Paul, the Pentateuch, the Tanakh: Conflict or reconciliation

[Rival]

Faith is dead without works. That's the N.T.
Being baptized is a work of faith. Showing love is a work of faith. Obeying Christ is a work of faith.

Paul says stuff like, "shall we continue in sin that grace might abound, God forbid"

Any Christian that doesn't know that stuff doesn't know anything.

Yes but I'm not a Christian and I'm not looking at this from a Christian POV. I'm asking why Christians seem to act as though the Noachide Code doesn't exist and seem to think G-d had nothing to do with non-Jews.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think Paul wanted to judaize Christianity.

After all...we only have the Epistles sent by Paul.
We don't have the Epistles received by him...and sent by Corinthians, Romans...etc...

They would clarify that ancient Greeks and ancient Romans were still pagan in their heart...
So they considered Jesus as God on the basis of a pagan Perspective...not that differently from the way they used to see Hercules, Asclepius...etc...as gods or semigods

What is important is that these "Gentiles" couldn't care less about the Covenant of the Pentateuch.
That is why Jesus' parables are addressed to anyone.
Let's not forget the episode of the Centurion in the Gospels.

 

[exchemist]

I understand your statement. Its sound.

Yet, doesnt the NT quote Jesus affirming the Torah, not replacing it with something new?

He gives his followers two new commandments, one about loving God and the other about loving your neighbour and remarks that these two commandments contain, in essence, all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:34-40

He also had little time for the nitpicking application of the law, as several other encounters in the gospels also testify, in which legal scholars try to catch him out.

One has the impression he felt the original idea behind the law had got knocked off course rather, and had become encrusted with irrelevant, unnecessarily detailed embellishments.

 

[LightofTruth]

Yes but I'm not a Christian and I'm not looking at this from a Christian POV. I'm asking why Christians seem to act as though the Noachide Code doesn't exist and seem to think G-d had nothing to do with non-Jews.

Cain went and lived in the land of Nod. And Eve had a son named Seth. So there is an early distinction made between two groups of people. The son of Seth being called the sons of God and the sons of Cain being called the sons of men.
The sons of Seth would be following the way of the LORD whereas the sons of Cain would not.

And when the sons of Seth went and married the daughters of Cain God decided to wipe them all out. Except for Noah and his family.

God wasn't interested in what the sons of Cain were doing, He was only interested when His sons mingled with their daughters.

 

[Rival]

Cain went and lived in the land of Nod. And Eve had a son named Seth. So there is an early distinction made between two groups of people. The son of Seth being called the sons of God and the sons of Cain being called the sons of men.
The sons of Seth would be following the way of the LORD whereas the sons of Cain would not.

And when the sons of Seth went and married the daughters of Cain God decided to wipe them all out. Except for Noah and his family.

God wasn't interested in what the sons of Cain were doing, He was only interested when His sons mingled with their daughters.

None of this answers my question.

 

[rrobs]

Since Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus are now equal members of the family of God and therefore one people, Paul argues that Jesus put an end to the requirement of adherence to the Torah or Law, not only for Gentiles but also for Jews. That means Torah takes a backseat to Jesus—for Jews and Gentiles. Though this does not mean they cannot get circumcised, that faithfulness to God would no longer be defined by abiding by the law (Torah).

Paul does not make a case where Jesus founded a new religion, and in fact he shows to the contrary. Yet he argues that Torahkeeping doesn’t secure anyone’s status before God

So as the topic reads, "Paul, the Pentateuch, the Tanakh: Conflict or reconciliation"?

Shalom Aleichem.

Paul didn't actually eliminate the Mosaic law, he just showed how we can actually follow it, unlike all those who lived prior to Jesus' death and resurrection.

Gal 5:14,

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
​

Romans chapters 1:29-32 and 3:10-19 describe the state of the natural man, the man who is not born again, who is saved as per Romans 10:9-10. It's not a pretty picture.

Rom 3:20,

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
​

Following the law simply did not cut it. Man was simply unable to control himself. True love is simply not in his makeup. He can give to charity, help the poor, tend to the sick, while all good things, it does give him the love of God.

Rom 8:3,

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:​

It is only through the work of Jesus that we can have that love in our hearts and therefore treat our neighbors in such a way that the Mosaic law becomes irrelevant. Love trumps the law.

Rom 8:4,

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
​

In much the same way as love, righteousness was simply not available until after Jesus died. When a person is born again they receive the gift of holy spirit. That is, in fact, what the new birth is. God puts holy spirit into each born again believer. At that point the believer can continue to walk the old way, the way of flesh, or they can walk according to the spirit. One leads to death, the other to life (Rom 8:6). When we walk according to the spirit (the scriptures), we will show the love of God to the world and thus fulfill the Mosaic law.

Bottom line, Paul didn't "eliminate" the law. He instead showed how we could actually follow it.

 

[exchemist]

None of this answers my question.

It is quite true that Christians do not dwell much on the covenant between God and Noah. Far more attention is paid to the covenant with Moses, known as the Old Covenant, and contrasted with the New Covenant established by Christ at the Last Supper and put into effect at his crucifixion.

I rather think the covenant with Noah is considered to be subsumed in the covenant with Moses and not to require separate consideration. But I am far from expert on all this.

 

[Rival]

I rather think the covenant with Noah is considered to be subsumed in the covenant with Moses and not to require separate consideration. But I am far from expert on all this.

It's not. It's still in force for non-Jews.

Hence me.

Also hence my question about Nineveh. Jonah was sent there well after Sinai.

 

[exchemist]

It's not. It's still in force for non-Jews.

Hence me.

Also hence my question about Nineveh. Jonah was sent there well after Sinai.

Sez you.

But you were asking about Christian belief, hence my answer.

 

[Rival]

Sez you.

But you were asking about Christian belief, hence my answer.

I'm still not sure how that accounts for Nineveh though.

 

[exchemist]

I'm still not sure how that accounts for Nineveh though.

I'm not following you down that rabbit hole.

 

[Rival]

I'm not following you down that rabbit hole.

I'm honestly curious though. How do Christians explain G-d sending a prophet to a non-Jewish city and telling them they're dead if they don't repent? They repented and G-d relented. Doesn't seem to me as though G-d didn't care for non-Jews; heck, he even mentioned their cattle. He clearly holds them to some standard and evidently always did.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Since Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus are now equal members of the family of God and therefore one people, Paul argues that Jesus put an end to the requirement of adherence to the Torah or Law, not only for Gentiles but also for Jews. That means Torah takes a backseat to Jesus—for Jews and Gentiles. Though this does not mean they cannot get circumcised, that faithfulness to God would no longer be defined by abiding by the law (Torah).

Paul does not make a case where Jesus founded a new religion, and in fact he shows to the contrary. Yet he argues that Torahkeeping doesn’t secure anyone’s status before God

So as the topic reads, "Paul, the Pentateuch, the Tanakh: Conflict or reconciliation"?

Shalom Aleichem.

I have a feeling that most of those objecting to Paul (particularly the idea that don't really get the evolution of how things developed. Acts and the Letters basically lays out how things played out.

1. Paul comes from an ex-Jewish background, but has a Damascus experience. He also witnesses someone getting stoned to death for testifying about Jesus. He then spends most of his time trying to understand this new teaching which he tried to stamp out, and in some cases has to revise what he understood. To get to the core teachings.
2. Peter was an ex-Jew, who knew Jesus. He was originally was fairly pro-Jewish, and didn't want to mix together with Gentiles, but he received a dream about... well basically a sushi conveyor with all sorts of unclean food, which God was telling him "arise and eat." He balks at this, but the next day, he kinda gets that the Jew/Gentile thing is a hang-up, and spread the Gospel to... I think it was a Roman centurion or something? I may have that last part wrong.
   
3. Further, there were the Letters, based on a number of judgement calls by Peter and Paul, and sometimes other disciples. These writings established how Christianity dealt with Jews and with Gentiles. Jesus's own life probided some of the background, but some of it was hands-on learning so to speak.

You know who did supplant Christianity? Constantine. After centuries of oppression of Christians, we have this Roman leader claim that in some dream, he saw the symbol ⳩ in a dream, decided to put it on his shield, and suddenly wandering Christians who spread the word are bishops and deacons, and there's a big church building. Church (building) not ekklesia (assembly). As if the Temple didn't have enough problems.

5“Go and tell My servant David that this is what the LORD says: Are you the one to build for Me a house to dwell in? 6For I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt until this day, but I have moved about with a tent as My dwelling. 7In all My journeys with all the Israelites, have I ever asked any of the leaders I appointed to shepherd My people Israel, ‘Why haven’t you built Me a house of cedar?’

God travels with us. Putting him in a box is a mistake.

 

[Deeje]

Yes but I'm not a Christian and I'm not looking at this from a Christian POV. I'm asking why Christians seem to act as though the Noachide Code doesn't exist and seem to think G-d had nothing to do with non-Jews.

You raise a good point.
So what are the Noahide laws?

What Are the Seven Noahide Laws?
The 7 Noahide Laws are rules that all of us must keep, regardless of who we are or from where we come. Without these seven things, it would be impossible for humanity to live together in harmony.

1. Do not profane G‑d’s Oneness in any way.
   Acknowledge that there is a single G‑d who cares about what we are doing and desires that we take care of His world.
2. Do not curse your Creator.
   No matter how angry you may be, do not take it out verbally against your Creator.
3. Do not murder.
   The value of human life cannot be measured. To destroy a single human life is to destroy the entire world—because, for that person, the world has ceased to exist. It follows that by sustaining a single human life, you are sustaining an entire universe.
4. Do not eat a limb of a living animal.
   Respect the life of all G‑d’s creatures. As intelligent beings, we have a duty not to cause undue pain to other creatures.
5. Do not steal.
   Whatever benefits you receive in this world, make sure that none of them are at the unfair expense of someone else.
6. Harness and channel the human libido.
   Incest, adultery, rape and homosexual relations are forbidden.
   The family unit is the foundation of human society. Sexuality is the fountain of life and so nothing is more holy than the sexual act. So, too, when abused, nothing can be more debasing and destructive to the human being.
7. Establish courts of law and ensure justice in our world.
   With every small act of justice, we are restoring harmony to our world, synchronizing it with a supernal order. That is why we must keep the laws established by our government for the country’s stability and harmony.

These laws were communicated by G‑d to Adam and Noah, ancestors of all human beings. That is what makes these rules universal, for all times, places and people:

Laws made by humans may change according to circumstance. But laws made by the Creator of all souls over all of time remain the same for all people at all times..

If we would fulfill these laws just because they make sense to us, then we would change them, according to our convenience. We would be our own god. But when we understand that they are the laws of a supreme G‑d, we understand that they can not be changed, just as He does not change."

The 7 Noahide Laws: Universal Morality

It seems to me that these laws were, in one way or another, embodied in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
He did not say that he came to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.
And since he instituted the new covenant, it was already stated that it would not be like the one made with the fleshly nation of Israel, why would we expect a continuation of the what was before...especially since Israel never lived up to her part of the bargain. (Jeremiah 31:31-32) The law condemned them every day because none of them could live up to it. So why are there no blood sacrifices now when they were such an important part of the Law? Did God rescind his sacrificial laws because there is no Temple? Why did he never command a new one like he did twice before? What are the Jews missing here?

I'm honestly curious though. How do Christians explain G-d sending a prophet to a non-Jewish city and telling them they're dead if they don't repent? They repented and G-d relented. Doesn't seem to me as though G-d didn't care for non-Jews; heck, he even mentioned their cattle. He clearly holds them to some standard and evidently always did.

He does not say exactly why he was going to hold Nineveh to account for their behavior, apart from the fact that their conduct was abhorrent to him.....like Sodom and Gomorrah were abhorrent to him too. Perhaps they remain pictorial of how God will judge all of mankind at the end of the day, as you suggested.

2 Peter 2:5-6 gives us a clue....
" and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter".
Seems like a reasonable conclusion to me.....violence was apparent in Nineveh and immorality was rife in Sodom......two things that God hates and included in the Noahide commands.

We all have a God-given conscience and we all basically know right from wrong. Are there any excuses?

 

[Neuropteron]

Since Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus are now equal members of the family of God and therefore one people, Paul argues that Jesus put an end to the requirement of adherence to the Torah or Law, not only for Gentiles but also for Jews. That means Torah takes a backseat to Jesus—for Jews and Gentiles. Though this does not mean they cannot get circumcised, that faithfulness to God would no longer be defined by abiding by the law (Torah).

Paul does not make a case where Jesus founded a new religion, and in fact he shows to the contrary. Yet he argues that Torahkeeping doesn’t secure anyone’s status before God

So as the topic reads, "Paul, the Pentateuch, the Tanakh: Conflict or reconciliation"?

Shalom Aleichem.

Hi,

This is not only an interesting subject but also an important issue.
There is no conflict since the removal of the obligations of the law has been foretold as ultimately being fullfiled.

The role of the law was to make transgression evident and was to be in effect only until the promised seed should arrive and served thus as a "tutor leading to Christ". It pointed to Christ as the objective aimed at and that life cannot be obtained by "works of Law",this has bein accomplished by Christ.

Furthermore the law served as a "shadow of good things to come" causing Jesus and the apostles to call upon it often to explain principles and matters concerning doctrines and conduct.
Therefore, it provides an essential and necessary field of study for a serious Christian.
The reconcialation you mention can only be applied to Jews since gentile never had a previous binding relationship with Jehovah God.

cheers

 

[firedragon]

I think, if you can quote some verses or passages from Bible, we can discuss things where you are coming from.

But, the idea in Abrahamic Religions is, there is an All-Knowing God, who can do as He wills. He can bring certain Laws for a period of time, then, later change, add or abrogate those Laws, for another period of time. We cannot say to God, why you changed your Religious Laws. This is totally up to God, if we accept God is Omnipotent.

Of course. By default God can do anything. So are you contending that Paul changed the approach to law with God's pushing? That still means that Paul was in conflict with the law.

Think about acts 21 where Jews tell Paul that they were warned he would preach to them to abandon the law of Moses.

If you want references maybe you could look up acts. chapter 15, 24, 13, 25.

This is purely the conflict with the Jews, not significant theological differences between the Law and Pauline theology.

 

[gnostic]

Since Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus are now equal members of the family of God and therefore one people, Paul argues that Jesus put an end to the requirement of adherence to the Torah or Law, not only for Gentiles but also for Jews. That means Torah takes a backseat to Jesus—for Jews and Gentiles. Though this does not mean they cannot get circumcised, that faithfulness to God would no longer be defined by abiding by the law (Torah).

Paul have no authority as to what Jews can or can't do.

This only applied to Gentile Christians.

And there are more to the Torah than just the Jewish laws and customs, firedragon.

You are forgetting the Covenant made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and for their descendants. They were promised the lands of the Canaanites. The Exodus and Joshua were narratives that narrated how that covenant were fulfilled.

Judaism isn't only about customs and laws. The covenant is what make the Hebrew nation in the early formative period of its history...

...although I currently see the books from Genesis to 1 Kings 11 (Solomon's reign) as myths and legends, not actual history.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'm honestly curious though. How do Christians explain G-d sending a prophet to a non-Jewish city and telling them they're dead if they don't repent? They repented and G-d relented. Doesn't seem to me as though G-d didn't care for non-Jews; heck, he even mentioned their cattle. He clearly holds them to some standard and evidently always did.

Good point!

The Apostle Paul, in Acts 17, said that “He made out of one man, every nation of men”...so He does care. He’s the Source of their life.

And Peter said, @ Acts of the Apostles 10:35, that God is not partial...righteousness is what’s important.

If some Christians think otherwise, well...there’s a lot of wrong ideas in Christendom.

 

[exchemist]

I'm honestly curious though. How do Christians explain G-d sending a prophet to a non-Jewish city and telling them they're dead if they don't repent? They repented and G-d relented. Doesn't seem to me as though G-d didn't care for non-Jews; heck, he even mentioned their cattle. He clearly holds them to some standard and evidently always did.

But tell me, where to you get this idea that Christians think God only cared about the Jews? Surely the whole message of Christianity, from its inception in the days of St. Paul, is the opposite, isn't it?

 

[Rival]

But tell me, where to you get this idea that Christians think God only cared about the Jews? Surely the whole message of Christianity, from its inception in the days of St. Paul, is the opposite, isn't it?

Because that's what I appear to be hearing. 'Until Jesus, G-d wasn't really interested in non-Jews' seems standard.