Paul's Opinion or the Holy Ghost?

[Kenny]

Thus, according to the Christian definition of a "prophet" he was a "prophet." According to Torath Mosheh he was a false navi, based on the defintions given earlier.

According to you, reading a Christian English translation "he without a doubt, he prophesied the death of the disobedient prophet." According to me, reading the Hebrew text, that is not at all what happened and your definition of what I prophet is doesn't match the Hebrew text.

Thus, Christianity has one view of their English translations and Torath Mosheh Jews have a compeletely different view based on the most ancient and authoratative Hebrew texts.

Based on all of the above, of course we are not going to see eye to eye.

LOL... Of course.

Let's agree to disagree about what we know because I read the Hebrew text. It clearly explained what happened, why, and when someone was who they were.

That didn't answer the point IMO. It declared he was an "old prophet" and, indeed, did pronounce judgement.

Maybe you don't understand it, based on your comment below.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Actually not true. Dawith never claimed that Hashem told him to say something that Hashem never told him to say. I.e. the definition of a false navi is one who claims Hashem told them to say or do something Hashem never told them to do. Further, Christians have a set of views about "King David" based on Christian translation and Christian exegesis. Torath Mosheh Jews have a completely different view of Dawith Hamelekh based on the Hebrew text and also thousands of years of Torath Mosheh explaination of what the text means.

For example, if you are talking about Bat-sheva this video, in English, may explain the view of Torath Mosheh Jews on this.

WOW... I listened to it. It looks like a very liberal attempt to white-wash what King David (PBUH) did because he is so esteemed by the person in the video.

It was full of assumptions and unsupported positions.

Yes, there is no particular word for woman vs wife at all (as it is in Greek too)-- but it also can be "wife".

Although it is true that there was a "custom"to give a divorce - there is also the law that says if the husband dies, the brother gives the seed so that the line can continue. Is there a law in the Torah that supports that position?

Additionally

This site doesn't agree
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/bathsheba/

This site doesn't agree
Bathsheba: Bible | Jewish Women's Archive


So, in reality, you are offering a "possibility" but you will have Jewish detractors to your position.

The parable, I'm sure, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. But what can't be ignored is that "perception of people" as the video suggested certainly doesn't merit the death of a child. So a more grievous sin had to have been committed.

As you say, we will probably agree to disagree but there are Jewish contingencies that I posted that would agree with the supposed Christian viewpoint. I would rather say it is a viewpoint as described in the TaNaKh

 

[Ehav4Ever]

That didn't answer the point IMO. It declared he was an "old prophet" and, indeed, did pronounce judgement.

Actually, I have answered your point. Your point is a Christian concept derived from the English Christian Bible. I have shown what Torath Mosheh Jews have been saying about the text for thousands of years. Thus, it is silly for us to debate a concept you derive from an English Christian Bible when I don't accept that text. I go by the Hebrew, and I have shown that I am not the only Torath Mosheh Jew who knows Hebrew who says what I stated.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Of course. We not even reading the same text. It is a given we would disagree.

WOW... I listened to it. It looks like a very liberal attempt to white-wash what King David (PBUH) did because he is so esteemed by the person in the video.

I already told you. We Torath Mosheh Jews have insight into the content of the Hebrew text that you don't have as someone who doesn't know Hebrew and all of the backstory behind the text. Of course, you reading an Christian English Bible would conclude something else based on not knowing Hebrew and not having ever read what Torath Mosheh Jews have been stating for thousands of years.

See what I mean. Christianity carries a completely different concept from Torath Mosheh. We are talking about the same stuff, nor do we share the same language on these matters.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

This site doesn't agree
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/bathsheba/

That web-site has a painting of a woman with no shirt on, no Torath Mosheh Jew would post something like that and then start claiming to represent Torath Mosheh. Further, that painting is not based on any form of Middle Eastern history. If they are willing to use such a painting why would I listen to anything they would write when I have the Hebrew text in front of me?

This site doesn't agree
Bathsheba: Bible | Jewish Women's Archive

This site is not a Torath Mosheh site nor is it managed by Torath Mosheh Jews. How do I know you ask? I looked at their About Pages. So, they can disagree with you all they want. Their disagreement doesn't predate 500 years ago and is not represented by ancient Torath Mosheh Jewish communities.

You are going to have to come up with something better that this.

So, in reality, you are offering a "possibility" but you will have Jewish detractors to your position.

Actually, I am presenting something that is common in all Torath Mosheh Jewish communities.

The parable, I'm sure, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. But what can't be ignored is that "perception of people" as the video suggested certainly doesn't merit the death of a child. So a more grievous sin had to have been committed.

As you say, we will probably agree to disagree but there are Jewish contingencies that I posted that would agree with the supposed Christian viewpoint.

If they agree with the Christian viewpoint, then we can go ahead and call them Christian. There are some modern Jewish movements that were influenced by Christianity. No one will argue with that. Yet, what we do see is that you are pulling out groups who not Torath Mosheh Jews.

 

[Kenny]

Of course. We not even reading the same text. It is a given we would disagree.

I already told you. We Torath Mosheh Jews have insight into the content of the Hebrew text that you don't have as someone who doesn't know Hebrew and all of the backstory behind the text. Of course, you reading an Christian English Bible would conclude something else based on not knowing Hebrew and not having ever read what Torath Mosheh Jews have been stating for thousands of years.

See what I mean. Christianity carries a completely different concept from Torath Mosheh. We are talking about the same stuff, nor do we share the same language on these matters.

I'm sorry, but I quoted Jewish sites that have the same "insights" that you do.

Plus, the TaNaKh was very clear:

1) It was a prophet
2) Bathseba was the wife of Uriah the Hittite - and Hittite's didn't live by the Jewish laws of marriage. So the "custom" didn't apply to him

 

[2ndpillar]

I would have to agree with @metis
2 Peter 3:15
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some thingshard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter acknowledged Paul

You have two basic problems with your analysis, the first being Peter is probably not the writer of 2 Peters, and Peter was deemed "Satan", and a "stumbling block to me" per Yeshua in Matthew 16:23, chosen by the "LORD" in Zechariah 11, by his right arm, Yeshua, to choose Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:16-17, who was not to feed, care or tend the flock, to "pasture", as being a shepherd of, "the flock (Gentile church), doom to slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7) and to come to a consequence per Ezekiel 34, which was to have the "fat" leaders be eventually be "destroyed", or initially, in the case of Peter, be "annihilated" per Zechariah 11:8. Paul would be the 2nd shepherd/staff (Zechariah 11:10), chosen to shepherd the same "flock" "doomed to slaughter". The ones doomed for "destruction" per Matthew 7:13-15 & 23, are those who choose the wide way, described as the path of those who "practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23), which would be the wide path of the false gospel of grace/cross, taught by the false prophet Paul. In the case of Matthew 13:30 & 40-42, those who choose the path of "those who commit lawlessness" would be "gathered" "first" and thrown into the "furnace of fire" (great tribulation/Har-Magedon), after which the good seed would be gathered into the "barn".

 

[Kenny]

You have two basic problems with your analysis, the first being Peter is probably not the writer of 2 Peters, and Peter was deemed "Satan", and a "stumbling block to me" per Yeshua in Matthew 16:23, chosen by the "LORD" in Zechariah 11, by his right arm, Yeshua, to choose Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:16-17, who was not to feed, care or tend the flock, to "pasture", as being a shepherd of, "the flock (Gentile church), doom to slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7) and to come to a consequence per Ezekiel 34, which was to have the "fat" leaders be eventually be "destroyed", or initially, in the case of Peter, be "annihilated" per Zechariah 11:8. Paul would be the 2nd shepherd/staff (Zechariah 11:10), chosen to shepherd the same "flock" "doomed to slaughter". The ones doomed for "destruction" per Matthew 7:13-15 & 23, are those who choose the wide way, described as the path of those who "practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23), which would be the wide path of the false gospel of grace/cross, taught by the false prophet Paul. In the case of Matthew 13:30 & 40-42, those who choose the path of "those who commit lawlessness" would be "gathered" "first" and thrown into the "furnace of fire" (great tribulation/Har-Magedon), after which the good seed would be gathered into the "barn".

Jesus was a lot simpler in giving points. It almost sounds so religious that even Jesus would have a problem with your statements as he did with those who were too religious in his time! IMO

 

[2ndpillar]

Jesus was a lot simpler in giving points. It almost sounds so religious that even Jesus would have a problem with your statements as he did with those who were too religious in his time! IMO

I beg to differ. Yeshua spoke in parables so that the "wicked", "those who commit lawlessness" could not see or hear (understand) his message of the "kingdom" (Matthew 13:11-13) & (Daniel 12:10). Yeshua told his listeners to do what the "scribes" say, just not to do what they do. (Matthew 23:3)

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I'm sorry, but I quoted Jewish sites that have the same "insights" that you do.

Plus, the TaNaKh was very clear:

Correction, this part below is the Tanakh. Not the English.

Besides, email the place where you got this and ask them what the term (נביא השקר) is. Also, show them what I posted about the text and see what they say.

1) It was a prophet

According to Christinity, your view is correct. According to Torath Mosheh he was a (נביא השקר). Again, you don't seem to understand what that term means or even what the term navi means to Torath Mosheh. I actually explained what the defintion of a (נביא השקר) or a false navi was. Yet, I see you are ignoring that.

2) Bathseba was the wife of Uriah the Hittite - and Hittite's didn't live by the Jewish laws of marriage. So the "custom" didn't apply to him

According to Christianity and the Christian Bible you would be correct. According to Torath Mosheh you would be incorrect. Hittim were not allowed to be in the Israeli army nor were they allowed to marry Israeli women unless the converted to the Torah. Uryah was a Geir Tzedeq. I.e. he was a Hittite convert to Torath Mosheh.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I'm sorry, but I quoted Jewish sites that have the same "insights" that you do.

Here are a few English sites that may help you in this area.

PROPHET, FALSE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Also,

Also, as I stated before:

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The following back everything I wrote about Torath Mosheh perspectives on false navis.

Avoiding False Prophets, Hearing From Hashem - Torah Musings

Further,

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Also,

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, in 1 Corinthians 7:1 it is stated, "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." Later in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 the following is stated - “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

This brings me to the following questions.

1. Was this Paul's personal opinion or does Christianity beleive that he wrote it by way of the holy spirit?
   • In verse 10 he seems to be saying what is written there is didn't come from but from a "higher power." So would that mean that everything prior he claimed came from the holy spirit?
2. Was Paul's statement only for the Corinthians or for all Christians for all time?
3. Was Paul okay with unmarried and widow Christians having intimate relations, of whatever type, but avoiding marriage?
4. If all the unmarried and widow Christians of his time had remained single, like Paul, what would have been the next step?
   • Reliance on conversions to increase their fold?

Of course his words were inspired by the Holy Spirit. When he says it's good for a man not to marry, that's not the same as saying that every man should not be married. I don't know where you get the idea that he was okay with them having sex without marriage, since he indicates they should marry if they can not control themselves.
And I believe that all scripture is for all time, at least in the sense that it has something to teach us today.

 

[Muffled]

Of course his words were inspired by the Holy Spirit. When he says it's good for a man not to marry, that's not the same as saying that every man should not be married. I don't know where you get the idea that he was okay with them having sex without marriage, since he indicates they should marry if they can not control themselves.
And I believe that all scripture is for all time, at least in the sense that it has something to teach us today.

I believe, of course, that Paul is speaking in general. For me at the time it was good to be married even though I had to battle my wife in order to be able to minister. I can see where a person equally yoked would find his mate helpful in ministry. Now in my old age God has decided that it is no longer good for me to be married, now that my wife is dead.

 

[lukethethird]

So, in 1 Corinthians 7:1 it is stated, "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." Later in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 the following is stated - “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

This brings me to the following questions.

1. Was this Paul's personal opinion or does Christianity beleive that he wrote it by way of the holy spirit?
   • In verse 10 he seems to be saying what is written there is didn't come from but from a "higher power." So would that mean that everything prior he claimed came from the holy spirit?
2. Was Paul's statement only for the Corinthians or for all Christians for all time?
3. Was Paul okay with unmarried and widow Christians having intimate relations, of whatever type, but avoiding marriage?
4. If all the unmarried and widow Christians of his time had remained single, like Paul, what would have been the next step?
   • Reliance on conversions to increase their fold?

Paul didn't like sex and didn't like the idea of anyone having sex.
Who knows where that came from.

 

[Muffled]

Paul didn't like sex and didn't like the idea of anyone having sex.
Who knows where that came from.

I have no idea where that concept comes from. Silence? As far as I can remember Paul does not derogate sex. He just views it as inconvenient.