Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 3:27:56 GMT -8
This was just posted on the Rosh Pina Project's Facebook Page. It is an interesting line of thought - what do other posters on here think of this: A “Configuration” of Judaism is Accurate,
A “Re-configuration” Is Not November 7, 2013 via Joel Willitts' blog I’m still mulling over my unease with the category of “reconfiguration” and the like so oft used today. I’m currently writing on Galatians for my commentary in the Zondervan Story of God Commentary Series which has been lunched this month with Scot McKnight’s Sermon on the Mount and Lynn Cohick’s Philippians. So these are things at the forefront of my mind. On my reading of it, based on Galatians 1:13-14, Paul did leave something behind as a consequence of his heavenly vision. But it was not Judaism. Paul did have a conversion, but it was not from Judaism to something else, say Christianity. By the way, for an excellent and assessable discussion of Paul as a convert find Scot McKnight’s essay “Was Paul a Convert?” in Ex Auditu for a few years ago. What Paul turned from and rejected was his specific Pharisaic stream of Judaism. This Judaism was  centered, but configured around the traditions of the fathers, which made all the difference. In its place, Paul became a Messianic Jew, a Jew whose belief and practices are centered on a three-fold (Moses, Prophets and Psalms – see Luke 24:44), but configured around the resurrected and reigning Messiah who has given his Spirit. And this made all the difference. Let me put it like this: at the time of Paul there wasn’t a “pure” uninterpreted which Paul can be said to have reconfigured. Drawing an analogy from the study of the Historical Jesus, just as there is no such thing as an “uninterpreted Jesus”—a Jesus unfettered from an interpretation, the “real Jesus”, likewise there is no such thing as a “real ”—a in the abstract, a in principle. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 8, 2013 10:53:23 GMT -8
... A “Configuration” of Judaism is Accurate,
A “Re-configuration” Is Not ... On my reading of it, based on Galatians 1:13-14, Paul did leave something behind as a consequence of his heavenly vision. But it was not Judaism. Paul did have a conversion, but it was not from Judaism to something else, say Christianity. ... What Paul turned from and rejected was his specific Pharisaic stream of Judaism. This Judaism was centered, but configured around the traditions of the fathers, which made all the difference. In its place, Paul became a Messianic Jew, a Jew whose belief and practices are centered on a three-fold (Moses, Prophets and Psalms – see Luke 24:44), but configured around the resurrected and reigning Messiah who has given his Spirit. And this made all the difference. ...
Acts 23:6 "But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren , I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees ; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead !""
Acts 26:4-7 ""So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem ; since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion. And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. And for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews."
Philippians 3:2-7 "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision ; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more : circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews ; as to the Law, a Pharisee ; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church ; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ."
Rav Sh'ul was a Jew and a Pharisee of one of the the strictest of traditions, and it was this tradition he counted as loss. But he did not abandon either tradition completely nor /TNK in any part. He didn't say "I was a Pharisee," he said "I AM a Pharisee;" with all that this implies. It was only the stringent, anti-Messianic sect of Pharisitical interpretation of the Oral Tradition that he abandoned.
Dan C |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2013 23:49:32 GMT -8
Mmmmm - I expected more debate about the 'configuration vs re-configuration' theory. Oh well, never mind, it seems this forum isn't one for lots of posts on issues.  |
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Nov 11, 2013 10:35:21 GMT -8
Mmmmm - I expected more debate about the 'configuration vs re-configuration' theory. Oh well, never mind, it seems this forum isn't one for lots of posts on issues. Shalom! I think Dan (alon) answered with a good response. The biggest problem with the the theory above is that the scriptures do not back it up. Sha'ul never gave up being a Pharisee if we base it on his own words and writings. So based on what Sha'ul has told us in his writing is that he follows the sect of Pharisee Messianic Judaism. When I read articles like the one posted without any scripture to back it up, it usually is left out for a reason. The Author of the article has some things right but misses the mark. The Jews believe in a Messiah, the idea is not foreign so to say he went through a configuration to be messianic is not as much truth as the Messiah was revealed to him. Sha'ul's Judaism was a Messianic Centered Sect based around the "Traditions of His Fathers" 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm; and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, whether we spoke them or wrote them in a letter. Acts 28:17 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) 17 After three days Sha’ul called a meeting of the local Jewish leaders. When they had gathered, he said to them: “Brothers, although I have done nothing against either our people or the traditions of our fathers, I was made a prisoner in Yerushalayim and handed over to the Romans. 1 Corinthians 11:2 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) 2 Now I praise you because you have remembered everything I told you and observe the traditions just the way I passed them on to you. Bless and Keep, Yedidyah |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 13:24:42 GMT -8
Mmmmm - I expected more debate about the 'configuration vs re-configuration' theory. Oh well, never mind, it seems this forum isn't one for lots of posts on issues. Shalom! I think Dan (alon) answered with a good response. The biggest problem with the the theory above is that the scriptures do not back it up. Sha'ul never gave up being a Pharisee if we base it on his own words and writings. So based on what Sha'ul has told us in his writing is that he follows the sect of Pharisee Messianic Judaism. When I read articles like the one posted without any scripture to back it up, it usually is left out for a reason. The Author of the article has some things right but misses the mark. The Jews believe in a Messiah, the idea is not foreign so to say he went through a configuration to be messianic is not as much truth as the Messiah was revealed to him. Sha'ul's Judaism was a Messianic Centered Sect based around the "Traditions of His Fathers" 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm; and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, whether we spoke them or wrote them in a letter. Acts 28:17 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) 17 After three days Sha’ul called a meeting of the local Jewish leaders. When they had gathered, he said to them: “Brothers, although I have done nothing against either our people or the traditions of our fathers, I was made a prisoner in Yerushalayim and handed over to the Romans. 1 Corinthians 11:2 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) 2 Now I praise you because you have remembered everything I told you and observe the traditions just the way I passed them on to you. Bless and Keep, Yedidyah Hi there, Thanks for your response. Yes, Dan C is usually very clear in his answers and it is a straightforward response (I know him from a previous forum). I do wonder, however, whether it is right to say that Paul took all his learning and configured it around his experience of, and the teachings of, Yeshua and continued, as it were, teaching the Law as seen through the kaliedoscope of Yeshua's life? For whose benefit did he confingure it - for Jews or for Gentiles? He did say that he tried to be everything to everybody - was this his configuring of the Law in the light of Yeshua or does he mean he was anything in every way and at every time? If the latter, what went wrong in Athens when almost the whole auditorium rejected him - was that too great a configuration that he tried out, or did he just screw up, there? The alternative to all that being this, which I have never believed and I guess I am playing Devil's advocate here, but it needs thinking through in the light of the above paragraph in this post:- 'The Church' would say that he re-configured the Law completely, because he says that he gave up all that he knew to know Christ. If we take that quite literally, as it stands, that is a classic case of conversion (to reject all you have, and know, of one religion to then accept [discover] another). If this is so, the claim that Paul founded a new religion (that later became Christianity) could be predicated on his having re-configured the Law so as to make it acceptable to all, whilst still being able to say in Acts 3 and 24 that he believes in the Law and the Prophets - all he has done is to make changes to it so that the Gentiles can be brought in? The article raises many questions, which is why I posted it |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 11, 2013 14:17:23 GMT -8
I do wonder, however, whether it is right to say that Paul took all his learning and configured it around his experience of, and the teachings of, Yeshua and continued, as it were, teaching the Law as seen through the kaliedoscope of Yeshua's life? 
What he was saying was that he tried to meet people where they were at in order to gain their interest so he could preach the good news. I recall that he preached from a pagan alter and even quoted a pagan saying. This doesn't mean he became or even endorsed paganism, just that to convince someone you must start with where there minds are at and move them from that place.
The best therapist I ever saw had mastered the art of listening, then relating all his advice to what I had told him. We talked of martial arts, hunting, mountaineering- anything but therapy until the last 5-10 mins when he suggested I do certain things which naturally followed from the discussion.(I am all better now ... btw ...  )
The "church" is wrong. He gave up all that was wrong when he accepted the Christ. But he kept all in Judaism that was good and agreeable to his new faith, trust and calling.
Nothing was reconfigured. There was nothing new in the "New Testament"- the "Old" was given so that we would know the "New" was true and accurate when we received it. It was a roadmap of God's plan to redeem mankind to Himself. If you want to change the destination, you would need a different map.
What the "church" has done is change the destination, and given us a "New" map straight to Hell! "Paul" did not change anything except his acceptance of Yeshua as HaMoshiac. The early Hellinists, Constantine, the Roman Church, and most of the Protestants after them have thrown out the "Old" map and redrawn their "New" map to take us where they, not God, want us to go.
That and you do like a good discussion! Glad you did.
Dan |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 11, 2013 14:22:23 GMT -8
... Sha'ul never gave up being a Pharisee if we base it on his own words and writings. So based on what Sha'ul has told us in his writing is that he follows the sect of Pharisee Messianic Judaism. ... 
Dan |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 14:36:11 GMT -8
I do wonder, however, whether it is right to say that Paul took all his learning and configured it around his experience of, and the teachings of, Yeshua and continued, as it were, teaching the Law as seen through the kaliedoscope of Yeshua's life? ;The Word" and it was He who wrote the Word, all Rav Sh'ul had to do was accept Yeshua. Then at that point all those traditions which did not align with The Word, meaning the TNK and the teachings of Yeshua (which in every way agreed); well, they fell away as false. Kind of like when most of us discovered Messainism. What he was saying was that he tried to meet people where they were at in order to gain their interest so he could preach the good news. I recall that he preached from a pagan alter and even quoted a pagan saying. This doesn't mean he became or even endorsed paganism, just that to convince someone you must start with where there minds are at and move them from that place. The best therapist I ever saw had mastered the art of listening, then relating all his advice to what I had told him. We talked of martial arts, hunting, mountaineering- anything but therapy until the last 5-10 mins when he suggested I do certain things which naturally followed from the discussion. (I am all better now ... btw ... [img src=" ![]() ![]() ![]() .gif" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">i48.tinypic.com/ .gif"] [/img][/img][/img]) The "church" is wrong. He gave up all that was wrong when he accepted the Christ. But he kept all in Judaism that was good and agreeable to his new faith, trust and calling. Nothing was reconfigured. There was nothing new in the "New Testament"- the "Old" was given so that we would know the "New" was true and accurate when we received it. It was a roadmap of God's plan to redeem mankind to Himself. If you want to change the destination, you would need a different map. What the "church" has done is change the destination, and given us a "New" map straight to Hell! "Paul" did not change anything except his acceptance of Yeshua as HaMoshiac. The early Hellinists, Constantine, the Roman Church, and most of the Protestants after them have thrown out the "Old" map and redrawn their "New" map to take us where they, not God, want us to go. That and you do like a good discussion! Glad you did. Dan[/quote] I said 'configure', NOT 're-configure' which is how you have answered here (see part I made in bold at the start of your response). The article makes a clear and distinct separation of those two terms, as did I in my response |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 14, 2013 16:39:30 GMT -8
I do wonder, however, whether it is right to say that Paul took all his learning and configured it around his experience of, and the teachings of, Yeshua and continued, as it were, teaching the Law as seen through the kaliedoscope of Yeshua's life?
Dan c |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2013 1:35:27 GMT -8
I do wonder, however, whether it is right to say that Paul took all his learning and configured it around his experience of, and the teachings of, Yeshua and continued, as it were, teaching the Law as seen through the kaliedoscope of Yeshua's life? I'm not quite following you then ... if he "configured" something which had previously been configured, wasn't he by definition "reconfiguring" that thing? Dan c In other words he 'inserted' the fact of Yeshua into his previous understanding of the Law (which he rejected as incomplete) and saw that it made absolute sense without any changes, re-configuring or adjustment of the Law (that would mean breaking the Law, which he couldn't do - Romans 7) to be a follower of Yeshua; there was no need to re-configure because Yeshua was already there, it was Paul's understanding of the Law that excluded Yeshua, not the Law itself. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 15, 2013 10:05:38 GMT -8
I'm not quite following you then ... if he "configured" something which had previously been configured, wasn't he by definition "reconfiguring" that thing? Dan c In other words he 'inserted' the fact of Yeshua into his previous understanding of the Law (which he rejected as incomplete) and saw that it made absolute sense without any changes, re-configuring or adjustment of the Law (that would mean breaking the Law, which he couldn't do - Romans 7) to be a follower of Yeshua; there was no need to re-configure because Yeshua was already there, it was Paul's understanding of the Law that excluded Yeshua, not the Law itself.
Yeshua was/is the completion of the Law. He is where the roadmap was/is headed, the fulfillment of the Law. Yeshua and then (if I can go all Pentecostal for a moment) "On to Glory!" Dan C |
|
Torah Lishmah
New Member
Study of Torah for its own sake
Posts: 37
|
Post by Torah Lishmah on Jan 22, 2014 6:29:17 GMT -8
Might I suggest that Paul was formerly a Beit Shammai Pharisee, the strictest of all Pharasic sects [Acts 26:5] and then converted to a Beit Hillel Pharisee after meeting Yeshua, who was most likely a Beit Hillel Pharisee as well? This is what my Messianic room-mate believes, and I must say, it is the best theory I've heard to date. It is entirely consistent with Paul's writings in the New Testament.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Jan 22, 2014 10:19:34 GMT -8
Might I suggest that Paul was formerly a Beit Shammai Pharisee, the strictest of all Pharasic sects [Acts 26:5] and then converted to a Beit Hillel Pharisee after meeting Yeshua, who was most likely a Beit Hillel Pharisee as well? This is what my Messianic room-mate believes, and I must say, it is the best theory I've heard to date. It is entirely consistent with Paul's writings in the New Testament. Yes but let's throw something else into the mix, Yeshua's teachings are a mix of both Shammai and Hillel. He did not take a stance that would narrow it down to just one of the two houses. Shalom! |
|
Torah Lishmah
New Member
Study of Torah for its own sake
Posts: 37
|
Post by Torah Lishmah on Jan 23, 2014 8:49:33 GMT -8
Might I suggest that Paul was formerly a Beit Shammai Pharisee, the strictest of all Pharasic sects [Acts 26:5] and then converted to a Beit Hillel Pharisee after meeting Yeshua, who was most likely a Beit Hillel Pharisee as well? This is what my Messianic room-mate believes, and I must say, it is the best theory I've heard to date. It is entirely consistent with Paul's writings in the New Testament. Yes but let's throw something else into the mix, Yeshua's teachings are a mix of both Shammai and Hillel. He did not take a stance that would narrow it down to just one of the two houses. Shalom! |
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Jan 23, 2014 10:13:28 GMT -8
We see many throughout scripture arguing with the question, "Who teaches this man" I think if Yeshua learned everything from one of the two houses they wouldn't be asking the question.
In the Talmud it is clear who was learned under what house because they made a special separation between the two so you knew who was learned under each house.
Now here comes a Rabbi with great knowledge and everyone is asking where He learned from.
You are right in saying most of His teachings are more connected to Hillel though. So we do see an agreeing with Hillel on many things but like you pointed out, divorce.
Yedidyah
|
|
centered, but configured around the traditions of the fathers, which made all the difference. In its place, Paul became a Messianic Jew, a Jew whose belief and practices are centered on a three-fold 
.gif
