Paul, Jesus, and Moasic Law

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is not at all related, and Mark has one hell of a good memory for 2nd-hand dialogue.

 

[IF_u_knew]

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.

Paul's self-understanding remained thoroughly Jewish? Have you read the Tanakh and then compared it to Paul's writings?

It is obvious what it was that Paul rebuked Peter for. Peter, who actually learned from the mouth of Jesus, was telling the Gentiles the truth; that they had to be circumcised if they wanted to convert to Judaism. This is not inconsistent with the foundation of Judaism (the Laws and the testimonies) and this was not inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 5:17-19). If they did not want to be circumcised, then they would still be considered righteous by following 7 commands that merely separate man from animals (that's right.. not even 10).

Not only did Paul make it more complicated, he lied saying that the Gentiles were already under the Laws of the covenant between God and Israel. Then he promoted violence toward the Jewish who said otherwise.. how else were their mouths to be stopped if they (the Jewish) had the correct knowledge and the Gentiles couldn't argue because they were fed the lies? Jesus was not the only Jewish person who was killed as a guilt covering for the Gentiles and this is thanks to the writings that are attributed to Paul. *shrugs*

 

[Oberon]

Your post is nonresponsive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Not really. The evidence White points to is the existence of greek speaking and hellenistic "Jesus sect" communities prior to Paul. Acts records Peter and the "circumcision party" as dealing with gentile converts. The very nature of the dispute (whether gentiles had to commit fully to mosiac law) point to the existence of converts apart from Paul, as does the existence of Jesus sect members in pagan terroritory prior to Paul.

 

[Oberon]

Paul's self-understanding remained thoroughly Jewish? Have you read the Tanakh and then compared it to Paul's writings?

Yes. Have you studied intertestimental Jewish literature? Are you aware of the vast gulf between various sects of Jews contemporary with Jesus?

 

[IF_u_knew]

Yes. Have you studied intertestimental Jewish literature? Are you aware of the vast gulf between various sects of Jews contemporary with Jesus?

I have and I find the actual accounts of what was happening during that general time period fascinating. It is no wonder so much was birthed given the turmoil.

My goal though is to show that Christianity is not based on Judaism. The NT (PARTICULARLY the writings attributed to Paul) is not compatible with the Tanakh. I only need the Bible to do this.

 

[Oberon]

My goal though is to show that Christianity is not based on Judaism... I only need the Bible to do this.

First, one of the reasons gnosticism failed was its rejection of Judaism as a basis for christianity. Second, Paul's self understanding was still Jewish. Third, the Old Testament represents Judaism diachronically. The beliefs of the oldest parts vary from the newer. Finally, the Judiasm of the OT was dependent on the temple. Modern rabbinic judaism is just as removed from the OT as christianity.

 

[IF_u_knew]

First, one of the reasons gnosticism failed was its rejection of Judaism as a basis for christianity. Second, Paul's self understanding was still Jewish. Third, the Old Testament represents Judaism diachronically. The beliefs of the oldest parts vary from the newer. Finally, the Judiasm of the OT was dependent on the temple. Modern rabbinic judaism is just as removed from the OT as christianity.

So, I take it that you hold to the view that the temple will *not* be rebuilt? I believe it will be. The NT has nothing to do with Judaism period and Judaism is and always has been an evolving religion. By the way, the Tanakh is not an Old Testament. I honestly do not believe people have read it without their preconceived notions (power of suggestion thanks to Christianity) when they call it Old.

The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 does not abolish anything that is written in the Old Covenant. The only difference is that the Law of God is written on the heart and not on stone... meaning that it is up to the individual to follow the Law of God; we choose to obey God because we love Him rather than because we fear Him. And as for the daily sacrifice, well that was not abolished permanently. It will return when the temple is rebuilt.

Answer honestly please.. have you even read the Tanakh (what you refer to as the old testament)? *raises eyebrow*

 

[Oberon]

Answer honestly please.. have you even read the Tanakh (what you refer to as the old testament)? *raises eyebrow*

Yes, and a fair amount of it in hebrew. I am a grad student in biblical studies, and though my focus is on the NT, this means I am required to study Judaism as well. I have read the mishnah, the septuagint in its entirety (in greek), the talmud, Josephus, Philo, etc. I had to. Some of it I have to read in translation (I can't read aramaic, and my greek and latin, as well as the modern languages of scholarship, are much better than my hebrew), but I have studied it all. Rabbinic Judaism is almost as removed from older forms of Judaism (particularly prior to 2nd temple Pharisiac judaism) as Christianity. Judaism for centuries revolved entirely around the temple, which was the center of the religion. The "oral torah" of the pharisees functioned first as a sort of careful addition to temple worship (which was in hot dispute at the time because of Maccabean leadership not descending from Zakodite line), but after the final destruction study of the torah replaced the temple as the center of Judaism. This created an enormous gulf between Judaism of ancient times and rabbinic judaism.

So, I take it that you hold to the view that the temple will *not* be rebuilt? I believe it will be.

I don't much care if it is or it isn't. But I don't believe that the Judaism which existed prior to and apart from rabbinic judaism will ever return.

 

[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.

Not really.

Yes, really. I had previously written ...

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.

There is nothing here about Paul being "the" [i.e., sole] Hellenizing influence in the area. Stop playing word games ...

 

[IF_u_knew]

Yes, and a fair amount of it in hebrew. I am a grad student in biblical studies, and though my focus is on the NT, this means I am required to study Judaism as well. I have read the mishnah, the septuagint in its entirety (in greek), the talmud, Josephus, Philo, etc. I had to. Some of it I have to read in translation (I can't read aramaic, and my greek and latin, as well as the modern languages of scholarship, are much better than my hebrew), but I have studied it all. Rabbinic Judaism is almost as removed from older forms of Judaism (particularly prior to 2nd temple Pharisiac judaism) as Christianity. Judaism for centuries revolved entirely around the temple, which was the center of the religion. The "oral torah" of the pharisees functioned first as a sort of careful addition to temple worship (which was in hot dispute at the time because of Maccabean leadership not descending from Zakodite line), but after the final destruction study of the torah replaced the temple as the center of Judaism. This created an enormous gulf between Judaism of ancient times and rabbinic judaism.

Are you not reading my posts? I am not comparing Judaism thousands of years ago (or even 200 years ago) to Judaism today. I said that it is an evolving religion... still, there is nothing that has been abolished from it other than the obvious which is not permanent.

She started this thread because of a discussion we have been having about Judaism vs. Christianity. The two are *not* compatible religions. Christianity revels in a literal human sacrifice, has a distorted view of God, and follows a man who claims the Law of God has been abolished... it is not based on Judaism/ the Hebrew Scriptures. They are two different religions. Christianity is based on Hellenism and the NT is anti-semitic.

 

[Oberon]

Yes, really. I had previously written ...There is nothing here about Paul being "the" [i.e., sole] Hellenizing influence in the area. Stop playing word games ...

I wasn't responding to "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" with my quote from White. I was responding to both to your question "who were some [apostles/missionaries to the gentiles] before him?" and to IF_U_Knew's various posts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wasn't responding to "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" with my quote from White. I was responding to both to your question "who were some [apostles/missionaries to the gentiles] before him?" and to IF_U_Knew's various posts.

And who were some apostles/missionaries to the gentiles] before him?

 

[Oberon]

Are you not reading my posts? I am not comparing Judaism thousands of years ago (or even 200 years ago) to Judaism today. I said that it is an evolving religion....

What you fail to understand is that Judaism isn't just an "evolving religion" in that we don't see a straight line of fairly consistent change. There is an enormous gulf between rabbinic judaism (from which modern jewish sects descend) and the judaism prior to and apart from rabbinic judaism (which has its origins in pharisiac judaism). In a way, the final destruction of the temple led to two daughters of what had been judaism: christianity and rabbinic judaism. Both of these religions represented substantial breaks away from judaism as it had been while the temple existed.

still, there is nothing that has been abolished from it other than the obvious which is not permanent

I am not entirely certain what this sentence means (what does it mean to say that nothing has been abolished except what has been abolished and that what has been abolished wasn't permanent? Nothing.). However, the final destruction of the temple radically changed judaism permanently. It is certainly true that changes and "evolutions" had occured before this (primarily due to previous destruction of the temple and dispersal of the jews), but (again) a wide gulf runs between rabbinic Judaism and prior to (and apart from) the pharisees.

She started this thread because of a discussion we have been having about Judaism vs. Christianity. The two are *not* compatible religions.

Then you haven't studied either one enough.

it is not based on Judaism/ the Hebrew Scriptures.

Neither is modern rabbinic Judaism (any more than christianity, that is). The christians use Jesus' teachings as represented in the gospels, as well as the epistles, to understand god and to interpret the old testament. The rabbinic judaism uses what began as an oral tradition written down c. 200 ce in the Mishnah and a great deal of midrashim in order to understand the old testament. The point is, both systems radically depart from the older one which was centered around israel and the temple almost as much as it was around god. Rabbinic judaism replaced the temple with study of the torah, and produced the mishnah and talmud as further writings in order to understand, clarify, and extend what was codified in their "scriptures." The christians did the exact same thing, only they used a different lens for interpretation.

They are two different religions. Christianity is based on Hellenism and the NT is anti-semitic.

The NT is not anti-semitic, any more than the pharisees, sadduccees, or essenes were anti-semitic. Although the later layers of the NT (not the Pauline epistles) can safely be said to represent not a different sect of judaism but a sister religion, the rivalry between these groups was no more than that between other groups within what may be called judaism. All of these groups lost out, leaving behind rabbinic judaism and christianity.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The NT is not anti-semitic, any more than the pharisees, sadduccees, or essenes were anti-semitic. Although the later layers of the NT (not the Pauline epistles) can safely be said to represent not a different sect of judaism but a sister religion, the rivalry between these groups was no more than that between other groups within what may be called judaism. All of these groups lost out, leaving behind rabbinic judaism and christianity.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

You will also notice that throughout the NT, Jesus argues with "the Jews". Always separate from himself and his believers.

Speaking to "the Jews"( John 8:22) who did not believe in him.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

John 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

The NT sets up "the Jews" as the enemy of Christ.

 

[IF_u_knew]

What you fail to understand is that Judaism isn't just an "evolving religion" in that we don't see a straight line of fairly consistent change. There is an enormous gulf between rabbinic judaism (from which modern jewish sects descend) and the judaism prior to and apart from rabbinic judaism (which has its origins in pharisiac judaism). In a way, the final destruction of the temple led to two daughters of what had been judaism: christianity and rabbinic judaism. Both of these religions represented substantial breaks away from judaism as it had been while the temple existed.



I am not entirely certain what this sentence means (what does it mean to say that nothing has been abolished except what has been abolished and that what has been abolished wasn't permanent? Nothing.). However, the final destruction of the temple radically changed judaism permanently. It is certainly true that changes and "evolutions" had occured before this (primarily due to previous destruction of the temple and dispersal of the jews), but (again) a wide gulf runs between rabbinic Judaism and prior to (and apart from) the pharisees.




Then you haven't studied either one enough.



Neither is modern rabbinic Judaism (any more than christianity, that is). The christians use Jesus' teachings as represented in the gospels, as well as the epistles, to understand god and to interpret the old testament. The rabbinic judaism uses what began as an oral tradition written down c. 200 ce in the Mishnah and a great deal of midrashim in order to understand the old testament. The point is, both systems radically depart from the older one which was centered around israel and the temple almost as much as it was around god. Rabbinic judaism replaced the temple with study of the torah, and produced the mishnah and talmud as further writings in order to understand, clarify, and extend what was codified in their "scriptures." The christians did the exact same thing, only they used a different lens for interpretation.


The NT is not anti-semitic, any more than the pharisees, sadduccees, or essenes were anti-semitic. Although the later layers of the NT (not the Pauline epistles) can safely be said to represent not a different sect of judaism but a sister religion, the rivalry between these groups was no more than that between other groups within what may be called judaism. All of these groups lost out, leaving behind rabbinic judaism and christianity.

I am saying this in a very nice way: are you able to read the Bible and think for yourself or only repeat what you are told to memorize? We were not discussing outside the Bible so much as we are discussing what is written inside the Bible.

Here, for example:

Who, according to the NT is said to be the only begotten son of God?

Now, go to Hosea 11:1 and Exodus 4:22,23 and post who it is declared there as the first born (aka begotten) Son of God.

Or how about Ephesians 2:15 (only one of many that degrades the Law of God) as compared to well, all of Psalm 119.

Paul says Jesus is our Saviour and God says clearly in Isaiah that there is only one Saviour and that is Him... that there is no other gods beside Him. These are barely even the beginning of the differences between the NT and the Tanakh.

Do you understand the conversion now? Drop religion for now... we can discuss this without saying christianity and/or Judaism as I can see that you are clearly missing the point of discussion by hearing those labels.

Also, Paul degrades the Jewish (though admittedly he double speaks quite often) and lies to the Gentiles (and not to their benefit). The NT is worded in such a way that one comes off as against the other.

 

[IF_u_knew]

The NT sets up "the Jews" as the enemy of Christ.

Thank you. This is whole of my problem with the NT claiming its foundation on the Tanakh. God is not against the Gentiles and the Jewish are not against the Gentiles; but the Jewish have chosen to accept the Laws of God for better or for worse and they are looked down upon by many Christians for this when it has nothing to do with anyone but the choice of the Jewish to serve God without thought of reward or fear of punishment (and I am speaking of the religous of the Jews here). I think it is their choice if Christians want to place their hope in a godman, but it is not a way of thinking that can be based on the Hebrew Scriptures and so to say that a Jewish man was God and the Jewish killed him is setting them up for harm... as has already been proven throughout history.

 

[Oberon]

1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

You will also notice that throughout the NT, Jesus argues with "the Jews". Always separate from himself and his believers.

Speaking to "the Jews"( John 8:22) who did not believe in him.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

John 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

The NT sets up "the Jews" as the enemy of Christ.

First, John represents almost the last layer of the NT (barring revelations). In the syoptics, Jesus is far more Jewish (e.g. Matt. 5:17 me nomistete hoti elthon katalusai ton nomon e tous prohetas/ don't belive/think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets). Second, you have to understand that with respect to Paul he still thought of himself as Jewish, but that their was not a single word that meant "jew" in those days (e.g. israelite, jew, hebrew, etc, were all used):

Rom. 11.1- lego oun, me aposato ho theos ton laon autou; me genoito, kai gar ego Israelities eimi, ek spermatos Abraam, phules Beniamin/ So I say, did not god reject his people? It is not so. For I, I AM an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, [from the] tribe of Benjamin.

2 Cor. 11.22- eisin hebraioi; kago. Israelitai eisin; kago. sperma Abraam eisin; kago./ Are they Hebrews? I am too. Are they Israelites? I am too. Are they of the seed of Abraham? I am too.

The jews of this period argued with each other over interpretation of the law. The Pharisees disagreed with the Sadducees, the Essenes broke away entirely and formed their own community, etc. The Jesus sect began as one more interpretation of the Jewish god. The ealiest layers (Paul, Q, etc) still reflect this mindset. The fact that they disagreed with other sects doesn't make them any less Jewish than those other sects.

 

[Oberon]

I am saying this in a very nice way: are you able to read the Bible and think for yourself or only repeat what you are told to memorize?

I am going to ask this in a very nice way. What exactly have you read and studied of the history of Judaism? Have you read Philo? Josephus? Enoch? What can you tell me about the various factions in 2nd temple Judaism? Can you even read Hebrew or Greek? What makes you think you know anything of the history of Judaism? Because you read the tanakh? In translation?

Paul thought of himself as Jewish. He differed from other Jews of his time, but they differed with each other, quite radically. Have you read the Qumran documents?

Ancient Judaism centered first and foremost around God. Its daughter religions (Islam, Rabbinic Judaism, and Christianity) all followed in this respect, although their interpretations of god differ.

However, ancient Judaism was primarily a cultic/priestly religion of sacrifice. The Jews were Israelites, who distinguished themselves by a self-understanding based on sacrifice to YHWH and a belonging to the temple and Israel. Rabbinic Judaism largely replaced this understanding of the Jewish religion from one of sacrifice/covenent to one of jurisprudence/covenent. The temple, the center of Ancient Judaism, along with Israel itself, was no more. So rabbinic Judaism created a seperate tradition which differed substantially from the older version. Christianity did the same. Is Christianity more seperated from the OT than Judaism? Probably. But it is important to understand that this differentiation occured after Paul, and that Rabbinic Judaism is more seperated from earlier Judaism than Paul.

 

[sojourner]

1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

You will also notice that throughout the NT, Jesus argues with "the Jews". Always separate from himself and his believers.

Speaking to "the Jews"( John 8:22) who did not believe in him.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

John 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

The NT sets up "the Jews" as the enemy of Christ.

Not so! Matthew is Jewish, writing to a community that was probably, largely Jewish. While he does rail against the religious authorities, his ire is specifically against the establishment, and not the Jewish people, themselves.
Mark was, likewise, Jewish, and, to boot, writing from a more Galilean stance than Matthew!
"The Jews" usually refers to the "religious authorities," and not to the common, Jewish folk.

 

[sojourner]

God is not against the Gentiles and the Jewish are not against the Gentiles; but the Jewish have chosen to accept the Laws of God for better or for worse and they are looked down upon by many Christians for this when it has nothing to do with anyone but the choice of the Jewish to serve God without thought of reward or fear of punishment (and I am speaking of the religous of the Jews here).

We have a problem here, because the Jewish religion of Jesus' day was definitely "us," vs. "them." When Matthew wrote his gospel, he ends with the charge to make "laos" out of the "ethne;" "us" out of "them." The Jews see themselves as righteous over against the Gentiles, who are not righteous.
The Jews not only accepted the Law, they practiced it to the exclusion of love, mercy, or compassion. The letter -- not the spirit -- of the Law was what was important. And it was that attitude that Jesus railed against.