Basically for Jews

[Ebionite]

Off topic

Do you really believe that information about how the prophetic Psalms relate to the Messiah when he talks about the scriptures that testify of him is off-topic for a thread that is "Basically for Jews"?

 

[dybmh]

Do you really believe that information about how the prophetic Psalms relate to the Messiah when he talks about the scriptures that testify of him is off-topic for a thread that is "Basically for Jews"?

Yes, definitely. The title does not accurately describe the topic. It's just a headline. The topic of the thread is below.

belonging to the Jewish religion is by MATERNAL lineage

Along the way, Romans 2 was brought which calls into question whether matrilineal descent is a valid indicator. I objected to this. A counter argument was attempted, but it failed in multiple ways. One of those failures was bringing the verse from John which makes a grandiose claim about Jesus' inclusion in the Hebrew bible. The verse in John is irrelevant to matrilineal descent. It's irrelevant to Romans 2. It's completely worthless to bring it.

I can only guess why it was brought in the first place. Even sharing a guess might trigger multiple posts of preaching, so, I'll keep that to myself.

Anyway. The verses from John are irrelevant to the topic. The concept of Jesus' inclusion in the Hebrew bible is irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Ebionite]

2 Corinthians 11:14.

But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:12-14

Did Satan lie in Matthew 4? Did the serpent lie in Genesis 3? Or was it twisting and tempting?

Matthew 4 was a test. In Genesis 3 the difference between "surely die" and "probably die" is meaningful.

2 Timothy 3:16-17. The lessons have been given how to identify serpent speech. The test is not True or False. The test is, does it conform to the spirit of the law.

"From a child" is meaningful - the teaching for children is not the same as the teaching for the people.
"all scripture" is open to interpretation, but the context suggests scripture for children.
The "man" of verse 17 isn't a child, so there's a change in context.

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:15-17

"the spirit of the law"

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:25-26

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, definitely. The title does not accurately describe the topic. It's just a headline. The topic of the thread is below.



Along the way, Romans 2 was brought which calls into question whether matrilineal descent is a valid indicator. I objected to this. A counter argument was attempted, but it failed in multiple ways. One of those failures was bringing the verse from John which makes a grandiose claim about Jesus' inclusion in the Hebrew bible. The verse in John is irrelevant to matrilineal descent. It's irrelevant to Romans 2. It's completely worthless to bring it.

I can only guess why it was brought in the first place. Even sharing a guess might trigger multiple posts of preaching, so, I'll keep that to myself.

Anyway. The verses from John are irrelevant to the topic. The concept of Jesus' inclusion in the Hebrew bible is irrelevant to the topic.

It's clear that Mary did not reveal to many that she was impregnated by holy spirit. Joseph was given notice in a dream. Joseph was listed as the fleshly father of Jesus, and at the time the temple apparently kept records of parentage.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, definitely. The title does not accurately describe the topic. It's just a headline. The topic of the thread is below.



Along the way, Romans 2 was brought which calls into question whether matrilineal descent is a valid indicator. I objected to this. A counter argument was attempted, but it failed in multiple ways. One of those failures was bringing the verse from John which makes a grandiose claim about Jesus' inclusion in the Hebrew bible. The verse in John is irrelevant to matrilineal descent. It's irrelevant to Romans 2. It's completely worthless to bring it.

I can only guess why it was brought in the first place. Even sharing a guess might trigger multiple posts of preaching, so, I'll keep that to myself.

Anyway. The verses from John are irrelevant to the topic. The concept of Jesus' inclusion in the Hebrew bible is irrelevant to the topic.

Yes, because of what I heard and learned about qualification to be considered a Jew, I was wondering what Jews believe about this. I see the results are fragmented. While some of the references are detailed and I do not understand about blood lineage in certain sense, I'm not going to get too detailed into it now because really at this point it is, in my opinion, between the person and God.

 

[dybmh]

But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:12-14

Correct. Satan can impersonate an angel of light and deceive.

Matthew 4 was a test. In Genesis 3 the difference between "surely die" and "probably die" is meaningful.

Satan can speak the truth and quote scripture. Just because it's true doesn't make it holy. Just because it's scripture, doesn't mean that it cannot be twisted and taken out of context.

"From a child" is meaningful - the teaching for children is not the same as the teaching for the people.
"all scripture" is open to interpretation, but the context suggests scripture for children.
The "man" of verse 17 isn't a child, so there's a change in context.

Here is a word for word translation of verse 15. There is no change of context. "And from childhood you have known scripture..."



But, verse 15 is not relevant to my point. It doesn't undermine it either.

Verses 16-17 are important because of the list of types of wisdom that comes from scripture. All sorts of wisdom comes from scripture including a negative role model.

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:15-17

So, just to be clear. "And that from a child hast known the holy scriptures... " means "From childhood you have known the scripture." It's not talking about a child. The word in greek is βρέφους. That's βρέφ-ους. βρέφ is the stem meaning "infant" / "child". -ους is the suffix making it possessive. βρέφ-ους = "Of a child". or "childhood". See the link below, search for "genitive".

Ancient Greek nouns - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Here are the elements listed as attributes and uses for scripture:

• doctrine
• reproof
• correction
• instruction in righteousness

For the purpose of:

• be perfect
• thoroughly furnished ( equipped ) for all good works

That's an all inclusive list. How does one become thoroughly furnished? By learning what NOT to do, just as much as learning what TO do. That's the point of bringing these verses. Now Romans 2 becomes useful, as a negative role model, just like the other negative role models in the Hebrew bible.

"the spirit of the law"

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:25-26

Repeating a verse which has no relevance isn't helpful. What is the subject of the verses. "They hated ME" "I will send unto you" "He shall testify of ME". These verses have nothing to do with the "spirit of the law".

Satan can impersonate a spirit of truth and bring comfort. Building people up for the purpose of knocking them down. You mentioned Matthew 4 was a test. So is Romans 2.

 

[dybmh]

It's clear that Mary did not reveal to many that she was impregnated by holy spirit. Joseph was given notice in a dream. Joseph was listed as the fleshly father of Jesus, and at the time the temple apparently kept records of parentage.

You lost me. Sorry, I cannot figure out the connection of this to what I wrote.

Yes, because of what I heard and learned about qualification to be considered a Jew, I was wondering what Jews believe about this. I see the results are fragmented. While some of the references are detailed and I do not understand about blood lineage in certain sense, I'm not going to get too detailed into it now because really at this point it is, in my opinion, between the person and God.

 

[Ebionite]

There is no change of context.

There's a change of context from the child to the man. This is meaningful in terms of the target audience of scripture.

Repeating a verse which has no relevance isn't helpful.

It's relevant because verse 25 identifies law and verse 26 identifies a spirit. The spirit of truth relates to commercial law, i.e. "in commerce truth is sovereign".

 

[YoursTrue]

You lost me. Sorry, I cannot figure out the connection of this to what I wrote.

because the recorded lineage was written in the holy scriptures for both Mary and Joseph -- Joseph was the adoptive father (not the natural father) of Jesus. I hope that helps to clear up what I said, although both were from the lineage of David. Which also shows me that these things cannot be made up. Too detailed. But that's me.
The scriptures themselves have been preserved by copyists in conjunction with God's spirit.

 

[John D. Brey]

Re: John 5:39-40

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
John 5:39-40



There's additional information here...

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:25-26

John 15:25-26 is the perfect verse to respond to the message where John 5:39-40 was quoted since dybmh correctly implied that St. Paul was assuming for himself a divine prerogative in how he interpreted the Tanakh. No person in the Tanakh was ever indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit endued and empowered Moses, the Prophets, and others, but he never indwelt any person in the Tanakh. St. Paul was indwelt by the Holy Spirit.



John

 

[dybmh]

No person in the Tanakh was ever indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

not true.

During the construction of the tabernacle...

ואמלא אתו רוח אלהים בחכמה ובתבונה ובדעת ובכל־מלאכה׃​

​

And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all kinds of workmanship,​

And arguably Joseph

ויאמר פרעה אל־עבדיו הנמצא כזה איש אשר רוח אלהים בו׃​

And Pharaoh said to his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the spirit of God is?​

And arguably Micah

ואולם אנכי מלאתי כח את־רוח יהוה ומשפט וגבורה להגיד ליעקב פשעו ולישראל חטאתו׃​

But truly I am full with power by the spirit of the Lord, and with judgment, and with might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.​

 

[John D. Brey]

​

If, therefore, an uncircumcised person keeps the righteous requirements of the Law, his uncircumcision will be counted as circumcision, will it not?​

​

That is an unanswered question. It is seeking a loophole in the law. "If you do this, then you don't need to be circumcised, it will be counted as if you did it." "It will be counted as if you did" is a loophole. An invalid loophole.

Earlier in the thread I posted this from Rabbi Hirsch on the subject:

Now, had Scripture not told us here that Avraham was ninety-nine years old when the covenant of Milah ---which is the founding covenant of Judaism---was established with him, we would have thought that all of Abraham's virtues, of which we have learned until now, were the result of the covenant established with him in youth, and that the whole flowering of this covenant consisted in these virtues. In fact, however, they all preceded the covenant of Milah. The full attainment of the purely humane virtues preceded the mitzvah stated here: והיה תמים. The covenant of Avraham [that is circumcision, the founding covenant of Judaism] is a higher perfection of the humane virtues.​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17:1 (bracked added by me).​

Clearly, or at least it seems clear to me, Rabbi Hirsch is arguing something similar to you: that since we know Abraham was already justified by his righteous ways prior to circumcision, circumcision is a "higher perfection" than he already possessed. It's when we get into this "higher perfection" (which Rabbi Hirsch "literally" calls being re-born, or born-again) that St. Paul's argument starts to take shape.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

not true.

During the construction of the tabernacle...

ואמלא אתו רוח אלהים בחכמה ובתבונה ובדעת ובכל־מלאכה׃​

​

And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all kinds of workmanship,​

And arguably Joseph

ויאמר פרעה אל־עבדיו הנמצא כזה איש אשר רוח אלהים בו׃​

And Pharaoh said to his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the spirit of God is?​

And arguably Micah

ואולם אנכי מלאתי כח את־רוח יהוה ומשפט וגבורה להגיד ליעקב פשעו ולישראל חטאתו׃​

But truly I am full with power by the spirit of the Lord, and with judgment, and with might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.​

This is a theological nuance I think will likely distract from the general topic (maybe not). But in the theology I follow, there's a distinction between being filled with the "spirit" of God versus being filled with the Holy Spirit. In the Psalms and Isaiah we read that God sent his Holy Spirit to be at the right hand of Moses. Moses and the prophets are no doubt filled with the spirit of God. But being filled with the Holy Spirit is tantamount to incarnation of the Godhead in a person, ala Jesus. The Christian concept is that after his death and resurrection, Jesus had the power to transfer his incarnation to all who believed in him, making them all, literally a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) that had never existed prior to his death and resurrection.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Now, had Scripture not told us here that Avraham was ninety-nine years old when the covenant of Milah ---which is the founding covenant of Judaism---was established with him, we would have thought that all of Abraham's virtues, of which we have learned until now, were the result of the covenant established with him in youth, and that the whole flowering of this covenant consisted in these virtues. In fact, however, they all preceded the covenant of Milah. The full attainment of the purely humane virtues preceded the mitzvah stated here: והיה תמים. The covenant of Avraham [that is circumcision, the founding covenant of Judaism] is a higher perfection of the humane virtues.​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17:1 (bracked added by me).​

Clearly, or at least it seems clear to me, Rabbi Hirsch is arguing something similar to you: that since we know Abraham was already justified by his righteous ways prior to circumcision, circumcision is a "higher perfection" than he already possessed. It's when we get into this "higher perfection" (which Rabbi Hirsch "literally" calls being re-born, or born-again) that St. Paul's argument starts to take shape.

Wow. Talk about simultaneity. St. Paul's argument takes shape when:

This is a theological nuance I think will likely distract from the general topic (maybe not). But in the theology I follow, there's a distinction between being filled with the "spirit" of God versus being filled with the Holy Spirit. In the Psalms and Isaiah we read that God sent his Holy Spirit to be at the right hand of Moses. Moses and the prophets are no doubt filled with the spirit of God. But being filled with the Holy Spirit is tantamount to incarnation of the Godhead in a person, ala Jesus. The Christian concept is that after his death and resurrection, Jesus had the power to transfer his incarnation to all who believed in him, making them all, literally a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) that had never existed prior to his death and resurrection.

In Paul's parlance, and it can be shown Rabbi Hirsch concurs pretty much totally (if we take his ---R. Hirsch's ---teaching on brit milah in it's totality ) "circumcision" represents the fundamental transfer from normal human righteousness, i.e., being filled with the spirit of God (Abram prior to his circumcision), to being "reborn" (Rabbi Hirsch, Rabbi Munk) at which time a person becomes a totally new person, and a totally new species of humanity, filled not just with the spirit of God, but "indwelt" by the Holy Spirit of God.

For Abraham, Rabbi Hirsch, the Tanakh, this "rebirth" (being indwelt with the Holy Spirit) is a ritual, and a chok, not a reality (yet), since no person was ever filled with the Holy Spirit until Messiah (was), and no person other than Messiah (was indwelt by the Holy Spirit) until after his (Messiah's) death and resurrection.




John

 

[dybmh]

Samson R. Hirsch, who's a phenomenal Jewish exegete, states that in the literal Hebrew of Genesis 17

We discussed this. It was shown your personal interpretation was not literal and it did not come from Rabbi Hirsch.

I beg to differ. I don't think we did. Because if we did, I would have just quoted Rabbi Hirsch:

We have discussed it on at least two occasions. Here's the clearest example. This is what Rabbi Hirsch literaly wrote in the commentary to Genesis 17 regarding circumcision.

Holy Moses.

Maybe Moses is under great duress knowing that if he communicates too nakedly he's in danger of coming under the hand of an angel of death? OK. Maybe. What was Moses trying to communicate by striking the Rock? He was angry. If Moses gave his life to break the stone tablets, or to strike the...

www.religiousforums.com

In symbolic mitzvos [ commandments ] we are commanded by God not only to be mindful of the idea that is symbolized, but also, and indeed primarily, to perform the mitzvah act. Recollection of the idea can never substitute for the performance of the act. Failure to perform the act is tantamount to denying the idea. He who fails to make the sign of the covenant breaks the covenant itself.

In my version of the Hirsch Chumash, this is in volume 2 page 217.

Rabbi Hirsch literally says, no one can skip performing the act of circumcision and still be considered as if they had actually done the deed.

I beg to differ. I don't think we did. Because if we did, I would have just quoted Rabbi Hirsch:

The combination of ברית and נתן almost never occurs elsewhere . . . As a rule, the formula is הקים ברית כרת ברית, not נתן ברית. It is possible then, that ואתנה בריתי does not mean "I will establish with you a new covenant," but, rather, "I will transfer to you an existing covenant."

But, as usual you cropped out the explanation and inserted your own personal interpretation and fraudulently applied the credibility of Rabbi Hirsch onto it. Fraud.

This is the entire quote showng that the covenant Rabbi Hirsch is referring to has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with Adam. And the covenant was not dissolved. It's talking about the covenant in Genesis 8:21.

​

The combination of ברית and נתן almost never occurs elsewhere . . . As a rule, the formula is הקים ברית כרת ברית, not נתן ברית. It is possible then, that ואתנה בריתי does not mean "I will establish with you a new covenant," but, rather, "I will transfer to you an existing covenant."​

​

Indeed, when God gave the world to mankind a second time, He established a covenant with all of humanity. He made an absolute covenantal promise that, in spite of all future abberations, mankind wuld not be destroyed again, but, would be guided and educated by Divine providence.​

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, who's a phenomenal Jewish exegete, states that in the literal Hebrew of Genesis 17, God doesn't say he's establishing a "new" covenant with Abraham based on circumcision, but that he (God) is "re-establishing" an existing covenant. The existing covenant is the one that was dissolved when Adam sinned and was kicked out of the garden.

Nope. Rabbi Hirsch doesn't literally say that at all. It has nothing to do with a covenant in Eden, and it definitely doesn't say that the covenant was dissolved. Wrong and wrong. This is your personal interpretation. As usual, you omitted the explanation which occurs immediately following the part you quoted. Since this commentary is not online, it permits very easy cherry picking, and lying about what the Rabbi has written. One of the reasons I purchased this commentary is to protect the honor of this Rabbi's writing from falsehood and deception.

 

[YoursTrue]

We have discussed it on at least two occasions. Here's the clearest example. This is what Rabbi Hirsch literaly wrote in the commentary to Genesis 17 regarding circumcision.

Holy Moses.

Maybe Moses is under great duress knowing that if he communicates too nakedly he's in danger of coming under the hand of an angel of death? OK. Maybe. What was Moses trying to communicate by striking the Rock? He was angry. If Moses gave his life to break the stone tablets, or to strike the...

www.religiousforums.com

In my version of the Hirsch Chumash, this is in volume 2 page 217.

Rabbi Hirsch literally says, no one can skip performing the act of circumcision and still be considered as if they had actually done the deed.



But, as usual you cropped out the explanation and inserted your own personal interpretation and fraudulently applied the credibility of Rabbi Hirsch onto it. Fraud.

This is the entire quote showng that the covenant Rabbi Hirsch is referring to has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with Adam. And the covenant was not dissolved. It's talking about the covenant in Genesis 8:21.

​

The combination of ברית and נתן almost never occurs elsewhere . . . As a rule, the formula is הקים ברית כרת ברית, not נתן ברית. It is possible then, that ואתנה בריתי does not mean "I will establish with you a new covenant," but, rather, "I will transfer to you an existing covenant."​

​

Indeed, when God gave the world to mankind a second time, He established a covenant with all of humanity. He made an absolute covenantal promise that, in spite of all future abberations, mankind wuld not be destroyed again, but, would be guided and educated by Divine providence.​

Nope. Rabbi Hirsch doesn't literally say that at all. It has nothing to do with a covenant in Eden, and it definitely doesn't say that the covenant was dissolved. Wrong and wrong. This is your personal interpretation. As usual, you omitted the explanation which occurs immediately following the part you quoted. Since this commentary is not online, it permits very easy cherry picking, and lying about what the Rabbi has written. One of the reasons I purchased this commentary is to protect the honor of this Rabbi's writing from falsehood and deception.

OK. I'm going to do some research on circumcision.

 

[dybmh]

. . . By the time you return I'll have sealed the deal in a nice package of Rabbi Hirsch quotations that leave all doubt outside in the cold.

Hmm, let's see what else you brought.

Now, had Scripture not told us here that Avraham was ninety-nine years old when the covenant of Milah ---which is the founding covenant of Judaism---was established with him, we would have thought that all of Abraham's virtues, of which we have learned until now, were the result of the covenant established with him in youth, and that the whole flowering of this covenant consisted in these virtues. In fact, however, they all preceded the covenant of Milah. The full attainment of the purely humane virtues preceded the mitzvah stated here: והיה תמים. The covenant of Avraham [that is circumcision, the founding covenant of Judaism] is a higher perfection of the humane virtues.The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17:1 (bold emphasis and bracket mine).

Oh, look, you omitted the text immediately following which explains what the Rabbi is writing about.

The inference is two-fold. On the one-hand, "Be a mensch, a decent human being, before you attempt to be a Jew." First aquire all the humane virtues; only then can you become a Jew. On the other hand. you are not yet a Jew if you have reached only the level attained by Avraham until this point. A person who is compassionate, forgiving, and benevolent --- qualities demonstrated by Avraham until this point --- is merely the embodiment of the ideal Noahide .​

​

Here's what you claimed:

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, who's a phenomenal Jewish exegete, states that in the literal Hebrew of Genesis 17, God doesn't say he's establishing a "new" covenant with Abraham based on circumcision, but that he (God) is "re-establishing" an existing covenant. The existing covenant is the one that was dissolved when Adam sinned and was kicked out of the garden.

Is there even a speck of relevance in the quote you brought to what you are claiming? No. The quote you brought is describing an ideal Noahide.

Case closed.

Pretty much. Your MO is well known. Cherry pick, assume no one has access to the Hirsch Chumash, and rely on the indwelling of an unreliable spirit to guide your interpretation. A spirit which does not balk at misrepresentation and deception.

 

[dybmh]

OK. I'm going to do some research on circumcision.

Choose your sources wisely. May God bless you.

 

[dybmh]

Earlier in the thread I posted this from Rabbi Hirsch on the subject:

Now, had Scripture not told us here that Avraham was ninety-nine years old when the covenant of Milah ---which is the founding covenant of Judaism---was established with him, we would have thought that all of Abraham's virtues, of which we have learned until now, were the result of the covenant established with him in youth, and that the whole flowering of this covenant consisted in these virtues. In fact, however, they all preceded the covenant of Milah. The full attainment of the purely humane virtues preceded the mitzvah stated here: והיה תמים. The covenant of Avraham [that is circumcision, the founding covenant of Judaism] is a higher perfection of the humane virtues.​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17:1 (bracked added by me).​

You omitted the end of the quote which explains that this is speaking about an ideal Noahide. According to the Rabbi, a Jew goes beyond this.

Clearly, or at least it seems clear to me, Rabbi Hirsch is arguing something similar to you: that since we know Abraham was already justified by his righteous ways prior to circumcision, circumcision is a "higher perfection" than he already possessed. It's when we get into this "higher perfection" (which Rabbi Hirsch "literally" calls being re-born, or born-again) that St. Paul's argument starts to take shape.

If you want to claim the Rabbi "literally" says something please quote it and do not omit the explanation which is given.

No, the author who you are calling "St. Paul" is in direct opposition of what the Rabbi has written in the commentary on Genesis 17.

This is what the Rabbi writes:

​

"Failure to perform the act is tantamount to denying the idea. He who fails to make the sign of the covenant breaks the covenant itself."

This is what is written in Romans 2:

​

"If, therefore, an uncircumcised person keeps the righteous requirements of the Law, his uncircumcision will be counted as circumcision, will it not?"

Those are 100% opposed. Romans 2 is not written by someone who is practicing Judaism nor who respects Jewish values. Its fine to depart from it, but, it's wrong to delude oneself and others into thinking Romans 2 is somehow supported by Rabbi Hirsch.

John 15:25-26 is the perfect verse to respond to the message where John 5:39-40 was quoted since dybmh correctly implied that St. Paul was assuming for himself a divine prerogative in how he interpreted the Tanakh. No person in the Tanakh was ever indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit endued and empowered Moses, the Prophets, and others, but he never indwelt any person in the Tanakh. St. Paul was "indwelt" by the Holy Spirit.

Something important to consider in John 15:25-26. The speaker is not practicing Jewish law. It is "their" law. Not "our" law. The author of Romans is looking for loopholes to escape Jewish law. The one who is speaking in John 15 has escaped it. Neither are practicing Judaism.

 

[dybmh]

This is a theological nuance I think will likely distract from the general topic (maybe not). But in the theology I follow, there's a distinction between being filled with the "spirit" of God versus being filled with the Holy Spirit. In the Psalms and Isaiah we read that God sent his Holy Spirit to be at the right hand of Moses. Moses and the prophets are no doubt filled with the spirit of God. But being filled with the Holy Spirit is tantamount to incarnation of the Godhead in a person, ala Jesus. The Christian concept is that after his death and resurrection, Jesus had the power to transfer his incarnation to all who believed in him, making them all, literally a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) that had never existed prior to his death and resurrection.

Sure, your theology prioritizes a spirit, but seems unable to discern which spirit. Judaism makes it clear. We go to God. The one and the only.

The author of the epsitles identifies two spirits. We've talked about it before. It's named in 2 Corinthians 11:14. Sometimes it's referred to as the spirit of the flesh, I think.

Jesus per John 1 is the Word made flesh. Both. Word+Flesh. 2 spirits, basically. Filled with the incarnation of the God-head in a person, is fleshy. Person = flesh. So yeah, if that is the holy spirit for you, and you prioritize it over the spirit of God which is lacking the spirit of the flesh, that explains a lot of the problems with what you write. And it also explains the inner conflict which is obvious to me in the words of the epistles which are attributed to "Paul". The author is struggling with two spirits, but cannot discern which one to listen to.