• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Understanding More About God of Israel.

Sariel

Sariel

Heretic
I don't have the time to debate the semantics of Paul in his defense, but I would recommend Mark Nanos's (who is Jewish btw) works like Mystery of Romans or Irony of Galatians.
But just a quick snippet in regards to the context of Galatians: Paul is attacking the "influencers" which were proselytes that were claiming that others have no share in the messianic kingdom unless they became circumcised and claimed status as Jews.
 
Last edited:
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sariel said:
I don't have the time to debate the semantics of Paul in his defense, but I would recommend Mark Nanos's (who is Jewish btw) works like Mystery of Romans or Irony of Galatians.
But just a quick snippet in regards to the context of Galatians: Paul is attacking the "influencers" which were proselytes that were claiming that others have no share in the messianic kingdom unless they became circumcised and claimed status as Jews.
Click to expand...
If one joined any Jewish movement, conversion along with circumcision was mandated.

To me, when I read Paul's comments on the Law, I notice a vacillation in his many comments on the Law, and I've long leaned in the direction that he changed his position somewhere along the line. At first, it seems that he is willing to accept the Law as is for those who are Jewish but negates the necessity for converts to be circumcised and follow the Law. So, at this point, he can both accept it and reject it, and this is the tone I pick up.

However, it seems that he changes his mind on this, and I think that the reason is that he realizes it is virtually impossible to have "one body" with two groups operating under two different sets of "laws". What is to be done, for example, if a Jewish member of the Way marries a gentile convert to the Way? Do they or do they not follow the Law? How do they observe the "agape meal"? Kosher or not? Are children borne in a mixed marriage "Jewish" or not? Etc.
 
Sariel

Sariel

Heretic
Well Nanos's brings an argument that weighs a lot on Paul's apocalyptic mindset. Basically Paul believes that Yeshua is the messiah and that the messianic kingdom is right around corner. With that in mind, Paul believes that the heavy gentile following is part of the prophecy of all nations acknowledging the God of Israel, that becomes a null point if all of them become Jews.
There's also the issue of God-Fearers, gentiles who worshiped and sojourned with Jews in the synagogue long before The Way came around.
Unfortunately we don't know too much about that was organized, and it would probably give us a clearer picture of the situation. But I agree on the complicated issues of trying to keep a unified front when one group, and the larger one at that, is being treated as an "other". Even without Paul, this type of segregation could inevitably lead to splintering and resentment even if the movement is handled carefully. I can only imagine the problems that may arrive on passover sedars.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sariel said:
Well Nanos's brings an argument that weighs a lot on Paul's apocalyptic mindset. Basically Paul believes that Yeshua is the messiah and that the messianic kingdom is right around corner. With that in mind, Paul believes that the heavy gentile following is part of the prophecy of all nations acknowledging the God of Israel, that becomes a null point if all of them become Jews.
Click to expand...

Which brings up an interesting question, namely that there's a reference to Jesus coming only for the Jews, but then we read about "the Great Commission", which begs the question as to what exactly is going on here? Did he change his mind somewhere along the way? After failing to get many converts, did the apostles decide to open the door to gentiles, especially the God-Fearers?

There's also the issue of God-Fearers, gentiles who worshiped and sojourned with Jews in the synagogue long before The Way came around.
Unfortunately we don't know too much about that was organized, and it would probably give us a clearer picture of the situation.
Click to expand...

It appears more likely that it was not an organization per se, nor is it likely, imo, that it was a "movement". To me, I think it's more likely that there were gentiles influenced by Judaism that wouldn't convert for whatever reason (circumcision probably was an obstacle to some). These people were probably brought up as b eing polytheists but decided that the monotheistic approach was more to their liking.

But I agree on the complicated issues of trying to keep a unified front when one group, and the larger one at that, is being treated as an "other". Even without Paul, this type of segregation could inevitably lead to splintering and resentment even if the movement is handled carefully. I can only imagine the problems that may arrive on passover sedars.
Click to expand...

Yes, and his appeal to remain as "one body" is a reoccurring them of his, and the church in the diasporah would be very difficult to hold together as it was. Paul was quite intelligent, imo, and I have at times referred to him as "the theologian" for the Way. Without him, the early church may not have survived. The theologian Martin Marty has at least implied much the same.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
metis said:
Reread post #33, as some of that is attributed to Paul. Also, you might check out the numerous verses that deal with the Law that are found in letters attributed to Paul as found here: Bible, Revised Standard Version
Click to expand...

I have indeed "checked out other verses" of Paul, having read the NT multiple times in multiple versions. May I ask, metis, are you a secularist or Orthodox or...?

Thanks.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
BilliardsBall said:
I have indeed "checked out other verses" of Paul, having read the NT multiple times in multiple versions. May I ask, metis, are you a secularist or Orthodox or...?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
More along the line of a pantheistic/panenetheistic approach ala Spinoza and Einstein. Again, I'm in the wrong forum for me to continue, so this will have to be my last post here.
 
LionofJuda

LionofJuda

Member
BilliardsBall said:
With respect to all, Y'shua is G_d and One in plural majesty with the Father. I'm Jewish and I believe not in a Catholic trinity, but a tri-unity.

Y'shua also warns us that unless we "Believe that I AM He" will die in our sin. Y'shua received the worship of Thomas, who knelt before Him and exclaimed of Y'shua, my LORD AND my GOD. Y'shua did not rebuke Thomas for blasphemy but instead said, "How blessed you are to have seen and believed in me [as God and Messiah]. How blessed are those who have not seen and believe."
Click to expand...

If Yeshua also deserved to be worship then why did Yeshua said in Mat. 4.11 "Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only" and if Yeshua is also God, what is meant by 1 Tim. 2:5 which says "There is only ONE God and One Mediator between God and Man, the MAN YESHUA. These verses seems to prove that there is really ONLY ONE GOD and that is HaShem. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I am really wondering why Yeshua never said that He is God in the New Testament if He is really God while in the Torah, Hashem repeatedly said He is the one and only true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
LionofJuda said:
If Yeshua also deserved to be worship then why did Yeshua said in Mat. 4.11 "Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only" and if Yeshua is also God, what is meant by 1 Tim. 2:5 which says "There is only ONE God and One Mediator between God and Man, the MAN YESHUA. These verses seems to prove that there is really ONLY ONE GOD and that is HaShem. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I am really wondering why Yeshua never said that He is God in the New Testament if He is really God while in the Torah, Hashem repeatedly said He is the one and only true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Click to expand...

If God is God than why did God say, "There is only One God, worship Him only!" in the Hebrew scriptures?
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Sorry, was responding to another person. Y'shua did say he was God in the New Testament--additionally, the rabbis sought his destruction because they knew He said it/implied it/indicated it.
 
Janet Waters

Janet Waters

Member
Zardoz said:
Paul was only half Jewish, his father was Roman. Hence his Roman citizenship. While he got Jewishness from his mother, tribal affiliation is through the father, so he's no Benjamite even if his mother was.
Click to expand...

Saul of Tarsus [turned Paul] was a Pharisee and both of his parents were of Israelite origin. After Paul's father died, his mother Pricilla remarried a Roman Senator by the name of Aquila [Quintus Cornelius Pudens]. This is the reason that Paul was a Roman citizen.

Plus....Paul's half-brother [Rufus Pudens] inherited the Pudenitus wealth and position being a young Senator and he and his British wife Gladys [turned Claudia] held the first underground Roman Church in their home, having her brother Linus as the first Bishop of Rome. The Pudential Family continued to protect Peter and Paul in hiding even after Emporer Claudius required all Jews and Christians to pack-up and leave Rome.

To top it off----Paul's sister-in-law Gladys (Claudia's) formerly British family were held in Rome as war captives from 52-59AD by Emporer Claudias. At which time, Claudius adopted Gladys and changed her name to Claudia. So Claudia was both of the British Royalty [one who was Christian] and she was also adopted into Roman royalty by Emperor Claudius as his daughter. These are the reasons that Saul/Paul as a Jewish/Christian had so much power to move throughout the Roman provinces to preach the gospel.

Zardoz said:
Paul was only half Jewish, his father was Roman. Hence his Roman citizenship. While he got Jewishness from his mother, tribal affiliation is through the father, so he's no Benjamite even if his mother was.

I don't consider Paul an apostle, since he never even met Yeshua while he was alive.

I'd rather set aside angels for the moment, apples and oranges, eh?

One might reasonably conclude that Messiah (Messiah ben Yosef or Messiah ben David) is more than a normal man.
Considering all, it's clear he has a closer relationship to G-d than a prophet or a king, perhaps closer than even the Patriarchs!

Regardless, this in no way would make me believe he's G-d or a part of G-d.
Click to expand...

In both the Old and New Testaments----
The God of Israel has ALWAYS BEEN the SON OF GOD=Jehovah/Jesus Christ.

*The SON [as Jehovah] was The Firstborn Spirit Son of God the Father [Elohim].
*The SON [as Jesus Christ] was The Only Begotten Son of God the Father [Elohim].

It was the SON [Jehovah/Jesus Christ] that the scripture refers to as "the Angel of the Lord," the "Word of God," the "Way of God," the "Wisdom of God," the "Power of God," and the "Gift of God," unto Salvation...who was sent by God the Father [Elohim] to save mankind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top