You actually hold the exact same view that the author of Questioning Paul held prior to writing it. When he began his review of Galatians his goal was to show that Paul was not condemning the Towrah but Rabbinical law and that Paul was not in conflict with God, but agreed with him. Throughout the course of the study, which lasted about a year, he become convinced that this position was untenable, which forced him to reevaluate everything he had previously written, especially concerning Paul.

This was a journey that many of us here went on with him, and is saved in the Blog Talk Radio Archives, should you wish to listen to it. Questioning Paul was revised several times over in the course of the study and developed from defending Paul and trying to show that he is in line with Yah's teaching, to out right condemning him.

Personally I came to know Yah from the point of agnosticism and started my study with Yah;s Towrah and never spent much time in Paul's writings. The most time I have spent in them is when talking with Christians who routinely use him to dismiss what Yah taught. That said, having studied the Towrah for some time now there is 1 issue with which Paul is completely and unequivocally opposed to Yah, and that is circumcision. Most everything he wrote can be viewed in some way which puts it in line with Scripture, but his view on circumcision is diametrically opposed to Yahowah's.

If you are interested in why I say this I did a show with Yada on blog talk radio on this topic last year, please listen to it and tell and then present any arguments you may have with our logic.

Please do finish Questioning Paul though. I have yet to find anyone who has read it cover to cover who does not agree that Paul was a false teacher, but as always I am open to being proven wrong should the evidence be presented.

Welcome to the forum by the way.

Well thanks for the reply. And I appear to have come on a little confrontational because like you folks I am passionate about scripture. That being said lets chat.

1. Circumcision. This is an interesting issue. Why circumcise? How about these 2 reasons. To show you are of the lineage of "Israel" which gives you claim to land (gave you), and for sanitary reasons. In fact I just read an interesting book written by a doctor that statistically shows men who are not circumcised have geometrically higher chances of bladder infections and they also get penile cancer (which I had never heard of). So there does appear to be physical health reasons for it. As far as land grants go, now that so many people are circumcised it is not a claim on Israeli land.

I believe a point Paul is making is this - If a gentile wants to keep the Sabbath what difference does it make if he is circumcised? If a gentile wants to eat clean meat does he need to be circumcised? What difference does it make? Of course if you talk to a Rabbi and mention that you have a friend that wants to start keeping the sabbath and wants to celebrate the Holy Days what will he say? "He must convert to Judaism and be circumcised" is the answer. And of course that is a BS answer designed for only increasing market share into their cult.

Another point comes up in scripture as to whether a non-circumcised person can keep the Passover. I found this -

Exo 12:48 “And when a stranger sojourns with you and shall perform the Passover to יהוה, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and perform it, and he shall be as a native of the land. But let no uncircumcised eat of it.

However, now we read this -

Num 9:14 ‘And when a stranger sojourns among you, then he shall perform the Passover of יהוה. He shall do so according to the law of the Passover and according to its right-ruling. You have one law, both for the stranger and the native of the land.’ ”

I am not familiar with the law for the "stranger", but yet he could keep the Passover even though it appears the Exodus 12:48 verse seems to forbid it. I guess the question is what difference does it make if you are circumcised or not if you want to do the Passover? What is stopping you?

I believe Paul is trying to convey common sense by saying you don’t have to be a physical descendent of Abraham to be a son and HEIR OF GOD. So we ARE (in one sense) descendents of Abraham, irrespective of our parentage. In fact the Law considered the stranger (uncircumcised) gentile) often. For example

Lev 17:12 “Therefore I said to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘No being among you eats blood, nor does any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.’

Paul writes -
Gal 5:6 For in Messiah יהושע neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any strength, but belief working through love.

However, they do not remember this verse about Abraham -

Gen 26:5 because Aḇraham obeyed My voice and guarded My Charge: My commands, My laws, and My Torot1.” Footnote: 1Torot - plural of Torah, teaching

We know that being a follower of Yashua is all about being a SPIRITUAL Israelite, being like Abraham the “Father of the Faithful” IN OUR HEARTS;. And this theme of circumcision “of the heart” isn’t a New Testament concept as many assume:

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, TO LOVE THE LORD THY GOD WITH ALL THINE HEART, AND WITH ALL THY SOUL, that thou mayest live. (for eternity)

Deuteronomy 10:16 CIRCUMCISE THEREFORE THE FORESKIN OF YOUR HEART, and be no more stiff-necked.

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and TAKE AWAY THE FORESKINS OF YOUR HEART.

When Christians read these verse they moot the point about the Law and the works of Law ALONG WITH Faith! That is the problem.


Paul called uncircumcised Gentile proselytes “Brethren”. He calls them his brothers. And he calls them his brothers not once, but lots of times. Furthermore in Galatians 4:19, Paul refers to the gentiles in the Galatian churches as his “own little children”. Now whilst we normally don’t give that a second thought, in this context isn’t that interesting?

• Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel…
• Galatians 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of…
• Galatians4:12 Brethren, I beseech you
• Galatians 4:19 My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you,
• Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was,

Whenever Paul uses the term “brethren”, he’s making a loaded point. At almost EVERY opportunity, Paul is saying, YOU UNCIRCUMCISED GENTILES ARE MY BROTHERS. Not the sort of thing you’d normally hear very often from a former enforcer of the Sanhedrin. His message VERY CLEARLY is: we are ALL sons of GOD, whether or NOT we are sons of Abraham. And that is arguably is the guts of the first (and most significant) of the two themes that Paul is addressing in his letter to the Galatian churches.

I summarize for today with this thought - Getting circumcised means nothing if you do not keep the written law of God. Getting Baptized means nothing if you defile your "temple" after your Baptism. These acts are meaningless in and of themselves. If a "brother" wants to start keeping the laws what difference does it make if he gets wet or cut? Cornelius was heard by God in Acts 10 correct? And it is possible God could have changed his law on circumcision. God did change his law over time in other areas. We cannot keep the Passover correctly since there is no temple, but we must still try and do our best. We must keep the Laws - circumcised or not. Should we still get cut? :) Tough to say, but in lieu of all the facts I would recommend it as I would recommend do not eat pork. Is it required for salvation? Probably not in the overall scheme of things and not much more than any other Law.

2. The Law in Galatians -

Back to another tough subject - the term law in Galatians 3. I need to stop here, but tomorrow want to discuss the following -

In Acts 24:14 Paul sums up his beliefs in front of an array of accusers AFTER he has been converted.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are WRITTEN IN THE LAW AND IN THE PROPHETS:

What about the Oral Torah law? Interestingly Paul is saying here: “I believe in all the written scriptures in the Old Testament”, BUT for a former Pharisee about the Oral Torah law he says what? He mentions NOTHING about the Oral Torah law, which was later codified in the Mishnah.

He COULD have said: “believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets AND THE TRADITIONS OF THE FATHERS”.

But he doesn’t. And that tells us volumes.

More tomorrow.

I think that if Paul saw what happened to his intentions he would be totally sick to his stomach. Much in the same way Yashua is sick to his stomach at watching "Christians" say they speak His words.

Paul had a hard time. Have you ever tried to talk "Law" to a Christian? Tried to get them to admit the Sabbath is the 7th day? Tried to get them to admit there are unclean foods? It is impossible. And Paul had a big task ahead of him. He taught Law and Faith. His assemblies were based on Torah Law and Faith. And after he died this "Law" thing got too burdensome and his assemblies dropped learning the law and just took on the "faith" aspect alone. And faith without works is dead. Yet to a Christian it is all they want in life.

Paul's writings of the Law, the works of law vs. works of THE law, etc., have all been trampled on by King James and other blasphemers. I truly think Paul is an innocent man. It is the followers that have trampled him. Calling Paul a Christian that set up churches is a far cry from calling him a follower of the Way that set up Assemblies. And the Way was simply a reversion back to Torah Law. Paul did not start Christianity. But he is accused of it.

There were times when Paul was questioned and I feel he went out of his way to tell the folks something useful. And even though he may have made suggestions he usually paraphrased when he was speaking not of the law, but under suggestion. Look who he was speaking to. Pagans and people that had never read anything such as this. I pity his task.

Tomorrow lets look at how the King James kills his intent in Galatians 3. They mix his intent of Rabbinical law and Mosaic Law in such a way it is very difficult to ascertain his meaning and throws off MANY good people.

But, what about Mosaic Law? Has anybody kept it 100%? No, aside from Yashua. I use this example though in how I see it applies -

In high school I went to 6 classes. I loved my principal (Yashua figure). I was expected to make a 100% "A" in every class. I was given books to study. The more I studied the better a grade I made. In the overall scheme of things I was passed on to a higher level. Not by my grade, but by the grace of the principal. Some students (Christian figure) feel that if they simply love the principal and do not study, or take a test, or open a book, they can be passed on by faith alone. What will the principal do? Judge them by their faith alone? I would hate to be in his judgment seat. In high school they would flunk or be sent back for further training. Maybe this will happen in the resurrection - some given another chance to learn the Torah.

In this scenario you must do well or you do not pass. And no one makes a 100% on every test. That is how I see the Torah law. I cannot keep every Sabbath correctly. I fail that test sometimes. But as Paul said in Romans 7 thanks to the one that can heal my soul when I do what I do not want to do!

Poor Paul. He was a very smart man and is getting stomped on. Lets look at how his meaning in Galatians has been skewed tomorrow. It is very technical. He points out in Galatians 3 and in Romans 7 that it is Rabbinical law that is not to be done. rule-keeping. law code. But we must have Mosaic Law.

One other thing - Learning the Law has been exciting for me. I love the techniques it offers. Such as learning how to apply it in today's world. For anyone to think this is an outdated work is missing the higher teachings the Law implies. Obedience to these writings is imperative. Didn't Yashua say he would reward every man according to his works? Several times. But we don't do this for rewards. We follow because we love to. Right? And the truth of this Law shall set you free from man made laws and religious hinderances.

Personally I didn’t think you came on too strong at all. Like I said the view you are sharing is the same one held by Yada, the author of QP, two years ago. And unlike a lot of people who come here and immediately start telling us that we are all wrong even though they haven’t read anything found here to know why we hold the positions we hold, you have and are reading through the material. So I am more than happy to dialog with you.


I completely agree with you on the health issue, Yah designed us and knows what is best for us. As for circumcision being related to ownership of the land, I would have to disagree with you. Circumcision was the sign of the Covenant, and while ownership of the land was a benefit of the Covenant it was not the primary purpose of the Covenant.
The Covenant, singular (another issue I have with Paul is his speaking of 2 covenants when Yah only speaks of one), is the only way to have a relationship with Yahowah. It is through participation in the Covenant that we become Yah’s children, and circumcision was required for participation in the Covenant. Ownership of the Land, which is symbolic throughout Scripture of God’s home i.e. heaven, is but one benefit of the Covenant, salvation and relationship with Yah being others.
According to Yahowah a male who is not circumcised has nullified, parar – broke, violated and thwarted, split open and tore apart, brought nothing and invalidated his Covenant. (Gen. 17:14)


If a gentile wants to keep the Sabbath or eat a Torah diet then no he does not need to be circumcised. If he wants to participate in the Covenant then yes he must be circumcised.
Paul says in Galatians 5 that if a man is circumcised then the Messiah profits him nothing, and that if a man is circumcised he is indebted to all of the law. "But now again (palin – on the other hand) I testify(martyromai – I declare as a witness, I affirm and I insist) that (hoti) every (pas) man(anthropos)who is circumcised (peritemno), he actually exists (eimi) obligated (opheiletes – one who is in debt) to do and perform (poieomai – to carry out the assigned tasks of) the entire (holos – all of, the whole, total and complete) Law (nomon – Torah)." (Galatians 5:3)


You say however as though these verses contradict each other, but they don’t they confirm each other. The Exodus verse tells us that no one who is uncircumcised may eat of the Passover, in the Hebrew literally they may not benefit from nor be nourished by it. Then the numbers verse tells us that the stranger shall perform the Passover according the Towrah, teaching and instruction, of the Passover. Exodus is part of the Towrah, and contains teaching and instructions for the Passover. So for a stranger, gentile, to partake in the Passover they must do so in accordance with the Towrah which states that they must be circumcised.
Hence the statement there is but one Towrah for the stranger and the gentile. There is but 1 Towrah, 1 Covenant, and 1 way to Yahwah, and it requires circumcision. There is not a set of instructions and teachings for Jews and a set of instructions and teachings for gentiles, there is but 1, and it is the Towrah.


There is no law for the stranger other than the Towrah. There is but 1 Towrah for the stranger and the gentile, not one for each, 1 period.
The exodus verses doesn’t seem to forbid the uncircumcised from partaking in the Passover, it does forbid it, as does the numbers verse which tells us that they must perform the Passover in accordance with the Towrah.
Yah says time and again that there is but 1 Towrah, and that it is the same for Israel and for gentiles.

The difference is huge, the difference is that Yahowah said that if you are not circumcised than you cannot eat of, benefit from and be nourished by the Passover.


Yes we can all become Yah’s children despite our physical heritage, this is entirely true, I may or may not have some Jewish blood in me (I’m a Heinz 57) but I am a part of Yah’s family.
This is not what Paul is saying in regards to circumcision though. Paul’s statements with regard to circumcision are that it is counterproductive, that if you are circumcised you are indebted to keep all of the law, and that the messiah does you no good.


Yes Paul wrote that, which is why I have issues with him, because Yahowah dictated and Moshe wrote,
Genesis 17: 10This is My Covenant Relationship between Me and between you and between your offspring after. Circumcise among you, every male. 11And you all will be circumcised of the flesh of your foreskin and it will exist specifically as the sign of the Covenant between me and between you. 12And circumcise a son of eight days among you, every male on behalf of your home, he who is born in the family and he who desires to be bought from all of the sons of foreign, he who relationally is not from your seed. 13Certainly must be circumcised he who is born in your family, and he who is bought with your silver, and My Covenant Relationship exists in your flesh to be a Covenant forever. 14And the uncircumcised male who relationally is not of the flesh of his foreskin, then that soul shall be cut off from Her family, My Covenant Relationship he has nullified.’

If it weren’t for Paul there would be no debate regarding circumcision, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest anything other than that we should circumcise ourselves and our sons, every time it is mentioned in Scripture it is Yah telling us that it must be done.



Circumcision of the heart is necessary as well, and I know it is not a New Testament concept, but it also does not, as many who try to justify Paul proclaim, do away with circumcision of the flesh either. In fact there are verses where both are spoken of as being necessary and there are verses like the Genesis one I cited above where circumcision of the flesh is specified. So one does not negate the other, both are necessary.



Paul can call all the people he wants brethren, but that doesn’t change the fact that his teaching regarding circumcision is contradictory to Yah’s. I agree that those in Yah’s family are all related and brothers and sisters, but Yah has told us outright that there are no uncircumcised among that family.



Keeping God’s Towrah is impossible and He never asks us to. The word translated keep most accurately means observe, as in to examine study and scrutinize. The reason to observer Yah’s Towrah is to come to know Him, and to form a relationship with Him. In His Towrah he tells us how to do that, and that is through the Covenant, and a requirement of the Covenant is circumcision.


I would completely disagree here.
1 if God changed his instruction regarding circumcision, why did he never tell anyone. Nowhere in Scripture does he ever say that he changed it, he is consistent throughout, and only Paul speaks against it.
2. If God where to change his Towrah it would make him inconsistent and thus unreliable, and thus untrustworthy.
3. Yahowsha told us in the Sermon on the Mount that not one jot or tittle of the Towrah would be changed until it was all fulfilled, that until heaven and earth passed away not one bit of the Towrah would be changed. So since there is still heaven and earth the Towrah is unchanged.



Leaving out the point I made early about keeping, your statement here is self contradictory. If one must keep the Laws, then one must be circumcised because that is a part of the Law.

Again we cannot keep the Towrah, but we can observe it.



Again if you are saying that one must keep the Law then one must be circumcised. Also I would argue that it is not akin to eating Pork because Yah never said that eating pork nullified the Covenant, which he did say about circumcision.



The oral towrah is rabbinical rubbish and doesn’t matter. But the fact that Paul never mentions it makes the argument that he is not refereeing to the written Towrah when he is condemning it that much harder to make. The only Towrah that Paul speaks of, in Galatians, is the one codified on Mt. Sinai, which is the written Towrah, which is what makes his condemning of it so troublesome.



I completely agree that Yahowsha would be sick to his stomach concerning Christians. I find it hard to agree with you about Paul however. You say he taught law and faith, but he condemned the Towrah and taught people to ignore it, i.e. see above on circumcision. That said Paul does get confusing because in the midst of condemning the Towrah he will tell us to keep it, Romans 9 comes to mind. Someone here once described Paul’s writings as:
The Towrah is bad
The towrah is wrong
We don’t need the towrah
Keep the towrah
The towrah is a burdon
We are not bound to the towrah
The towrah is good
The towrah is like our dead husband that we are no longer bound to.

For me I look at what he taught, not what he says about the Towrah, because there are areas where he speaks well of the Towrah and tells people to follow it, but then there are areas where he tells us not to. So I look at the specifics, like circumcision where what he teaches on it is diametrically opposed to the Towrah’s teaching on it.
And yes I have tried to talk to Christians of the Towrah many times, and have been labeld a Jew, a judaizer, a legalist, a cultist, a kook, a nut and many others, and have most often been “retorted” with Paul’s teachings.

Overall I think we agree much more than we disagree, particularly about the church and Christian theology. And like many I have known you have found a way to view Paul’s writings as in line with Scripture. As I see it with most of Paul there are two options, one which is vastly superior to the other.
1. You can interpret what Paul wrote in such a way that it lines up with Scripture (something that is doable with the exception of 2 issues) This is the option Yada went with for the longest time, until he came across the 2 issues I mentioned at which time he had to reassess Paul.
2. You can do as Christians do and twist Scripture to fit what Paul said.

I would say that you are doing 1. Like I said that was Yada until he did the Galatians review and came across the 2 issues where that is impossible. With these two issues you have two choices, you can dismiss Paul as a false teacher, or engage in 2 from above and try to twist Scripture to fit Paul’s teaching. The 2 issues where Paul is in complete opposition to Yah are Circumcision (as we have already been discussing) and Paul’s 2 Covenant teachings (particularly linking the one from Mt. Sinai to slavery).

I look forward to conversing with you more on this, and hope that you will finish QP.

(Had a busy day. Ready to post the "law" portion of this argument. Then will go back tonight and read the comments. Thanks. Sorry if this is too long, but it is not easy to say. This is a combination of notes, commentary, and "other" that I have edited into one thought. It takes a little concentration, but follow it out.)

Paul Appears to Criticize the Law in Galatians

Many people say Paul’s comments about the Law in Galatians are negative. Some say that Paul’s referring to the entirety of the written Torah law, the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch). Others say he’s only criticizing the sacrificial laws. Why do they say this?

Firstly Paul makes two references to “the curse of the law” in Galatians. Let’s have a look at these.

Galatians 3:10 for as many as are of works of law are under a curse,
Galatians 3:13 Christ did redeem us from the curse of the law,

Then Paul writes “UNDER the law” in Galatians four times, as if the law is an oppressive burden. There are also six references to “the works of the law” in Galatians, and none of these are mentioned in a positive context.

So christian theologians say “the law of Moses is done away” because its an oppressive burden. But during the sermon on the mount Jesus Christ said:

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, AND TEACHES MEN SO, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. NKJV

Did he only mean that this was the case before he died? But even if we ignore what Christ said at the sermon on the Mount (and we would suggest that we do so at our peril), if Paul really believed when he wrote Galatians that the first five books of the Bible were “done away”, why does he contradict this in Romans 7?

Romans 7:12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. NKJV

...and Acts 24, where at the end of his freedom he defends his beliefs before Felix:

Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. NKJV

And don’t forget 2 Timothy 3:16-17, where just prior to his death Paul tells Timothy that all of the Old Testament scriptures are inspired and profitable.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. NKJV

So is Paul for the written law in the first five books of our Bibles, or against it, or couldn’t he make up his mind?

“Works of Law” Not “The Works of The Law”

Paul writes about “the works of the law” six times in Galatians, and it’s always negative, but before we look at any of these verses we need to clarify one thing. Actually Paul does NOT use the expression “THE works of THE law” (even ONCE). The translators have wrongly inserted the definite article “THE”. In the original Greek (as Young’s literal translation tells us) Paul is talking about a far more generic expression “works of law”. NOT “the works of the law” - just “works of law”. That’s worth taking a note of, because it gives us a clue about what Paul is really criticizing.

Unfortunately you can’t tell this from a KJV or a NKJV, because although they usually italicize the words that aren’t in the original text, for some reason here they don’t. To verify this for yourselves you can check out Bullinger’s Companion Bible or Young’s Literal. By way of example let’s compare the New King James Version (NKJV) with Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) and let’s take a look at Galatians 2:16 where the expression “THE WORKS OF THE LAW” is used THREE times in the New King James.

Galatians 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by THE works of THE law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by THE works of THE law; for by THE works of THE law no flesh shall be justified. NKJV

But what Paul actually wrote was:
Galatians 2:16 having known also that a man is not declared righteous by WORKS OF LAW, if not through the faith of Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by the faith of Christ, and not by WORKS OF LAW, wherefore declared righteous by WORKS OF LAW shall be no flesh.’ – YLT

(THE MESSAGE BIBLE USES THE TERM RULE KEEPING which is also not the Mosaic Law). -
Gal 2:16 We know very well that we are not set right with God by rule-keeping but only through personal faith in Jesus Christ. How do we know? We tried it--and we had the best system of rules the world has ever seen! Convinced that no human being can please God by self-improvement, we believed in Jesus as the Messiah so that we might be set right before God by trusting in the Messiah, not by trying to be good.

So here we see one verse where in six cases the word “THE” has been inserted without it being in the original Greek. The same is true of ALL the other three times the expression is used in Galatians. This happens in a number of other cases in Galatians which are telling. That is, there are lots of cases where the King James translates the original Greek as “THE LAW”, but actually Paul wrote “law”.

Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by THE WORKS OF THE LAW, or by the hearing of faith?

YLT Gal 3:2 this only do I wish to learn from you--by works of law the Spirit did ye receive, or by the hearing of faith?

Again “works of law” not THE works of THE law

Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by THE WORKS OF THE LAW, or by the hearing of faith? (wrong words)

Gal 3:5 He, therefore, who is supplying to you the Spirit, and working mighty acts among you--by works of law or by the hearing of faith is it ?

Same thing - “works of law”.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of THE works of THE law .

Gal 3:10 for as many as are of works of law are under a curse, for it hath been written, `Cursed is every one who is not remaining in all things that have been written in the Book of the Law--to do them,'

Same thing. “works of law”

So when Paul talks about being “under law” (remember it’s not “under THE law”, just “under law” and when he talks about “works of law” (not “THE works of THE law”) he can be talking about ANY aspect of first century Jewish law.

So why’s Paul being negative about “works of law”? Well, some commentators tell us that: “Works of Law” is Paul’s way of saying “legalism”. Cranfield in ‘79 in the International Critical Commentary (Romans) says: “The Greek Language of Paul’s day possessed no word grouping corresponding to our “Legalism”. Ernest de Wit Burton also in the International Critical Commentary of Galatians 1921 says “By Erga Nomou (works of law) Paul means the obedience to formal statutes done in the LEGALISTIC SPIRIT. (quoting selectively) “the translation of this phrase is a serious defect”.

But if Paul appears to be critical about works of law, James has a lot of positive things to say about “works”.

James 2:14-26 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. NKJV

So clearly James reminds us that we have to be putting not only the letter of the written Torah law into action, but also the spirit (or intent) of the law in our daily lives.

That said, Paul reminds us in Ephesians 2 that ultimately we can never be saved by works.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. NKJV

...because of course, irrespective of how “good” we are today, only Christ’s sacrifice can pay for our past sins.

Where most people who want to do away with the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) go wrong is this: when they read law, in Galatians they immediately presume that it means the WRITTEN Torah in the Pentateuch. Actually, that’s a HUGE assumption, given that more than much of first century Jewish law was not in the Old Testament and the written torah law explicitly curses any additions to itself in Deuteronomy 4:2.

Let’s now take a look at the other negative expression about law that Paul uses in Galatians: “Under the Law”.

Under The Law

Paul makes four references to being “Under the law” in Galatians, which it’s difficult not to suggest is criticizing THE written Torah in our Bibles as oppressive. But yet again the translators have done us the same disservice. The original greek says simply “under law”. Again if Paul is taking pot shots at Jewish law when he speaks of being “under law” we need to ask the same question. Which part of first century Jewish Law was Paul implying was an oppressive burden?

Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under THE law, NKJV
Galatians 4:5 5 to redeem those who were under THE law, . NKJV
Galatians 4:21 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under THE law, do you not hear the law? NKJV

YLT
Gal 4:4 and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law,
Gal 4:5 that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive;
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye who are willing to be under law, the law do ye not hear?

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under THE law. NKJV

YLT Gal 5:18 and if by the Spirit ye are led, ye are not under law.

The original Greek DOES NOT SAY “under THE law”, simply “under law” in these verses. Some have argued that this phrase means “under the PENALTY of the law”, but if this is the case, why would anyone “desire to be under the (penalty) of the law” (Gal 4:21)?

Is Galatians 5:18 really saying that if we’re led by the Spirit, the (oppressive) written Torah can be ignored? Well the view that the written Torah is oppressive is something that might make sense to many twenty first century christians, but it wouldn’t have made sense to FIRST century Jews, because Jews have always loved the written Torah law. In fact to Jews, the written Torah-law has never seemed to be oppressive in any way.
Nevertheless, some would have us believe that Paul says the Mosaic law (more correctly the written Torah law of God) is a curse. Is this what Paul meant?

The “Curse of The Law”

When Paul writes in Galatians “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law” is he saying that the written torah (Pentateuch), the law in the first five books of the Bible written by Moses, and given to the descendants of Abraham by God Himself was a curse?

We’ve already discussed that Paul believed “EVERYTHING WRITTEN in the law and the prophets” and that Jews delight in the written Torah law - remember Psalm 19: and Psalm 119. So in Galatians 3:10 when Paul writes

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse... NKJV

and a few verses later when he writes:

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the CURSE OF THE LAW.

...what does he mean if, as we assert, it’s inconceivable that with his Jewish heritage Paul would have called the written Mosaic Torah Law a curse.

The answer is that Paul is simply referring to a specific curse recorded in Deuteronomy in Galatians 3:10

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” NKJV

YLT
Gal 3:10 for as many as are of works of law are under a curse, for it hath been written, `Cursed is every one who is not remaining in all things that have been written in the Book of the Law--to do them,'

Paul is citing this from Deuteronomy 27:26 which says:

Deuteronomy 27:26 ‘Cursed is he who doth not establish the words of this law, to do them, - and all the people have said, Amen. (Young’s Literal Translation)

or:

Deuteronomy 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say: Amen.’ (Jewish Publication Society)

As an aside - if Paul’s supposed to be doing away with the written Torah, why does he cite it so much in his epistles? Just look down the centre margin of your Bible and count the number of times that Paul quotes from the written Torah Law in Galatians. So it would appear then, that when Paul is referring to “the curse of the law”, he’s actually referring to a specific curse for those who don’t keep some aspect of God’s written Torah Law (presumably also in Deuteronomy?).

What aspect of the written Torah could be being broken for this curse to become valid? Deuteronomy 4:2

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

Arguably then, Paul is saying: Standard Pharisaic Judaism emphasizes legalistic “works of law”, but by doing so adds oral torah-law to the written Torah Law which contravenes Deuteronomy 4:2 and thereby brings them under the curse of Deuteronomy 27.

You Observe Days & Months & Times & Years - Galatians 4:9-10

Let’s now move onto the subject of Galatians 4:9-10.

Galatians 4: 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

From this the conclusion of most Christian theologians is: “there’s no need to keep the Holy Days in the written torah law” (Leviticus 23). Is that right? To suggest then that to Paul, the Festivals of Leviticus 23: were in fact “weak and beggarly elements” is entirely inconsistent with how religious Jews in the first century viewed the written Law of Moses. Religious Jews loved the written Torah law then, just as they reverence it today.

Yet perhaps, if the Jews added all sorts of laws illegally, maybe they added a few extra Holy Days too, and that’s what Paul’s actually referring to here. Perhaps we should see if we can find out anything about additional Jewish holy days in the first century. More specifically had any “days and months and times and years” been added by oral Jewish tradition to those commanded by God in what many people regard as the Law of Moses, by the time that Paul had written Galatians?

The following information is taken from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Electronic Database Copyright ©1996 by Biblesoft

Post Exilic Feasts

In post-exilic times important historical events were made the basis for the institution of NEW FASTS AND FEASTS. When the first temple was destroyed and the people were carried into captivity, “the sacrifice of the body and one’s own fat and blood” were substituted for that of animals (see Talmud, Berakhoth 17 a). With such a view of their importance, fasts of all sorts were as a matter of course rapidly multiplied. (Note that the Day of Atonement was the only pre-exilic fast.) Of these post-exilic fasts and feasts, all of which are not in the Laws of Moses:

• The Feast of Dedication or Hanukka (1 Macc 4:52-59; John 10:22; Mishna, Ta‘anith 2:10; Mo‘edh QaTon 3:9; Josephus, Ant, XII, vii; Apion, II, xxxix)
• The Feast of Purim (Esther 3:7; 9:24 ff; 2 Macc 15:36); and
• The Fasts of the Fourth [Month] or Fast of Tammuz 17 (Zechariah 8:19; Jeremiah 39:1; 52; Mishna, Ta‘anith 4:6),
• The [Fast of the] Fifth [Month] or Tisha be-Av (Fast of Av 9)(Zechariah 7:3-4; 8:19; Ta‘anith 4:6),
• The [Fast of the] Seventh [Month] (Zechariah 7:5; 8:19; Jeremiah 41:1 ff; 2 Kings 25:25; Cedher ‘Olam Rabba’ 26; Meghillath Ta‘anith c. 12),
• The [Fast of the] Tenth Month (Zechariah 8:19; 2 Kings 25:1), and
• The Fast of Esther (Esther 4:16 f; 9:31) have been preserved by Jewish tradition to this day.

Notice that whilst the Bible records these five fasts as historical events, nowhere does God command them.

The following information is from © 1994-2000 Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Other fasts and feasts no doubt were instituted on similar occasions and received a local or temporary observance, for example, the FEAST OF ACRA (1 Macc 13:50-52; compare 1:33), to celebrate the recapture of Acra (“the citadel”) on the 23 rd of ‘Iyar 141 BC, and THE FEAST OF NICANOR, in celebration of the victory over Nicanor on the 13 th day of ‘Adhar 160 BC (1 Macc 7:49).

Several other festivals are mentioned in the Talmud and other post-Biblical writings which may have been of even greater antiquity. THE FEAST OF WOODCARRYING (Midsummer Day: Neh 10:34; Josephus, BJ, II, vii, 6; Meghillath Ta‘anith c.v, p. 32, Mishna,Ta‘anith 4:8 a), for example, is referred to as the greatest day of rejoicing of the Hebrews, ranking with Atonement Day. It was principally a picnic day to which a religious touch was given by making it the woodgatherers’ festival for the Temple.

A NEW YEAR FOR TREES is mentioned in the Talmud (Ro’sh ha-Shdnah 1:1). The pious, according both to the Jewish tradition and the New Testament, observed many private or semi-public fasts, such as the Mondays, Thursdays and following Monday after Nican and Tishri (the festival months: Luke 18:12; Matt 9:14; 6:16; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33; Acts 10:30; Meghillah 31 a; Ta‘anith 12 a; Bdbha’ Qama’ 8:2).

The day before Passover was a fast day for the firstborn (Copherim 21:3). In post-Biblical times the Jews outside of Palestine doubled each of the following days: the opening and closing day of Passover and Tabernacles and Pentecost, because of the capheq, or doubt as to the proper day to be observed. New Year’s Day seems to have been doubled from time immemorial, the forty-eight hours counting as one “long day.”

Many new modes of observance appear in post-exilic times in connection with the old established festivals, especially in the high festival season of Tishri. Thus the cimchath beth ha-sho’ebhah, “WATER DRAWING FESTIVAL,” was celebrated during the week of Tabernacles with popular games and dances in which even the elders took part, and the streets were so brilliantly illuminated with torches that scarcely an eye was closed in Jerusalem during that week (Talmud, Chullin).

In summary then.

Extra Days
Regarding extra DAYS, there were many private or semi public fasts such as Mondays and Thursdays. The DAY before Passover was a fast for the Firstborn. There were added feasts, like the Feast of Woodcarrying, The Feast of Acra, the Feast of Nicanor, the Feast of Purim and Hannukah, the Water Drawing Festival.

Extra Months
Regarding extra Months, there were the fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months

Times
In terms of times, we talked about how the Jews doubled the opening and closing day of Passover and Tabernacles and Pentecost, because of the capheq, or doubt as to the proper day to be observed. New Year’s Day seems to have been doubled from time immemorial, the forty-eight hours counting as one “long day.”

And Years
And finally with respect to Years we have the New YEAR for Trees.

Summary - Galatians is Consistent With The Written Torah-Law

Whilst Ephesians makes it clear that salvation is never by works but through by the grace of Christ’s sacrifice:

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. NKJV

We know from Deuteronomy 4:2 that additions to the written Torah that God gave were entirely prohibited by God. We ALSO know that for the oral/Talmudic additions and traditions Deuteronomy 27: adds a curse - which is referred to by Paul as the curse of the Law.

We also know that when Paul criticized Peter and Barnabus in front of the entire Antioch church it was because they were complying with the traditions of the elders and shunning their uncircumcised gentile brethren - something that he HAD to put a stop to quickly because Torah Law INCLUDES the Gentile, but Jewish law excludes them.

Finally then, given that a more balanced understanding of what Paul is writing in Galatians arguably like any religious Jew Paul believed the written torah law was a great blessing , but he was CRITICAL of an approach which tries to achieve righteousness by illegally adding and keeping ever more laws, because no amount of law keeping can bring righteousness. Only Christ’s blood sacrifice can.

This means that when Paul criticises “works of law” or being “under law” in Galatians he’s mostly criticising the keeping of more and more oral/talmudic additions and traditions. He’s not necessarily contradicting James’ positive emphasis on works at all.

Galatians welcomes uncircumcised gentiles into the family of God (as opposed to the family of Abraham) and far from criticizing it, upholds the written Torah law, and criticizes at least some aspects of the burdensome Oral Torah law.

What Does the Mosaic Law say about the Gentile

Should the Jews exclude the Gentiles? Did God in the writings of the Prophets and the Laws exclude the Gentiles? Lets look at scripture…

Can do the Sabbath

Isa 56:2 I will bless everyone who respects the Sabbath and refuses to do wrong.
Isa 56:3 Foreigners who worship me must not say, "The LORD won't let us be part of his people." Men who are unable to become fathers must no longer say, "We are dried-up trees."
Isa 56:4 To them, I, the LORD, say: Respect the Sabbath, obey me completely, and keep our agreement.
Isa 56:5 Then I will set up monuments in my temple with your names written on them. This will be much better than having children, because these monuments will stand there forever.
Isa 56:6 Foreigners will follow me. They will love me and worship in my name; they will respect the Sabbath and keep our agreement.
Isa 56:7 I will bring them to my holy mountain, where they will celebrate in my house of worship. Their sacrifices and offerings will always be welcome on my altar. Then my house will be known as a house of worship for all nations.

It is clear the foreigners to Israel were allowed to worship the Sabbath. They were never excluded from this by God.

Will Join Israel

Isa 14:1 The LORD will have mercy on Israel and will let them be his chosen people once again. He will bring them back to their own land, and foreigners will join them as part of Israel.

Must Keep the Law to be in Israel

There were rules for gentiles in order to remain in Israel. Such as…

Deu 31:12 Everyone must come--men, women, children, and even the foreigners who live in your towns. And each new generation will listen and learn to worship the LORD their God with fear and trembling and to do exactly what is said in God's Law.

Lev 16:29 On the tenth day of the seventh month of each year, you must go without eating to show sorrow for your sins, and no one, including foreigners who live among you, is allowed to work.

Lev 17:10 I will turn against any of my people who eat blood. This also includes any foreigners living among you.

Lev 19:34 Instead, treat them as well as you treat citizens and love them as much as you love yourself. Remember, you were once foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Lev 20:2 to say to the community of Israel: Death by stoning is the penalty for any citizens or foreigners in the country who sacrifice their children to the god Molech.

Lev 24:22 I am the LORD your God, and I demand equal justice both for you Israelites and for those foreigners who live among you.

Lev 24:22 I am the LORD your God, and I demand equal justice both for you Israelites and for those foreigners who live among you.

Num 9:14 Anyone, including foreigners who live among you, can celebrate Passover, if they follow all the regulations.

Num 15:14 And the foreigners who live among you must also follow these rules.

Num 15:15 This law will never change. I am the LORD, and I consider all people the same, whether they are Israelites or foreigners living among you.

Num 15:26 the sin of everyone--both Israelites and foreigners among you--will be forgiven.

Num 19:10 The man who collects the ashes must wash his clothes, but will remain unclean until evening. This law must always be obeyed by the people of Israel and the foreigners living among them.

Deu 5:14 but the seventh day of the week belongs to me, your God. No one is to work on that day--not you, your children, your oxen or donkeys or any other animal, not even those foreigners who live in your towns. And don't make your slaves do any work.

Deu 10:18 The LORD defends the rights of orphans and widows. He cares for foreigners and gives them food and clothing.

Deu 16:10 go to the place where the LORD chooses to be worshiped and celebrate the Harvest Festival in honor of the LORD your God. Bring him an offering as large as you can afford, depending on how big a harvest he has given you. Be sure to take along your sons and daughters and all your servants. Also invite the poor, including Levites, foreigners, orphans, and widows.

Receive the Holy Spirit

Act 10:45 All the believers who were circumcised and who had come with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured on people who were not Jewish.
Act 10:46 They heard these non-Jewish people speaking in other languages and praising God. Then Peter said,
Act 10:47 "No one can refuse to baptize these people with water. They have received the Holy Spirit in the same way that we did."
Act 10:48 So Peter ordered that they should be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for several days.

We see then that the Israelites have always been commanded by God to love the Gentile or Foreigner. God knew that one day his congregation would include all peoples from all nations and tribes. However, the Jewish laws of the Pharisees exclude the Gentile and in fact show hate towards this group. Yashua called them down for their oral writings and their hate. And Paul left them.

OK, then please respond to the comments then, not rehashing original thesis with a lengthy post avoiding the issues.

We're at Paul's invalidation of the Torah regarding circumcision and 2 covenants (and some other issues).

lassie -

3 things.

1. When you say term "justification by faith" what does that mean to you? How does one become "justified"? And are works involved? And what is a calling? Is a calling salvation? In other words, first a calling, then an acting on that calling with good works because of your faith, then at the point of judgment justification. Justification of your works and faith.

But, what do people think justification means in your opinion? When are you justified and how does it work from your point of view?

2. Paul had to be a salesman to the Gentiles. Think how hard it would have been being Paul, a premier student of Rabbinical Judaism and Torah Law, talking to a prozelyte convert. He would have to keep things lite and easy. And make certain suggestion - which he prefaced as suggestion - for complex topics. Imagine a PHd teaching algebra to a freshman.

Do preachers, "rabbis", and other clergy try to help people based on the "bible"? Yes, all. And many are leading people down a terrible path. So to single out Paul as doing what human nature would have him do I think is shining an unnecessary spotlight on a guy in a hard position. And to even explain the difference in his writings is difficult even to the Elite that for years think Paul is talking about Mosaic Law when he was not in most of his writings. But even trying to explain this to learned people is difficult.

Poor Paul. :)

3. What about Acts? I am no "Acts" expert, but when it comes to Acts 10 or 15, if that is where you are talking about, then lets discuss.

MA the Message bible is translating there opinion of the text into it, there is no distinction made in the Greek the same word is used.

The logic of trying to argue that he is speaking of Rabbinical law falls apart because no man was ever bound to that law by God. It was a man made law that man imposed on man. So the Message Bible is trying to justify Paul by translating nomos one way in some places and another way in others. This is a misleading practice. The fact that Paul never makes a distinction between two different nomos, and the nomos he is condemning he links as coming from God, and he links to coming from Mt. Sinai means there is not way to honestly interpret this as condemning anything other than the Torah.

And I understand the constraints of time, but if you are not going to reply to the challenges brought up then there is no use in me continuing a dialog.

James,

I read your comments above and have issues with several points you are making. I am answering in different order. First your Galatians 5 answer.

Galatians 5 from the Message bible reads this way –
Gal 5:1 Christ has set us free to live a free life. So take your stand! Never again let anyone put a harness of slavery on you.

Yashua freed “us” (us = Paul and his Jewish friends) to live a free life (the Mosaic Law is freedom). A harness of slavery is the pages and pages of Rabbinical law he is talking about – not Mosaic Law. He also explained it this way-
Col 2:14 having blotted out the certificate of debt against us – by the dogmas – which stood against us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the stake.

This is not Torah Law removed. It is men's handwritings of dogma.

Gal 5:2 I am emphatic about this. The moment any one of you submits to circumcision or any other rule-keeping system, at that same moment Christ's hard-won gift of freedom is squandered.

Here I do not believe Paul is talking about Literal circumcision. He is saying to not submit to Judaism since the only thing now that says you are a Jew is circumcision itself. I believe he is saying do not become a Jew – not do not get circumcised per se. Do not become “of the circumcision and start following a bunch of religious rules” is what he is saying.

Gal 5:3 I repeat my warning: The person who accepts the ways of circumcision trades all the advantages of the free life in Christ for the obligations of the slave life of the law.

The free life in Christ is Mosaic Law. Freedom in Christ is not freedom to live as a sinner. To me the Mosaic Law is freedom to live according to a better way of life. And I am not perfect and am still learning too. I still deal in unbalanced weights and measures for example. The Jewish law is what he calls slavery. And being a Jew in the rabbinical sense is to be of the circumcision in a bad way.

Gal 5:4 I suspect you would never intend this, but this is what happens. When you attempt to live by your own religious plans and projects, you are cut off from Christ, you fall out of grace.

Grace comes from trying to do the Mosaic Law, and when you have to work on the Sabbath you ask for grace and you get it. Grace is not unmerited for doing nothing. Religion garners no grace.

Gal 5:5 Meanwhile we expectantly wait for a satisfying relationship with the Spirit.

This can only come from learning Mosaic Law.

Gal 5:6 For in Christ, neither our most conscientious religion nor disregard of religion amounts to anything. What matters is something far more interior: faith expressed in love.

Love comes from learning Mosaic Law. When my friend’s ox (car) is in the ditch (shop) I always offer to help. When I have scraps leftover (food) I let me friends have them. I delight in the Law.

Galatians 5 here has nothing to do with Mosaic Law.

More in a little bit on this "new covenant".

James,

On your comments on the covenant and circumcision I just want to give you my opinion - simple as that.

My view on this New Covenant is that we have a new "agreement" of how sin is to be atoned. In Hebrews 10:18 Paul tells us that there is no more sacrifice for sin. (He did not say that the other sacrifices were done away with by the way). The penalty for sin is done away with as we are not going to get "stoned" or have to sacrifice a lamb anymore after the death of Yashua. Yashua started his priesthood to take over for a corrupt Levite priesthood. And the change is that now we pray for sin atonement instead of go through blood-letting. To me that is all that changed at His death. A better way of atoning sin.

What about circumcision? I believe you imply that you must be circumcised to receive some type of medal or reward in His Kingdom. I respectfully disagree. And again, when Paul speaks of people "of the circumcision" I think he is being derogatory to the Jews as I stated above. So what good is circumcision? I believe at one time it was needed when there was a physical Israel as a sign of the legal land ownership. After Israel got disbanded that need went away. So now what does it mean?

I think you are assigning some "magical reward" for doing it and some kind of "being left out" if you do not do it. Let me reiterate a thought - If you get circumcised and do not keep the Sabbath, the holy Days, the food laws, etc., then what good is the mark? It in itself gets you nothing or else all we would need to do is go get circumcised and we can just wait for salvation. This is the same thought many Christians have - that if they get Baptized and take communion they can then just wait for their salvation as if these rituals in and of themselves are the "magic bullet".

I can assure you that if I have an uncircumcised prozelyte, and he continually keeps the Sabbath, follows the food laws as to not defile himself, learns many other laws, and the circumcised man does none of these - God will reward him much more highly. We must use common sense. Many good men of the world, who never opened a bible, but are good caring men and took care of their families, are going to be rewarded much higher than men who read the bible and did nothing.

To Baptize means nothing without repentance. To be of the circumcised covenant means nothing if you do not follow the Laws (and the rest of torah - torah not meaning just laws itself okay?).

I think Paul is telling these folks - "Folks, start keeping the food laws. And when your friends look at you funny do not care what they think. And keep these laws whether circumcised or not.

In the verses that allude to the Israelite and the foreigner it did not matter if a foreigner was circumcised or not when Jehovah said "Do not eat blood - you or your alien". He did not say some eat blood and some not. However, the Jews say the Gentile CAN eat blood. But this is opposite of the LAW, not part of their law. (Now I sound like Paul right?)

:)

You guys wore me out for today.

BTW MA a considerable portion of today's YY radio show was about this thread. Check it out.

Again, thank you Daniel, you showed me much!!! I know there's some correction even in these comparisons to be made, but these touch on just how diametrically opposite they were to each others teachings.


Paul says:
"Pray without ceasing."—1 Thessalonians 5:17.


Yahushua says:
"But thou, when thou mayest pray, go into thy chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who is seeing in secret, shall reward thee manifestly.
-Matt. 6:6

If Yah let Satan corrupt His perfect garden, I think we can gather that mans writings can be corruted also. Or, are we less errant...lol



I now see Paul as the scoundrel he was. Yes, much of what he says is most likely credible, or let's just say, "somewhat truthful." And thius is why I now view, that door, being small that few enter.

But this is how Satan does his best work by mixing the credible with lies and soon you start believing the lies also. Hell, I know this! I was once one of the best.

I know you can see how Judaism views Christians and Islam wrong and the inheritors of YHWHs Kingdom, and likewise with most Christians viewing Islam and Judaism as having it wrong, and Islam is just too asinine and has zero credibility in my opinion.

So let's start our viewpoint under what I see as Yahs viewpoint. All religions are condemned.

It's how come He came and asked Abram to remove himself from Urr. The center of political and religious teachings during his time. Likewise He almost pleads with, Mosheh/Moses to remove His people from the then political and religious center of the world. And the last time, being disgusted with us, and says this from the very beginning of scripture, He walked the walk, showing us how we observe His teachings by listening to them. And what happens, but the religious and political systems of His time drive Him onto a stake.
So let's see if you think Paul was being honest?

Here are some instances where I think that Paul of Tarsus seems to be in conflict with Yahushua

1. Please take 10 minutes and look at these citations with an open mind and decide for yourself if they are in conflict.
whenever a english translation of the Bible uses the word “law” or “laws”, the original text usually says Torah. (Please feel look it up in your interlinear edition or a Bible dictionary!) The reverse also applies, when you encounter the word “lawlessness” or even “wickedness”, the original text usually says 'without Torah'.

The Law (the Torah) is abolished

Paul Of Tarsus Says:
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

Yahushua (Jesus) Says:
Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the Torah to become void.

Paul says that we are not under the law, Yahushua says that it would be easier for the entire universe to be destroyed than for even one letter of His Torah to become void.



The Law (the Torah) is abolished

Paul Of Tarsus Says:
Romans 7:4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

Yahushua Says:
Matthew 19:17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

Paul says that we must die to the Torah, Yahushua says that if we want to enter life we must obey Torah. Both statements cannot be true.



The Law (the Torah) is abolished

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

Ephesians 2:14-15a For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Yahushua Says:

Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

Paul says that Yahushua abolished the Torah, Yahushua says exactly the opposite. Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians in the 50's. Yahushua says that the entire universe must be destroyed before the smallest mark on the page of the Torah would disappear. Unless heaven and earth disappeared sometime between the 30's and the 50's, nothing written in The Law is to be disregarded.



The Law (the Torah) is a curse

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Yahushua Says:

Matthew 19:17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

In Psalms 19:7, David says “The Torah of YHWH is perfect, restoring the inner person. The instruction of YHWH is sure, making wise the thoughtless.” In Galatians, Paul says the Law (the Torah) is a curse. Jesus says only God (YHWH, Yahuwah) is good and if you want to enter into life, obey the Torah. If it is the way to enter into eternal life, then is cannot be a curse. See Galatians chapter 3 and Romans chapter 3 for Paul's full on assault upon the Torah.



No one is justified by keeping the Law (Torah)

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

Galatians 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified

Yahushua Says:

Matthew 16:27 “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.”

Paul says don't even try to follow God's “prescriptions for living”, the Law, the Torah. Yahushua says that you will be rewarded according to what you actually do, the deeds you carry out. He was all about Torah3, the deeds He is referring to are those spelled out in Torah. These deeds are what His Father (our Father, too) asked us to do in His Scriptures.



Followers of the Messiah4 don't have to observe Torah (keep the Law)

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

Yahushua Says:

John 14:15 “If you love me, you will obey what I command.”

Observing the set-apart days set forth in the Torah, observing the Sabbath and following the dietary guidelines are what Yahushua says we will do, if we love Him. Paul says don't bother with that stuff and don't even listen to someone who would point out that you ought to obey these commands.




Whom are we to call “Father”?

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

I Corinthians 4:15-16 Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me.

Yahushua Says:

Matthew 23:9 “And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”

Paul says 'I am your father'. Jesus says don't call anyone on earth 'father'. It seems that the Roman Catholic Church prefers that you call their priests, bishops, cardinals and Pope “Father”, in agreement with Paul's instruction to imitate him and in direct conflict with what the Messiah said to do.



The Sabbath is just like any other day

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

Romans 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Yahushua Says:

Yahushua/YaHuWaH Saves,Jesus “observed the Sabbath” at least 1,039 times.
(considered an adult at age 13, executed at age 33 = 20 years. 20 years x 52 weeks = 1040 Sabbaths, minus the one Sabbath that He spent in the tomb)
Paul says you can just decide for yourself if you want to 'remember the Sabbath and keep it set-apart'. WWJD? He kept the Sabbath! Had Yahushua missed even one Sabbath observance, He would have immediately been disqualified as Messiah because He would have violated the fourth commandment.



Yahushua preached a message of peace

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

Ephesians 2:17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.

Yahushua Says:

Matthew 10:34-37 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

Yahushua is not preaching a message of war by any means, but His message cannot be summarized by saying that he 'preached peace'!


After the resurrection, Yahushua never said anything about the Torah being nullified or done away with. Not one word. This is consistent with His life and teaching prior to His execution when He was always saying to keep Torah. In fact, on the road to Emmaus, He had to 'walk them (the two disciples) through' the scriptures from the beginning to show that He was the prophesied Messiyah. This showed them that 'He' was 'Him' and that the events of that weekend were necessary and prophesied. As soon as the disciples 'got it', the recognized Yahushua, and then He disappeared. He did not say, “Yup, the Torah, Prophets and Psalms6 are all about Me, and, oh, now I suppose you can just disregard that stuff.”

After Pentecost and the Ascension, the disciples kept to the principle of Torah observance. They never, ever said “you don't have to follow the Torah”, because the Messiyah never said that.

The dietary rules in the Torah do not have to be observed

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

Romans 14:14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
Timothy, an early follwer of Pauls
I Timothy 4:1-5 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

The Disciples Say:

Acts 15:28-29 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Revelation 2:14 “Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality.” (This is actually God talking in John's revelation. Note that the wording regarding food and immorality is almost exactly the same)
Paul says that you can eat any food that you want too, even if it was a sacrifice to a pagan idol, as long as you are thankful for it. Paul repeats this in 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 James, the leader of the early church7 and the Council of Jerusalem (oh, and he was Yahushua’s brother, too) says that we are NOT to eat food that was sacrificed to idols. This letter is thought to have been written before Paul's letters to the Romans or Timothy. John's revelation was written long after Paul was gone and says that God said not to eat food that was sacrificed to pagan idols. The Pauline license to eat food that was sacrificed to idols is bookended, before and after, by the disciples' instruction against that very act.



God's Law (the Torah) makes you sin

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

Romans 7:7-11 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.(footnote(1):start counting Pauls pronouns.)

James, Yahushua's Brother, Says:

James 1:13-14 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.

Paul's logic is a little hard to follow here but it is clear that he equates the commandments with death. Sin seizes the opportunity made by the Law and tempts him, producing every kind of covetous desire? James, on the other hand, says that God does not tempt anyone. By implication, His “instructions for living”, the Torah cannot be the source of temptation. Paul is way out of line when he is blaming God's law for temptation.



The Law (the Torah) is death

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

II Corinthians 3:7 Now if that which worked death, by means of a written text engraved on stone tablets, came with glory - such glory that the people of Isra'el could not stand to look at Moshe's face because of its brightness, even though that brightness was already fading away

YHWH Says:

Deuteronomy 4:40 Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land YHWH your God gives you for all time.
Deuteronomy 6:24-25 YHWH commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the Eloyhim our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today. And if we are careful to obey all this law before YHWH our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness."

Not satisfied with just contradicting the disciples and the Messiyah, here Paul is now contradicting Yahweh's own instructions given to Moses on Mount Sinai. “Prosper”-ing, being “kept alive” and obtaining “righteousness” cannot come from “that which worked death”.



When the Law was in force, faith had not yet come

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

Galations 3:23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

Romans 4:3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Romans 4:22 This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."

Here, Paul of Tarsus contradicts Paul of Tarsus! Which way is it, Mr. Oftarsus? Did or did not Abraham have faith in YHWH? If faith had not yet been revealed, how could Abraham's belief in YHWH be credited to him as righteousness?


What do you have to do to be saved?

Paul Of Tarsus Says:

Romans 10:8-9 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved

Yahushua Says:

Luke 10:25-28 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Yahushua. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: " 'Love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Yahushua replied. "Do this and you will live."

Paul indicates that all you have to do is say the magic words and 'believe in your heart' to be saved.

When Yahushua/Jesus is asked the same question, He refers the questioner to the Torah. Rather than recite the entire Torah, the man pronounces a summary of the Law.

Yahushua says that this summation of the Torah is correct. This is a summary of the Torah, not the entire thing! We know from the text that both parties in the conversation knew the Torah because one was 'an expert in the law', the other was the law made flesh. Yahushua then says “Do this and you will live.” He does NOT say 'just say that you have faith in me' and 'believe it in your heart'. He is saying that you need to observe the Torah.


Let me ask you this: How many times did you find your self saying “What Paul really means is...”? Or are you finding yourself on the side of Pauline Christianity rather than following the teachings and example of the Messiyah? You must choose whom you are going to follow, because Yahushua/Jesus and Paul are often saying very different things. Paul's way is much easier to follow and live with. Yahushua/Jesus way, on the other hand, requires that you actually do something.



P.S. Paul was not trying to follow Yah's Torah. If you were to take the time to study the Yahudym/Jews of his time you would see that they did not follow the Torah, they instead followed their own oral law, the 613 mitzvots.

They believe that Moshe/Moses was given two laws, the Torah, the written law, and an oral law which was passed down orally through the elders unto the them the pharisees. This is the law that was codified in the Talmud by Maimonides. This was the law that Yahushua condemned, this was the law that Paul kept.

And again, if Paul says X and Yahushua says Y I am going with Yahushua.



Footnotes:(1) count pronouns

Sidenote: Paul makes me sick!!!!



Love Fred

The Yada show is actually addressing these points on yesterdays show. We are playing the archieved show. If you have a chance be sure and listen to 5/17/2012's show. My son mentioned to me,that when Yada mentions, Paul, being whatever it takes, jew, roman, gentile, to convience his crowd listening at any given time, that it's just like our politicians today.
Chock one up for, Josh.

Folks - I am in class today - Sunday from 8:30am - 7:30 pm. I will leave some comments this evening (Friday night).

Comments –
Cgb2 –

They were talking about it? Cool. As far as your verses I cannot look them up right now, but intend to. However, as I am writing to “inhisname” below that even if I was able to refute or offer up a contradictory explanation to what you posted would it make you see what I am giving any differently? I don’t think it would change your perspective. I ask you again to re-read what I posted and see if it hits you.

Inhisname –

I read all your comments. All I can say is that what I am trying to explain is that there is a difference in Jewish law as Paul was a part of, and the Laws of God that Paul turned to. Which is called “the WRITTEN” Law. I don’t want to try and answer all your comments as I don’t think it would change your perspective. And that is what I am OFFERING you and this group.

I used to wonder for several years the same questions you guys are asking. Why do I not get Paul? How can Paul “mock the Law” and then praise the Law? Why does Paul appear to mock the Law? The answer was simple, yet foreign until it hit me – he is talking about 2 different Laws. One is Mosaic and one is codified law written by men. It explains the problems and makes total sense. When you accept it you will see it. Any answers I can give you will not help. I explained myself earlier as best I could. And yes some bibles are not to good in some areas, but do offer a lot of wisdom in certain areas. The Message bible gets it right in relation to Paul and the law vs. THE LAW.

Encounterhim –

Pray without ceasing? What is so bad about that? Anyway, the greek word in strongs can mean “on an appropriate occasion” so the English translation corrupts the message and you convict Paul?

However, I totally agree with you here:
[It's how come He came and asked Abram to remove himself from Urr. The center of political and religious teachings during his time. Likewise He almost pleads with, Mosheh/Moses to remove His people from the then political and religious center of the world. And the last time, being disgusted with us, and says this from the very beginning of scripture, He walked the walk, showing us how we observe His teachings by listening to them. And what happens, but the religious and political systems of His time drive Him onto a stake.]

Per these verses –
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

This is Not the Mosaic Law. Look at the Message bible –

Rom 6:14 Sin can't tell you how to live. After all, you're not living under that old tyranny any longer. You're living in the freedom of God.

That tyrant was Jewish law. The Mosaic Law was never tyranny.

Romans 7:4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

This is Not the Mosaic Law. Look at the Message bible –

Rom 7:4 So, my friends, this is something like what has taken place with you. When Christ died he took that entire rule-dominated way of life down with him and left it in the tomb, leaving you free to "marry" a resurrection life and bear "offspring" of faith for God.

Rule-dominated law is religion. Again Romans 7:4 is NOT Mosaic Law.

Skipping to Galatians 2:16 again this is Not Mosaic Law –

Gal 2:16 We know very well that we are not set right with God by rule-keeping but only through personal faith in Jesus Christ. How do we know? We tried it--and we had the best system of rules the world has ever seen!

Rule-keeping is Jewish law.

So I am going to end this right now. You are not willing to see what I am telling you. Most of you here know the difference in the Jewish Pharisee laws and Torah right? Well then apply this knowledge to Paul’s writing!

Needhelp

I am me and that is it.

James –

Whewwww. Where to start. Basically you are not accepting my premise. All I can tell you is that regardless of what translation I use it is up to YOU to know what it should say. You folks here are real good at dissecting the words. But it goes beyond that. When a person speaks bad English to you in Spanish you know what they are trying to say right? Same thing here. Just because there is no true calling out as you see it of the word “Law” in the NT does not mean Paul did not mean 2 different sets of Laws. And the reason I use the Message bible is that for these examples it is right on yet in other areas it butchers the Word –as do all bibles.

There have been MANY covenants with man. At least 7 or 8. HOWEVER, there was a change in the priesthood after the death of Yashua and that is what I am calling “new”. You folks keep trying to go off on these side arguments and get off the perspective I am offering you. Regardless of who wrote Hebrews, and I suggest Paul, what difference does it make. We can argue that another time.

When Yashua was baptized it was symbolic of him starting His priesthood. He was “Baptized” in the same river where the Levite priests would “baptize” before starting their priesthood, by John who was in the lineage of a Levite priest. And his ministry took the atonement back to Melchezidek as it was before. Where are the Levite priests? Gone. It makes sense. You don’t have to accept the story, but to see there is no more sacrifice for sin makes total sense to me.

Look, again, you do not have to accept that Paul is talking about 2 different laws and can try to mire me down in other types of arguments which in themselves are topics themselves. That point is again Paul is misunderstood, is talking about 2 different Laws, and is not at conflict with Yashua.

That is all I care to say right now. Until you see this we will never agree and can agree to disagree. When the time is right I urge you to go back in re-read my premise.

In summation –

I had great trouble with Paul at one time too. And asked the same questions. I see it clearly. And I had a thought last night. In my mind I thought I laid it out pretty clearly, and yet have this same argument with “bible scholars” and Christians over Paul. Even if it is right in your face it is not seen.

I gave you this information to give to this group for whatever that is worth.

Edited by user Friday, May 18, 2012 4:40:55 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

"the sha'ul" is full of "peresh".

anymore ... discussions of "the sha'ul" is a lot like, "oh, great... the dog shit on the rug again". anyway... the "master aprentice" is lost in his religion... hopefully he has an open heart/mind.

I'm only proud in Who I know... not in the least bit of who I am without.

eh steve!..I really no longer believe it gets any easier than what John reports in Revelations. I more or less am sticking with Torah, The Prophets, and fell in love with The Psalms. But if we must go into the n.t., I will most likely just go to Revelations now, only, unless I back up and read what Paul wrote that shows he was the one Yahowsha spoke of, by letting him convict himself. In Revelations it reads, 2:1 Unto the angel of the assembly of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.



1st Love...God/Yah, His Torah..Yahowah, is love.



Yahowsha (God on earth with man), through John, is telling him that this assembly has tried those that claim apostleship and found them false (capable of swaying others, including those chosen), or a wolf (in sheeps clothing), the emblem on the flag of, The Benjamite.



John is speaking to the 7 assemblies in Asia in these letters.



Back up to 2nd Timothy verse 15 where, Paul himself states, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. "



Doesn't the word, ALL, mean all. It does to me.



So if I stick with Gods/Yahs Word and his letters, like I've said before, "that's 40 books" I think to myself, I have gone back to, "thy first love."



Happy Sabbath, "ALL"

James,

I appreciate our chat here. As I get more time to know who the “players” are here I will try to read some of the massive writings your “Yada” folks have put up. I would bet if we were sitting at a Starbucks (okay “gag”) or a great coffee shop we would no doubt be brothers in “Yashua” discussing the scriptures. That being said, “It is on” again! :)

You said I have not shown you proof of how I see Paul. You have not had proof for everything you have accepted as scriptural truth have you? Truth grows in us as a planted seed. It does not necessarily sprout the day that seed is planted. But, if it is meant to grow it will. If it is truth, and you are surely looking for the truth, the seed will grow. You seem fixated on the fact that the bible translation you prefer does not single out Paul like I have tried to show you the Message bible does. I use that translation when I am trying to show how Paul should be translated. “God” forbid I use it for any other reason. However, I use 4-6 different bible translations for when they are right about a subject. They all have their place.

You seem to want EXACT proof by either the right bible or the right Greek words that what I am suggesting is true. Sometimes James the answers are not given and you have to accept things that may seem foreign to you, and may turn in your stomach, but yet your gut tells you it is true after you piece all the pieces together. And when you can let go of the mind thought overriding your ability to act on acceptance through faith you will be open to these truths. Don’t be afraid to think outside the box you guys have created. You guys are on the verge of establishing a “religious doctrine”. This happens when you will only accept the generally accepted words of the “ecclesia” and when outsiders with a message come in and your first thought is to protect the herd. When this happens you are not a think tank anymore, but a religion. What are you guys here? A new religion or a think tank? You are not going to find a smoking gun for every topic in the scriptures you want answers too.

You speak again of this “covenant with Abraham” through circumcision. To me you are suggesting to me what the Pharisees said to Paul, “Only those circumcised will be able to enjoy the covenant of Jehovah. (And folks, do not pounce on me for using Jehovah instead of Yahweh. And when I say Jehovah for the record I am suggestion Jehovah Elohim. When I am suggesting the different Jehovah I will note it. But I am used to Jehovah so there! :) ) Your thought is Phariseeical as if you are a modern day Rabbi talking to a Christian that wants to keep the Sabbath. “Oh you must ‘convert’ first and then you can participate” they say. BULLSHIT. If you want to do what is right by “God” then do it and I will call you my brother – circumcised or not. In fact a similar idea permeates in Christianity also. How many times has this idea been ingrained onto the heads of all Christian men as you are ingraining your way -

1. Baptize,
2. Call on “Jesus”,
3. Take communion, and you shall enter into “heaven when you die”. If not you are going to hell!

Well I am sure you here know this lie is taught weekly. But they live and die by THEIR way of communing with God as you are telling me only those “of the covenant through circumcision and Passover” will enter the kingdom. Are you sure you know how Jehovah will judge each man and his heart? Are you sure getting your foreskin removed is the only requirement? Please don’t hide behind this thought as absolute. It is not. I am a brother to those that keep the Word – circumcised or not.

(Oh, and before I continue here are the past covenants of Jehovah – The Edenic, The Adamic, The Noahide, The Abrahamic, the Mosaic, a Palestinian, a Davidic, and not when Yashua was here, but in the new kingdom the true NEW covenant where the Law is written on our heart. But, let’s not discuss these now.)

The writer of Hebrews tells us there was a change in the priesthood. And it makes sense. Do you see any Levite priests today? Do you not believe the Hebrew writer when he says we have a better way of atonement through a priest in the order of Melchezidek that cannot die or have you stricken this from being biblical too? Yes, he may not have come out and stated it bluntly, but it is what the book of Hebrews is about. Or should it all be stricken? I think not. Yashua was baptized as was every other Levite priest in the Jordan river before the start of their priesthood. Yet he was not of Levi, but Judah. And thus the Levitical sacrificial laws were changed. I wish we all would have gotten a personal memo, but apparently he announced it his way.

And again, my perspective is not misinformation. This is offering you a new fresh perspective. If you guys have reason to quash it then I am in the wrong place. I do not mean to try and interfere if indeed you are a bishop and you guys have ministers, popes, cardinals, of your own sort. If so then I will leave this site as I was looking for open thinkers not doctrinal keepers.

And finally, as I said earlier, if you are looking for the truth, and I gave it to you, then we really do not even need to argue. In due time you will realize this was correct or was not. And personally I hope you have no other agenda before you that I am not considering. I mean truly, this is just another website and I have no idea who you guys are or what motivates the gate-keepers of the site. Politics, religion, or truth?

Keep an open mind James. Paul is talking about 2 different Laws.

Dajstill

If you can give me until Sunday or Monday night I will do my best to research your 6 points. I like this kind of challenge, but truly I am conversing about idea “A” and you are saying that – “If ideas ‘B-G’ are wrong then idea ‘A’ is wrong too”. And that is not true. But if I prove to you that all your comments are misinterpreted (bear with me here) will you then receive my premise “A” as correct? Probably not. But I will try it anyway as I like a challenge and I learn things when I do those things. So give me a day or so please.

Encounterhim

In your Revelation reference you are indicting Paul again? And assuming this is referring to Paul as in bad things Paul did? Not the way I see it –

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

That is not referencing what Paul did. It must be AFTER Paul. Paul is not in conflict with Yashua. But your mindset is made up.

In summation

You folks have an interesting site. I pray that of the 556 views as of now the ones that “got it” will be happy. The other 90% will just look upon this as noise I guess and will go on hating Paul for what he spoke of. And that is to be expected since what is obvious to one is not obvious to another no matter how you try and explain it. Some have eyes to see things others do not. Remember the first time you told a Christian Yashua was not crucified on a cross and how they could not believe you?

Also again, if you folks are of the mindset that those “only of the circumcision” are of those in the kingdom then you might as well consider yourselves a branch of Judaism. That is what it appears. And there is nothing wrong with that if that is where you guys are coming from. Just sayin’.

And as I said earlier – poor Paul. He has been used, abused, stepped on, and killed over and over and all he did was try to explain to Gentiles the word of God AS IT WAS IN THE EARLY TORAH! For the gentile and the ones THEN of circumcision what was good for one man is good for another. It is not “circumcision” and those NOT of it – it is all men as brothers of heart. And at the resurrection all men's HEARTS will be circumcised - not their penises!

Good evening.

Encounterhim,

Posted earlier -
After re-reading your earlier post I want to address your ascertions about Paul along with Dajstills questions Monday. I see what you think. And I understand why you are opinionated as you are since the words APPEAR to say what you think they say. The bible works on 2 levels (at least). One is literal words and the other is metaphorical meanings. Many times parables had nothing to do with the literal words. You are working in a literal level basically. Both of you are. Your discernment of scripture is not there.

Romans 14 is metaphorical for example. That is not talking about eating literal food. Eating is "information". Some eat well and some do not. Yashua said eat my flesh. Do you go run out looking for his bones?

I think you guys need to sit back. Your opinions of how you see things are duly noted.

By the way, didn't Yashua say that generation would see his return too? How do you explain that away and how do you explain Paul to be wrong?

Later-
Actually, after reading over both of you guys verses they appear to come from a "why I hate Paul Website" or even and "Atheist bible contradiction" site. Regardless of where they came from we are not going to agree even if I answer them. I have been through this before. If I though posting answers to your questions would give you an "epiphany" I would feel its my duty to answer. But that is not going to happen here.

Oh look, Arsenio just won celebrity apprentice!

MA

Edited by user Sunday, May 20, 2012 5:35:53 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

"we who are alive" are simply brothers in Yashua. Those of us - doers of the Word. It does not have to mean Paul. You are trying to read into it too hard. Just as the verses in Romans 14:2-3 are NOT about eating food.

Now let me ask you and dajsteel some questions -

1. Why did Yashua get "Immersed" (baptized) if he never sinned?

2. What is in this cup? -

Mat 26:27 And taking the cup, and giving thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.
and again -
Mar 14:23 And taking the cup, giving thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

Please tell me what was in the cup and why was Yashua Immersed?

Thanks!

So far I see much more that we have in common than we don’t, and you have been civil throughout, and I have tried to be so as well (don’t know if I have succeeded or not). That was until this post where a number of times you have resorted to ad hominem, and straw man tactics.

Actually yes I have. I accept nothing on faith. I am a very logic minded person and am incapable of accepting anything that I cannot explain. This is the reason I was never a Christian, and never religious, I could not explain them, and therefore could not explain to someone else why I held that view. If I cannot explain using evidence and reason why I hold a view I cannot honestly hold it.

Also the difference here is you are not trying to express a universal truth like Scripture does, you are trying to argue how we should interpret a particular text, but not showing anything in that text as to why we should view it that way.

So what you are saying is that you have come to your understanding and just pick the translation for which ever verse that best suits your understanding. So you may use the Message Bible when it comes to Paul’s letters because it best fits your understanding, and then the NLT for parts of Acts because it fits your understanding best, and then grab a KJV for Mark and a NIV for John because they fit your understanding. I’m sorry to sound rude but in my opinion that is just plain stupid. Our understanding should be shaped by Scripture, not vice versa. And that is the problem with relying on any translation, what you get in a translation is the translators understanding.

I think the bottom line here is you are either unable or unwilling to back up your view of Paul with evidence and no one here is going to accept your view without evidence and reason. We have all spent a great deal of time studying Scripture, and don’t accept anything without evidence and reason. Add to this the fact that you have been unwilling to address the evidence and reason that we have brought up counter to your position and this dialog has become futile fast. There is really no point in continuing it. You have stated your beliefs, we are aware of them, and we disagree.

What I am wanting is some kind of evidence or reason as to why I should accept your view of what Paul is saying, and not what seems clear to me that he is saying. It seems to me that you are saying trust me and not your lying eyes.

My gut does not tell me it’s true, my gut tells me everything about Paul’s story seems wrong, but to me what is more important than my gut is my mind tells me everything about his story is off, and my brain tells me that what he says and what Yahowah says is not the same.

I do not follow my gut, I go where the evidence leads me, and that has served me pretty well thus far.

Here is the crux of why we differ. I reject faith and everything about it. I embrace trust, because trust requires understanding, and understanding requires reason and knowledge. Faith is the antithesis of this and I reject it because it is counterproductive. Faith is the basis of religion, and faith is the reason most remain lost and mired in the dark as opposed to coming to know Yahowah for who He truly is. God does not require faith, he asks us to trust Him, and trust is based upon knowing and understanding.

I think in terms of Scripture if you want to call that a box then it is a box I am fine with being inside. I love how so many are want to tell us we are wrong, and then when we retort and show evidence and reason that they cannot refute they throw out words like “doctrine” and “cult”. All because we won’t accept what they are telling us because they have not made a convincing case.

I put it to you this way. We have shown evidence and reason for our view; you are asking us to accept your view without evidence or reason. Which is more “religious doctrine”?

Again we have used evidence and reason to show our view, and you ask us to accept your view without any. I am perfectly fine with considering other views, but do not expect me to accept them based on your word. You have not shown a shread of evidence for why we should accept your view, yet deride us for not accepting it. We have shown you evidence and reason for why we reject your view, and you have not refuted any of it.

We are not a religion and we are not a think tank. We are nothing more than a group of people who enjoy discussing Yahowah’s Word. We enjoy applying logic and reason to understanding it, and abhor the lack thereof.


Again rather than address any point which I made, rather than address the Scripture I quoted, rather than attempt to show a flaw in my reason you have resorted to essentially name calling. If Yahowah, GOD, says that any man who is not circumcised has nullified His covenant, who are you to say He is wrong?

The fact that you know His name is not Jehovah and continue you to uses says volumes about you, and confirms once again that this conversation is increasingly pointless.

You don’t seem to realize the absurdity of this statement every time you make it. Leaving out the name calling, you keep saying that if someone wants to follow God’s instructions they can do so rather they are circumcised or not, but circumcision is part of those instructions. So if someone wants to follow God’s instructions they will get circumcised. And once again you resort to the straw man tactic of putting words in my mouth. When have I EVER said that someone must convert to anything, being circumcised is a tenant of the Covenant, it has nothing to do with converting.

One slight difference between your Christian example and what I have said related to circumcision, I know it is a little thing, but it does change a whole lot, what I said was backed up by SCRIPTURE, in fact what I posted was a quote from SCRIPTURE. So unless you can show me that either Scripture doesn’t say that, or you can show me where God capriciously changed His mind you don’t have a leg to stand on.

And once again you asking me to accept what you believe, not only without evidence, reason or proof, but in spite of all three. Whats more you are asking me to accept what you believe without and indeed in spite of Scriptural backing. If I have to choose between taking your word for something or taking Yahowah’s word for something I will side with Him everytime, and that’s what it came down to with Paul, we can either take Paul’s word or Yahowah’s word, and I take Yahowah’s.


Funny, Yahowah never once spoke of a covenant for any of these, except for the one with Abraham, but why let Scripture get in the way of your beliefs now.


So some unknown writer tells us something nearly 2,00 years ago, and we are just supposed to accept it? Unless it comes from someone who is speaking on behalf of Yahowah I don’t care about their opinion. Yahowah told us clearly how to determine if someone spoke for Him, it’s in the 18th chapter of Deuteronomy, and the Hebrew’s author does not pass that test so what he writes means bull squat to me.

And again just because there are no Levites today does not make this true in the slightest.

If it is not Scripture, but the writings of a man then I will not treat it as Scripture.

Yes Hebrews should not be considered Scripture, just as Paul’s letters should not be considered Scripture, nor should any of the epistles of the “New Testament”. These where all the writing of men, not Scripture. Most never meant for anyone other than the intended recipients to read it.

There is nothing new about your perspective, we have all heard it time and time again, and we have challenged it time and time again, and like you those promoting it never backed it up. Stating your beliefs as if they are facts does not make it so.

Again you resort to name calling. So because we do not accept that which you say without evidence or proof, and refute it with both we are religious and closed minded.

So I’ll state this once again you state your views as fact without showing evidence or reason, we refute your views with evidence and reason, yet we are the close minded religious people. Got ya.

This whole time I have been trying to come up with a good analogy for this, and I think I finally got it. It’s like arguing with a dyed in the wool democrat about Barak Obama. I show them in his books where he speaks of attending socialist rallies as a youth, I show him where he cites his mentors and the people that influenced him the most and where they promote socialist ideology, going so far as to show where they cite socialists, and praise them. I show where what Obama is promoting is in line with the socialist agenda, and where his terminology is word for word socialist. I go on and on showing evidence of how is implementing socialist policies etc. And then I am told he is not a socialist and that I am just a racist.

There is no amount of evidence or reason which will ever persuade a true believer that they are wrong.


We are all motivated by a desire to understand Yah’s Word. And there are no gate keepers to the site, each of us are but participants. The handful of us who are “moderators” has more to do with the nature of the software than anything else. It doesn't allow a post to stay up until it is approved, which the only ones that are not are advertisements, or those that violate the guidelines (very rare that I block anything other than advertisements (damn baby carriage salesman)) .


Again you can state this as much as you want but unless you prove it we will not accept it.

Like I said above; there is no amount of evidence or reason which will ever persuade a true believer that they are wrong. And you are a true believer. You are welcome to stay in the forum, read, and even post as much as you want, as long as you don’t get abusive or violate the forum guidelines, but I give up. I have spent too much time in this futile conversation already, and won’t waste any more.

Shalom 82,

Thanks for your kind words. I want to address one sentence you posted -

Paul in no way does away with Torah and that he is in complete agreement with YHWH/Yahosha and in the next you are almost saying "screw the Torah". Yes....yes....Paul doesn't do away with Torah....except for when he does. What is it going to be?

As I mentioned what caught my eye as I was looking for a good chat room was the banner on the Home page concerning Paul. And as it caught my attention here we are. Judging from the few posters that have engaged my Top Post, and the way they have addressed what Paul said, and from your perspective also, it still seems to me that the message of Paul is simply not understood. I don't have the time to go over the last 3 months of posting amongst the group. I bet there has been a lot of verses considered, but all I can do with my limited time is start from my understanding. And yes, I may have gotten a little purturbed, but I am no saint either. When I sense a rise in passion I also do the same! :) Okay, lets chat.

Paul - what do I know off the top of my head?
1. Said he believed in the WRITTEN word of God (Acts 24:14).
2. Said shall we sin yet grace abounds? Let it not be.
3. Had the impossible task of bringing Gentiles to the Mosaic Law.
4. Was speaking at the level of a PHd.
5. Was schooled in Oral and written law by one of the great "Rabbis" of the time.
6. Was personally "tapped" by Yashua himself.
7. Has been used to support whatever it seems people want him to say! In other words the Christians say he started Christianity, the Jews say he was a traitor, the Gentiles think he was imposing harsh rules on them, the modern day Christians say he explained that the Law was done away with, Yada folks say he was a lunatic, talked out of both sides of his mouth, and didn't know what he was talking about.

What is the truth? Well if what all these people say is true then the scriptures are in total conflict, all Paul's writings should be stricken, and Paul will be judged very harshly. But is it Paul or is it the viewer? Which one is wrong?

I also struggled with Paul for many years until it became clear. And now it is as clear as the hair on my hands. Look, just because we can read words does not mean we discern what they are saying. It takes years to develop certain realizations. And sometimes it is not just years - it is studying and putting the pieces together. And this "gift" is not common. And with Paul this does not happen easily. I bet some of the main people behind this Yada sight have great insight into areas I do not. I bet I could learn a thing or two. But we are talking about Paul here. One topic. What does Paul say? And I came to offer perspective. Has anyone else offered my perspective? (curious)

And what is that perspective? That Paul as well as Yashua talked in parables and riddles. And it confuses people. Why? For it is given to you to have the wisdom to understand and not for others. Fair? Maybe not. But muscles are not built unless you work them daily.

Probably the main problem is that people talk all day about this thing called "the Law" and do not go back and truly study it and read it and try to use it. Talk talk talk about something people have no clue what it means. I am not saying you per se, but many. So how can they truly know Paul if they do not have all the facts first? Have these people studied the Torah and studied the Oral law and COMPARED the 2? And even if you have can you go back and use this information to then discern the scriptures as to what it SHOULD say in spite of what it says? That is the key. We can all read the words to a doctor's book on surgery, but we are not qualified to do surgery just because we read the words.

Yashua said to eat his flesh. He said to drink his blood. And the Catholics have turned this into a new ritual based on a literal interpretation. Ridiculous. But Paul is also brilliant. And many of his comments are deep. For example again this is not about food laws -

Rom 14:2 One indeed believes to eat all food, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.
Rom 14:3 He that eats, let him not despise him who does not eat, and he that does not eat, let him not judge him who eats, for Elohim received him.

Look like it is about eating right? It is about taking in information. Adam and Eve "ate" off the wrong tree. They took in bad information. In Revelations John "ate the scroll and it was bitter". Did he eat paper? No, he took in information and it made him "sick". When Paul mentions food he is talking about scriptural information. In other words do not worry about another man's interpretation - worry about your own. A Jew should not chastize a Gentile. They have not had the same "food" (information) growing up.

And then we get into the harder stuff. Galatians 3 and Romans 7 for example. To get this you have to know several things -
1. What does the Mosaic Law say about the Gentile?
2. What does the Oral law say about the Gentile?
3. How does your "bible" translation quote these verses?
4. What SHOULD it say if it were to be in line with Yashua and Torah Law?
5. What traditions and rules does the Oral law say must be followed?

Romans 7 - The King James bible says -
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

but the Message bible folks tried to give a hint that this was not Mosaic Law and say it this way -
Rom 7:4 So, my friends, this is something like what has taken place with you. When Christ died he took that entire rule-dominated way of life down with him and left it in the tomb, leaving you free to "marry" a resurrection life and bear "offspring" of faith for God.
Rom 7:5 For as long as we lived that old way of life, doing whatever we felt we could get away with, sin was calling most of the shots as the old law code hemmed us in. And this made us all the more rebellious. In the end, all we had to show for it was miscarriages and stillbirths.

The law here is not Mosaic Law. You read it as such, but we both see different things. Galatians 3 -
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Gal 3:11 The obvious impossibility of carrying out such a moral program should make it plain that no one can sustain a relationship with God that way. The person who lives in right relationship with God does it by embracing what God arranges for him. Doing things for God is the opposite of entering into what God does for you. Habakkuk had it right: "The person who believes God, is set right by God--and that's the real life."
Gal 3:12 Rule-keeping does not naturally evolve into living by faith, but only perpetuates itself in more and more rule-keeping, a fact observed in Scripture: "The one who does these things [rule-keeping]continues to live by them."

Rule keeping is oral law - not Mosaic Law.

In looking back at torah Law lets look at a couple of things. What Does the Mosaic Law say about the Gentile?
Isa 14:1 The LORD will have mercy on Israel and will let them be his chosen people once again. He will bring them back to their own land, and gentiles (aliens) will join them as part of Israel.

Did this say that you must be circumcised to be brought back? And this -

Deu 31:12 Everyone must come--men, women, children, and even the gentiles (aliens) who live in your towns. And each new generation will listen and learn to worship the LORD their God with fear and trembling and to do exactly what is said in God's Law.

Did this say you must be circumcised to learn the Law? And this -

Lev 17:10 I will turn against any of my people who eat blood. This also includes any gentiles living among you.

Did this say you must be circumcised to not eat blood? And this -

Num 15:15 This law will never change. I am the LORD, and I consider all people the same, whether they are Israelites or gentiles living among you.

Did this say people of the circumcision are "better" or "unequal" to this that are not? And this -

Deu 5:14 but the seventh day of the week belongs to me, your God. No one is to work on that day--not you, your children, your oxen or donkeys or any other animal, not even those gentiles who live in your towns. And don't make your slaves do any work.

Did this say only people of the circumcision should keep the sabbath? And on and on.

People tend to develop arrogance when it comes to studying scripture and get this "I deserve more than him" attitude sometimes. The judge is God - not me or you. There is not a lot of difference unless we truly walk the walk. Do you use unbalanced weights and measures? Do you keep the sabbath EVERY weekend? Do you do all the law correctly? Then how much better are you than a person that does not know these even exist? And those people may be good fathers that care for their wives, provide, and do what they consider to be "moral" even though they do not know torah. Are they bad people? Are you better because you have read the torah and posted chats? Paul called the Gentiles BROTHERS. Can you? Can you move past your pre-disposed attitude into true caring and love in spite of what they read?

Anyway, poor Paul. He was too smart for the masses. I urge you to go back and get a "Message" bible and re-read Paul. Or else start tearing out 1/3 of your current bible and tell the world they were deceived.

MA

PS - Can someone tell me how to copy a part of your post into mine where it puts it in a box so I can reference it? Thanks.

PSS - James? Coming.

PSSS - Needhelp? Should we just strike the word "FATHER" from our language since Yashua said call no man Father? Seriously? Are you that narrow in your discernment?

James

(can someone tell me how to copy and paste down a previous post so it is in a box?)

Your words first after the numbers -

1 Actually yes I have. I accept nothing on faith.

That shows a left brained engineer type person. You need to go beyond that ability. The scriptures require one to piece things together. It was not laid out in a course type method.

2 So what you are saying is that you have come to your understanding and just pick the translation for which ever verse that best suits your understanding... I’m sorry to sound rude but in my opinion that is just plain stupid.

Yes – that is correct. That is how I read the bible. 4-6 translations for several reasons. All the bible are flawed and all have good areas where they excel – simple as that. It makes it difficult. Some are easy to read when it comes to Paul – some are difficult. Some trample the meaning of Passover, some get it right. For example the CEV bible and the Message bible help with Paul whereas the KJ version is too difficult. Yet the CEV bible ruins the intent of the true words, but for context it is good.

For looking up certain greek and hebrew words it appears this Walch guy has knocked it out of the park with his amazing work. Yet I also think he has put an agenda to some of his thought too. So when I need to see what a Nachash is or a Proteron I bet it comes up in his bible (claps). But when it reads about Galatians I will go back to the Message.

When I need to be extra careful and I am dealing with Pharisees I use a Messianic bible since they are not looking for the spiritual side it seems - only the literal and are careful to point out the little things.

Yet when I talk to Christians I use the King James since if they do not hear the word Jesus they are lost.

It is important to know the tools available to you.

3 (Example not given)

I have given you more examples of what I am saying in the post above to Shalom 82 where I post more examples and reasoning.

4 my brain tells me that what he says and what Yahowah says is not the same.

If this is true then lets start a campaign to censor 1/3 of the bible and just say what we know of scripture then is Not divine at all. Lets then strike Revelation too since John “must be on acid”.

5 You cannot go through the bible as an engineer looks at blueprints. It was not made that way. God did not give it out linearly.

6 If Yahowah, GOD, says that any man who is not circumcised has nullified His covenant, who are you to say He is wrong?

You need to re-read Torah. You are limiting God’s future congregation with your prejudice here. You are acting as a judge and jury in this make up and that is something Paul chastised since it GOES AGAINST TORAH LAW. See my post again to Shalom 82 as I post examples of this. God's congregation sill be Jew AND Gentile. You need to accept this now and quit eating with the Pharisees away from the poor Gentile with no covenant! For example read Galatians 2 and Acts 10. Same principle. NO MAN IS UNCLEAN.

7 The fact that you know His name is not Jehovah and continue you to uses says volumes about you, and confirms once again that this conversation is increasingly pointless.

I am not going to get into a Yahweh vs. Jehovah argument right now. It is the intent of what I am saying that matters. And I prefaced this argument with what I said and you say I do not know what I said? As I said, “(And folks, do not pounce on me for using Jehovah instead of Yahweh. And when I say Jehovah for the record I am suggestion Jehovah Elohim. When I am suggesting the different Jehovah I will note it. But I am used to Jehovah so there! :) )

And I do not want to discuss this now.

8 You don’t seem to realize the absurdity of this statement every time you make it. Leaving out the name calling, you keep saying that if someone wants to follow God’s instructions they can do so rather they are circumcised or not, but circumcision is part of those instructions. So if someone wants to follow God’s instructions they will get circumcised. And once again you resort to the straw man tactic of putting words in my mouth.

Read my examples I just posted to Shalom 82. No one is doing all the Law correctly. Even king David committed pre-meditated murder. you are using covenant worship as the basis of your whole argument. I am using the hearts of man as the basis of judgment. And works against calling for justification (another topic for later).

9 Again I do not believe the scriptures are in error and I see no reason to cut out 1/3 of it. You do. I don’t.

10 I used the term bishop, cardinal, etc. to describe EXACTLY what you are doing here. One is either a “newbie”, member, advanced member, and whatever else you guys have. Someone here is giving you “status”. Are you willing to take the side of a newbie if it conflicts with what has been perceived as correct, at the expense of losing status?

And again, we are talking ONE topic.

(Gotta love it.) :)

Lunch time.

Yes, I read your post. You still didn't actually answer any of the questions I posted. You said you would answer them. The questions weren't hard, deep, or easily misunderstood. So, again - you said you would answer those questions. It really is that simple, and no one should need a PhD to determine if you are actually answering the question or not. Six simple questions, just answer them. If you don't want to answer them, that is fine to, but be honest about not answering them.

MA,

Really, what does Paul add to our understanding of our walk with Yahowah? Does Paul add one iota to what we need to know in addition to what the Torah and the words of Yahowsha have already given us?

Is there any reason Paul would need to discuss the "oral Law" with Gentiles since they would not know what the "oral Law" was anyway. Yahowsha did not come to die to release us from the "oral Law"; He came to serve as the Passover Lamb.

Did you ever wonder why Paul has Yahowsha quoting Dionysus on the road to Damascus?

Paul wrote in a confusing way for a purpose: to divide Yah's flock. I believe Paul used Yahowsha's resurrection to further his own "universal theology".

Have you read "Jesus Words Only" website? It makes many good points regarding Paul's refuting Yahowsha's words.

James –

*smiles* okay. I am still a “conspiracy theorist” by nature! However or whomever is ranking is not motivation for me to muzzle my perspective though. Except of course to be nice and not cause any intentional disruption to the established group. Debate their dogma? YES! Call them names? No! But as I can see passions and tempers do rise here. I’ll do my best to be tactful! My mother had a temper though. You cut off her car and boy you would get an earful. I got her genes (sleep in peace Mom). Enough said. (Imagine being a cardinal in the Catholic church all your life and you realize they were lying to you and that Torah Law is in effect? What you “gonna” do. Hmmm…)

Dajstill –

Okay – I will go look at them. You pushed my buttons.

Lassie –

Really, what does Paul add to our understanding of our walk with Yahowah? Does Paul add one iota to what we need to know in addition to what the Torah and the words of Yahowsha have already given us?

Is there any reason Paul would need to discuss the "oral Law" with Gentiles since they would not know what the "oral Law" was anyway.

Paul was the “Apostle to the Gentiles”. Paul had the task to introduce the Law to people that had never read scripture. You have the luxury of turning on the internet and can read and analyzing debates such as this, reading multi-different bible translations, etc. Paul was trying to educate an uneducated group. And not only that he was trying to THEN distinguish the difference in the Torah Law and the Rabbinical law. In other words they might ask “Should we keep Rosh Hoshanna” and he would have to explain there is no such thing and they would say, “But the Jews do it” and he would say, “That is not WRITTEN Law” and they would go “What?” :)

And Paul tried to explain that after Yashua died that now anyone has a chance, Gentile or “Jew”, to read and act on his Word and at the point of sin instead of having to see a Levite Priest you can now PRAY to a new priest that can immediately atone your sin. That is GOOD NEWS. That the penalty in this world for sin can be atoned with earnest prayer AND repentance. Before this the route was through the Levite priest. Isn’t this a better way? I tried to ask earlier and no one answered, "WHY DID YASHUA GET BAPTIZED IF HE DID NOT SIN?" It had to do with establishing HIS priesthood as the ones before him had by Immersing in the Jordan river by a Levite priest.

The message Paul teached, of Mosaic Law and prayer to Yashua, GOT LOST and CHANGED after he died. He set them up with Torah and Law and pray to Yashua for atonement. After he died this “Law” thing got lost in the shuffle and it just became “Pray to Jesus” and no Law. And that is where we see it now. Gentiles do not want to keep the Law. But that is not what he setup.

So Paul tried to make sure they knew which Law to carry out. Your walk today and their walk is much different. He had a hard time. And to top it off the members of the “Circumcision” made his life difficult too because to them he was a traitor. And also in the oral law it says to NOT teach the Gentile the law. If you are of the circumcision you are to Not teach the Gentile. They are to be servants for you. Yet in torah it says if a man’s ox falls into a ditch you help him. Yet Rambam comes along and says that Torah Law is wrong and that if the Jew’s ox falls in the ditch you help him. Such a nice guy this Rambam. And when Yashua confronted the Rabbis they did not even realize how much their hearts had been given over to pride and prejudice of their own law (not LAW).

Yahowsha did not come to die to release us from the "oral Law"; He came to serve as the Passover Lamb.

Why did he come? Actually many reasons – not just one. And YES – HE DID act to release us from the oral law. First why did he come? Scripture says (excuse the word Jesus here) –

To preach
Jesus replied, "Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come." (Mark 1:38)

To give his life as a ransom
It's the same way with the Son of Man. He didn't come so that others could serve him. He came to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many people." Mar 10:45

To be perfected (YES, even he had to be perfected) –
Luk 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

And more –
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. Luk 4:16-19

But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." (Luke 4:43)

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. (Matthew 18:11, KJV)

But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matthew 9:13)

Mat 15:24 But answering, He said, I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
(Psa 89:18 For Jehovah is our shield, yea, the Holy One of Israel our King.)
Heb 2:17 That's why he had to enter into every detail of human life. Then, when he came before God as high priest to get rid of the people's sins,
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

And Yes, The Passover pointed to his sacrifice and to his return too! Tertiary meaning in my opinion. The actual Passover event, the sacrifice as the lamb, and in the future his return as Messiah.

But, he denounced oral law in many places. For example the Pharisees chastised him and the disciples for not washing their hands before they eat In Mark 7. And in the Torah it is not commanded to wash before eating. That is oral law. And what did Yashua say to them trying to impose oral law on him? Here I again use the Message bible –

Mar 7:1 The Pharisees, along with some religion scholars who had come from Jerusalem, gathered around him.
Mar 7:2 They noticed that some of his disciples weren't being careful with ritual washings before meals.
Mar 7:3 The Pharisees--Jews in general, in fact--would never eat a meal without going through the motions of a ritual hand-washing,
Mar 7:4 with an especially vigorous scrubbing if they had just come from the market (to say nothing of the scourings they'd give jugs and pots and pans).
Mar 7:5 The Pharisees and religion scholars asked, "Why do your disciples flout the rules, showing up at meals without washing their hands?"
Mar 7:6 Jesus answered, "Isaiah was right about frauds like you, hit the bull's-eye in fact: These people make a big show of saying the right thing, but their heart isn't in it.
Mar 7:7 They act like they are worshiping me, but they don't mean it. They just use me as a cover for teaching whatever suits their fancy,
Mar 7:8 Ditching God's command and taking up the latest fads."
Mar 7:9 He went on, "Well, good for you. You get rid of God's command so you won't be inconvenienced in following the religious fashions!

They did not know the Law of Moses and were playing “head games” with them. Or tried to. Which is what rituals and customs are aren’t they? Head games? The Mosaic Law is not a head game – it is the way it is. In other ways he denounced them too. If you study oral and Mosaic Law you can then see what he said to them and why he said it.

Did you ever wonder why Paul has Yahowsha quoting Dionysus on the road to Damascus?

Can you give me the verse please?

Paul wrote in a confusing way for a purpose: to divide Yah's flock. I believe Paul used Yahowsha's resurrection to further his own "universal theology".

Again, Paul does not divide me. He has helped me. I see the argument he had between those of the circumcision (Jews) and those not of it and how the Jews believe that only those of circumcision have a right to the inheritance of Yahweh (okay?) yet Torah does not say that. That is pride and prejudicial thinking. Are we to think that only circumcision brings you to God? Yet a Christian thinks only baptism and communion brings you to God. Same type of thinking.

The downplaying and censoring of what oral law is, what Mosaic Law is, and substituting “Jesus Jesus” in its place has been the downfall and caused the division of a flock – not Paul. In other words "dumbing us down".

Have you read "Jesus Words Only" website? It makes many good points regarding Paul's refuting Yahowsha's words.

It is a matter of perspective. When I read Romans 14 I do not see them talking about physical food. In Romans 7 I do not see him talking about Mosaic Law but oral law. I could only expect to see more anti-Paul reasoning there I would guess. I have seen a lot of websites that diss Paul for no reason. In fact very few people see it the way I see it. If I didn’t know it to be 100% true I might start to get a complex or something :) (the fact that Paul is talking about 2 different laws in most of his writings)

Summation

Let me add this for summation. The Torah NEVER excludes the Gentile (alien – foreigner). It includes them and they were not GIVEN the Law, but were to follow it to stay in Israel. So why should we keep it and learn it if people’s hearts can be good by nature without Law? Well, good is defined by Torah. But more than that I see that in Revelation John mentions 2 resurrections. The first one to be “Priests and kings and rulers over nations (gentiles?)”. This is for the ones of the covenant and practice his LAWs and statutes - TRUE TORHA FOLLOWERS without oral law. This is for the ones that want to live in this world as "spiritual Israelites". The 2nd resurrection is for all the rest of the people - some to eternal life some to damnation. We want to be in this first resurrection and our education will be finished by the Messiah himself. Then we can teach the world true circumcision and Law without argument! (HalleluYah!)

And in the 2nd resurrection all those lawless folks called Christians, that had good hearts but were misled, and all the good Jewish men that were told Jesus was a bastard, but were good men, and all the pygmies, and etc. have a chance to join those in the first resurrection.