Paul and Jesus (yes Jesus for the sake of the argument) were NEVER in contradiction. Anyone that does not see this does not get Paul.

Can you tell me why these 2 verse are not in conflict? If so then you know Paul. If not you do not know Paul.

Verse 1 -
Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Verse 2 -
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.

As Peter says...
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.

And as Paul said...
Act 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:

Paul tells you what he believes in. Why are the 2 verses above not in conflict?

Obviously you do not know Torah Law as much as you need to. And again, you do not understand Paul. You read him and get upset over him, but you are not getting where Paul is coming from.

Paul did not teach against Torah Law. He preached against Jewish law.

Do you understand the difference in a Jew and an Israelite? Do you understand why Paul left Judaism?

When you see the word "Law" in Romans 7, Galatians 3, and other places in Paul's writings IT IS NOT TORAH LAW.

By the way...not sure how to edit a post until you post it, but I stated Galatians 3 is not about Mosaic Law. Part of it is and part of it is not. Maybe you can patch all posts together.

Paul is vehemantly agaisnt Rabbincal Judaism and he left his "friends" and converted back to straight Torah Law. He never started Christianity.

The problem is the word "law".

I will give you a couple of things to think about...

1. My friend wants to do the Passover this year and he is not circumcised. Must I make him become a "naturalized Israelite citizen through physical circumcision in accordance with Exodus 12:48"? In my opinion circumcision is for hygenic reasons in the Law at this point and the keeping or non-keeping is a breaking of Torah Law just as anything else is. But to circumcise for the sake of coming under Abraham's covenant is moot and over with.

Paul called uncircumcised Gentile proselytes “Brethren”. He calls them his brothers. And he calls them his brothers not once, but lots of times. So 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.

Yes, he will do the Passover with me regardless.

2. “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.

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

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 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”.

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?

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.

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 ORAL law. With a little more understanding about the context in which Paul wrote the book of Galatians and more specifically some background about the Oral Torah, 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.

Good for you. Your opinion means precisely bumpkiss to me. Your opinion is in line with Paul’s and contrary to God’s. I’m going to go ahead and side with God, you know the creator of the universe, but you can side with a man all you want.



Thank you so much for proving my point. Paul contradicted Yahowah who said that any male who is not circumcised of the flesh cannot participate in or benefit from Passover.


So seeing as you have already contradicted God and choose to side with a man, I see no reason to bother to respond to anything else you have to say.

I will say once again, please read the thread where you stated all this same stuff and were proven wrong 3 years ago before you post the same thing again, because unless you can address the points brought up prior there is no point in continuing this dialog.

http://forum.yadayah.com...sts&t=2604#post23197

I don’t know why I continue to waste my time, but here we go.



First there is no LAW, Towrah means teaching, instruction and guidance, not LAW.

Second the Towrah did not change after Yahowsha’s body died. He told us that he did not come to do away with, and that nothing in it would change so long as heaven and earth remain.
Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete.
Mat 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.
Mat 5:19 “Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.

The last bit is particulairly condemning of your man Paul who has taught Christians the world over to ignore the Towrah.




Since there is no LAW in Towrah NO. Yahowah through the Towrah did invite everyone to participate in His Covenant, Yahuwdi and Gentile. He was quite clear that there is but ONE Towrah for the natural born and the gentile.




Yes and No. The Millennial will include natural born Yahuwdi and Gentiles, like me, who have been grafted in, but we will all be Yahuwdi.



Better question, why do you believe him when he says this? What evidence did he present that he was sent by Yahowah?

Paul claimed the gentiles as his because he knew they were ignorant of the Towrah and he could more easily beguile them.

And we are shown in Acts that Peter was spreading the Word to gentiles long before Paul came on the scene.


There is no such thing as Towrah Law, the Towrah is not Law. The Towrah exists to guide us to Yah’s family, which is through the One and only Covenant. No Covenant, No Relationship.



http://forum.yadayah.com...sts&t=2604#post23197
Yeah we have had this conversation before too. I reject your premise based on the evidence of Paul’s own writings. You have yet to show any evidence to support anything you have to say. You can state your opinion as fact all you want it does not change what Paul wrote.

Pleas just go away, and this time stay away. I really don’t feel like having this same inane conversation with you again three years from now.

I must say I do resepct the fact you published my last post. And just for grins...

Paul said...
Act 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:

Which says folloe the Law, yet Yashua said...
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

So by your literalism Yshua is a Pagan and Paul is spot on Torah right?

I assume that by now we all know the master to whom "masters_apprentice" is enslaved. JB, ignore that self-worshipping, Satan-promoting religionist and get on with your relationship with our heavenly Father. The willingly deceived such as masters_apprentice love to yak and expound and make much noise, all the while imagining themselves to be oh-so-wonderfully-astute. They imagine that all others will be cowed by their impressive intellect and reasoning. Ignore him, I say, and stop tap dancing with the devil. Leave the fool to himself and his reject daddy.

CONTINUING -

Although it was of course supposed to be the bedrock of Jewish law, THE God breathed WRITTEN Torah-law which we have in our Bibles, was therefore probably only about a third of the Jewish Torah-Law (both written and Oral Torah law combined) during the times recorded in the New Testament. When Paul writes to the Galatian churches about the GENERIC subject of “law”, “works of law” and being “under law”,we need to know much more before we assume he was criticizing the written Torah law. The written Torah-law is a blessing. It is perfectly clear from scripture that keeping the written Torah-law isn't a curse. It never has been and never will be. Paul of course says in Romans 7:12:

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. - Young's Literal Translation

We know that Paul's talking about the written Torah law here, because he's specifically mentioning the commandments. But notice that he refers to it here as "the law". Although that said there are some cases when Paul writes and refers to the written Torah-law as "law" without the definite article.

Paul was no stranger to the oral torah-law, because he of course was a Pharisee. The Pharisees believed in the Oral Torah-Law, but the Sadducees didn't.

Philippians 3:5 circumcision on the eighth day! of the race of Israel! of the tribe of Benjamin! a Hebrew of Hebrews! according to law (NOT "the law") a Pharisee! - Young's Literal Translation

In chapter 1 of Galatians and verse 14: Paul writes:

Galatians 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the TRADITIONS OF MY FATHERS.
As he defends himself to his peers Paul explains:

Acts 22:3 "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today. NKJV

So Paul was taught the oral Pharisaic traditions of the fathers at the feet of Gamaliel. But notice what Paul says about what he believes AFTER his conversion from Pharisaic Judaism on the road to Damascus. 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:

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.

Before his conversion Paul was a Pharisee, a trained specialist in the Oral Torah law and exceedingly zealous of the traditions of his fathers. Following his conversion though Paul is critical of "works of law" or legalism and Paul is equally critical of being "under law and subsequently in Acts 24:14 declares only that he believes in the written Torah law.

Whilst to the Jews over the generations since the exile in Babylon it had increasingly seemed to be, that the more they kept law's oral additions and traditions, the more righteous they were. Paul knew that this was nonsense. It's certainly the case that Yashua criticized the oral torah-law traditions of the Pharisees, which were later codified in the Mishnah and then commented on in the Talmuds.

Certain elements of the oral torah law (and the later Mishnah) are based upon the rejection of scripture in favour of rabbinical traditions and are therefore invalid. Others deal in the minutia and lack the broader perspective regarding bigger issues, and have been rejected by scripture itself. Some of the judgements are inconclusive and even contradictory and consequently difficult understand how to put into practise. Certainly some rabbinical traditions completely contradict scripture and are therefore null and void.

Particularly given Deuteronomy 4:2 scripture’s authority regarding top level principles is unassailable. Where there’s a contradiction, Yahweh's word “trumps” any form of rabbinic tradition. Since certain elements of Mishnah are intended to be an additional protective “hedge to the law”, Deuteronomy 4:2 denies such rulings validity.

Deuteronomy 4:1-2
1 ¶ Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.
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.

Those "of the circumcision" who were trying to compel the gentile proselytes in the Galatian synagogues to be circumcised were wrong to do so. That's the primary theme of the Book of Galatians since it became a tradition of being a Jew (as it is today) under the covenant of Abraham which is now obsolete. Circumcision became a hygenic Law, but as a covenant Law it is not in effect, (except for Oral traditional views). We are under a different Covenant now and will be under a different covenant during the millinial rule. So if circumcision is now a hygenic Law why should a person passionate about the PAssover be kept from it? Who in this forum does not break a Mosaic Law? Don't be a hypocrite.

A more careful study gives us a lot of vital background about the second theme in Galatians which most commentators fail to get to grips with - the subject of Jewish Torah law. In the first century when Paul wrote Galatians the written Torah represented a miniscule part of Jewish Law, albeit the most important. By far the largest part of first century torah was the Oral Torah law.

When we examine his life before and after his conversion on the road to Damascus, we see significant differences in Paul's views about the Oral Torah law. Before conversion he was exceedingly zealous of the "traditions of the fathers". After conversion in Acts 24:14 he doesn't mention his belief in them at all. This fits well with our knowledge that Yashua criticises some aspects of the oral torah-law but in the sermon on the mount upholds the written Torah Law and indeed curses those who teach that it is "done away".

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.

YAWN

You just don’t understand. Yada really loves Paul, you just don’t understand what he means. WE all really love Paul, you just don’t understand what we are saying.

When I said I hate Paul, and that Paul is a false prophet what I really meant was that Paul was a great and wise leader who we should all follow. You just don’t understand what we are saying.

Yeah, the same teachers that Yahowsha called a den of vipers. Paul was trained by religious teachers, I don’t give a hairy rat’s butt what religious teachers taught him. And just because a teacher is great in the eyes of man does not make him great in the eyes of Yah

Against my better judgment I’ll give rational dialogue with you one more chance.

Okay, let's take this step by step, one issue at a time, no tangents, not distractions, no changing the subject.

Let's start with the same issue I tried to start with three years ago, and you continually dodged and avoided.

You claim that Paul was condemning the "Oral Law" and not the Towrah. PROOVE IT.

Sticking exclusively with Galatians for the sake of simplicity. Show me any evidence that what Paul is condemning is the “Oral Law” show me one place where he quotes, cites, references or in any other implies that he is speaking of anything other than the Towrah.

To quote myself from three years ago.


So without changing the subject or dodging the question provide any evidence or reason to argue that Paul was speaking of anything other than the Towrah. If you cannot or are unwilling to do this, then please just leave, or you will be banned.

I will have time to post to your reply on Monday.

You have done nothing to convince us, other than state your view as fact. You have not provided any evidence to your position, you have not presented an argument for your position, you have simply stated a position.

I have not only stated my argument which is counter to your position, but I have also provided evidence to support my position, as well as evidence that disproves your position.

I have asked you to simply prove your stated position. If your position is correct it should be a simple thing to do, but you are unable to do so because your position has no basis.



Again please support your view. We all understand your view, we know exactly how you see Paul, but what we don’t know is why, and how you have that view.



Agreed the Towrah was meant to be taught to any and all that would hear it.

What evidence do you have that Paul was tasked by God with anything? All we have is Paul’s word for it. But don’t answer this because that would just create a tangent and I want to keep this as focused as we possibly can on the 1 singular subject of “Did Paul condemn the Towrah or the Oral Law”





It is impossible to teach a religious person anything contrary to their religion, agreed. Again here you state that Paul was trying to teach the difference between the Oral Law and the Towrah, but again you have not backed that up. Where does Paul ever make a distinction between the two? Paul uses the Greek nomos every time, and never modifies it with Oral or anything else to distinguish. Again, he never cites or references the Oral Law. So to say that he is speaking of the Oral Law without any evidence, when in fact all the evidence is that he is speaking of the Towarh, as I pointed out.



Again we have been over this. The Message Bible is being disingenuous with their translations. Paul wrote the same word, but they choose to add a distinction to it with no linguistic, or subjective basis to it what so ever. They arbitrarily added words to the text to suit their agenda. This alone should make you want to throw out the Message Bible.



Neither Yahowah nor Yahowsha had anything to do with the compiling of the so called canon of the bible. It was compiled by religious men who sought to usurp God’s authority. Human, corruptible untrustworthy men choose what was put in and what was left out, God had nothing to do with it.

Yahowah did however give us a test in Dabariym/Deuteronomy 18 as to how to determine for ourselves what is from Him and what is not. That is the test that I use, and when I apply that to Paul’s writings it fails, falling way short in a test where a single wrong means failure. I trust Yahowah and His Word, I do not trust any men, be they the crooks who compiled the “Bible” or hacks who translated the Message Bible to support Paul.

Here is the thing. I have considered your view, everyone here has, in fact like most here I once held your view. But then we examined the evidence and realized that that view was unsupportable. So we did the logical and reasonable thing, we abandoned that view, and changed our understanding to one which fits the evidence. You however cling with a religious fervor to your view despite the evidence. You will not even consider another view. Like I said the last time we had this conversation; 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.

I'll also point out that at one time, Yada also thought like "masters apprentice", thinking that Paul was misunderstood, and sought to reconcile what Paul wrote to Yahowah's Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. From the eighth and ninth paragraphs in "The Truth About Paul" :

"At the onset of this study, now over five years ago, I was inclined to believe Paul’s testimony. I thought that Sha’uwl (Paulos’s given name which is indistinguishable in Hebrew from She’owl, the realm of the dead and demonic, meaning “to question”) was “an Apostle,” that he encountered “Jesus” on the road to Damascus, and that he spent three years in Arabia in preparation for his mission—just as he had claimed. At the commencement of what would become a comprehensive evaluation of Paulos’s (a name which means “lowly and little” in Latin) testimony, I was predisposed to think that scribal error, misleading translations, errant transliterations, unsupported interpretations, confusion over whether Sha’uwl was assailing the Torah or Rabbinic Law, and an overall ignorance of the Torah’s purpose, had collectively abetted religious doctrines which were inconsistent with Paul’s intended message.
But it will be Paul’s letters, his words, not my preconceived notions, which will ultimately determine whether or not the world’s most influential religious character had the audacity to contradict God, to undermine His testimony, and to establish a “New Testament” in place of an “Old Testament” – especially recognizing that according to Yahowah there is still only one Covenant and it has yet to be renewed. But if he did, and if he made his case, then the Christian faith may be valid. But if he didn’t, billions of Christian souls have been misled – their lives shortchanged."

Once he closely examined the evidence, though, he realized he could not reconcile Paul's letters to Yahowah's Word. And it only got worse for Paul after that.

Again, you have not provided any evidence that Paul is speaking of anything other than the Towrah in Galatians. You have also again not addressed any of the evidence presented which shows that he is speaking of the Towrah. Again, if he is speaking of the Oral Law, then why does he cite and quote the Towrah, and not the Oral Law? Every bit of context in Galatians leads to one unavoidable conclusion, Paul is speaking of the Towrah.

You get a little mixed up because you are trying to make sense of the incomprehensible. Paul is confusing, not because we/you are not smart enough to understand him, he is confusing because he sought to be so. Paul by his own admission, 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, to be all things to all people. Neither Yahowah, Yahowsha nor any of the Prophets made such a claim or sought such. They all were direct and uncompromising with Yah’s Word. Paul sought to win over as many as possible, by any means necessary. So to gentiles he condemned the Towrah, and to Jews he praised it. Confusion is the mother of deception. Paul is confusing because Paul is deceptive, following the spirit, Ha Satan, that he encountered on the road to Damascus.

It's been five years, I hope MA learned something about the Plague Of Death AKA Paulos.