Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
History of the Nazarenes
#16
Ben Masada Wrote:
Rafa Wrote:My private theory on why the Mandeans call themselves Nazarenes is that they at some point were members of the Church of the East (when the COE was referred to exclusively as Nazarenes by the Persians, Arabs, Romans, etc.) but somehow along the road they got separated and absorbed foreign concepts which changed their faith. This happened to the Yezidi of Iraq, who are still considered members of the COE despite some clearly heretical ideas (according to that book Asahel Grant wrote on Akhi Paul's people, the Yezidi were COE members who developed a curious mix of Zoroastrianism and Christianity, they became seperated at some point). Isn't this the pattern seen throughout the middle East, the COE due to not having secured borders splintering in small groups such as Jacobites, Chaldeans, etc.?
------------------------------

And here is a little of what I have about the History of the Nazarenes. These were members of a Jewish Sect organized by the Apostles of Jesus as soon as Jesus was gone. In fact, I do believe that Jesus had spent those 40 days with his disciples, after the crucifixion, to instruct them not to let the Sect die out.

The Sect of the Nazarenes had become the most proselytizing Jewish sect ever in the History of Judaism proper throughout Asia Minor, North Africa and Rome, especially Alexandria in Egypt. Moreover, the converts from the Gentiles through the Nazarenes would become fully Jews, as they became staunch deffenders of the Law. (Acts 21:20)

About 30 years after Jesus had been gone, Paul showed up in Jerusalem preaching about Jesus as Christ, son of God and that he had resurrected, causing a havoc among the local Jews, who were on an uproar to kill him, were not for the Nazarenes who
helped him escape back to Tarsus where he belonged. (Acts 9:29-31) By helping Paul escape, Paul got the title of a ringleader
of the Nazarenes by the Jewish Lawyer Tertullus, as Paul was arrested and stood trial 14 years laer when he returned to Jerusalem for a fast visit to the Temple.(Acts 24:5)

The Nazarenes lost some of their credibilty because the connection of Paul with them was not true. Paul had raised a new religious organization completely opposite to the Nazarenes in Antioch where he had spent a whole year preaching about Jesus
as Christ, giving origin to Christianity, as his disciples were fist called Christians. (Acts 11:26) And there is much more.
Ben
Fascinating theory, but completely out of touch with history. A quick glance at any and all available sources on the Nazarenes shows that Paul was an integral part of their conversation from the beginning. Whether we look at Acts (the first mention of Nazarenes is actually in reference to Paul, made by Tertullus), or if we look at the Christian sources such as St. Epiphanius of Salamis's Penerion, we see clear statements that Paul was part of the Nazarene conversation, and while the Talmudic references never talk about Paul, they give us no reason to believe that the Nazarenes did not accept Pauline authority.

As to Paul teaching against the Torah, there are several theories that may deal with this issue. Most popular is that Paul was speaking strictly to gentiles (which deals most easily with acts and Galatians). However, a more thorough view is that supported by the New Perspective school of thought. Dr. E.P. Sanders argues that Paul's theology is not entirely consistent, and that he argues against the Torah because he understands salvation to be strictly by the grace of God (in keeping with his contemporaries), but that when Paul speaks on morality, he automatically appeals to the Torah. It gets a bit more complicated in dealing with ideas like Kashrut, Taharat HaMishpocha, and a few other issues. Well...I say "it gets more complicated." What I mean is I'm not sure what I make of Sanders' theory on those issues.

Paul makes us uncomfortable. I know he makes me uncomfortable. What I think is a mistake is ignoring his voice, or labeling him a heretic simply because he is difficult to understand and doesn't fit perfectly into our theories. God forbid we should ever become comfortable in our theology.
Let's think of it in terms of the TN"K: on the one hand, we have the Torah, which clearly promises material gain from obedience to the Torah. We have the Psalms telling us that "I have been young and am now old, but I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread." On the other hand, we have Job telling us that bad things happen to good people, and while Abraham and Moses argued with God about what He said He would do, Job teaches us not to question God's will. So are we going to throw one of them out of the canon? God forbid. Rather, we should understand that they both have application. We should take the road set out by Shlomo HaMelech, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every experience under the heavens." Likewise with Paul, Rabbeynu Yeshua, Ya'akov HaTzaddik, and Keffa HaNasi. While Paul emphasizes grace, and Rabbeynu emphasizes law, and Ya'akov HaTzaddik stands firmly in the middle, we should not throw one or the other of them out. Rather, we should understand that for everything there is a season.
Reply
#17
One last note: As Dr. Ray Pritz put it, there is nothing in Nazarene doctrine that is inconsistent with the preaching of the Apostle.
Reply
#18
Ben Masada Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:Shlama,

...and if Paulus cannot be trusted, then Keepha himself is questionable, since he considered Paulus a brother and upheld his teachings, and even Luwqa becomes suspect, since he advocated for Paulus, so that strikes out the book of Acts, and Luwqa from the Gospels, as well.... ....what else do we wish to chop down? let's see, Yaquwb also extended fellowship to Paulus, so he gets the boot, as well. there are others, i'm sure. oh, Yeshuwa Himself ordained Paulus, so maybe we should simply reconsider the whole she-bang...? so we're left with a New Testament based on a handful of students who faithfully followed...nobody? seriously, the path you're on is destructive to your faith, and to the faith of others.

so here's a better alternative: read Paulus' letters in context, and you will find a different contextual content than what the typical Protestant bend is that you're espousing. especially, read the Peshitta - learn the ARAMAIC, not a translation, and be blown away by the subtle nuances which vindicate his teaching as correct and in line with the Messiah's.

btw, the Peshitta's account of Yeshuwa as the Son of Alaha is not a Pauline fabrication, but is trustworthy, and is supported by several passages in the TN"K, as well. think Psalm 2 and Proverbs 30, for starters. bearing false witness is an offense against the Holy One and your neighbor, so you might want to retract some of those statements once you see that Scripture says otherwise, even if the man is long dead.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
-----------------------------

Chayim, all I can derive from your post above is a burning zeal without any evidence in the Scriptures. Be specific about anything you have mentioned above, and I'll be glad to retract anything I have said. In the meantime, you haven't said anything to answer my questions.
Ben


Shlama,

my name is Jeremy, not Chayim -- that is part of my signature: [i]Chayim b'Moshiach [/i ]-- "Life in Messiah." just to clarify. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Paulus did not teach against the Torah, but did indeed uphold the commandments; what he argued against was Pharisaic observance and demands never made in the Torah. just a few places in Praksees d'Shleekha (Acts) that verify this:

Acts 18:18 -- Paulus shaved his head for a vow. this is a Nazarite vow, the only type in Scripture wherein one is commanded to shave their head. check out Numbers 6 for the details.

Acts 18:19-21 -- Paulus tells them that he must keep the festival in Jerusalem. 3 festivals of the Torah command that Hebrew males appear in Ureeshlem for them.

21:19-26 -- firstly, they say that thousands of Jewish believers in Messiah also kept the Torah, secondly, that someone was telling them that Paulus taught against the Torah, thirdly, that this was not true, that he kept the Torah, and fourthly, that he needed to make a vow with certain other believers in Messiah in the Temple. this refers again to the Nazarite vow. it requires animal sacrifice, by the way. and the text even says that he was cleansed with these people.

24:14-18 -- Paulus tells them openly that he came to Ureeshlem (as a believer in Messiah at this point) to bring offerings, and was cleansed in the Temple.

a person's actions are more binding than their words, wouldn't you agree? so if his actions clearly suggest a continued value of the Torah, then perhaps it is his words that people misunderstand and misapply...

i didn't see any questions that you've posted, just a sharing of your own personal beliefs, so i can't address any questions in that respect. i would suggest, however, for you to spend some time reading the PESHITTA's text, especially Paulus' words in it, because i think you would begin to have some problems reconciling your current beliefs about Paulus with the way things are presented in the Aramaic record. i know that as i've read his words in the original tongue that they have made more sense to me than EVER before, so i can only encourage you to take some time to learn Aramaic and go for it.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#19
Ben Masada Wrote:Shlama,

my name is Jeremy, not Chayim -- that is part of my signature: Chayim b'Moshiach [/i ]-- "Life in Messiah." just to clarify. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Paulus did not teach against the Torah, but did indeed uphold the commandments; what he argued against was Pharisaic observance and demands never made in the Torah. just a few places in Praksees d'Shleekha (Acts) that verify this:

Acts 18:18 -- Paulus shaved his head for a vow. this is a Nazarite vow, the only type in Scripture wherein one is commanded to shave their head. check out Numbers 6 for the details.

21:19-26 -- firstly, they say that thousands of Jewish believers in Messiah also kept the Torah, secondly, that someone was telling them that Paulus taught against the Torah, thirdly, that this was not true, that he kept the Torah, and fourthly, that he needed to make a vow with certain other believers in Messiah in the Temple. this refers again to the Nazarite vow. it requires animal sacrifice, by the way. and the text even says that he was cleansed with these people.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
----------------------------

Sorry about the name confusion Jeremy. It is all clear now.

Now, please, read Acts 21:21. The Nazarenes in Jerusalem had been informed that Paul was teaching the Jews among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, to stop circumcising their children and to renounce the Jewish customs. This is to preach against Torah. And with regards to the vow to be fulfilled in the Temple, please, read Acts 21:23.24. Paul had no vow to fulfill. He was coerced by James to join four other Jews who had the vow and give the impression
that he Paul was also an observant of the Law. In other words, he was camouflaged as an observant Jew. "Please, do as we tell you" said James. This was afraid Paul could get arrested, which he was indeed. Paul would never do that willingly because he considered those Jewish things as shadows of things to come. (Col. 2:17)


Shlama,

no prob!

since i posted the passage originally, i would ask you to respond to what verse 24 clearly says -- that what they had been informed of was [i]UNTRUE. he was combating false accusations, and had to step up his observance a notch to show them that he really meant business. and no, he had not originally intended to make a vow. but if you know anything of vows according to the Torah, there doesn't have to be a reason for them. all that matters is that they are fulfilled. concerning the vow of a nazir, this involved animal sacrifice. it doesn't matter how much a "Christian" might be wanting to proselytize a Jewish person, you are just not going to get a Christian who thinks it is okay to go sacrifice animals -- ***i'm assuming of course -- i could be wrong, but from my experience with Christians, this would never be seen as an okay form of proselytizing. the whole animal sacrifice thing is a great taboo, so it is highly unlikely, if not impossible. yet Paulus is willing to do exactly this very thing.

also, that he did not cease valuing circumcision is clearly evident from his own words:

Galatians 5:11
But I, my brothers, if I continue proclaiming to be circumcised, why am I being persecuted? Perhaps the offensiveness of the cross has been annulled?

(Peshitta)

the Aramaic seems very clear about how we should understand the verse. what we have in the Aramaic is a rhetorical question, where the answer is no - the offensiveness of the cross has not been annulled, and that is why, even though he still advocated circumcision (for the right reason, mind you, not the Pharisaic/Rabbinical reason), he was still running into opposition from those who otherwise should have had no problem with him. now this is just one passage to deal with. i'm telling you, start reading the Peshitta itself, and your perceptions of Paulus are very likely to begin to change.

the contents of the Torah are shadows of things to come. that is no lie. but you're understanding it from a negative point of view. the contents ARE shadows. present tense. they are shadows today. they haven't ceased to be. if it were otherwise, he was upholding phantoms, because, like i mentioned before, he still kept the festivals and taught others to, as well. he still taught circumcision, and even had Timothy circumcised. those are not the actions of an anti-nomian person.

one cannot understand Paulus without first realizing that his actions, like anyone's, determine how we should understand his words. he is repeatedly shown giving honor to the Torah in a Biblical fashion, and so the words that you are having difficulty accepting of his need to be re-evaluated, because either you're misunderstanding his words, or else you should throw his words away and accept his life as a Torah-observant Benjaminite, as his actions clearly show him to be.

but i would rather encourage you to start reading the Peshitta itself before you make any more judgments on the man, since whether you agree with him or not at the moment, you appear to be making accusations against him based on a misinformed position, and IF that turns out to be the case, then you could be guilty of lashon hara. nobody wants that against them. so get to know him through his own words first, and reserve judgment until you've done so. can you read Hebrew? Aramaic? if so, do you read the Peshitta? as a Torah-observant individual, i can say that some aspects of Paulus didn't make entirely complete sense until i read his books in the Aramaic. so i can personally attest to the benefit of doing so.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#20
Ben Masada Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:
Ben Masada Wrote:Shlama,

the contents of the Torah are shadows of things to come. that is no lie. but you're understanding it from a negative point of view. the contents ARE shadows. present tense. they are shadows today. they haven't ceased to be. if it were otherwise, he was upholding phantoms, because, like i mentioned before, he still kept the festivals and taught others to, as well. he still taught circumcision, and even had Timothy circumcised. those are not the actions of an anti-nomian person.

one cannot understand Paulus without first realizing that his actions, like anyone's, determine how we should understand his words. he is repeatedly shown giving honor to the Torah in a Biblical fashion, and so the words that you are having difficulty accepting of his need to be re-evaluated, because either you're misunderstanding his words, or else you should throw his words away and accept his life as a Torah-observant Benjaminite, as his actions clearly show him to be.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
-------------------------------

Regarding the first paragraph, you are promoting Replacement Theology, because if the contents of the Torah are shadows of things to come, they must disappear after the things arrive. That's what Paul meant in Galatians 4:21-31. For the second paragraph, if you think I don't understand Paul, read Acts 21:21 and explain it to me yourself. We have Paul preaching against Moses, teaching the Jews to stop circumcising their children and to renounce the Jewish customs.


i'm not advocating replacement theology - i myself do my best to live the commands of the Torah on a daily basis, so stop your lashon hara, it is unnecessary. think about it for a moment: do you have a shadow? yes. can a person see your shadow from afar off if a light is behind you? yes. when you get there, is your shadow gone - does it disappear? no. the shadow remains. it is an essential aspect of your presence. it may look a bit different from when it was originally seen, or it might be better understood once you yourself are personally there as to the details of the shadow, but the shadow cannot be separated from you. as long as you exist, the shadow is there. it is the same with the Torah. it is the shadow of Messiah. as long as Messiah exists, the Torah exists. simple logic. but instead, you're accepting hook line and sinker the anti-nomian approach to the Torah being the shadow. i would suggest backing away from accepting such things and look at it all over again, starting with, again, the Peshitta. you continually ignore my questions and suggestions concerning it, so that makes me assume you haven't spent time in the pages of the real New Testament. please correct me if my assumptions are wrong. but i truly believe that if you would take the time to educate yourself in that respect, you would not be making the misinformed accusations that you currently are. your arguments don't hold water because you clearly seem to be coming from a Greek perspective of the New Testament. this place here is a different ball-game, and if you take the time to look into the merit of the Peshitta, i think you'll begin to see why you've repeatedly run across the suggestion to educate yourself more in that arena.

i already explained Acts 21. i've asked you to answer, but you've not done so. it clearly says that what the people had been informed about Paulus was false. what is your answer to that? are you going to just pick and choose which verses in a passage are to be held as authoritative based on your arbitrary choice? that doesn't fly. i want you to explain how he could continue keeping the festivals, kosher, making temple vows involving sacrifice, upholding circumcision, and STILL be considered as preaching AGAINST Muwshe. personal testimony: while visiting with Gershon Solomon, the leader of the Temple Mount And Land of Israel Faithful movement one erev Shabbat a few years back, he explained to me that if i, a Gentile by today's standards, lived like a Jew, then i am a Jew. so, you are what you do. Paulus did the Torah. he didn't do it like the Pharisees of his time, with the added regulations of the avot or the traditions of the qasheeshe', which hindered the people from even approaching the legitimate commandments from Sinai, but he did the true Torah with the proper commandments in the proper perspective. how you can get that he didn't is simply beyond me. the weight of evidence blatantly shows his continued observance and teaching of it: "the Torah is holy and good," it is "spiritual," etc.. statements like that don't come from a replacement theologian by any means.

unless you actually begin to answer the reality of these things here, we're not having a discussion, we're having you come to express your views only. that's not what a forum is about. i for one have no more time for anti-missionary activity if you won't even answer the issues presented to counter your arguments.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#21
Burning one Wrote:
Ben Masada Wrote:Shlama,


i'm not advocating replacement theology - i myself do my best to live the commands of the Torah on a daily basis, so stop your lashon hara, it is unnecessary. think about it for a moment: do you have a shadow? yes. can a person see your shadow from afar off if a light is behind you? yes. when you get there, is your shadow gone - does it disappear? no. the shadow remains. it is an essential aspect of your presence. it may look a bit different from when it was originally seen, or it might be better understood once you yourself are personally there as to the details of the shadow, but the shadow cannot be separated from you. as long as you exist, the shadow is there. it is the same with the Torah. it is the shadow of Messiah. as long as Messiah exists, the Torah exists. simple logic. but instead, you're accepting hook line and sinker the anti-nomian approach to the Torah being the shadow. i would suggest backing away from accepting such things and look at it all over again, starting with, again, the Peshitta. you continually ignore my questions and suggestions concerning it, so that makes me assume you haven't spent time in the pages of the real New Testament. please correct me if my assumptions are wrong. but i truly believe that if you would take the time to educate yourself in that respect, you would not be making the misinformed accusations that you currently are. your arguments don't hold water because you clearly seem to be coming from a Greek perspective of the New Testament. this place here is a different ball-game, and if you take the time to look into the merit of the Peshitta, i think you'll begin to see why you've repeatedly run across the suggestion to educate yourself more in that arena.

BEN: I have read a lot from Peshitta or no-Peshitta. I see no difference from the regular NT that I read everyday. If you want to be particular about what you mean by being different in Peshitta, mention it to me but quote it properly.

i already explained Acts 21. i've asked you to answer, but you've not done so. it clearly says that what the people had been informed about Paulus was false. what is your answer to that?

BEN: If the accusatons had been false, what did Paul speak in his deffence? Nothing. His silence was enough evidence that everything was true. No wonder he was arrested and taken to Rome, where he died.

are you going to just pick and choose which verses in a passage are to be held as authoritative based on your arbitrary choice? that doesn't fly. i want you to explain how he could continue keeping the festivals, kosher, making temple vows involving sacrifice, upholding circumcision, and STILL be considered as preaching AGAINST Muwshe. personal testimony: while visiting with Gershon Solomon, the leader of the Temple Mount And Land of Israel Faithful movement one erev Shabbat a few years back, he explained to me that if i, a Gentile by today's standards, lived like a Jew, then i am a Jew. so, you are what you do.

BEN: Prove everything you say above with a quote. I can't take your word for it. If you don't like to quote, you don't have to pick up my posts to reply.

Paulus did the Torah. he didn't do it like the Pharisees of his time, with the added regulations of the avot or the traditions of the qasheeshe', which hindered the people from even approaching the legitimate commandments from Sinai, but he did the true Torah with the proper commandments in the proper perspective. how you can get that he didn't is simply beyond me. the weight of evidence blatantly shows his continued observance and teaching of it: "the Torah is holy and good," it is "spiritual," etc.. statements like that don't come from a replacement theologian by any means.

BEN: No quotations to prove anything.

unless you actually begin to answer the reality of these things here, we're not having a discussion, we're having you come to express your views only. that's not what a forum is about. i for one have no more time for anti-missionary activity if you won't even answer the issues presented to counter your arguments.

BEN: You have to quote to prove anything you say.
[/quote]


mmm, that is exactly what i thought.... <!-- sRolleyes --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="Rolleyes" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- sRolleyes -->
Reply
#22
Ben Masada Wrote: BEN: If the accusatons had been false, what did Paul speak in his deffence? Nothing. His silence was enough evidence that everything was true. No wonder he was arrested and taken to Rome, where he died.


I am not seeing the wisdom in using this as a defense for the position that you hold to. Jesus held his silence when accused of the chief priests and elders of the Jewish People as seen in Matthew 27:11-14. If the above that you say is truth, than Jesus admitted to being the King of the Jews. However, I do not think that this was the strategy he was intending. He did though, always answer when it was an accusation of those who were not of his own People. In the case of Jesus and even perhaps in the case of Paul (who never failed to answer in defense when the Jews accused him), it is telling of who it is they cared less of and who they wished to protect. Then, Jesus had love for his own rather than for the Roman leaders and Paul would have been the opposite. Silence is dishonest when it is not used in love and in wisdom.

"You hesitate to stab me with a word, and know not - silence is the sharper sword." Samuel Johnson

Using your reasoning for silence, then you put Jesus in a bad position as well as the Jewish People given that Paul DID defend himself to the Jewish and Jesus did not defend himself only when it was the Jewish People that were said to be accusing them.

Silence is the true friend that never betrays. ~Confucius

My thought? Your understanding of silence is misguided. Jesus loved the Jewish and had little regard for the Roman authority whereas Paul was Roman through and through mentally and so, having little regard for the Jewish People, he had not the problem to make sure that his defense of their accusations against him were quite vocal despite the harm that it would (and has) caused them. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

Wisdom is not only the attribute of those who are right in their heart and ignorance is not an attribute only belonging to the heart of those deserving to be in the dark. Think about it. <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->
Reply
#23
Shlama Achai,

I feel like we're in a courtroom now:

Objection! <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: --> Do you have any evidence Paul had little regard for Am-Yisrael?
I have counter-evidence for that: Romans 9:1-5

Blessings, Aaron
Reply
#24
Aaron S Wrote:Shlama Achai,

I feel like we're in a courtroom now:

Objection! <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: --> Do you have any evidence Paul had little regard for Am-Yisrael?
I have counter-evidence for that: Romans 9:1-5

Blessings, Aaron

Titus 1:10-11, 13-16 is one example. He certainly tries to make fools of them, even portraying them, the Jews, as deceptive with evil intent who MUST be stopped. That isn't very PRO-Israel. Paul makes it clear that he is against Israel; for what makes a People a People but their Laws, traditions, and ways of living. These things, especially their Laws, are what made Israel a peculiar, very special, People. Paul advocating having these things abolished as seen, for example, in Ephesians 2:15 and then he promotes the ways of thinking that were known to be of the Greek People. That is the blood sacrifice of man for the sins of the world. That is strictly forbidden in the Laws laid out for the People of Israel as you can see for yourself in Exodus 23:7. He promotes all that is anti-Jewish and seeks to destroy all that made the People the People of Israel. That is clear evidence that he had little regard for Israel, the People.

Paul being wishy washy in what he said is not at all a surprise for he blatantly admits that he will say whatever is necessary at any given time in order to promote his anti-Jewish ideas. I Corinthians 9:19-23 Because of his own statement, it is a wonder that anyone would believe that he was actually Jewish since his teachings were anything but the teachings of a Jewish man. <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->
Reply
#25
Shlama Achai,

Here's the problem of posturing Paul in such light in the form of questions:
  • Was Paul teaching something in stark contrast to the message of Mashiyach?
  • If so:
    • Did YHWH knowingly hiring someone who would be a detriment to the Mashiyach's message?
    • Was YHWH intending to establish what is colloquially called Christianity?
    • Would the apostles allow him to speak such things?
    • Was his encounter with Yeshua in the spirit a made up story?

My thoughts pertaining to the above questions:
  • If Yeshua was preaching the same thing as Paul, then all is well: but this seems to be far from the case even by a quick glance at the words of Mashiyach.
  • If Paul was preaching something different from Yeshua, then YHWH was in error when he picked Paul as a light to the nations; for it would have been better for him to continue to persecute rather than to invent a new religion.
  • Can anyone show me words of an apostle that put Paul in a negative light?

All this leads me to believe that what Christianity postures as the simple/pshat reading of Paul is vastly incorrect and needs to be reevaluated under the notion that Paul was zealous for Torah.
Reply
#26
And to you I say: check the Peshitta on these verses.
Reply
#27
Ben, Greek or Aramaic aside, when Paul says "end" he most clearly means "goal." This is a common use of tellos in Greek, and of the Aramaic term (which I've forgotten at the moment.)
Reply
#28
Aaron S Wrote:If Paul was preaching something different from Yeshua, then YHWH was in error when he picked Paul as a light to the nations

I am having a difficult time understanding how this could be a valid "if .. .then" point. The only word in which we have that Paul was picked as a light to the nations is that of his own. His teachings are far removed from that which was taught by Jesus and his understanding of the mindset in which the People, Israel, (of whom he claimed was flawed even with intent to be so) existed was lacking. Why should God be blamed if Paul was teaching something opposite of what it is the People should hold to; which is to say, opposite of what Jesus taught? Furthermore, how could anyone in their right mind trust one man simply because he claimed that he was called upon by God? God answers us when we call. Not the other way around. We call upon Him when we have the thirst to seek the understanding of His ways. We choose the way of God and not the other way around. What you have said implies that there is the possibility always that God could be at fault for the ways in which WE have chosen. I find that to be impossible and rather, we are the ones responsible for the path(s) that we choose in life. He gave us life and we decide what we will do with it, even as Paul decided that he would, with his life, set into motion the spirit that is against the only People who, as a whole, have chosen to seek after the knowledge of God with a willing mind to be honest about His ways within their own hearts. <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->
Reply
#29
I hate to sound like a broken record, but when it comes to Paul, I really think we must take an approach of "Eilu w'eilu divrei elokim khayyim."
Reply
#30
Shlama sittingShiva,

Your methods for understanding how things work with respect to Paul are strange.
It is undeniably the case that Paul got the stamp of approval from the apostles...
we can gather that from the writings and from history surrounding what is called 'canonization' which was based upon the writings of the Netzarim (which accepts Paul).

Stop assuming that Paul invented Christianity and hated Israel and try to see his words from all sides...
he does seem to under-emphasize the living by Torah, but much of how you understand Paul comes from Christianity, not the Netzarim.

1. Paul did not create Christianity: Rome did.
2. Paul did not hate Israel: Rome did.
Why do people think Paul did either 1 or 2? Because that's what has been given to us as a legacy of Rome.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)