Paul, Jesus, and Moasic Law

[tumbleweed41]

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.

True, the author of Mathew seemed to be writing for the Jewish community, as to the true authorship, Mathew [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE, because it describes the event in Matthew 24.[/FONT] Also the author is the only one of the Gospel writers to mention "church". Mathew was not named as the author of the book until 130 CE by [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Papias.
The author of Mark demonstrates a slight contempt towards the original twelve disciples, indicating they never understood Jesus. Reinforcing the gentile leanings of Pauls teachings.
[/FONT]

 

[IF_u_knew]

I am going to ask this in a very nice way. What exactly have you read and studied of the history of Judaism?

Though you still apparently have let the point go over your head, I will oblige this line of questioning; though only this once just so you know that I am being sincere.

I know the history of Israel more intimately via the Tanakh, which is more allegorical for the sake of the collective memory. At one time when I considered myself Athiest (in that I did not know and would not even acknowledge a possibility of God/gods until I knew for a fact in my own mind), I went to search for proof of the events as told. There are many different theories, but when you strip away the theories, what you find are really (what would be considered) unfantastical events that would be rather unrecognizable to most... anyway, these less fantastical events that have led to what we now know as Israel has helped me to understand what is meant when it is said being "taught by the mouth of God" (proverbs 2:1-7)... allegorically, I know well the history of Israel.

Have you read Philo?

Yes, I had to quit. I realized that he was hellenistic. In other words, I deal better in philosophy that is less mystical in nature. It is no wonder the Christians were drawn to his writings since theirs is a hellenistic religion.

Josephus?

Yes and I can not help but to have noticed he is as wishy washy as Paul was.. though, he never actually abandoned the Jewish religion to join or start another one.

Enoch?

There was so much talk about it last year, that I did pick it up to see what the chattering was about. I also abandoned it early on as it was too mystical for my taste. I do not believe in such things as angels, satan (other than our own selfish inclinations), etc. and don't waste my time on writings that focus on it as though it were a reality.

What can you tell me about the various factions in 2nd temple Judaism?

I know that Cyrus is the one to have authorized its construction and I know what is written throughout the Tanakh concerning the building of it, etc. I am aware that it was missing much of the important elements that were within the first temple. As I said, I know what is written in the Tanakh, but do I have the whole of those books memorized to tell you? no... What stands out in my head I guess is when the Samaritans held up the process in trying to cause trouble for the Jewish (i think the actual phrase was "to frustrate them" which having known frustration myself *ahem* stuck out to me)... and I know that it was completed under the reign of King Darius.

Herod did renovations during his reign over Judea and the Romans, under the authority of Titus destroyed most of Jerusalem including the Temple in 70(?) CE. :sad:

Can you even read Hebrew or Greek?

No.. I have a Jewish friend that I go to when I want to know what it says from the Hebrew text. I have learned on my own some of the Alefbet... like, the first letter Alef.. I find a lot of meaning in that one letter alone.

I also have done some study on words and such. What fascinates me is how it reads in pictures (deep) rather than just the shallow definitions of the english language. I do see why it is called the language of the gods and am very excited, looking forward, to learn it under a more formal guidance than my own mind.

I know there are similarities in the greek alphebet and the Hebrew, but I do not so much care about the greek.. only the Hebrew.

What makes you think you know anything of the history of Judaism?

Just because someone has crammed their heads with the basic memorization of Judaism does not mean they know it intimately. What I know and accept, that being the Law of God, is what is most important to me about Judaism. That is where my eyes were opened and where I beheld wonderful things contained therein!! That to me makes me knowledgeable enough to know that Christianity and Judaism are two COMPLETELY separate religions.

I keep confronting "know it alls" like you and at first was admittedly intimidated... so much so, that I spend the last couple of weeks CRAMMING my head with knowledge... what I learned was this. I was not brought on this path to learn useless knowledge, I was brought on this path to understand the Ways of God and to grow under His teachings. I seek conversion to Judaism not for knowledge or other vain purposes, but because I identify with the People of Israel in their struggles, the lessons learned through the struggles, and the willingness to align myself with those learned perspectives. I have just as much tendency toward being obstinate as those written in the pages of the Tanakh and I find great Love when I am brought low and broken of that stubbornness. I relate... and that is the greatest knowledge one can find w/in the history of Judaism... determination to walk in the Ways of God.

Because you read the tanakh? In translation?

Yes... because I read the Tanakh and search for the understanding.. not MY understanding or man's understanding.. but the understanding of God as is seen through the People; and yes, I was even able to understand this though I have to read it in the translated versions.

Paul thought of himself as Jewish.

And he abandoned that identity and his people when set out to start the religion of Christianity.

He differed from other Jews of his time, but they differed with each other, quite radically.

This is a lesson I am still learning... the Jewish within Judaism are not confined to having the same opinion of the Scriptures. They are held together by their shared core beliefs and they are encouraged and encourage one another to think for their own selves. That is part of the beauty of it. Paul was fine to have differing views, but he crossed over the line of differing views of the text to attach himself to the views of completely different religion and then sold out his own People by attaching it to their Sacred Text at the expense of many of the Jewish People's lives.

Have you read the Qumran documents?

No.

Ancient Judaism centered first and foremost around God.

And to many, it still does.. but I find more comfort in the more humanistic approach of Judaism than I do in the mystical side of Judaism.

Its daughter religions (Islam, Rabbinic Judaism, and Christianity) all followed in this respect, although their interpretations of god differ.

Since this thread is not focused on Islam, there is no need to touch on that. Christianity believes in things that are not drawn from the Tanakh. For instance, man cannot be God. Israel, and not one man, is the Son of God. The Laws of God are not abolished. Man cannot be sacrificed in the way that Jesus is said to have been to cover the sins of another. and on and on and on I could go. Christianity was started with an agenda. This agenda is obvious in the NT.

And I have grown bored with answering these. All you have shown is that you can retain information and yet still miss the point.

As I have stated, I fell for the trap of the know-it-alls and it almost cost me my confidence in this path. Luckily, a wise friend (Jewish no less) reminded me that it is not about the superficial knowledge, it is about my willingness to accept the Laws of God... and not only do I accept them, but I would not even be who I am without those Laws. I found more peace in the Laws of God than I ever did in the shed blood of a man on a cross. Many Jewish died on the cross by the hands of the Romans and many were left up alive for days at a time. I do not find the comfort in holding on to that as a covering for living and experiencing life.. the Ways of God are what I find comfort in.

Many Jewish have been murdered in the name of Christianity and you are lacking in your mental capicity if you fail to realize that parading a Jewish man around on a cross by the Church (I know many individual christians are naive to this as well) is an arrogant show of their victory over the Chosen of God who also chose themselves to serve God and all that knowledge you throw out is pointless as you have missed the most important lesson. :sad:God did not and does not need a literal blood sacrifice to atone for sins... especially that of a human being.

 

[IF_u_knew]

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.

And did not Jesus warn of wolves in sheep's clothing who would deceive people? Read up on the blessings of the tribes in Genesis 49 (particularly that of Benjamin). Quite prophetic, no? There is much that you miss in all that surface knowledge you contain in your head. I may not know how to read Greek, but I do have a mind that can pick up on things overlooked by most. In Isaiah it says that the end is declared from the beginning... not that the end is declared in the end... or the beginning is declared from the end... or that any of it is declared from the knowledge of man (Jeremiah 17:5).

All of the latter ideas for obtaining knowledge have failed to do what it is that can be done by following the direction of the prophet Isaiah and that is TO SEE THE TRUTH being clearly declared in the beginning.

 

[IF_u_knew]

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.

The spirit of the Law does NOT negate the Letter of the Law which is what Paul implied over and again in his writings. Jesus never negated the Letter of the Law.

And of course it was "us" vs "them." The Romans came in and were dictating how things were going to be; even crucifying more than just one Jewish man. What did you expect? For them to sit back and take it? Would you sit back and allow abuses of that nature happen to your loved ones and your people? I should hope not! :sad:

 

[Oberon]

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

Peter among others. As you know well, we don't have most of the names of the early christians. However, the interaction was there from the first, via the gentiles who worshipped in the synagogues (mentioned in acts as tois sebemenois/ the ones worshipping YHWH without being jewish).

 

[Oberon]

Though you still apparently have let the point go over your head, I will oblige this line of questioning; though only this once just so you know that I am being sincere.

I know the history of Israel more intimately via the Tanakh, which is more allegorical for the sake of the collective memory. At one time when I considered myself Athiest (in that I did not know and would not even acknowledge a possibility of God/gods until I knew for a fact in my own mind), I went to search for proof of the events as told. There are many different theories, but when you strip away the theories, what you find are really (what would be considered) unfantastical events that would be rather unrecognizable to most... anyway, these less fantastical events that have led to what we now know as Israel has helped me to understand what is meant when it is said being "taught by the mouth of God" (proverbs 2:1-7)... allegorically, I know well the history of Israel.



Yes, I had to quit. I realized that he was hellenistic. In other words, I deal better in philosophy that is less mystical in nature. It is no wonder the Christians were drawn to his writings since theirs is a hellenistic religion.



Yes and I can not help but to have noticed he is as wishy washy as Paul was.. though, he never actually abandoned the Jewish religion to join or start another one.



There was so much talk about it last year, that I did pick it up to see what the chattering was about. I also abandoned it early on as it was too mystical for my taste. I do not believe in such things as angels, satan (other than our own selfish inclinations), etc. and don't waste my time on writings that focus on it as though it were a reality.



I know that Cyrus is the one to have authorized its construction and I know what is written throughout the Tanakh concerning the building of it, etc. I am aware that it was missing much of the important elements that were within the first temple. As I said, I know what is written in the Tanakh, but do I have the whole of those books memorized to tell you? no... What stands out in my head I guess is when the Samaritans held up the process in trying to cause trouble for the Jewish (i think the actual phrase was "to frustrate them" which having known frustration myself *ahem* stuck out to me)... and I know that it was completed under the reign of King Darius.

Herod did renovations during his reign over Judea and the Romans, under the authority of Titus destroyed most of Jerusalem including the Temple in 70(?) CE. :sad:



No.. I have a Jewish friend that I go to when I want to know what it says from the Hebrew text. I have learned on my own some of the Alefbet... like, the first letter Alef.. I find a lot of meaning in that one letter alone.

I also have done some study on words and such. What fascinates me is how it reads in pictures (deep) rather than just the shallow definitions of the english language. I do see why it is called the language of the gods and am very excited, looking forward, to learn it under a more formal guidance than my own mind.

I know there are similarities in the greek alphebet and the Hebrew, but I do not so much care about the greek.. only the Hebrew.



Just because someone has crammed their heads with the basic memorization of Judaism does not mean they know it intimately. What I know and accept, that being the Law of God, is what is most important to me about Judaism. That is where my eyes were opened and where I beheld wonderful things contained therein!! That to me makes me knowledgeable enough to know that Christianity and Judaism are two COMPLETELY separate religions.

I keep confronting "know it alls" like you and at first was admittedly intimidated... so much so, that I spend the last couple of weeks CRAMMING my head with knowledge... what I learned was this. I was not brought on this path to learn useless knowledge, I was brought on this path to understand the Ways of God and to grow under His teachings. I seek conversion to Judaism not for knowledge or other vain purposes, but because I identify with the People of Israel in their struggles, the lessons learned through the struggles, and the willingness to align myself with those learned perspectives. I have just as much tendency toward being obstinate as those written in the pages of the Tanakh and I find great Love when I am brought low and broken of that stubbornness. I relate... and that is the greatest knowledge one can find w/in the history of Judaism... determination to walk in the Ways of God.



Yes... because I read the Tanakh and search for the understanding.. not MY understanding or man's understanding.. but the understanding of God as is seen through the People; and yes, I was even able to understand this though I have to read it in the translated versions.



And he abandoned that identity and his people when set out to start the religion of Christianity.



This is a lesson I am still learning... the Jewish within Judaism are not confined to having the same opinion of the Scriptures. They are held together by their shared core beliefs and they are encouraged and encourage one another to think for their own selves. That is part of the beauty of it. Paul was fine to have differing views, but he crossed over the line of differing views of the text to attach himself to the views of completely different religion and then sold out his own People by attaching it to their Sacred Text at the expense of many of the Jewish People's lives.



No.



And to many, it still does.. but I find more comfort in the more humanistic approach of Judaism than I do in the mystical side of Judaism.



Since this thread is not focused on Islam, there is no need to touch on that. Christianity believes in things that are not drawn from the Tanakh. For instance, man cannot be God. Israel, and not one man, is the Son of God. The Laws of God are not abolished. Man cannot be sacrificed in the way that Jesus is said to have been to cover the sins of another. and on and on and on I could go. Christianity was started with an agenda. This agenda is obvious in the NT.

And I have grown bored with answering these. All you have shown is that you can retain information and yet still miss the point.

As I have stated, I fell for the trap of the know-it-alls and it almost cost me my confidence in this path. Luckily, a wise friend (Jewish no less) reminded me that it is not about the superficial knowledge, it is about my willingness to accept the Laws of God... and not only do I accept them, but I would not even be who I am without those Laws. I found more peace in the Laws of God than I ever did in the shed blood of a man on a cross. Many Jewish died on the cross by the hands of the Romans and many were left up alive for days at a time. I do not find the comfort in holding on to that as a covering for living and experiencing life.. the Ways of God are what I find comfort in.

Many Jewish have been murdered in the name of Christianity and you are lacking in your mental capicity if you fail to realize that parading a Jewish man around on a cross by the Church (I know many individual christians are naive to this as well) is an arrogant show of their victory over the Chosen of God who also chose themselves to serve God and all that knowledge you throw out is pointless as you have missed the most important lesson. :sad:God did not and does not need a literal blood sacrifice to atone for sins... especially that of a human being.

I think I should point out first of all that I am neither Christian nor Jewish, so all of this is history for me. In other words, don't point to texts like Genesis and expect me to believe they are prophetic. That is a matter of faith, not history.

The tanakh only records the history of the Jewish people (more or less) up to a certain point. And if you haven't read the Qumran documents or Philo or the rest of the intertestamental literature you won't have a sense of what being a Jew meant in 1st century palestine, you wouldn't be able to tell me that Paul was christian (and you apparently haven't studied early christianity either). Paul clearly thought of himself as faithfully adhering to what Judaism know was. So did other Jewish groups. These groups disagreed, sometimes violently. Most of them disappeared, however, after the final destruction of the temple, leaving only Christainity and Rabbinic Judaism, neither of which can accurately be said to be linear "evolutions" on ancient Judaism, although both are certainly descendents.

 

[IF_u_knew]

(and you apparently haven't studied early christianity either).

Well, this would be a wrong assumption on your part. My only formal education has been within christian institutions (elementary - college... except for a few secular college courses in which I had to pay for my own self just to experience something outside of the religion). So, yes, I do have quite a bit of knowledge into early christianity. I just never found the NT to make sense within itself let alone with what it is basing itself on.

All one has to do is look at what is written in the NT as it is compared to the Tanakh, have a working mind, and a willingness to let go of the preconceived notions to see this. No extra education or knowledge needed.

Thus far, you have not proved me wrong in what I have stated: that the NT (particularly Paul's writings) is not supported by the Tanakh. And Paul DID abandon his religion and his people (even betraying them).

 

[Oberon]

Well, this would be a wrong assumption on your part.

If you think Paul wasn't Jewish, you haven't studied early christianity.

All one has to do is look at what is written in the NT as it is compared to the Tanakh, have a working mind

Wrong. Because the tanakh is only a small part of the totality of Judaism. The judaism of the tanakh requires the temple and Israel, two things that Judaism survived without for over a millenium. The judaism of the tanakh was a priest/cult religion, not one of jurisprudence.

, and a willingness to let go of the preconceived notions to see this. No extra education or knowledge needed

Right. Interpret the texts whatever way you wish, and then make declaritive statements against the self-definitions of others (e.g. "Paul was not Jewish, because he does not fit into what I call judaism").

Thus far, you have not proved me wrong in what I have stated: that the NT (particularly Paul's writings) is not supported by the Tanakh. And Paul DID abandon his religion and his people (even betraying them).

Fine. But rabbinic Judaism is also not supported in the tanakh. Nor did many (perhaps most) of Paul's fellow Jews follow Judaism as represented in the tanakh. Nor do Jews today (e.g. the rabbis do not exist in the tanakh). When was the last sacrifice you made in the temple, as required by the tanakh? Where is the Davidic line, or the Zadokite line? The Judaism in the tanakh is centered around Israel and the Temple, and only "interpretive" readings would suggest anything different.

 

[Oberon]

Yes, I had to quit. I realized that he was hellenistic.

Another question. Why is it that you are all fired up against hellenistic influences, and you refer to the parts OT/torah you accept consistently as the tanakh, yet you use the greek names for these books?

 

[IF_u_knew]

Another question. Why is it that you are all fired up against hellenistic influences, and you refer to the parts OT/torah you accept consistently as the tanakh, yet you use the greek names for these books?

Because I am not here to show off knowledge just for the hell of it. Others might not know what I am talking about if, for instance, I called "Exodus" Sh'mot. It is the reason I don't mind to say Jesus instead of Y'shua or why I put the "o" in God as well... because I got tired of the pettiness being made the issue. *ahem* But it will never fail that there is always one who still focuses on the pettiness rather than the topic at hand.

Oh and before you ask this, the reason I do not call the Tanakh the Old Testament is because THAT is indicative of it being replaced by the NT and the NT CAN NOT POSSIBLY replace what is contained in the Tanakh.

You still have shown that you can not grasp the topic of this conversation and have brought nothing forward worth anything of value to me personally. :no: Maybe you have for someone else.. not sure. *shrugs*

 

[Judgment]

Though you still apparently have let the point go over your head, I will oblige this line of questioning; though only this once just so you know that I am being sincere.

I know the history of Israel more intimately via the Tanakh, which is more allegorical for the sake of the collective memory. At one time when I considered myself Athiest (in that I did not know and would not even acknowledge a possibility of God/gods until I knew for a fact in my own mind), I went to search for proof of the events as told. There are many different theories, but when you strip away the theories, what you find are really (what would be considered) unfantastical events that would be rather unrecognizable to most... anyway, these less fantastical events that have led to what we now know as Israel has helped me to understand what is meant when it is said being "taught by the mouth of God" (proverbs 2:1-7)... allegorically, I know well the history of Israel.



Yes, I had to quit. I realized that he was hellenistic. In other words, I deal better in philosophy that is less mystical in nature. It is no wonder the Christians were drawn to his writings since theirs is a hellenistic religion.



Yes and I can not help but to have noticed he is as wishy washy as Paul was.. though, he never actually abandoned the Jewish religion to join or start another one.



There was so much talk about it last year, that I did pick it up to see what the chattering was about. I also abandoned it early on as it was too mystical for my taste. I do not believe in such things as angels, satan (other than our own selfish inclinations), etc. and don't waste my time on writings that focus on it as though it were a reality.



I know that Cyrus is the one to have authorized its construction and I know what is written throughout the Tanakh concerning the building of it, etc. I am aware that it was missing much of the important elements that were within the first temple. As I said, I know what is written in the Tanakh, but do I have the whole of those books memorized to tell you? no... What stands out in my head I guess is when the Samaritans held up the process in trying to cause trouble for the Jewish (i think the actual phrase was "to frustrate them" which having known frustration myself *ahem* stuck out to me)... and I know that it was completed under the reign of King Darius.

Herod did renovations during his reign over Judea and the Romans, under the authority of Titus destroyed most of Jerusalem including the Temple in 70(?) CE. :sad:



No.. I have a Jewish friend that I go to when I want to know what it says from the Hebrew text. I have learned on my own some of the Alefbet... like, the first letter Alef.. I find a lot of meaning in that one letter alone.

I also have done some study on words and such. What fascinates me is how it reads in pictures (deep) rather than just the shallow definitions of the english language. I do see why it is called the language of the gods and am very excited, looking forward, to learn it under a more formal guidance than my own mind.

I know there are similarities in the greek alphebet and the Hebrew, but I do not so much care about the greek.. only the Hebrew.



Just because someone has crammed their heads with the basic memorization of Judaism does not mean they know it intimately. What I know and accept, that being the Law of God, is what is most important to me about Judaism. That is where my eyes were opened and where I beheld wonderful things contained therein!! That to me makes me knowledgeable enough to know that Christianity and Judaism are two COMPLETELY separate religions.

I keep confronting "know it alls" like you and at first was admittedly intimidated... so much so, that I spend the last couple of weeks CRAMMING my head with knowledge... what I learned was this. I was not brought on this path to learn useless knowledge, I was brought on this path to understand the Ways of God and to grow under His teachings. I seek conversion to Judaism not for knowledge or other vain purposes, but because I identify with the People of Israel in their struggles, the lessons learned through the struggles, and the willingness to align myself with those learned perspectives. I have just as much tendency toward being obstinate as those written in the pages of the Tanakh and I find great Love when I am brought low and broken of that stubbornness. I relate... and that is the greatest knowledge one can find w/in the history of Judaism... determination to walk in the Ways of God.



Yes... because I read the Tanakh and search for the understanding.. not MY understanding or man's understanding.. but the understanding of God as is seen through the People; and yes, I was even able to understand this though I have to read it in the translated versions.



And he abandoned that identity and his people when set out to start the religion of Christianity.



This is a lesson I am still learning... the Jewish within Judaism are not confined to having the same opinion of the Scriptures. They are held together by their shared core beliefs and they are encouraged and encourage one another to think for their own selves. That is part of the beauty of it. Paul was fine to have differing views, but he crossed over the line of differing views of the text to attach himself to the views of completely different religion and then sold out his own People by attaching it to their Sacred Text at the expense of many of the Jewish People's lives.



No.



And to many, it still does.. but I find more comfort in the more humanistic approach of Judaism than I do in the mystical side of Judaism.



Since this thread is not focused on Islam, there is no need to touch on that. Christianity believes in things that are not drawn from the Tanakh. For instance, man cannot be God. Israel, and not one man, is the Son of God. The Laws of God are not abolished. Man cannot be sacrificed in the way that Jesus is said to have been to cover the sins of another. and on and on and on I could go. Christianity was started with an agenda. This agenda is obvious in the NT.

And I have grown bored with answering these. All you have shown is that you can retain information and yet still miss the point.

As I have stated, I fell for the trap of the know-it-alls and it almost cost me my confidence in this path. Luckily, a wise friend (Jewish no less) reminded me that it is not about the superficial knowledge, it is about my willingness to accept the Laws of God... and not only do I accept them, but I would not even be who I am without those Laws. I found more peace in the Laws of God than I ever did in the shed blood of a man on a cross. Many Jewish died on the cross by the hands of the Romans and many were left up alive for days at a time. I do not find the comfort in holding on to that as a covering for living and experiencing life.. the Ways of God are what I find comfort in.

Many Jewish have been murdered in the name of Christianity and you are lacking in your mental capicity if you fail to realize that parading a Jewish man around on a cross by the Church (I know many individual christians are naive to this as well) is an arrogant show of their victory over the Chosen of God who also chose themselves to serve God and all that knowledge you throw out is pointless as you have missed the most important lesson. :sad:God did not and does not need a literal blood sacrifice to atone for sins... especially that of a human being.

Though you still apparently have let the point go over your head,

I keep confronting "know it alls" like you

And I have grown bored with answering these. All you have shown is that you can retain information and yet still miss the point.

and you are lacking in your mental capicity

is an arrogant show

Dear If U Knew, Just an f.y.i.. from this 'know it all'... you have learned arrogance well.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Dear If U Knew, Just an f.y.i.. from this 'know it all'... you have learned arrogance well.

Hello Judgment! Been awhile. Hope things are going well for you in your life.

 

[Muffled]

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.

This is not proper exegesis. The context for the law passing away is the end of the world: Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

In this passage Paul puts the law of Moses into perspective: Rom3:28 We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yea, of Gentiles also: 30 if so be that God is one, and he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, we establish the law.

The question in the early church was not over whether Gentiles needed to keep Mosaic law but whether they needed to keep it in order to be saved. The decision of James the Head of the church was that Gentiles did not have to observe the law to be saved but should keep some of it in order not to offend Jews in their area.

 

[Judgment]

Hello Judgment! Been awhile. Hope things are going well for you in your life.

Well done

and back at ya...

I'll be on a Sabbatical for a few months - so - I won't bug ya. Enjoy your weekend!

 

[IF_u_knew]

Well done

and back at ya...

I'll be on a Sabbatical for a few months - so - I won't bug ya. Enjoy your weekend!

Thank you. By the way, I was never bugged by what it was your were inquiring of me. I understand your point of view as it used to be me drilling others on the same thing. I had to quit asking others before it finally came to light. :yes:

 

[Judgment]

Thank you. By the way, I was never bugged by what it was your were inquiring of me. I understand your point of view as it used to be me drilling others on the same thing. I had to quit asking others before it finally came to light. :yes:

Understood. If the path you are on is giving you the answers you seek - then - enjoy the ride.