The Problem of Paul for All Faiths/Outlooks

[Simplelogic]

Regarding Yeshua's messiahship:

I never said that the seed can't pass through the women! I am stating the the primary way in the Tanakh that the seed is passed is through the male. The only thing I am challenging is the false Rabbinic concept of ONLY matrilineal decent. It is contrary to Torah.

I have heard every argument under the sun for why Yeshua's genealogy is false. From the missing generation in Matthew to the "curse" of Joconiah. If you want to go down this road than I would be more than happy to. Actually, I will prove to you that Yeshua comes from BOTH the line of Judah and Levi!!

“Behold, the days are coming”, says the Lord, “that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, andJerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; ‘THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS’. For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.” Jeremiah 33:14-18

“Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13

“For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5

“Then it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel .” Ezekiel 45:17

How does a King/Prince carrying about the role of the Levite as well? The answer might shock you.

 

[dantech]

Sometimes I wonder who is more brainwashed…the Christians or the Jews. It seems like both institutions have hidden people from what the Torah of YHVH actually says.


The term Jew was given to the tribe of Judah who had consolidated with Benjamin and some of the Levites. The tribes of Ephraim (Israel) were scattered by the Assyrians so the title for Hebrew became "Jew". This doesn't meant that anything changed in terms of what constitutes a Jew/Hebrew. Ezra is not using the term Jew to denote a religious affiliation. He is talking about the physical seed of the kingdom of Judah. Which was primarily passed through the men!

My fault. I wasn't specific enough. I'll be more specific.

First of all, here's a verse from the Torah which shows that the woman has a pretty big role in the tribe/Jewishness question which you seem to believe doesn't exist.

Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they [their daughters] will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

Deut. 7:3-4

"Turn your children away from following me to serve other gods" = Is this tribal affiliation, or Jewishness? Or to you, to those two seem to mean the same thing?

Next, look at this part from Ezra, where he basically repeats the same commandment:

Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.

Ezra 9:11-12

Followed by this a little later:

10:2 And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra: 'We have broken faith with our God, and have married foreign women of the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope for Israel concerning this thing. 10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of the Lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

And then once again in Ezra 10:10...

And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them: 'Ye have broken faith, and have married foreign women, to increase the guilt of Israel.
10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the Lord, the God of your fathers, and do His pleasure; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the foreign women.'
10:12 Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice: 'As thou hast said, so it is for us to do.

 

[Flankerl]

Just read the Torah Flankerl. Its not as complicated as you or your Rabbi's want to make it.

Jokes on you, I don't have a Rabbi.

Just because records were destroyed does not mean that Rabbi's get to change the way the Tanakh establishes a person Jewishness.

And yet it saved us from the fate of pretty much every other conquered and divided people.

Also it's a ridiculous argument as the Tribal allocation never changed. We just don't know from which Tribe we are. Therefore we are Jews.

 

[Rhiamom]

The whole thing. You are trying to drive a wedge between Jewishness and tribal affiliation. BTW there was no such concept of "Jewishness" in the Tanakh. All the tribes were called Hebrews who were born of the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They were a physical seed which allowed Gentiles to be grafted into them. The line passed primarily through the Father. If you need examples of this I would be glad to present them.

As Dantech pointed out, there is a difference between the passing of tribal affiliation, and the Levite or Kohanim priesthood, which is male-only, and the passing of Jewish identity, which is female only. Ideally there is no intermarriage and it makes no practical difference. But the world is not ideal.

But your reference to the Gentiles being grafted into the Hebrews is pure Christian replacement theology. Have you ever done a graft on a plant? It eliminates what the plant would normally grow, and replaces it with something different. Saying the Gentiles are "grafted" into the Hebrew line means the Hebrews themselves are cut out. Hardly a Jewish concept! You are just a Christian who rejects Paul and has delusions of being Jewish.

 

[Desert Snake]

lol funny discussion. Anyways, the rabbinic authority is not guiding your beliefs, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Simplelogic]

As Dantech pointed out, there is a difference between the passing of tribal affiliation, and the Levite or Kohanim priesthood, which is male-only, and the passing of Jewish identity, which is female only. Ideally there is no intermarriage and it makes no practical difference. But the world is not ideal.

But your reference to the Gentiles being grafted into the Hebrews is pure Christian replacement theology. Have you ever done a graft on a plant? It eliminates what the plant would normally grow, and replaces it with something different. Saying the Gentiles are "grafted" into the Hebrew line means the Hebrews themselves are cut out. Hardly a Jewish concept! You are just a Christian who rejects Paul and has delusions of being Jewish.

You need to study Torah my friend. Gentiles have been able to be grafted into Israel from the beginning! I hope I don't need to quote verses to prove this fact.

 

[Rhiamom]

You need to study Torah my friend. Gentiles have been able to be grafted into Israel from the beginning! I hope I don't need to quote verses to prove this fact.

You confuse grafting with conversion. Conversion has always been possible. Grafting is a peculiarly Christian term used in the NT upon which replacement theology is based. Of course, your orientation is Christian and you do not reject the NT, so you accept it, at least unconsciously, by your choice of words.

 

[pearl]

Grafting is a peculiarly Christian term used in the NT upon which replacement theology is based.

Not replacement, not conversion, the Jews are beloved by God because of their forefathers. The election of Israel is
irrevocable, manifested in the favor shown to its Patriarchs, a claim the Gentiles lack. Grafting, a 'wild olive shoot',
(Jer, Hos.), ancient horticulturists grafted the young olive branch onto the old because of its good fruit. 'The root supports
the graft. Israel of old still occupies the privileged position of the carrier of salvation to the world.

 

[Tarheeler]

You need to study Torah my friend. Gentiles have been able to be grafted into Israel from the beginning! I hope I don't need to quote verses to prove this fact.

No, they've been able to adopt the Jewish religion, join the Jewish people, and become Jewish themselves through conversion.

There's a massive differece between that and the "grafting" found in Christianity.

 

[Simplelogic]

No, they've been able to adopt the Jewish religion, join the Jewish people, and become Jewish themselves through conversion.

There's a massive differece between that and the "grafting" found in Christianity.

Who is talking about Christianity?? I am talking about Torah.

 

[Rhiamom]

Who is talking about Christianity?? I am talking about Torah.

Please point me to anything in Torah that says Gentiles will be grafted into Israel, so that I can point out your Christian bias in interpretation. IF you can even find such a verse. I see only things In Tanach about a branch of David, and that would be a Jewish, not Gentile line. And it speaks of raising it up, not grafting it. Grafting is a NT Christian concept, not Jewish.

 

[Desert Snake]

Please point me to anything in Torah that says Gentiles will be grafted into Israel, so that I can point out your Christian bias in interpretation. IF you can even find such a verse. I see only things In Tanach about a branch of David, and that would be a Jewish, not Gentile line. And it speaks of raising it up, not grafting it. Grafting is a NT Christian concept, not Jewish.

Not to mention, the Tanakh doesn't mention Jesus, or say that the verbal Torah tradition is incorrect. As per the OP, just because some Rabbis have an opinion, and you disagree, doesn't make the Hebraic verbal Torah tradition illegitimate, it just means you disagree with those Rabbis, but I have already argued that point, or at least tried.

 

[Rhiamom]

Not to mention, the Tanakh doesn't mention Jesus, or say that the verbal Torah tradition is incorrect. As per the OP, just because some Rabbis have an opinion, and you disagree, doesn't make the Hebraic verbal Torah tradition illegitimate, it just means you disagree with those Rabbis, but I have already argued that point, or at least tried.

And only the Orthodox hold the Talmud to be both authoritative and immutable. We Conservatives hold it to be authoritative, but mutable. And Reform hold it to be not necessarily either. Personal opinions within branches of Judaism will obviously vary! The Torah is still the best guide to ethical living, and the Talmud very often updates the Torah for more modern views - no stoning! - and explains how ambiguous commands in Torah can be implemented. Rabbinic Judaism needs the Talmud, whether people like the Talmud or not.

 

[Simplelogic]

Please point me to anything in Torah that says Gentiles will be grafted into Israel, so that I can point out your Christian bias in interpretation. IF you can even find such a verse. I see only things In Tanach about a branch of David, and that would be a Jewish, not Gentile line. And it speaks of raising it up, not grafting it. Grafting is a NT Christian concept, not Jewish.

Exodus 12:48-49 And when a STRANGER shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and HE SHALL BE as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. ONE TORAH shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the STRANGER that sojourneth among you.

 

[Simplelogic]

Not to mention, the Tanakh doesn't mention Jesus, or say that the verbal Torah tradition is incorrect. As per the OP, just because some Rabbis have an opinion, and you disagree, doesn't make the Hebraic verbal Torah tradition illegitimate, it just means you disagree with those Rabbis, but I have already argued that point, or at least tried.

I am not suggesting that the Rabbi's are wrong on everything. There is many wonderful teachings in the Talmud. I am talking about the Rabbinic claim to hold the exclusive interpretation of Torah, claiming it to be the oral Torah which was passed down to them through Moses. This is a complete farce. Many oral commands and traditions are completely contrary to Torah. Nor does man have the right to add commands or take commands from the written for of YHVH.

2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deut 4: 2

The Torah commands many things that the oral Torah completely contradicts. Israelites are COMMANDED to swear by the name of YHVH, but the Rabbi's say that I am forbidden from doing such. They even declare that the one who does "has not part on the world to come"!! What utter nonsense! Who gives men the right to change what the living God decrees for His people?

 

[Tarheeler]

Exodus 12:48-49 And when a STRANGER shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and HE SHALL BE as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. ONE TORAH shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the STRANGER that sojourneth among you.

That is someone joining the Jewish people through conversion, not someone being "grafted" onto anything as the Christian Bible discusses.

 

[Simplelogic]

That is someone joining the Jewish people through conversion, not someone being "grafted" onto anything as the Christian Bible discusses.

This is what "grafted in" means in the Torah.

 

[Simplelogic]

The NT concept of "grafted in" is a complete lie by Paul.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am not suggesting that the Rabbi's are wrong on everything. There is many wonderful teachings in the Talmud. I am talking about the Rabbinic claim to hold the exclusive interpretation of Torah, claiming it to be the oral Torah which was passed down to them through Moses. This is a complete farce. Many oral commands and traditions are completely contrary to Torah. Nor does man have the right to add commands or take commands from the written for of YHVH.

2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deut 4: 2

The Torah commands many things that the oral Torah completely contradicts. Israelites are COMMANDED to swear by the name of YHVH, but the Rabbi's say that I am forbidden from doing such. They even declare that the one who does "has not part on the world to come"!! What utter nonsense! Who gives men the right to change what the living God decrees for His people?

I don't know how this refutes what I said. The problem is that simply because some Rabbis might be incorrect or disagree with you on some things, doesn't mean there is no valid verbal Torah, or that it is not supposed to be applied to belief and practice. I think you are cleverly presenting an argument, using Talmudic Judaism as a reason to narrow down the Tanakh to what I imagine would be a specific interpretation (because you still have to 'prove' your arguments) whilst getting rid of verbal Torah credibility. It's not something that makes sense to me, it isn't as 'simple' as you are presenting, unless you want to be a Karaite Jew. Verbal Torah is used to explain and expand what is already in the Scriptures, just because you find no value in that, don't expect others to.
How do you think for instance I would 'choose' Torah versions? By going with the traditional and or Rabbinical interpretation or notes that I agree with. Not the greatest example there however it's still an argument for verbal Torah.
Not to mention other writings, I just feel your view of Scripture is unnecessarily shallow.
Aside from all that, not really sure how your argument 'makes sense' as a refutation to me anyways, clearly I don't follow any Rabbinical Council.

 

[Tarheeler]

This is what "grafted in" means in the Torah.

That statement alone speaks volumes.