Paul, the Pentateuch, the Tanakh: Conflict or reconciliation

[exchemist]

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

Oh I see, you mean in the time before Christ. Well, I suppose that could be how one interprets the Old Testament, given its references to the "chosen people", the promise of land to be given to the Jews, and the military victories, aided supposedly by God favouring them over the heathens. But I think it depends on who you talk to. I have always thought the Old Testament suspect in that regard, because it seems so self-regarding and unfair. It seems to me one has to make allowances for the rather limited conception of God of the people of the time who wrote it all. I have not researched official church theology on this, however.

 

[Rival]

Oh I see, you mean in the time before Christ. Well, I suppose that could be how one interprets the Old Testament, given its references to the "chosen people", the promise of land to be given to the Jews, and the military victories, aided supposedly by God favouring them over the heathens. But I think it depends on who you talk to. I have always thought the Old Testament suspect in that regard, because it seems so self-regarding and unfair. It seems to me one has to make allowances for the rather limited conception of God of the people of the time who wrote it all. I have not researched official church theology on this, however.

That's why I mentioned Jonah. The whole book of Jonah is about a prophet being sent to non-Jews. The whole book of Genesis is about non-Jews. The book of Ruth is about a Jewish convert. The end times prophecies include all nations coming to worship G-d and being at peace.

 

[exchemist]

That's why I mentioned Jonah. The whole book of Jonah is about a prophet being sent to non-Jews. The whole book of Genesis is about non-Jews. The book of Ruth is about a Jewish convert. The end times prophecies include all nations coming to worship G-d and being at peace.

Yes, all excellent points.

 

[74x12]

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.

Jesus is the aim or purpose of the Torah. The Torah brings you to Jesus not the other way around. Because the hope of every Jew was the resurrection from the dead. That would make all their Torah observance meaningful because as the book of Job points out ... good things don't always happen to good people and bad things can. So, even though the Torah promises national blessings on the Hebrews it still isn't promising the individual that everything will be great just because they obey it.

Therefore, when Jesus says He's literally the "resurrection and the life" then that means their hope has at last arrived.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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

No, I meant to say, Jesus Himself changed the Laws in Judaism with permission of God. Paul had the correct understanding about this. Christ had the power to inspire His disciples with truth, even after He left the world. Paul was one of the disciples.

 

[firedragon]

No, I meant to say, Jesus Himself changed the Laws in Judaism with permission of God. Paul had the correct understanding about this. Christ had the power to inspire His disciples with truth, even after He left the world. Paul was one of the disciples.

I don't intend to discuss that level of issues but Paul was never a disciple of Jesus.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't intend to discuss that level of issues but Paul was never a disciple of Jesus.

But if you are going with Bible, or NT, then why not going with the whole biblical teachings? . Because according to Bible, even after Jesus was crucified, He showed Himself to many. The Christ or God had the power to inspire others, and according to Bible, the holy spirit ascended to many. So, theologically I would say Paul was Christ disciple, even if Paul physically didnt see Jesus.
But regardless if you want to consider Paul as Christ Disciples or not, Jesus Himself changed the Laws of Jewdaism.
An obvious one, was the Law of Sabbath, which was not required by Jesus new Revelation.

 

[firedragon]

But if you are going with Bible, or NT, then why not going with the whole biblical teachings? . Because according to Bible, even after Jesus was crucified, He showed Himself to many. The Christ or God had the power to inspire others, and according to Bible, the holy spirit ascended to many. So, theologically I would say Paul was Christ disciple, even if Paul physically didnt see Jesus.
But regardless if you want to consider Paul as Christ Disciples or not, Jesus Himself changed the Laws of Jewdaism.
An obvious one, was the Law of Sabbath, which was not required by Jesus new Revelation.

Well, belief is not relevant to me. I am not talking about my belief and faith here.

Also, according to your own faith, making Paul a disciple of Jesus, and you saying Jesus himself walked with and beyond the Torah, basically and ultimately Paul is in in conflict with the Law. You have been affirming the same with your faith so far.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well, belief is not relevant to me. I am not talking about my belief and faith here.

Also, according to your own faith, making Paul a disciple of Jesus, and you saying Jesus himself walked with and beyond the Torah, basically and ultimately Paul is in in conflict with the Law. You have been affirming the same with your faith so far.

It does not necessarily have anything to do with belief. You are criticizing Text of the Bible. Regardless if you believe in God, Christ, or even existence of Paul:
The Question is:
According to Gospels, did Jesus reduce or change some of the Laws of old testament or not?

The Quran says Jesus reduced Laws of Torah with permission of God.
Again, regardless if you believe Quran is word of God or not, the understanding of the Author of Quran is, Jesus did reduce the Laws of Torah.

So, i wouldnt say Paul is in conflict with Law. I would say, His understanding was compatible with Jesus. In another words, Paul did not deviate from Jesus theology.

Now, according to old testament, could God reduce or change the Laws of Torah if He wants to? Could God give a new Laws to Messiah which would be somewhat different than Laws of Torah?



I think, in criticizing Scriptures one should be neutral. That means, not to take sides in belief or disbelief. Just as you would not want to make your conclusion dependent on belief on God and Christ, likewise you must not make you conclusion dependent on your disbelief in God or Christ or Holy Spirit. You just look at the story as whole, to determine the true view of the Bible.
But it seems that you are saying, let's criticize Bible assuming the Bible is not inspired by God there is no holy Spirit, there is no true God and no True Christ. This assumption is biased.

 

[firedragon]

It does not necessarily have anything to do with belief. You are criticizing Text of the Bible. Regardless if you believe in God, Christ, or even existence of Paul:

Nope. DIdnt do that.

The Question is:
According to Gospels, did Jesus reduce or change some of the Laws of old testament or not?

Yes.

So, i wouldnt say Paul is in conflict with Law. I would say, His understanding was compatible with Jesus. In another words, Paul did not deviate from Jesus theology.

Yes. Paul is. I didnt say "he deviated from the Jesus theology", nor is it the topic. You missed the topic completely.

Now, according to old testament, could God reduce or change the Laws of Torah if He wants to? Could God give a new Laws to Messiah which would be somewhat different than Laws of Torah?

Could, might, may, is not the topic.

I think, in criticizing Scriptures one should be neutral. That means, not to take sides in belief or disbelief. Just as you would not want to make your conclusion dependent on belief on God and Christ, likewise you must not make you conclusion dependent on your disbelief in God or Christ or Holy Spirit. You just look at the story as whole, to determine the true view of the Bible.
But it seems that you are saying, let's criticize Bible assuming the Bible is not inspired by God there is no holy Spirit, there is no true God and no True Christ. This assumption is biased.

There was no textual criticism whatsoever in this topic.

 

[1213]

...Yet he argues that Torahkeeping doesn’t secure anyone’s status before God...

Where do you get that idea?

 

[firedragon]

Where do you get that idea?

When you read the Galatians account of Pauls inheritance of the Gospel direct, he goes on to differentiate between his previous judaism, and his current grace. 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.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

There was no textual criticism whatsoever in this topic.

There isn't any other source really beyond the Text of Bible, to conclude regarding your question in OP, is there?

 

[firedragon]

There isn't any other source really beyond the Text of Bible, to conclude regarding your question in OP, is there?

Yeah. But the thread is not about textual criticism.

I think you didnt understand the post. If you wish we can open a whole new thread on textual criticism.

 

[1213]

When you read the Galatians account of Pauls inheritance of the Gospel direct, he goes on to differentiate between his previous judaism, and his current grace. ...

Ok, thank you. I don’t think Paul is really against the law. I think he is against the idea that one could earn salvation = forgiveness of sins by doing what is right. People should do what is right because it is good, not because they try to earn something by it.

 

[firedragon]

Ok, thank you. I don’t think Paul is really against the law. I think he is against the idea that one could earn salvation = forgiveness of sins by doing what is right. People should do what is right because it is good, not because they try to earn something by it.

The law has not taught doing whats right as a hypocritical path to salvation. Repentance is the precondition for salvation, not some action without repentance.

I understand your point. I am not seeking to say Paul taught anything bad, so justifying Paul is not very relevant to the topic at hand. Even if in your understanding Paul was right, Paul was good and he taught good stuff, still it could be in conflict to the Law.

Peace.