, what about the parts where Sh'aul says that the words written are 'not the Lord's but mine'. Here he is categorically stating that HE has made an halachic decision but NOT of G_d's word. If that is the case how much more, if any, of the new testament is to be seen as pure Scripture and which part/parts might not be.

Simple questions - but oh boy the discussion will get really DEEP! Lets remember in our discussion what was said earlier, though - we must love and respect each other as we work through this difficult point.

Bless you all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Namron Naiviv


Re: Did Yeshua come to do away with His Father's T
« Reply #7 on: May 20th, 2004, 11:40pm » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shalom DoveMinistriesUK,

You do have some valid points. In regards to Sha'ul and some of the statements he makes that you have pointed out...I believe they are Spirit lead instructions. But, you are right in regards to these writings not being on the same level as the TeNaKh, as the TeNaKh is the foundation for the Brit HaDashah, and not the other way around. Also in regards to some of the comments made in Sha'ul's writings, don't we see similiar things in the TeNaKh? This was the very reason that the sect of the Sadducees rejected any writings other than (first five books of Moshe). Clearly Yeshua didn't agree with their reasoning.

Don't worry brother, there is no bitter root here. I appreciate your honesty in looking at the scritpures, and testing these things. But, I would say that Sha'uls writings are in complete harmony with , and thus are authoritative...especially because Yeshua commissioned Sha'ul himself, and Yeshua is the living .

Yours in Him,

Reuel


Shalom aleichem!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

O you've caught me out - I did not think, in the Tanach, that it says anything about anyone admitting that THEY were making a decision, and not the Lord? Have I missed something?

Sh'aul, though, is very clear in 1 Corinthians 7:12 that his words and the eaching he then gives were his own - not G_d's. We see his own guidance/ruling on whether or not divorce is allowed. Now, is he speaking out against Yeshua's teaching in Mattityahu (and other places), where it is implied that the exact opposite is right, or should we disregard Sh'aul's words here? If we agree to disregard them, how many other words did he say that are to be disregarded but he/the scribe forgot to put in the caveat?

If, on the other hand, the words are part of Scripture - a part of G_d's word to us - then it flies in the face of what the Tanach says, and what Jesus was very clear about. The Bible must be divided amongst itself. We can't sit on fence on this issue, can we?

This is why I mentioned about having a schmooze in love - it needs to be talked about but it is a subject that might just rattle some people as it deals with the sanctity of the Word of G_d and the integrity of the written Word given us by him.

PS Don't lose any sleep over it - it is a good question to get the ol' grey matter to work!

Namron

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

First of all, we must undrestand that rav Sha'ul is sometimes hard to be understood (2Peter3:16), and we must read his comments in context of the rest of his writings. If we continue to read to the end of this chapter, and on the issue in which Sha'ul is speaking, we see him state....

"But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of G'd."
- 1Corinthians 7:40

In regards to the TeNaKh, there is commentary that is not necessarily "Thus says YHVH", but nonetheless inspired.

Shalom achi,

Reuel

[DoveMinistriesUK]

Mmmmmmm interesting answer!

I wonder, if Sh'aul was willing to give a ruling by G_d in the previous verses, why he then found it necessary to issue a caveat on the next batch of writings, and then to claim that it was of the Spirit when, in fact, it actually leans in the opposite direction to what he says G_d had just said through him! Sh'aul can be hard to understand but if we write everything off that we cannot understand then we shall never learn what G_d is saying to us.

Your quote from Kefa, in context, relates to those who could not understand Sh'aul's writings/speeches because they were, themselves, un-taught and un-stable. I do not know about you but I would certainly not want to put myself in that category!!! The use of that passage to justify not dealing with a difficult passage is quite unjustified, I think (:-).

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Your quote from Kefa, in context, relates to those who could not understand Sh'aul's writings/speeches because they were, themselves, un-taught and un-stable. I do not know about you but I would certainly not want to put myself in that category!!! The use of that passage to justify not dealing with a difficult passage is quite unjustified, I think

Sorry brother, it was not my intent to imply that you are unlearned, or twisting scripture. I was just trying to demonstrate that Sha'ul can be confusing (I think even for believers). Nonetheless, Sha'ul does qualify what he said with this statement...

"But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of G'd."
- 1Corinthians 7:40

So, perhaps his previous statements have a different application that is not fully understood? And, in regards to the TeNaKh...-all scripture- (even when the author is not writing; "thus says YHVH" ) is inspired...

"All scripture is given by inspiration of G'd, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" - 2Timothy 3:16

Shalom achi,

Reuel

[Curt]

I Corinthinians 7:12 "But to the rest, I not the Lord, say if any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her."

Curt: I don't see this as a contradiction by Paul to Jesus's teachings. In I Corinthinians 7:10 "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife."
Paul shows the Lord's teachings in I Corinth. 7:10 which teaches not to divorce. Paul's teachings in I Corinth. 7:12 teach not to divorce. Even though Paul admits These are his words and not the Lord's he is not contradicting the Lord's words. Paul's statement is a magnification of the subject that the Lord did not cover. Paul is adding a dimension to divorce of believer and unbeliever that wasn't before disscussed. You notice Paul's conclusion is the same as the Lord's "Do not divorce".

Reuel states: ""All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" - 2Timothy 3:16
This verse is why Paul's writings are scripture.

"If it is Scripture, why does it contains words that Sh'aul says quite specifically are HIS and NOT Yeshua's? Can a mere man's words be counted as Scripture?

« Last Edit: May 20th, 2004, 02:46am by DoveMinistriesUK » 81.79.85.27

Paul was not recording the words of a mere man. He was recording the words inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Namron Naiviv:"The second point is that, if the answer to the above question is that all in the new testament is Scripture, what about the parts where Sh'aul says that the words written are 'not the Lord's but mine'."

Curt: It means Jesus didn't elaborate on marriage and divorce between a believer and a unbeliever. Because this may have been an issue in the early church Paul addressed the issue. He didn't disagree with the Lord's position. Paul doesn't mean the Lord disagreed with him on the issue on the contrary his conclusions are the same. "No divorce". Because the Lord did not specifically cover this issue and there was a need to Paul did so. Paul's words are scripture because of II Timothy 3:16. Paul's words are the inspirations of the Holy Spirit and are every bit as much scripture as the law.

Namron :"Sh'aul, though, is very clear in 1 Corinthians 7:12 that his words and the eaching he then gives were his own - not G_d's"

Curt: The subject wasn't completely covered by the Lord so Paul addressed the issue. The words which Paul spoke or wrote were inspired by the Holy Spirit and so were ultimately of God anyway even if the Lord did not speak them while here on earth.

[LovingNeighbor]

shalom all,
well wow, what a good subject, First off, this is always a subject that I think you come to when you read the whole bible cover to cover. It all seemed to be going along the same path until you hit paul's writings then it was like I was reading another book. I think it's great to search this issue out and not just have the verse from timothy thrown at you. The reality is that Timothy doesn't have the authority to sanctify all or any mans words as truth. Only the can define truth and as he says the scripture says if they speak not of this word there is no light(truth) in them. Oh and what scripture was timothy talking about(did the New testament exist yet(no). So he was speaking of the Tanack. but either way that timothy verse is always the answer to pauls writings.

The reality is there have always been false teachers and prophets and true teachers and prophets before there were books and bibles and who was responsible to decide if they were true not another writer but us by referencing it to the and if it is not in line then you decide it is false. Now people just say well it's in there so we have to make it work. and twist pauls writings as hard as those who twist it to say it's false. If you have to twist it it's probably not truth. You don't have to twist any of Yahushuah's words, or his Fathers, My point is I don't care who bound the book, It is the truth of the Father I follow and if there are to be false Christs do we just follow them or verify what they say and do if it be truth or not. And these are for False messiah's not just disciples(students) as paul was. We are all students and have only one Rabbi (Yahushuah) The real root of this issue is people don't want to have to study and test, It is just easier to say it must be in there for a reason (it is) but the error I think is to say also it must be true. The Father allowed the serpent in the garden to test adam and eve, and allowed satan to test job, and a lying spirit, all to see if men would just go off and follow someone other than what he said.

I don't believe the staement that Paul helped cover something YHWH and Yahushuah Missed. He said not a greater prophet then John the baptist, did he miss the whole divorce thing too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging Paul one way or another, but I am required to make a judgment on who I listen too and follow and they are judged by the word that YHWH and his son spoke. We each must read paul as we would read a letter from our friend, if it is true great, if not don't say it is true, I am not a respector of persons and like the verse says we are all Yahushuah's and Yahushuah is YHWH's he doesn't say paul is any higher than you or me. This is a great discussion and if you get easily offended then the seed has not hit good ground if you know what I mean.

I don't agree with Paul's statement that it would be better if all men were as him (Celebate) but if not then marry to avoid fornication. The Catholic church got into trouble with this one. The father says it is not good that Man be alone and created woman that two would be one flesh. Anyone preaching celebacy is not in alignment with the .
Well that's a start let's continue.
Shalom

[Curt]

Loving Neighbor,

Everyone can't agree on everything but that is O.K. It's what makes for an interesting debate.

Loving Neighbor: " The reality is that Timothy doesn't have the authority to sanctify all or any mans words as truth."

Curt: Timothy is not sanctifying all mens words or any man's words. He is simply stating all scripture is inspired of God. Just as their is scripture in the book of Genesis their is also scripture in Paul's and Timothy's writings found in the New Testament.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" - 2Timothy 3:16

Loving Neighbor: "Only the can define truth and as he says the scripture says if they speak not of this word there is no light(truth) in them."

Curt: "

• Written

Level: Basic
The word "" is a tricky one, because it can mean different things in different contexts. In its most limited sense, "" refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word "" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written ), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings.

Written
To Jews, there is no "Old Testament." The books that Christians call the New Testament are not part of Jewish scripture. The so-called Old Testament is known to us as Written or the Tanakh


It is the Jews who believe the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms are the only scripture. I am a Gentile who can become the seed of Abraham who believes the Tanakh or the Written and the New Testament writings are scripture.

Loving Neighbor: "Oh and what scripture was timothy talking about(did the New testament exist yet(no). So he was speaking of the Tanack. but either way that timothy verse is always the answer to pauls writings."

Curt: No the New Testament did not exist in a Formal Format. But obviously it was partialy being written by Timothy when he wrote. Other books may have already been written by other New Testament authors. You say Timothy was speaking of scripture as only as the Tanack. Oh! was he really? Timothy states in his verse all scripture is inspired of God. You may not believe Paul's or Timothy's writings are scripture but I do.

Loving Neighbor: "He said not a greater prophet then John the baptist, did he miss the whole divorce thing too."

Curt: Obviously he did we don't find any quotes by John the Baptist on the subject. Does it mean that a prophet or even a no greater prohet than John the baptist has to write on every subject? If that were the case we would not have more than one book in the Tanakh. Different prophets may have different messages for God's people.

My main point wasn't II Timothy 3:16, it was I don't see the contradiction in Paul's writings in this specific case. When I read everything in context I see the general message as being "no divorce" which is the same message Jesus and Moses had. I think the biggest stumbling block is the words in I Corinthinans 7:10 "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord....." and I Corinthinans 7: 12 "But to the rest I, not the Lord, say..." Some People see this as a contradiction but I don't. If you believe as I do that the entire Bible is cohesive and their are no contradictions but only things that may appear as contradictions maybe you can better understand my views. If someone still wishes to view this as a contradiction, that is O.K. I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself.

Loving Neighbor: " This is a great discussion and if you get easily offended then the seed has not hit good ground if you know what I mean"

Curt: I'm not offended. Why don't you give me book, chapter and verse on Paul's writing concerning celibacy and we'll disscuss that too.

[LovingNeighbor]

Shalom all,
Well the first thing i wanted to comment on was that means law and is not refered to as the same as the tanakh. The tenakh is the the - te , nevaim -ne, ketuim -kh, and there is a distinction between and tanakh, the is in one sense the 5 boks of moses and the law in the braod sense, but not the old testament, that would be the tenakh.

I think you misunderstead what I was saying about john the baptist, the point was it was stated that he helped answer things the Father and Yahushuah missed, this was a poor statement, to imply they didn't do a good enough job explaining everything, so Pual had to come help them. The fact is that nothing new was instructed because if it doesn't have a witness in the it doesn't line up. Paul states that he would that all men we as him, but if not then marry to avoid fornication. YHWH said it is not good that man be alone, and also made creatures male and female, I don't think his intent was men to abstain from mairrage, if this was true His perfect son would not be coming back for his bride. My point being, all men should be as him is a bold statement, when all men should be as Yahushuah.

Second was that people lift up Paul and most of their teachings come from Paul's writings, when they need to verify if paul is right they quote Timothy and say all scripture is good for corection, and such so that means that they put all scripture on the same level, when that is clearly not true, Yahushuah said may this pass from me, but not my will but thy will be done Father. Well even he put a distinction for where the athority flows from. YHWH. and we verify his son to see of he lines up with his Father. Well people use Timothy to say everything is equal. THe Father's words are number one and all things then must line up with him.

People now use Paul for foundational doctrine and verify it with Paul or Timothy, instead of verifying it with the Father and Son. He says build your house on the Rock. So Yahushuah is the foundation, and he was in perfect alignment with the Father, Many people build their foundation on Paul. He was just a man, a student, and his writings are only as good as how muh they line up with the Father and Son's if anything they are commentary. Everything we needed foundationally we got from the Father and Son. and when you test Pual's words people get bent out of shape, but we are to rightly divide the word as commanded meaning that it can be wrongly divided. and if the Father allowed the serpent in the garden do Adam and Eve say well he's in here so he must be true. I don't think so.

As far as celebacy as discussed above, the catholic church started this as a way to stop succesive power transfer. They made all the preists be celebate so they couldn't pass on their office to another only the pope could so they would remain in power. man is not meant to be alone, the priests were to have one wife it says, not no wives. My big concern again is not over Paul, but the non discernment and willingness to follow any man without testing what he is saying if it right or wrong. and the old one two combo is use Paul to prove Paul and if it seems to be different just qoute timothy and that validates anything in the book. There wil be no discrepancy in the teaching of the Father and if we see a discrepancy we don't follow that new or additional teaching.

Finnaly we are told to be a truth we need two witnesses, explain the two witnesses of Paul's conversion:

Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
and 2nd witness
Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

One says they heard but didn't see, and the other says they saw but didn't hear. Hmm... I haven't figured this out yet. but it seems the two witnesses don't agree.

Shalom

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

I think you misunderstead what I was saying about john the baptist, the point was it was stated that he helped answer things the Father and Yahushuah missed, this was a poor statement, to imply they didn't do a good enough job explaining everything, so Paul had to come help them.

Now, now...be nice.

Paul is as the Brit HaDashah states, an Apostle of Yeshua HaMashiach. He was not just a student, but was in line with Messiah as an emissary, and was communicating His words just like the prophets of Old. If you are taking shots at Paul, why not at Isaiah, or Jeremiah? What is the difference? The other Apostles also confirmed Paul's writings as true. Should we believe them?

Many times somebody does not understand Paul's writings as Peter witnesses to, and claims that he is either a false teacher, or should not be listened to because the person believes Paul is wrong. Paul writings are in 100% agreement with Yeshua, and the TenaKh. Show one place where they are not. In regards to your following objection...I have seen it before...

Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
and 2nd witness
Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

One says they heard but didn't see, and the other says they saw but didn't hear. Hmm... I haven't figured this out yet. but it seems the two witnesses don't agree.

There are similar examples where the witnesses don't seem to agree in the Gospels. But, most who have objections fail to see that these are just different perspectives of the same story. The objector actually does not have enough information, and objects from a position of ignorance.

Here is a similar discussion that I had with an idividual from another forum that has a website dedicated to attacking brother Shaul's (Paul) writings...

I start off by saying in regards to this same subject...

Let us dig a little bit deeper together.

You stated,

"You'll note that Paul says in Galatians that immediately after the revelation, he ceased conferring with men and went away into Arabia. Whereas, Acts says other wise, it says he was lead into Damascus, conferred with men and that he remained in Damascus until he was forced to flee to Jerusalem. Try addressing this, and please don't try claiming that because Ananias and the brethren were born again they don't count as "flesh and blood." "

Again, reconciling both of these events described by Paul does not take a leap of logic. Both discriptions are true. They are simply diffrent perspectives of one truth. Ones must understand the language being used. Because you did not live close to 2000 years ago, and do not have an identical mind to that of Sha'ul's (Paul's), you may not understand what he is actually saying in these verses (this would be understandable).

Although, a lack of understanding does not equal a lie when trying to understand what someone is saying, nor does it equal a contradiction...all it equals is ignorance.

For instance, what does the term "Arabia" mean? You can not tell me for a fact what exactly Paul meant when he used the term. It could mean many things.

Arabia
It is entirely impossible to decide what Paul means by this term, since the word was so loosely used and so variously applied. Many think the Sinaitic peninsula is meant (Stanley, Farrar, Matheson, Lightfoot). Others, the district of Auranitis near Damascus (Lipsius, Conybeare and Howson, Lewin, McGiffert). Others again the district of Arabia Petraea. It is quite possible Arabia was south of Damascus, and at no great distance.

With this example in mind, what did Sha'ul mean when he said, "conferred not with flesh and blood."? (1) Did he mean that he had not contact with humans at all? Or, (2) was Paul saying that he did not recieve theological council from men. We Know that the first situation was not the case because he was immediatey with his companions conferring with them. We know that Most likely the latter was the case (he did not recieve theological guidance from men).

Matthew Henry states;
"This may be taken more generally, and so we may learn from it that, when God calls us by his grace, we must not consult flesh and blood. But the meaning of it here is that he did not consult men; he did not apply to any others for their advice and direction..."

Galations 1:15-16:
But when it pleased G'd, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

In other words we see here that Sha'ul knew that he was being called by YHVH (G'd) here in the name of Yeshua...this he did not need to verify, or immediately confer with men. Also, he did not "immediately" go off and confer with any of the disciples, for he was blind for three days.

Continued....

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

.......

In verse Galations 1:17 it says;
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Before he went to "Arabia", he did not go up to Jerusalem, to those that were apostles before him (12 apostles), as though he needed to be approved by them, or to receive any further instructions or authority from them. In other words...he did not derive his commission from man. We see here that he was already in Damascus were he stayed a while regaining his sight, stayed with some followers of Yeshua (Jesus) for a few days, and went out preaching Messiah for a few days in the synagouges (a short period of time).

In verse 23 of Acts chapter 9 is where Sha'ul (Paul) went to "Arabia" for a period of about three years ("many days" fulfilled). It is interesting that the term "many days" is used, and equated to three years in 1Kings 2:38-39:

1Ki 2:38 And Shimei said unto the king, The saying [is] good: as my lord the king hath said, so will thy servant do. And Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem many days.
1Ki 2:39 And it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away unto Achish son of Maachah king of Gath. And they told Shimei, saying, Behold, thy servants [be] in Gath.

Again, There are many examples in scripture like this one where there are varying details telling different aspects of the event(s). Because we were not there it would be presumptious to think we now exactly what did, and didn't happen. And, just because someone cannot understand how it all comes together...does not mean it is not true. This is where faith comes in. Because we are not all knowing...we must believe the one who is (YHVH/G'd). He can see the whole picture, in contrast...we do not. Be careful not consider G-d's word false because you lack all the pieces of the puzzle that may complete the picture. G'd holds all the pieces of the puzzle. For now He only shares a few the pieces with us. All of the different pieces show us something true about the picture. Yet until we see all of the pieces put together in the right order, it would be foolish for us to say undoubtably that the pieces do not belong to the same puzzle. The wisdom of man is foolishnes to G'd.

1Corinthians 3:19-20
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with G'd. For it is written, HE TAKETH THE WISE IN THEIR OWN CRAFTINESS. And again, THE LORD KNOWETH THE THOUGHTS OF THE WISE, THAT THEY ARE VAIN.

Shalom,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
He then replied...

"Look, if one puts aside their bias and honestly compares Galatians 1:15-24 with Acts 9:1-31 and Galatians 2:1-21 with Acts 15:1-35, it is obvious that they are contradicting one another. Acts doesn't even keep its own accounts of the revelation straight. Both Acts 9:3-6 and 22:6-16 are claiming Paul was ignorant of the meaning of the revelation and is told that in Damascus he would be told what he is to do. Yet Acts 26:14-20 contradicts Acts 9:3-6 and 22:6-16 and claims that Paul is told the meaning of the revelation before entering Damascus.

Acts 9:6 ...Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Acts 22:10 ....go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17: Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18: To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And, I replied...

"Wayne,

If you do not understand what I am saying, how can you possibly understand what Paul was saying close to two thousand years ago in a different culture? A lack of understanding does not equal a contradiction. The only reason you see it as a contradiction is because you do not understand the launguage being used. When you understand what is actually being said you will see (like many Scholars today) that it is indeed possible for these accounts in Galations and Acts to be in harmony with each other. Listen to what Peter said about Paul:

2Pe 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our L'rd [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So, if a little less than two thousand years ago Kefa (Peter) said that Sha'ul's (Paul's) writings can be confusing, don't you think that they may be confusing to the unlearned today? So, if you are lacking complete information regarding all the facts, and don't even clearly understand the language in these texts...you are hardly in a position to make sweeping judgements.

There is a word that describes what you are experiencing.

Paradox
PAR'ADOX, n.

A tenet or proposition contrary to received opinion, or seemingly absurd, yet true in fact.

[/b]

This is one of many a paradox that we find in the scriptures.

So, lets continue to clear up some confusion.

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.

We see here that it's not that he did not understand the vision. He now understood quite well that Yeshua was Lord, and that Sha'ul (Paul) was now to change his ways by the very mouth of YHVH. He understood this, or he would not have asked the Lord what HE wants him to do next. In regard to the content of the vision there was nothing more to understand at that point.

If you read Acts 26:16-18 in context you will see that Sha'ul (Paul) condensed into one statement the various visions at different times in order to present at one view the gradeur of the commission given to him when questioned by King Agrippa. Sha'ul (Paul) only had so much time to communicate to the King, so he had to give a summary. When viewed in this context of Sha'ul's (Paul's) current situation at that moment...most would have done the same thing if they found themselves in chains, in front of King Agrippa, and pressed for time. No more explanation is needed."[/quote]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After this, he did not respond.

Shalom chaver,

Reuel

[The 614th Mitzvot]

I have not read everything on this page because I just got back from swimming and I have chlorine in my eyes, and it sort of burns. But anyway, I wanted to point out that at times Rabbi Sha'ul will say that he is speaking in human terms and he is just talking, at other times one must realize that he is only speaking to the recipients of the letters. Just like the "Nakh" some of the writings are for most people all the time and some are for all the people most of the time, but never all of them are for all of the people all the time.
Example - the story of Tyre being pushed into the sea. It's not going to happen again, will it?! No the city that stands there now is not really Tyre. Another example; we should not bow to Dagon; yes that can be reinterpreted (did I spell that wrong?) for today, but we cannot bow to Dagon, can we?!

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Chumash614,

Good points

[LovingNeighbor]

Shalom all,
Reuel, the only problem I see with that line of thinking that we just don't understand and presupose it is true is, if Eve used that way of thinking and had know no evil, and presuposed that the Father being creator of all that is alowwed the serpent there to talk to her, would she then assume if he said she wouldn't die that she should go ahead and just assume he was right and listen to him, or is it that he tells us to search out a matter to see if it is true and learn to judge as he does what is right and wrong and bearing not false witness but testing a witness to see if it is true, he is teaching us to discern as a child good from evil.

This is why I don't lean towards just believe it because you don't understand it. no the model is build your faoundation of truth from the Father and anything else shall be judged against His truth and Paul falls into the same category as any man I will judge their words to see if they are true and don't just accept something I don't understand. If a man finds Pauls words to be false he should act accordingly and continue to study to not be foolish, but stay with his beleif until proven otherwise. We all must stay true to what we belive or we are sinning even if be not a sin.

Satan would like it if we just believed for whatever reason without diligently searching out a matter.

[The 614th Mitzvot]

I do agree LovingNeighbor, but I must say that Rabbi Sha'ul never disagrees with the Tanakh, he only reproves it, but it seems as though he does because much of the Tanakh cannot aply to goyim since they are not in Eretz Yisroel and for other reasons. So when we read we must understand what is for Yisroel and what is for goyim. Rabbi Sha'ul usually discerns

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom LovingNeighbor,

I agree that we should test all things. But, I also trust when other disciples of Yeshua during that time validated Rav Sha'ul's writings, and that he himself said that we should test all things, and even congratulated the the Bereans for testing his sayings with the TeNaKh. Knowing that the above is true, I would say that we should not look at Sha'ul as guilty until proven innoccent.

Shalom Chumash614,

I would to discuss some of your perceptions of Rav Sha'ul in the appropriate threads in regards to what you believe he says to the Goyim.

B'Shem Yeshua HaMashiach,

Reuel