Was St. Paul a liar and deceiver?

[dyanaprajna2011]

Hi dyanaprajna2011, my real name is Ken Brown, and I believe in being open and honest, and I have nothing to hide. So I will try to answer your question.

In reality, I have already answered your question, and the answer wasn't understood, but that may not be your fault, it may be mine. Let me try to do it a little better.

Your question is whether or not the Law is done away (and this is more or less the whole issue with whether or not St. Paul is a liar and deceiver). The up front answer is absolutely not, the Law is forever/eternal, but it is not forever/eternal according to it's physical keeping, rather, only according to it's Spiritual keeping. I know that is not a very clear answer, but let me explain.

I'll come back to the Ritual of the Red Heifer. Some might say that since the Ritual of the Red Heifer is the Foundation of the Torah (as believed by Judaism), that it would remain forever in it's physical keeping. But what if there is a secret, veiled, hidden side of this Ritual that can be done or kept by Faith? Isn't that the whole issue (faith versus works of the Law), and it's not BLIND faith, it is a faith that one can "see" and "believe" in.

When the Ritual of the Red Heifer was "opened" to Yeshua's Disicples and then later to Paul, it established a new and better way in which the Torah can be fulfilled. They saw how they were involved in the process of killing and burning the Red Heifer, and they saw how that burning was increased by casting into the midst of that burning, cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet. They were there, they saw the Cross (cedar wood), they saw the reed with the vinegar placed to HIs lips (hyssop), and they saw the scarlet robe placed on Him to mock Him (scarlet), and they KNEW that they were shamefully involved with that suffering of the Messiah. And this was the message that they in turn Sprinkled upon the unclean. They Sprinkled the Ashes of the Red Heifer through the preaching of the Gospel. Sprinkling the Ashes of the Red Heifer is telling someone THEY, with the help of wicked men, did cause Yeshua to suffer, die, and be buried. But wait, the Ashes had LIVING WATER added to them in the Vessel. Yeshua states that LIVING WATER is Eternal LIfe. Eternal Life was added to Yeshua's dead body as He was buried in the "vessel" of the tomb.

Now notice, the Ashes of the Red Heifer is to be Sprinkled with HYSSOP. What does hyssop represent. The vile taste of vinegar was presented to Yeshua through the stalk of a hyssop plant. The tongue is like unto hyssop, it can rebuke or cast insults and it can be used as a switch, to correct. Yeshua started the Sprinkling of His Ashes with hyssop/rebuke, "O fools not to believe all that is written." Peter stood up at Pentecost and announced to the people that they had killed Yeshua, and gave them a very good tongue lashing (hyssop) about it. This was all according to how the eternal/forever Law of Moses would be kept and followed. This Spiritual fulfillment far outweighs the killing of any physical animal in how the worshipers would be affected and changed from their sin.

This is very important. Once a Believer has their mind "opened" to the fulfillment of the Torah, according to it's Spiritual Fulfillment, THEN they can start to walk according to each and every command through the command's Spiritual Fulfillment. The WHOLE Torah is Spiritual, and each and every command has a hidden, veiled, or secret meaning:

Psa 119:18
(18) Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy Torah.

Psa 51:6-7
(6) For, behold, thou lovest truth (the Torah is Truth-Psa 119:142): thou hast manifested to me the secret and hidden things of thy wisdom (wisdom and understanding comes from DOING the Commandments-Deu 4:6, Psa 111:10, and there is a secret and hidden doing of them that is FOUND is Messiah).
(7) Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop (The Gospel is Sprinkled with Hyssop), and I shall be purified: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.

dyanaprajna2011, I know this is not an easy concept to believe in, but the Torah is Spiritual, and the suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection of Yeshua is according to what Moses wrote in the Ritual of the Red Heifer, and this establishes the Torah through your faith in believing it. And this also proves Paul was not a liar and deceiver, but a True Witness. KB

Thank you for this answer. This is something I can understand, and let me tell you why. I believe in the teachings of the Perennial Philosophy. If you're not aware of what that is, let me explain. The Perennial philosophers taught that every religion has two aspects, one is exoteric, which is the rituals, dogma, ceremony, etc., of a religion. The second is the esoteric, which is the spiritual aspect of a faith, such as it's internal, heart and mind teachings. What you have described here reminds me of that. From my understanding of what you have said, is that the law would represent the exoteric aspects of the faith, while the internal, heart, of the religion, that which Paul taught, represents the esoteric, in however one wishes to understand that term. Regardless of how one understands such things, and even though we may differ on it's understanding, your answer has given a meaning that I can understand.

 

[Shermana]

Matthew 5 ,...I have been using verses selected from that chapter to demonstrate that Jesus did teach to go against the OT laws, frankly no-one has refuted that evidence.....it's obvious

I did refute your evidence, you simply refused to accept it.

If anything what's obvious is you're doing a fine job proving over and over again that you'll ignore and refuse to accept any valid counter rebuttal.

Really? Those teachings that Jesus was referring to were "law", there is quite a bit of difference between those laws and what Jesus was preaching.

If by "proper understanding" you mean "completely different", then I agree

Let's try this again.

Jesus was not changing the Law, he was explaining misinterpretations.

Hence the whole exchange I had with Pegg on "Eye for an eye".

I explained to you that even to this day, Jews mainly go by what seems to be Jesus's version of "Eye for an eye".

And neither did he break the Law on swearing but merely gave advice on how to not to break it by not swearing.

Nothing in Matthew 5 is about changing the Law. This relates to a very common, SADLY common misinterpretation that the Pharisees were obeying the law perfectly, which is exactly what Jesus was trying to disprove: That their interpretation was wrong, not the Law itself.

 

[Shermana]

Dyanaprajna:

Jews don't necessarily make this distinction as to various classes of the laws. Christians did this to differentiate between what they thought was to be followed, and what wasn't. This seems peculiar to me, as Paul says the whole law was abolished, later Christians attempted to differentiate between different classes, in order to determine what was to be followed, and what wasn't, my guess, in order to try to reconcile the teachings of the OT that the law would remain forever, Jesus teaching his followers to follow the law, and Paul teaching that it was to be abandoned. I'll give you an example: Paul said the holy days were just a shadow of things to come, the reality is in Christ. This suggests to me, as later Christians would determine, that the holy days were no longer to be followed. Yet one of the OT prophets, I believe it was Zechariah, said that later gentile believers, especially toward the end days, would follow, along with the Jews, one of the holy days: I think it was the festival of booths, but I'm probably mistaken.

This quote makes me smile. I can't explain how much I appreceiate what you're doing here.

Indeed, the whole "Moral and ceremonial" Law distinction makes me cringe, if not makes me outright angry. Complete bullocks invented by those who are looking for an excuse to "break and teach to break (even) the least of the commandments". And what's even more funny, is if you ask them to conveniently list which laws are ceremonial and moral, they all have different lists, according to what they find most convenient.


And indeed, according to Zechariah 14, in the last days, not only will there be sacrifices, but if the gentiles refuse to obey Succoth in Jerusalem, they will be struck with drought and plagues. Now some say this already happened, but you'd think you'd see at least some historical reference of giant pilgrimages.

 

[Desert Snake]

I did refute your evidence, you simply refused to accept it.

If anything what's obvious is you're doing a fine job proving over and over again that you'll ignore and refuse to accept any valid counter rebuttal.



Let's try this again.

Jesus was not changing the Law, he was explaining misinterpretations.

Hence the whole exchange I had with Pegg on "Eye for an eye".

I explained to you that even to this day, Jews mainly go by what seems to be Jesus's version of "Eye for an eye".

And neither did he break the Law on swearing but merely gave advice on how to not to break it by not swearing.

Nothing in Matthew 5 is about changing the Law. This relates to a very common, SADLY common misinterpretation that the Pharisees were obeying the law perfectly, which is exactly what Jesus was trying to disprove: That their interpretation was wrong, not the Law itself.

"Valid counter rebuttal" is read the text
Seriously, if you think that Jesus is agreeing with those laws but simply explaining them better, you are speculating far beyond what I think is rational

 

[Shermana]

"Valid counter rebuttal" is read the text
Seriously, if you think that Jesus is agreeing with those laws but simply explaining them better, you are speculating far beyond what I think is rational

And again, the only counter reply you have to my counter reply, like every other time, is to say it's not "Rational" or that it's "illogical".

Basically all you ever do, EVER do, is say "nuh uh".

Rather than actually try to rebut what I said, you simply insult what I said without bothering to explain your rationale on why you think what I said was wrong.

I find the belief that any Jew should listen to someone preaching to break the Mosaic Law to be irrational.

Eventually you may want to prove to others reading that you're capable of actually debating, but that would involve you actually being capable of debating which I have yet to see evidence for.

But I do appreciate you proving how irrational and futile the arguments of those like yourself are for public display.

 

[Desert Snake]

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"
compared to.....
"Turn the other cheek" (Jesus)
How are you interpreting these commandments to be the same? To even be similar?

THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

 

[Shermana]

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"
compared to.....
"Turn the other cheek" (Jesus)
How are you interpreting these commandments to be the same? To even be similar?

THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

As I showed you last time, even Antinomians understand this.

The New Testament teaches nothing New

[FONT=ARIAL,HELVETICA,SANS-SERIF]First of all, let's get one thing clear. Jesus was not quoting from the written law of the Old Testament in these verses! Let me repeat that. Jesus was not quoting from the Old Testament laws in these passages! Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Christ used this same “Ye have heard that it hath been said,” or “it hath been said.” figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the time. In other words, Jesus was dealing with hearsay statements.

Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "It is written" or "The Scripture saith" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written").

You may ask, “But the laws such as 'an eye for an eye' are found in the Old Testament. If Jesus was not quoting from the Old Testament, then what was he quoting from?” Yes, most of the above laws in verses 21 through 48 are found in God's Law. But even though Jesus may have been referring to God's Law, Jesus was not quoting from God's Law. Jesus was quoting from man's law! Man's laws always have scriptural truths in them; but when someone quotes these truths in man's laws, even though they have reference to God's Law in scripture, they are still being quoted from man's law itself.[/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,HELVETICA,SANS-SERIF]In Jesus' case, the Pharisees and Sadducees took God's Law, from the Old Testament, and applied it to situations that God never intended. They had changed God's Laws. They placed their own commandments and traditions above the Word of God (Mark 7:7-9). Jesus was correcting the laws that the people have “heard” from their religious leaders, and explained these laws as God intended them to be.[/FONT]

http://bible.org/seriespage/jesus-and-law-retaliation-lex-talionis-matthew-538-42

As well as Nomians.

http://www.jewishpath.org/messianicaneyeforaneye.html

[SIZE=+1]Torah compensation HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH POKING OUT A PERSON'S EYE BECAUSE THEY CAUSED SOMEONE TO LOSE AN EYE, G-d forbid! This holds true for every issue.[/SIZE]

You simply want to believe that the Torah is literal in every single instance and context, where it's clearly not.

Perhaps you also want to completely ignore what I said about how even Jews today interpret it how Jesus said.

 

[Desert Snake]

You simply want to believe that the Torah is literal in every single instance and context, where it's clearly not.

Then how are you presuming to know what Torah True means

Perhaps you also want to completely ignore what I said about how even Jews today interpret it how Jesus said.

Yes, I know that, entirely separate from the point I was making
The irony here is that I am the one arguing that Christians don't need to be entirely Torah True, not you, yet your arguments are benefiting my opinions

 

[Shermana]

How are you presuming to know what anything Jesus says means?

I presume that Torah true means to obey the Torah as far as is possible to be obeyed, and we can look at the writings of the NT to help understand what parts are meant to be cleared up. Jesus also seemed to believe in a little bit of the Oral Law as well. That basically only discludes what's not possible, like how the Bablyonian exiles weren't able to have temple sacrifices and priesthood rituals. What's clear however, is that even at the end days, according to Zechariah 14, the gentiles will still go up to celebrate Succoth in Jerusalem. So much for the idea of the disolution of the Law. With that said, just because we may not be clear on what exactly a particular law means doesn't mean we aren't supposed to TRY to obey it to our best ability and logical comprehension.

Yes, I know that, entirely separate from the point I was making

How is it separate? It goes to show that even today Jews don't think this commandment was meant to be quite as literal as you are implying.

The irony here is that I am the one arguing that Christians don't need to be entirely Torah True, not you, yet your arguments are benefiting my opinions

Please explain how my arguments benefit your opinion, thanks.

 

[Shermana]

Thank you for this answer. This is something I can understand, and let me tell you why. I believe in the teachings of the Perennial Philosophy. If you're not aware of what that is, let me explain. The Perennial philosophers taught that every religion has two aspects, one is exoteric, which is the rituals, dogma, ceremony, etc., of a religion. The second is the esoteric, which is the spiritual aspect of a faith, such as it's internal, heart and mind teachings. What you have described here reminds me of that. From my understanding of what you have said, is that the law would represent the exoteric aspects of the faith, while the internal, heart, of the religion, that which Paul taught, represents the esoteric, in however one wishes to understand that term. Regardless of how one understands such things, and even though we may differ on it's understanding, your answer has given a meaning that I can understand.

I can most certainly agree that every commandment has a Spiritual/veiled/esoteric meaning, but that in no way means that the "Physical keeping" is not forever. In order to obey and understand the Spiritual, one must obey the Physical. In no way did Jesus say to do away with the Physical keeping, rather he said those who teach to do so even for the least commandment shall be called the least in the Kingdom.

 

[Desert Snake]

How are you presuming to know what anything Jesus says means?

I presume that Torah true means to obey the Torah as far as is possible to be obeyed, and we can look at the writings of the NT to help understand what parts are meant to be cleared up. Jesus also seemed to believe in a little bit of the Oral Law as well. That basically only discludes what's not possible, like how the Bablyonian exiles weren't able to have temple sacrifices and priesthood rituals. What's clear however, is that even at the end days, according to Zechariah 14, the gentiles will still go up to celebrate Succoth in Jerusalem. So much for the idea of the disolution of the Law. With that said, just because we may not be clear on what exactly a particular law means doesn't mean we aren't supposed to TRY to obey it to our best ability and logical comprehension.

I don't presume that, it's not commanded by Jesus, as much as you try to use the cerses in Matthew to prove it...

How is it separate? It goes to show that even today Jews don't think it was meant to be quite as literal as you are implying.
Right, but that is a "different" teaching. Even if it's a better understanding/interpretation,,, it's different

Please explain how my arguments benefit your opinion, thanks.

You admitted that the Torah may not be literal in all aspects, how is that not benefiting my argument? That's exactly my argument concerning Torah laws

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I can most certainly agree that every commandment has a Spiritual/veiled/esoteric meaning, but that in no way means that the "Physical keeping" is not forever. In order to obey and understand the Spiritual, one must obey the Physical. In no way did Jesus say to do away with the Physical keeping, rather he said those who teach to do so even for the least commandment shall be called the least in the Kingdom.

This is something I've been wondering about. While I don't think it can be denied that the law has a spiritual/inner meaning, this doesn't necessarily mean that the outer meaning was or has to be done away with. The Jews thought it was important, and so did Jesus. It's just that now I may have a better understanding of where Paul may have been coming from, but I still have some studying to do on this.

 

[Shermana]

I don't presume that, it's not commanded by Jesus, as much as you try to use the cerses in Matthew to prove it...

So you're basically saying "nuh uh"? How is it not commanded by Jesus? He said anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom. I'm surprised how often this gets ignored when I bring it up.

Right, but that is a "different" teaching. Even if it's a better understanding/interpretation,,, it's different

Different does not mean changed or altered. It means explained. Jesus could have, and most likely was, teaching what the ORIGINAL meaning was.

You admitted that the Torah may not be literal in all aspects, how is that not benefiting my argument? That's exactly my argument concerning Torah laws

No, your argument is that the Torah is not binding. All I'm saying is that it may not always be completely literal in every instance. This does not mean that it's not binding. It just means the interpretation of certain verses, and only CERTAIN verses, are up to dispute.

 

[Desert Snake]

So you're basically saying "nuh uh"? How is it not commanded by Jesus? He said anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom. I'm surprised how often this gets ignored when I bring it up.


Different does not mean changed or altered. It means explained. Jesus could have, and most likely was, teaching what the ORIGINAL meaning was.



No, your argument is that the Torah is not binding.

No, OT Covenant/NT Covenant, same Covenant

All I'm saying is that it may not always be completely literal in every instance. This does not mean that it's not binding. It just means the interpretation of certain verses, and only CERTAIN verses, are up to dispute.

Why certain verses only, which 'certain' verses

 

[Shermana]

No, OT Covenant/NT Covenant, same Covenant

Difference?

Why certain verses only, which 'certain' verses

The ones Jesus spoke of for example.

There's plenty of verses however that I believe the Rabbinicists have put a spin on that shouldn't be there since his day like mixing milk and meat.

Several other verses aren't exactly clear either, like what exactly a Mezuzah is supposed to have in it, or what exactly the Fringe is supposed to be and whether it's to be just blue colored in general or of a particular dye made from sea snails or cuttlefish.

Does this mean we are not to obey them just because we aren't clear on them?

 

[Desert Snake]

This is something I've been wondering about. While I don't think it can be denied that the law has a spiritual/inner meaning, this doesn't necessarily mean that the outer meaning was or has to be done away with. The Jews thought it was important, and so did Jesus. It's just that now I may have a better understanding of where Paul may have been coming from, but I still have some studying to do on this.

There'es nothing wrong with having your own interpretation of scripture, we all do to a certain extent, there are plenty of people who hold your views, that's fine with me, it's only a disagreement when things seem to be taken out of context or misinterpreted.
Ebionites, Nazarenes, etc. think along the same lines as you

 

[Desert Snake]

Difference?



The ones Jesus spoke of for example.

There's plenty of verses however that I believe the Rabbinicists have put a spin on that shouldn't be there since his day like mixing milk and meat.

Verse? Actually I thought that was included in the dietary laws



Several other verses aren't exactly clear either, like what exactly a Mezuzah is supposed to have in it,

I have no idea

or what exactly the Fringe is supposed to be and whether it's to be just blue colored in general or of a particular dye made from sea snails or cuttlefish.

Another thread discussion IMO

Does this mean we are not to obey them just because we aren't clear on them?

Not necessarily, but you are referring to Jews specifically, there are other problems IMO when trying to have gentiles follow the OT laws.. scriptural problems

 

[Shermana]

There'es nothing wrong with having your own interpretation of scripture

,

Everything is everyone's own interpretation.

The issue is who's interpretation is closest to what was originally intended (apart from interpolation issues).

Not an easy job to figure out but inductive reasoning can help provide the best means to get to the closest logical answer.

we all do to a certain extent

Otherwise there wouldn't be so many denominations.

, there are plenty of people who hold your views, that's fine with me, it's only a disagreement when things seem to be taken out of context or misinterpreted.

And that's the issue, who is taking things out of context and misinterpreting? That's the basis of 90% of biblical arguments. How do we determine who's taking it out of context? How do we determine who is misinterpreting? That is what logical debate is for.

My argument is that in order to understand what the Jewish Messiah is saying, we must first have the right foundational lens to examine the texts through: And that's through a Jewish lens, and from that, a more esoteric/non-Pharisee lens at that. The orthodox say quite differently.

Ebionites, Nazarenes, etc. think along the same lines as you

Indeed, and they were most likely the original church or at least closest to the teachings of the original church and their initial descendents, which is why I say that anyone looking for objectivity in how to determine what the initial Church believed and what Jesus taught should look to them as models of what was originally conveyed. At least what is known about them and what we can reconstruct.

 

[Shermana]

Not necessarily, but you are referring to Jews specifically, there are other problems IMO when trying to have gentiles follow the OT laws.. scriptural problems

Those scriptural problems are exactly what we try to resolve in such debates.

However, some textual examples that seem to favor the anti-OT view have very strong, major-scholarly supported reasons to be viewed as interpolations. We can see blatant examples like in 1 Cor 9:20 such as "(Though I myself am not under the Law)" that there was in fact a concerted attempt among Anti-Judaizers to edit the texts to make them more anti-Law than they really were. Like the issue of the Council of Jerusalem, which many major scholars insist was a fabricated later episode. Some are even now saying that Luke-acts is a Marcionite work as a whole.

And while I may reject Paul outright, those like James Scott Trimm, like some of the early Nazarenes, give Paul the benefit of the doubt and simply say that he's severely misinterpreted and misunderstood, like the author of 2 Peter says, but by those trying to preach an anti-Law view. Some of his writings on how to interpret Paul are quite convincing, though I think at times may be a bit of a stretch, and they certainly would not hold as much weight to those who insist on Greek primacy.

As for the Milk and meat mixing, all it says is to not boil a kid in its mother's milk. The Rabbis didn't insist that you must avoid chicken cheesesteaks until much later, many even say you can't have lox and cream cheese. They go to great lengths to have a "kosher kitchen" with two ovens, two wash basins, and more all because of this revisioning of this commandment.

But they could be right too.

 

[Desert Snake]

,
Indeed, and they were most likely the original church or at least closest to the teachings of the original church and their initial descendents, which is why I say that anyone looking for objectivity in how to determine what the initial Church believed and what Jesus taught should look to them as models of what was originally conveyed. At least what is known about them and what we can reconstruct.

Sure, I have no problem with that, but did you ever explain how the laws for the converting pagans came up? Why weren't they expected to follow all the OT laws like the Jews?