Paul, Jesus, and Moasic Law

[ayani]

a friend on the forums has asked me to set up here a thread wherein folks can discuss and debate the relationship between Christian faith, the Mosaic Law, and to what extent the content and ideas of Paul's epistles have influenced or changed the Christians faith and / or Jesus' message.

Jesus is a Jew. according to the Gospel narratives, He came through the Hebrew people, worshiped and taught in synagogues, referred many many times to passages in the Torah and later Hebrew prophets, and considered Himself and was considered by many to be the Messiah.

Paul, writing years after Jesus' earthly ministry claimed to have had a miraculous encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus- after his conversion he wrote many letters to the early church, emphasizing salvation by faith and grace, and de-emphasizing the necessity of Mosaic Law, going so far as to call the Law a curse and a yoke, broken by Jesus' coming into the world.

so i do not know where many stand on these issues, but i know there is no shortage of diversity so far as belief and interpretation. many many people seem to have an innate distrust and dislike for Paul of Taurus and for his writings, claiming they do much to confuse and mess up Jesus' message.

alright friends, so what do you think? what are your feelings on Paul, Jesus, Mosaic Law, and Judeo-Christianity?

~~~~~

here is my own take on this issue :

i do understand Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah, who came through and from and because of the Hebrew people, for His own people and also for the world.

the Law was given to Moses, for the Israelite nation, yet Jesus came to teach and bless all nations through grace. in the Gospels, apart from Paul, we see Jesus heal and bless people based on their faith in Him (including Gentiles), not based on their adherence to Mosaic Law. the Law was given by God to the Hebrews, and through the Hebrews, God gave Messiah to the world. Jesus did not annul the Law, but fulfilled it (Matthew 5:17), giving it to the world (Jews and Gentiles) in a new Messianic form in (for example) Matthew 5:1-10, and Matthew 22:36-39.

Jesus does say that until all is accomplished, not even a dot will pass from the Law. yet i would answer that everything was accomplished on the cross, and through Jesus' resurrection, after which He gave the Holy Spirit, fulfilling scripture such as Jeremiah 31:33-34.

in other words, Mosaic Law was binding upon God's Hebrew people until the time of Messiah. under Messiah Jesus, both Hebrews and Gentiles can be born again and reconciled to God not via adherence to Mosaic Law, but through faith in God's Son, and God's grace and Holy Spirit given in response to that faith. many Christians the world over (from Ethiopia to India) do adhere to some forms of Jewish practice or Torah laws. for example, circumcision, worshiping on Saturdays, or covering the head while in prayer.

can a believer in the Messiah Jesus follow Mosaic Law? i see no reason why not. but is it necessary, as in Messiah we are made well / whole by our faith in Him, and His Holy Spirit? i would say no, by no means. the grace and new life and new relationship with God one has through His Son, the Spirit crying in our hearts "Abba, Father" can not be won through religious works, but through faith, surrender, and God's grace.

Mosaic Law and Jewish tradition can not and should not take the place of Messiah Jesus in a believer's life. i would say so long as one knows and follows Jesus, and has been baptized with His Spirit, one is my brother or sister in Him. if you refrain from pork, worship and rest on Saturday, or wear a tichel, that is cool. so long as one understands that their decision to do so does not make them or me any closer or farther from God for observing or not observing.

 

[IF_u_knew]

what are your feelings on Paul, Jesus, Mosaic Law, and Judeo-Christianity?

I know that Paul did not teach the foundation of the Jewish Scriptures. Jesus did.
Paul: Ephesians 2:15
Jesus: Matthew 5:17-19

Paul: inventor of christianity and its god
Jesus: Jewish rabbi whose cause was to enlighten his people (the house of Israel) so that they would understand the Laws of God, their importance, and the VERY important reason FOR the Laws of God. They are not a burden... they are why this creation still even exists.

Paul says that the Law was to be abolished. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill. To say that he was fulfilling it for others is to add to what he said and take away from what he was teaching.

If God breaks/abolishes ANY of His Laws that He has set up, heaven and earth will pass away. His Creation is dependant upon these Laws not being broken by Him. This is what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:17-19.

It is the false teachings of Paul's pen that have created the negative view of the Laws of God. The Laws of God are NOT only the 613 commandments given to the Jewish (NEVER were they even given to the Gentiles).

For instance, there are the Laws of Nature. Jesus COULD NOT have been raised from the dead after having been dead for 3 days. This breaks the Laws of Nature that God set into place. If the Laws of Nature had been broken, this creation would have been destroyed because it is dependent upon God not breaking them.

Then there is the Law for Mankind .. Noahide (Noahic) Law. This Law consists of 7 (common sense) commandments (not even 10). It is based on Genesis 9. It divides mankind from the animal kingdom. Not at ALL a burden as Paul's christianity has been to the Gentiles.

Then there is the Jewish Law which consists of the 613 commandments.

This Law that is so dreaded was NEVER given to the Gentiles.Therefore, the only saving that Christians need is from the ignorance Paul has kept them chained to.

The New Covenant does NOT abolish anything. It does NOT contradict the Old Covenant or abolish ANY of the Laws. Paul's covenant is NOT the New Covenant between God and the Jewish, it is between him and those who have chosen the religion he created.

As far as the Messiah, God says in the Tanakh who it is that He anointed and it was not an individual, it was a People. Jesus was only ever anointed by his wife Mary. And Jesus was certainly not God. God is not a man. God will never be a man. God is not LIKE a man. Hosea 11:9

Anyway.. there are my views thus far. A) Nothing in the Jewish Scriptures was abolished. B) Jesus was not God, the Messiah, or the saviour of mankind. He even SAID who it was his cause was about; and it was not the Gentiles. C) Paul wanted to see the Jewish destroyed so he invented christianity and their god and made a covenant of death with them (Isaiah 28)

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I think the whole bible is God's breathed word, so Paul is irrelavant in that regard. However your OP was very well explained

 

[Jeremy Mason]

A) Nothing in the Jewish Scriptures was abolished.

Exodus 21:22-25 (NIV)

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Matthew 5:38-42 (NIV)

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

B) Jesus was not God, the Messiah, or the saviour of mankind. He even SAID who it was his cause was about; and it was not the Gentiles.

Revelation 1:

4John,
To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
7Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

C) Paul wanted to see the Jewish destroyed so he invented christianity and their god and made a covenant of death with them (Isaiah 28)

Is this a joke?

 

[IF_u_knew]

Exodus 21:22-25 (NIV)
Matthew 5:38-42 (NIV)

How are these two even comparable? The first is speaking of men doing their macho thing and carelessly harming a woman and possibly her child. What Jesus was speaking of is entirely a different matter which is evident by reading the whole context.

Revelation 1:

That is the NT's claim. God said in Isaiah that He declared the end FROM the beginning. What you have tried doing here is to pass off the end as being declared from the end. Doesn't work that way according to God who says that His counsel shall stand, in Isaiah, and that He does not change, in Malachi.

Is this a joke?

Nope! Not a joke. :no:

1 Thess 2:14-15 : Here he claims that it is the Jewish who have killed Jesus which is contradictory to what the gospel of Matthew claims (that being the Gentiles).

Titus 1:10-16: Here he says their mouths MUST be stopped. Since the Gentiles lacked the understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures to stop the Jew's mouths with knowledge and their (the Jews) mouths MUST be stopped, well, how do you think they (the Gentiles) were to go about doing it? One only has to look to history to find the answer.

 

[dogsgod]

Paul's letters were written before the gospels were invented so care should be taken when reading Paul and the other epistle writers of a gospel bias. Early Christianity, as per the epistles, should not be confused with a later Christian development, namely the gospel allegorical fictions. Gospel writers had the epistles to draw from.

 

[Oberon]

C) Paul wanted to see the Jewish destroyed so he invented christianity and their god and made a covenant of death with them (Isaiah 28)

Paul thought of himself as Jewish. In fact, all early christians did. It took sometime for this Jewish sect to break away from its mother religion, and that happened after Paul.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Paul thought of himself as Jewish. In fact, all early christians did. It took sometime for this Jewish sect to break away from its mother religion, and that happened after Paul.

The Christian religion is because *of* Paul. And Paul may have BEEN Jewish, but when he left Judaism to start another religion, he was no longer Jewish. Judaism is a religion and not a bloodline, ya know.

Christianity is not the name where it is the gathering spoken of in the Torah is said to be. It is Judah.. thus Judaism is not the "mother" religion, but it is the THE religion the other two have been unfairly piggy backing off of. I am not against there being other religions personally, but to say that Christianity has replaced, or joined to Judaism and that the prophecies are about the Gentiles and the Church is not true. To say Jesus is God, the Saviour, and the eternal Messiah is not true. Christianity is a religion of Hellenistic beliefs.. truly it is blind faith since the foundation it claims does not support it.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Paul's letters were written before the gospels were invented so care should be taken when reading Paul and the other epistle writers of a gospel bias. Early Christianity, as per the epistles, should not be confused with a later Christian development, namely the gospel allegorical fictions. Gospel writers had the epistles to draw from.

I really could not less about the NT at this point in time. I have no problem with the teachings of Jesus (that are supported in the Tanakh), but the rest is useless knowledge. I am not blind that it has served a purpose, but it doesn't look like too many are getting what that purpose is since it is still the image of the shedding of one Jewish man's blood to cover sin that is widely accepted. I'd rather be threatened with eternal punishment than to try and cover the guilt I am supposed to have for being human with the image of any person being brutally sacrificed. It is an oxymoron, no?

As for Paul, his writings betrayed his own people. Now where is the respect found for a person like that? I don't find it a respectable quality in the least.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe that Christianity was a timely Hellenistic distortion of the teachings of a sect seeking to explicate the decay of 2nd Temple Period Judaism.

 

[Caladan]

The Christian religion is because *of* Paul. And Paul may have BEEN Jewish, but when he left Judaism to start another religion, he was no longer Jewish. Judaism is a religion and not a bloodline, ya know.

That is an opinion. there is a large crowd of secular Jews. Judaism is more than a religion, it is a cultural and ethnic identity to many people.

 

[Oberon]

The Christian religion is because *of* Paul. And Paul may have BEEN Jewish, but when he left Judaism to start another religion, he was no longer Jewish.

Jesus was far more responsible for christianity than Paul. Paul was neither the first, nor the last, to preach to gentiles. Just the most published/copied.

Jesus was far from the only one during his day to come up with a different or new interpretation of Mosiac/Jewish law. It was he, not Paul, who began the sect that uses his name.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Paul was neither the first, nor the last, to preach to gentiles.

Who were a couple before him?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Jesus was far more responsible for christianity than Paul. Paul was neither the first, nor the last, to preach to gentiles. Just the most published/copied.

Jesus was far from the only one during his day to come up with a different or new interpretation of Mosiac/Jewish law. It was he, not Paul, who began the sect that uses his name.

James and others still followed the rituals and practices of Second Temple Judaism, with the only addition being the belief that Jesus was the messiah. Paul had many disagreements with the Jerusalem sect, some of them described in Acts. It was Paul who widened the scope of Christianity from a Judaic sect to a religion much more accepting of gentiles. Paul wanted to abolish the requirement for circumcision, a practice that was barbaric to Hellenized Rome. James agreed ....
15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
But in other letters, Paul and others slowly break away from some of these agreed upon prohibitions, breaking even further from the original Jerusalem church.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Jesus was far more responsible for christianity than Paul. Paul was neither the first, nor the last, to preach to gentiles. Just the most published/copied.

Jesus was far from the only one during his day to come up with a different or new interpretation of Mosiac/Jewish law. It was he, not Paul, who began the sect that uses his name.

I do not think that Jesus labeled himself as Christ. After all, in Matthew 24:5 it says, "For many shall come in my (Jesus'?) name, saying, I (Jesus?) am Christ; and shall deceive many." Since it was *after this* statement that he touches on the others who would call their own selves Christs, and since in that 2nd declaration it uses 3rd person, I am not out of line to conclude that Jesus was warning of those who called HIM (Jesus) Christ. Christ DOES mean anointed, but it is not the name that Israel was said to be gathered to in the blessings given in Genesis 49. That was Judah.. wha-la!! JUDAism. That would be the religion that Jesus came to confirm as we can conclude from Matthew 5:17-19.

Paul is the one who took the message to the Gentiles according to his own admission (of course, isn't it ironic how in Acts, it always seems to be the Jewish he is trying to convert to his newly self founded religion)? Even more strange, it is the Jewish that he turns on as I have shown evidence for and can show more.

My speculation is that Paul thought VERY highly of himself... it is based on evidences all throughout his writings. I even realized that Acts confirms this in the chapter of 28, verses 3-6. Here is what verse 6 says: "Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god." AND PAUL DID NOT ARGUE WITH THEM!

He did not like that the Jewish had been enlightened by a message that said salvation was of the JEWS <--- (plural) and set out to esteem his own self... and his magic, being the art of illusion, on the Gentiles worked like a charm. Magic, which is only the art of illusion, is made "real" via the minds of the people who believe that it is a reality. 2,000 years later and one has to wonder, are you not at all curious why it is that Jesus has not shown back up? I was and I found the answer.

Christianity has too long put the blame on the Jewish for the betrayal of Jesus into the hands of the Romans and here all along, the one who is guilty CLEARLY admits that it was him (I Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 2:11) but his illusion was so successful that it is HIS gospel that a great majority of the world has bought into. Again, he admits this too: 2 Timothy 2:8 "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel.." and even in the next verse he ADMITS to being an evil doer. I am not evil doer because I consider the actions and reactions of myself and those around me and live according to Ezekiel 18:28 and yet he says it openly that he does not actually heed the Word of God quite boldly as though it is a badge of honor that he pulled *the wool over the eyes of the world.*... not all of us though were born with closed eyes.

It is not rocket science to see who it is that betrayed his own people. Jesus confirmed Judaism by the declaration given in Matthew 5:17-19. Paul confirmed that he was indeed the traitor to his own people via the handing over of the Hebrew Scriptures to the Gentiles and mixing in their hellenistic views (which were not the views of the Jewish). Does this not make you consider? or it is just easier to accept what has been told to you rather than consider these things for your own self?

Listen, I am quite liberal in my views.. but, I see these inconsistencies that are being dumped on the rest of the world as though we are incapable of seeking the Truth ourselves. The truth is that the NT is full of lies and has been the cause of much oppression in the world. Just speaking it as I can see it. Tell me how I am wrong... I will listen.

 

[IF_u_knew]

That is an opinion. there is a large crowd of secular Jews. Judaism is more than a religion, it is a cultural and ethnic identity to many people.

I am not necessarily going to disagree with your opinion as it belongs to you and I can understand why it is you have it. I am sure down the line, my childrens' children will feel the same way as they will have been born into it rather than adjusting to it.

Having grown up in Christianity myself, it can be said much the same way. It is a cultural and yes, an ethnic identity to many regardless of the various ethnic peoples who accept it (just as Judaism.. though on a smaller scale). Still, Christianity is a religion just as the Jewish became identified as such because of their religious beliefs.

Judaism allows for a more humanistic approach to life which to me, allows more freedom to learn and pursue knowledge that Christianity considers evil and though I do not have to become Jewish to have this pursuit, I am doing such because I identify to the struggles and lessons learned. Having grown up in Christianity, I can assuredly say that a Jewish person who has crossed that line to convert to Christianity is accepting an anti semitic view whether they realize it or not; but sadly quite a few do realize this as is evident in the hatred they spew out of their mouths for the Jewish or anyone who finds the beauty and diversity brought to the world by the Jewish.

I have no comment about the Messianic Jews... I know little about what it is they hold to exactly.

And all the above is speaking generically of course. I know many Christians who are honestly good people and just do not yet understand how they do not need nor should accept the guilt given them to the point where they believe a literal blood sacrifice could cover their sins rather than just considering and learning from it. Many just are not thinking, which is what is required to be in the faith of Paul.. as even he admits.. no thinking allowed.

 

[IF_u_knew]

James and others still followed the rituals and practices of Second Temple Judaism, with the only addition being the belief that Jesus was the messiah. Paul had many disagreements with the Jerusalem sect, some of them described in Acts. It was Paul who widened the scope of Christianity from a Judaic sect to a religion much more accepting of gentiles. Paul wanted to abolish the requirement for circumcision, a practice that was barbaric to Hellenized Rome. James agreed ....
15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
But in other letters, Paul and others slowly break away from some of these agreed upon prohibitions, breaking even further from the original Jerusalem church.

I hope that you do not mind my view in relation to what it is you said here. In Genesis 9, the commandments of God to mankind are laid out. Then Gentiles were never required to be circumcised in the first place. They are perfectly capable of following these common sense Laws and being considered righteous before God.

The covenant between the Jewish and God though DOES require there to be circumcision according to the Hebrew Scriptures and nowhere in there is it said to be abolished. It was a requirement and still is for the Chosen and those joining themselves TO the chosen.. by choice. There is not anything that the Jewish were imposing on Gentiles UNLESS the Gentiles wanted to be considered part of Israel... which was their choice (free will) to decide yes or no.

Paul acted as if the Gentiles were required to keep the 613 commandments given to the Jewish in order to be considered righteous and this is the lie that led to the deaths of more than just one Jew named Jesus. The Gentiles have ONLY EVER been given 7 COMMON SENSE commandments that separate them from the animals. What is the need for all the guilt to the point that the image of a Jewish man on a cross would become symbolic as the payments of sin. Are Gentiles not capable of common sense?

What is more barbaric? Circumcision or the acceptance of the literal blood sacrifice of a man (that turned into the slaughter of MANY over the course of history) as payment for sins?

 

[Oberon]

Who were a couple before him?

I'll quote from L. Michael White's introductory text I assigned this year for one of my classes, because it is straightforward and simple on this point (as elsewhere):

1. Paul was not the "hellenizer" of the Jesus movement. There was already vibrant interaction with both Greek-speaking Jews and non-Jews before and apart from Paul [actually, although professor White doesn't talk about it here, this interaction between Jews and gentiles began prior to Jesus with gentiles worshipping in the synagogues]. The Q document already reflects this trend, and there was a substantial Jesus community in Alexandrea from an early day. Neither of these branches of the early Jesus movement had any discernible contact with or influence from Paul. In writing his letters to the churches in Rome, Paul makes clear that he had never been to Rome (Rom. 1:9-14; 15:22-24). Hence, he clearly was not responsible for establishing the congregations in Rome, and some of them had been operating for some time.

2. Paul was not the "second founder" of the movement. This idea is based on the false assumption that, prior to Paul, the Jesus movement was still very monolithic and stuck, as it were, in a kind of theological rut resulting from the Jewish social location of the original teachings of Jesus. Paul is thus viewed as the one who broke out of this rut. As we have already seen, however, there was considerable diveristy in the movement from the beginning, and there were already explorations of its ideas in new social and cultural contexts. Greek-speaking followers were already in Antioch well before Paul... Nor was the Jewishness of the sect an impediment to diversity and theological eploration [again, although Professor White does not discuss it here, and only briefly elsewhere, there was considerable diversity in Judaism, to the point where some use the term Judaisms rather than Judaism to describe the beliefs current among Jews of the time]...

3. Paul was not the "first Christian." In fact, Paul never uses the term "Christian." Instead, he clearly saw himself as a pious Jew who had been called on by God, through Jesus, to take this new message to non-Jews. Thus, Paul's self-understanding remained thoroughly Jewish, even when he argued with Peter, James or other, more stringently Jewish followers of the Jesus movement.

page 144-145 of From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'll quote from L. Michael White's introductory text I assigned this year for one of my classes, because it is straightforward and simple on this point (as elsewhere):

1. Paul was not the "hellenizer" of the Jesus movement. ...

Your post is nonresponsive at best and disingenuous at worst.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Your post is nonresponsive at best and disingenuous at worst.

This is only somewhat related, but in merely indicates that greeks (gentiles) COULD already be spreading the word. Although Jay this may not really address you initial question to the poster. Of which you are correct the poster so eloquently dodged.

Mark ch 7
"26": The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
"27": But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
"28": And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
"29": And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
"30": And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.