The Problem of Paul for All Faiths/Outlooks

[Simplelogic]

I suppose that poor SimpleLogic is beset by a severe case of cognitive dissonance, in that he wants to be a Jew, but he doesn't want to practice Judaism. A couple more years of study, provided his mind remains open rather than closed off by his prejudices, ought to remedy the problem and lead him to Real Judaism.

Yes, I'm so conflicted….please help me!!

I love to practice TRUE Judaism which is the written Torah.

That's not grafting, though. That's conversion.
Regardless, this debate is going nowhere.

Call it what you want… the reality is that Gentiles can become as "one born in the land". It also means that even though one is born from another land, like Ruth and Naamah. They can be considered Israelites.

 

[Rhiamom]

I agree, Disciple. Any argument based on words not meaning what they are commonly agreed to mean is not worth pursuing. Consider this discussion complete, and Simplelogic a common Messianic missionary trying to convert Jews to Jesus, whenever he can find one who doesn't know Judaism well enough to refute his arguments.

 

[Desert Snake]

I agree, Disciple. Any argument based on words not meaning what they are commonly agreed to mean is not worth pursuing. Consider this discussion complete, and Simplelogic a common Messianic missionary trying to convert Jews to Jesus, whenever he can find one who doesn't know Judaism well enough to refute his arguments.

Useless argument perhaps, not sure if this theory is common, however.

 

[dantech]

I wonder why you asked me for proof that you need a Jewish mother to be Jewish from the Tanakh, twice, and haven't replied to my posts either time...

 

[CG Didymus]

There are later additions to the texts which I address. Your notion of the gospel writers being "hellenists" is completely illogical. Yeshua is recorded to have kept the entire Law of Moses in the 4 gospels. He is even recorded as someone who taught others to offer animal sacrifices and upheld the Torah in regards to stoning commandments!! No…not the work of hellenist writers. Try again.

Obviously, Jews reject Christianity because of things allegedly said and done by Jesus himself. When I was taught the "truth" about the Bible by Christians, they started at the beginning... their beginning, the NT and worked backwards... only using verses from the Hebrew Scriptures that suited their needs.

They showed me how the devil, as the serpent of old, tempted Eve. They showed me how he, as Lucifer, fell from heaven. Then they showed me how it was prophesied that Jesus would be born of a virgin. But, when my Christian friends "backslid" into drugs, women and alcohol, I had to face my doubts... Did I really believe all this Jesus stuff? I decided to ask a Jew why he didn't believe Jesus was the true Messiah. He showed me. He gave me a couple of books to read. It became obvious that Jesus did not fulfill the real prophecies that the Messiah was to accomplish. I saw how Matthew and others misquoted verses or took them way out of context to make up prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus.

One of the others was Paul. My favorite misquote of his is when in Romans 10 he takes part of Deut. 30:14 to say that the word of faith is what is near you, that confessing that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved. But then I read what it said in Deut. and it said to love the Lord your God and to keep His commandments... Just a slight twist. But Christians have no problem with this, because, supposedly, God, the Holy Spirit, guided Paul. Well then, who's to say that the Spirit of God didn't guide Mohammed or Baha'u'llah, or, who knows, maybe even Joseph Smith? Ironically, the Christian will say "No" that those guys misquote or distort the Scriptures. So I don't get it? It's alright for the gospel writers and Paul to do that, but not alright for those that came after them to take Bible verses out of context and use them to "prove" their religion?

I mentioned Baha'u'llah, because, for a couple of years. I joined the Baha'i Faith. They had no problem with Paul. They simply disregarded anything he said that disagreed with their beliefs with statements like... "Well, that was the old covenant. God has established a new covenant with us." Or, "The Bible was written by men. Paul was a man, not the prophet. His doctrines are his interpretations of what Jesus taught. Our Book was written by the Prophet himself. It is the "true" word of God." You know, it's funny how anybody can make the old words of God somehow corrupted or to not mean what they say, and therefore, they make it, essentially, null and void. But what's hilarious, is that at the same time, they use them to prove their new religion?

Anyway, I think Paul is easily ignored. If he says something that my beliefs don't agree with, well then he is the one that's wrong, not me and my religion. However, for the Christian, it's me that is wrong. But look at what do they do. They do the same thing. They ignore my prophet. What is up with that? How can they even justify doing that with learning and listening to what my prophet and religion teaches? If they did, they'd see... that my prophet is the one that is right, and he can prove it. He has parts of several Bible verses that point to him as being the promised one. I think even one from Paul.

 

[Simplelogic]

Obviously, Jews reject Christianity because of things allegedly said and done by Jesus himself. When I was taught the "truth" about the Bible by Christians, they started at the beginning... their beginning, the NT and worked backwards... only using verses from the Hebrew Scriptures that suited their needs.

They showed me how the devil, as the serpent of old, tempted Eve. They showed me how he, as Lucifer, fell from heaven. Then they showed me how it was prophesied that Jesus would be born of a virgin. But, when my Christian friends "backslid" into drugs, women and alcohol, I had to face my doubts... Did I really believe all this Jesus stuff? I decided to ask a Jew why he didn't believe Jesus was the true Messiah. He showed me. He gave me a couple of books to read. It became obvious that Jesus did not fulfill the real prophecies that the Messiah was to accomplish. I saw how Matthew and others misquoted verses or took them way out of context to make up prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus.

One of the others was Paul. My favorite misquote of his is when in Romans 10 he takes part of Deut. 30:14 to say that the word of faith is what is near you, that confessing that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved. But then I read what it said in Deut. and it said to love the Lord your God and to keep His commandments... Just a slight twist. But Christians have no problem with this, because, supposedly, God, the Holy Spirit, guided Paul. Well then, who's to say that the Spirit of God didn't guide Mohammed or Baha'u'llah, or, who knows, maybe even Joseph Smith? Ironically, the Christian will say "No" that those guys misquote or distort the Scriptures. So I don't get it? It's alright for the gospel writers and Paul to do that, but not alright for those that came after them to take Bible verses out of context and use them to "prove" their religion?

I mentioned Baha'u'llah, because, for a couple of years. I joined the Baha'i Faith. They had no problem with Paul. They simply disregarded anything he said that disagreed with their beliefs with statements like... "Well, that was the old covenant. God has established a new covenant with us." Or, "The Bible was written by men. Paul was a man, not the prophet. His doctrines are his interpretations of what Jesus taught. Our Book was written by the Prophet himself. It is the "true" word of God." You know, it's funny how anybody can make the old words of God somehow corrupted or to not mean what they say, and therefore, they make it, essentially, null and void. But what's hilarious, is that at the same time, they use them to prove their new religion?

Anyway, I think Paul is easily ignored. If he says something that my beliefs don't agree with, well then he is the one that's wrong, not me and my religion. However, for the Christian, it's me that is wrong. But look at what do they do. They do the same thing. They ignore my prophet. What is up with that? How can they even justify doing that with learning and listening to what my prophet and religion teaches? If they did, they'd see... that my prophet is the one that is right, and he can prove it. He has parts of several Bible verses that point to him as being the promised one. I think even one from Paul.

It seems that Christians are as ignorant to the actual words of Yeshua as Jews are. Both believe that Yeshua claimed to be God, and told people they must believe in him to be saved. Yet both doctrines were developed later by Paul and are then read into the words of Yeshua. Tragic.

 

[Pegg]

I wonder why you asked me for proof that you need a Jewish mother to be Jewish from the Tanakh, twice, and haven't replied to my posts either time...

I asked a jewish person that question once and was told that a jewish mother and father means the child will be brought up in Judaism. Apparently Jewish men who father children to gentile women dont teach bring those children up in Judaism because the gentile women likely has her own religion and will most likely bring the children up with her religion.

So it seems that for some Jews, being jewish is determined by the practicing of the religion.

 

[dantech]

I asked a jewish person that question once and was told that a jewish mother and father means the child will be brought up in Judaism. Apparently Jewish men who father children to gentile women dont teach bring those children up in Judaism because the gentile women likely has her own religion and will most likely bring the children up with her religion.

So it seems that for some Jews, being jewish is determined by the practicing of the religion.

That's similar to saying we practice circumcision or dietary laws for health benefits. Even if what you say is true, it isn't the reason why we practice certain laws. We practice them because we were asked to.

 

[Pegg]

That's similar to saying we practice circumcision or dietary laws for health benefits. Even if what you say is true, it isn't the reason why we practice certain laws. We practice them because we were asked to.

Im not debating why jews practice judaism here. Im commenting on why a child born to a jewish father and gentile mother is not considered to be a jew.

 

[dantech]

Im not debating why jews practice judaism here. Im commenting on why a child born to a jewish father and gentile mother is not considered to be a jew.

I understand, and there is no real reason why besides the fact that scripture teaches us that that's how it is. There is a Kabbalistic explanation which explains the different types of souls that men and women have, and why only a woman's soul could pass on the jewishness, but I'm not going to even bother, since SimpleLogic will just dismiss it as "rabbinic blinds."

 

[Pegg]

I understand, and there is no real reason why besides the fact that scripture teaches us that that's how it is. There is a Kabbalistic explanation which explains the different types of souls that men and women have, and why only a woman's soul could pass on the jewishness, but I'm not going to even bother, since SimpleLogic will just dismiss it as "rabbinic blinds."

do you view the kabbalistic explanation as on par with the Torah?

 

[dantech]

do you view the kabbalistic explanation as on par with the Torah?

I wrote this in another thread a while back. Post #33:
Maternal Lineage (Judaism) | Page 2 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Pegg]

I wrote this in another thread a while back. Post #33:
Maternal Lineage (Judaism) | Page 2 | ReligiousForums.com

If its true, then there are many famous Jews who are not really jews.

For example, King David had a moabite for a grandmother. His great grandmother was the cannanite prostitute Rahab. So are we to conclude that the Royal kingly line are not really jews?

I wouldn't put too much weight on the ideas that come from the Kabbalistic views. Its rubbish.

 

[dantech]

If its true, then there are many famous Jews who are not really jews.

For example, King David had a moabite for a grandmother. His great grandmother was the cannanite prostitute Rahab. So are we to conclude that the Royal kingly line are not really jews?

I wouldn't put too much weight on the ideas that come from the Kabbalistic views. Its rubbish.

It is widely accepted that Ruth was a convert.

When one converts, he accepts Abraham as his father, and in doing so, no longer keeps his Gentile ancestry. This is why a convert is considered 100% Jewish. Same ancestry. Same goals. Same connection to one another.

Btw, calling something rubbish that most people will only start studying after 40 years of having studied the "prerequisites" is just foolish. Tell me, how much Kabalah have you studied, yourself, to know that it's rubbish?

 

[Pegg]

It is widely accepted that Ruth was a convert.

When one converts, he accepts Abraham as his father, and in doing so, no longer keeps his Gentile ancestry. This is why a convert is considered 100% Jewish. Same ancestry. Same goals. Same connection to one another.

Btw, calling something rubbish that most people will only start studying after 40 years of having studied the "prerequisites" is just foolish. Tell me, how much Kabalah have you studied, yourself, to know that it's rubbish?

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in what you say. You said accepting Abraham as father makes one jewish, but the link says
The essence of a Jew is his Jewish soul, his Jewish identity. This is inherited from the mother.
According to the Torah, a person can convert and become an Isrealite by submitting to God and his law... but this Kabalah is saying that the essence of being a jew comes from the mother alone. So it is contrary to Gods word.... and accordingly King David would not have that 'essence' which is passed on by a jewish mother. You dont see a conflict in this?

And what about Christians who accept Abraham as their father? What does Kabalah say about them? Are they jewish too??

 

[dantech]

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in what you say. You said accepting Abraham as father makes one jewish, but the link says
The essence of a Jew is his Jewish soul, his Jewish identity. This is inherited from the mother.

It is inherited by the mother. This specific Kaballah teaching doesn't speak about converts, only about born Jews. I said that when one converts, he accepts Abraham as his father, and that changes his ancestry. This is not the same as "accepting Abraham as your father makes you Jewish"

According to the Torah, a person can convert and become an Isrealite by submitting to God and his law... but this Kabalah is saying that the essence of being a jew comes from the mother alone.

Read it again. It comes from God, but it is something that only a mother can pass on, as opposed to a father, who passes on other traits. Obviously, this rule doesn't apply to God. When you convert to Judaism, according to Kaballah, you inherit this Jewish essence from God directly.



[QuoteSo it is contrary to Gods word.... [/quote] only according to your understanding...

and accordingly King David would not have that 'essence' which is passed on by a jewish mother. You dont see a conflict in this?

I hope I've been clear enough by now.

And what about Christians who accept Abraham as their father? What does Kabalah say about them? Are they jewish too??

You are equating conversion with accepting Abraham as your father. In order to convert, you must accept Abraham as your father, but that doesn't mean that in accepting him as your father, that you've converted.

 

[Pegg]

It is inherited by the mother. This specific Kaballah teaching doesn't speak about converts, only about born Jews. I said that when one converts, he accepts Abraham as his father, and that changes his ancestry. This is not the same as "accepting Abraham as your father makes you Jewish"



Read it again. It comes from God, but it is something that only a mother can pass on, as opposed to a father, who passes on other traits. Obviously, this rule doesn't apply to God. When you convert to Judaism, according to Kaballah, you inherit this Jewish essence from God directly.



So it is contrary to Gods word.... only according to your understanding...


I hope I've been clear enough by now.


You are equating conversion with accepting Abraham as your father. In order to convert, you must accept Abraham as your father, but that doesn't mean that in accepting him as your father, that you've converted.

What I find is that extra biblical teachings are consistent in that they cause confusion and require additional clauses to untangle the mess they make. Whereas, the truth of God's word does not cause such confusion. From where does confusion and chaos come from? Certainly not from God hence why we are better off just sticking to God's word.

 

[dantech]

What I find is that extra biblical teachings are consistent in that they cause confusion and require additional clauses to untangle the mess they make. Whereas, the truth of God's word does not cause such confusion. From where does confusion and chaos come from? Certainly not from God hence why we are better off just sticking to God's word.

Oh okay. So you don't eat pig? Do you honor the Sabbath? If so, how? And I assume you bind something metaphorical to a very literal "between your eyes"?
You know, if you light a fire on the Sabbath, or chop a tree, you are punished by death.

So how many of these laws do you follow since they come straight from God?

 

[Desert Snake]

What I find is that extra biblical teachings are consistent in that they cause confusion and require additional clauses to untangle the mess they make. Whereas, the truth of God's word does not cause such confusion. From where does confusion and chaos come from? Certainly not from God hence why we are better off just sticking to God's word.

I have some extra Biblical teachings, no confusion here.

 

[Pegg]

Oh okay. So you don't eat pig? Do you honor the Sabbath? If so, how? And I assume you bind something metaphorical to a very literal "between your eyes"?

Did Abraham observe a weekly sabbath? The law requiring observance was given to Abrahams descendants long after he died... and even they were unsure of how to observe it as can be seen in the account at exodus 16 where some is realities went out on the Sabbath. Also the Sabbath is said to have been given as a sign of there deliverance from Egypt. ..Abraham was not delivered from Egypt so it stands to reason that it did not apply to Abraham or anyone who lived before the exodus. Obviously the Sabbath is not a means of being acceptable to God. But in saying that, there is a sabbath we can observe on a daily basis which is what Christians are called to do.

Noah was given permission to eat any kind of meat so obviously eating piggies is not a sin and cannot defile a person. But sticking a box on your forehead is not likely to put God's word on your heart...probably best to read, meditate and apply it.