Bible Study Can someone explain this oddity?

[Georges]

Paul states:

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:

Did I just blink or did Paul just admit that he obeys Torah?

Act 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men [and] brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Did I just blink again...or did Paul reaffirm that he obeys Torah...?

Act 18:21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

or,

Act 18:18 And Paul [after this] tarried [there] yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn [his] head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

or,

Act 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.


Paul seems to be following Torah in Acts (around other Jews)....yet in the Letters he appears to teach the Torah as unimportant....even negated....

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

2Cr 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2Cr 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away:
2Cr 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Cr 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation [be] glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Cr 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Cr 3:11 For if that which is done away [was] glorious, much more that which remaineth [is] glorious.
2Cr 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
2Cr 3:13 And not as Moses, [which] put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Cr 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ.
2Cr 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
2Cr 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

There are many more....

Paul appears to be keeping Torah in Acts....but not in his letters...that means someone is decietful in Acts....is it Luke or Paul?

Who is lying in Luke? If Luke is lying concerning Pauls words and actions, does that mean Luke and Acts aren't trustworthy?

If Luke isn't lying....what does that make Paul? Practicing one thing and teaching another?

anyone care to try?

 

[stovebolts]

Hey Georges,

Try checking out the book of Romans, I think it may shine some light for ya... Maybe put some emphasis on chapter 14 for your particular thoughts. :wink:

"Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, you people in whose heart is My law: do not fear the reproach of men, nor be afraid of their revilings" (Isaiah 51:7).

The teachers and scribes of the times knew the law better than anyone, and don't forget that Paul was an up and coming Pharisee.
Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

So tell me Georges, why did the Pharisee reject Jesus? It seems to me that your saying (using your same logic in your inital post) that Jesus didn't keep the law? :roll:

 

[stovebolts]

BTW

Two questions. First, in Acts, what chapter does Paul get converted?

Second: How do you see this scripture and was it fullfilled with the death of Jesus?

Thus God proclaimed: "'Behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,' says the Lord. 'But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, says the Lord, I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,' says the Lord. 'For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more"' (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

 

[Georges]

Hey Georges,

Try checking out the book of Romans, I think it may shine some light for ya... Maybe put some emphasis on chapter 14 for your particular thoughts. :wink:

Know it...and another strike against Paul......but that's a different thread subject. In priniting selected verses, I didn't want to make the OP any longer then it had to be. Rom 14 you can almost go verse by verse to show he was a Torah negator (false prophet according to Jesus).

"Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, you people in whose heart is My law: do not fear the reproach of men, nor be afraid of their revilings" (Isaiah 51:7).

The teachers and scribes of the times knew the law better than anyone, and don't forget that Paul was an up and coming Pharisee.

So he says...to whom of those he written to would or could dispute his claim? The book "James the Brother of Jesus" by Robert H. Eisenman is a long read (600 +) pages that details as much as possible the history of Paul....What is interesting is that he seemed to be related to the Herodians and worked for the Sadducean High Priest, something the average Pharisee wouldn't do. Not to mention, he claimed to be the student of Gamaliel (the most respected teacher of the time)...a Pharisee in league with a Sadducee...not very likely.

Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Paul's way out of trouble...deflect...He knew that he could cause dissention between the Sads and the Phar's.

So tell me Georges, why did the Pharisee reject Jesus?

Stove...all/most (first 50 years) of the early believer's were phrasaic Jews...Contrary to popular belief, the Pharisee's accepted Jesus as a possible candidate as the Messiah...the Jews accepted others as possible candidtates as well....the took a wait and see attitude. If Jesus could defeat the Romans and make Israel the head of the nations...great, if he couldn't the Romans would take care of him...that was SOP for the Pharisee's....the same example of this attitude was seen in Acts 5:34-39.

Who rejected Jesus? The Sadducee's....the HP group who were most threatened by Jesus' Messiahship...If Jesus came into power, they would not be in control anymore...

It seems to me that your saying (using your same logic in your inital post) that Jesus didn't keep the law?

Then I scripted it wrong, or you can't read... What I claim in the initial post is that the Paul of Acts seems to obey Torah, and the Paul of the Letters appears to preach Torah apathy....

:roll:

me in red...

 

[Georges]

BTW

Two questions. First, in Acts, what chapter does Paul get converted?

Was Paul converted? Converted to what? Luke claims in Acts 9 that Paul had a vision...

Second: How do you see this scripture and was it fullfilled with the death of Jesus?

Thus God proclaimed: "'Behold, the days are coming,' (This chapter is clearly a Messianic kingdom chapter, and terms such as "the days are coming", or "in that day" are Jewish idioms related to that time period) says the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, (Again, this is a Messianic Kingdom passage were Israel and Judah are reunited becoming 1 nation again. At that time the New Covenant will take effect totally.) My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,' says the Lord. 'But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: (Israel....the religion at the time is Judaism, not Christianity) After those days, (Again, Messianic Kingdom terminology) says the Lord, I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,' says the Lord. 'For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more"' (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

This is a Messianic Kingdom (future) passage....not fully realized until "that day, the 1000 year Sabbath day" occurs.

I'll bold the points of interest in black and comment in red...

 

[KaerbEmEvig]

BTW

Two questions. First, in Acts, what chapter does Paul get converted?

Second: How do you see this scripture and was it fullfilled with the death of Jesus?

Thus God proclaimed: "'Behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,' says the Lord. 'But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, says the Lord, I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,' says the Lord. 'For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more"' (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

If he would have been converted after those quotes from Acts, then that would mean he was pro-Torah being against James/Jesus and being anti-Torah after his conversion, since his epistles were written after that happening.

 

[MrVersatile48]

I don't have a Bible with me, but even before the post @ Romans, I had in mind to recommend Hebrews 1-12 - it has amazing parallels with Romans 1-12, but is aimed specifically at Hebrew Christians (of whom, if I recall right, you are 1, George?)

Anyway, its major theme is just how Christ fulfilled the Law & the Prophets & how He is so immeasurably greater than anything that went before

I just have 5 minutes to emphasise that God's purpose is brilliantly summed up by, "The Law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ"

As Romans 3 says, none of us can keep the whole Law & 'all have sinned & fall short of the glory of God'

Jesus wouldn't have come to save us if our own good works could do it, but, 'our righteousnesses are as filthy rags in God's sight'

Must go!

Ian

 

[Georges]

I don't have a Bible with me, but even before the post @ Romans, I had in mind to recommend Hebrews 1-12 - it has amazing parallels with Romans 1-12, but is aimed specifically at Hebrew Christians (of whom, if I recall right, you are 1, George?)

Nope....I'm a Yankee Gentile living in Texas....they call us Damn Yankee's cause we came down and stayed... At this time, I'm what you would call a God Fearer (akin to Cornelius before and after his conversion). That is, I worship God and respect his Torah. I will proselyte to Judaism when the time is right (of course keeping Jesus as Messiah as did the early Nazarene Jews who never left their Jewish faith).

Anyway, its major theme is just how Christ fulfilled the Law & the Prophets & how He is so immeasurably greater than anything that went before

Already not quite accurate....Christ didn't fulfill the Law and Prophets...that won't happen until the end of the Messianic Millennial Kingdom. He did fulfill the prophesies concerning his first coming....but they (all of them) have as yet to be fulfilled.

I just have 5 minutes to emphasise that God's purpose is brilliantly summed up by, "The Law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ"

The Law is our schoolmaster and one Christ did not abrogate....Paul did that.

As Romans 3 says, none of us can keep the whole Law & 'all have sinned & fall short of the glory of God'

No big deal....God knows that, that's why he always made a way for atonement in the Torah....

Jesus wouldn't have come to save us if our own good works could do it, but, 'our righteousnesses are as filthy rags in God's sight'

That's why man must be in a constant state of righteous living and repentence...an ever growing process.

Must go!

Ian

Ian answer two questions for me.....a simple yes or no.....based on the OP, did the Paul of Acts keep the Torah? Did the Paul of the Letter's appear to Abrogate the Torah?

 

[stovebolts]

Georges,
Like Ian, not much time, so please accept my apologies for not parsing all of your replies with full responses.

Ian,
Sorry for yelling harshly at you in the last thread, my bad.

It seems to me that your saying (using your same logic in your inital post) that Jesus didn't keep the law?

Then I scripted it wrong, or you can't read... What I claim in the initial post is that the Paul of Acts seems to obey Torah, and the Paul of the Letters appears to preach Torah apathy....

Tongue in cheek Georges. When I wrote that I was thinking of Jesus and his disciples walking through the field on the Sabbath picking heads of grain. I was also thinking about when Jesus healed the man with the shriveled hand on the sabbath. In your opinion, was Jesus keeping the Torah with the two events described?

The way I understand it Georges, is how you interpret it. Certainly Jesus interpreted the law a tad differently than the experts in the law of those days and it showed in both his words and his deeds. From that perspective, iit appears that Paul simply continued the trend.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Hi Stove!

No problemo, dude: I don't recall taking any offence & I hope I didn't give any - a major advantage of 'Net anonymity is the ability to talk freely & learn what's on others' minds & just take all things to the Lord, day by day

Hi George!

I nearly forgot your questions in the heat, but the simple answers that came to mind were too simple

What now comes to mind is Matthew 5-7, where Jesus time & again focussed on the spirit & intent behind the laws He dealt with there

Also the time when questions were asked about what to teach Gentile believers @ the Law

All I feel the Lord telling me to say is that, even before the Creation, God planned not only the 1-&-only way of salvation, but used the various 'dispensations' of His dealing with mankind to show us that neither observing laws, following human leaders, nor self-effort, etc, could deal with the problem of human sinfulness

"The blood of sheep & goats could not take away sin"

Christ's once-for-all sacrifice for sin at Calvary's cross did away with the need to sacrifice bulls & goats, etc, over & over again - that's why God tore the veil of the Temple from top to bottom: to show that the way was permanently open for repentant sinners to commune with the Creator

"Jesus is the 1-&-only mediator between God & man"

I think that's in 1 John 1, but as I said, Romans 1-12 & Hebrews 1-12 go into great detail about the huge difference Jesus made to life

Must go!

Ian

 

[Georges]

Georges,
Like Ian, not much time, so please accept my apologies for not parsing all of your replies with full responses.

Ian,
Sorry for yelling harshly at you in the last thread, my bad.

It seems to me that your saying (using your same logic in your inital post) that Jesus didn't keep the law?

Then I scripted it wrong, or you can't read... What I claim in the initial post is that the Paul of Acts seems to obey Torah, and the Paul of the Letters appears to preach Torah apathy....

Tongue in cheek Georges. When I wrote that I was thinking of Jesus and his disciples walking through the field on the Sabbath picking heads of grain. I was also thinking about when Jesus healed the man with the shriveled hand on the sabbath. In your opinion, was Jesus keeping the Torah with the two events described?

Yes...absolutely....did he break the rabbinic man made law? Yes, if it didn't have any merit...In the case of the grain...Torah provides for situations of peril...In the case of the healing...Torah does not regulate against that...It is the man made rabbinic law that was super imposed on the Torah law....an example...Torah Law: Don't touch the stove burner while it is glowing red....Rabbinic Law: Don't go into the house (that way you won't be in danger of burning your hand). It all comes down to what is Torah Law and what is Rabbinic law....

The way I understand it Georges, is how you interpret it. Certainly Jesus interpreted the law a tad differently than the experts in the law of those days and it showed in both his words and his deeds. From that perspective, iit appears that Paul simply continued the trend.

Not exactly....but could appear that way....Actually, Jesus didn't preach too hard against the man made law (actually, the concept isn't bad, and I believe the intention of man made law is good), he only preached about it when confronted...other than that, he appears to have left it alone.

The problem with Judaism with Gentiles at the time of Paul, was that they were so concerned with dietary rules that eventually, laws were created to keep Jews from socializing with Gentiles...for fear of purity contamination. Paul sought to break down the rabbinic rules and even apparently Torah law giving Gentiles equal status with the Jews....The Apostles in Jerusalem wanted the Gentiles to obtain equal status with them by Proselyting to Nazarene Judaism...which group is right?

me in red...

 

[Georges]

Hi Stove!

No problemo, dude: I don't recall taking any offence & I hope I didn't give any - a major advantage of 'Net anonymity is the ability to talk freely & learn what's on others' minds & just take all things to the Lord, day by day

Hi George!

I nearly forgot your questions in the heat, but the simple answers that came to mind were too simple

What now comes to mind is Matthew 5-7, where Jesus time & again focussed on the spirit & intent behind the laws He dealt with there

Also the time when questions were asked about what to teach Gentile believers @ the Law

All I feel the Lord telling me to say is that, even before the Creation, God planned not only the 1-&-only way of salvation, but used the various 'dispensations' of His dealing with mankind to show us that neither observing laws, following human leaders, nor self-effort, etc, could deal with the problem of human sinfulness

"The blood of sheep & goats could not take away sin"

Christ's once-for-all sacrifice for sin at Calvary's cross did away with the need to sacrifice bulls & goats, etc, over & over again - that's why God tore the veil of the Temple from top to bottom: to show that the way was permanently open for repentant sinners to commune with the Creator

"Jesus is the 1-&-only mediator between God & man"

I think that's in 1 John 1, but as I said, Romans 1-12 & Hebrews 1-12 go into great detail about the huge difference Jesus made to life

Must go!

Ian

Ian......I asked for a simple yes or no to 2 questions based on the opening post.....

Did the Paul of Acts keep the Torah?

Did the Paul of the Letter's appear to Abrogate (negate) the Torah?


either.....Yes or No....no yeh but's....

 

[stovebolts]

What are you calling a man made law? Give me an example.

Thanks :D

 

[Georges]

What are you calling a man made law? Give me an example.

Thanks :D

In the case of Judaism, at the time of Christ, Peter initially refused to go to the house of Cornelius to eat with him....why? Because it was against tradition (rabbinic Law). There is no Torah Law that suggests that a Jew can't eat with a Gentile.

Here is a scenario that fits....

1. God said "Thou shalt not eat catfish".
2. Gentiles eat catfish.
3. Rabbinic Law says "Since Gentiles eat catfish, you can't eat with Gentiles". That will make sure you don't eat catfish (accidently).

That is a simplified example of how things (rabbinic law) began innocently...ie. Jews not wanting to break the catfish law...so they impose laws to protect it. It eventually (wrongly) became regarded on the same level as Torah law...that's the problem with Judaism then and now...Rabbinic Law made on par with Torah law.

In the case of Peter, it wasn't a matter of "clean/unclean" because, Cornelius as a God Fearer (not yet a proselyte) would have been torah observant (or at the very least sypathetic with Torah law), would have already been practicing "clean food" regulations. As a God Fearer who would have known dietary law, it would have been unthinkable for Cornelius to provide a non kosher meal for Peter...

The whole jist of the Cornelius story is.....not "Clean/Unclean" meals, it was Peter entering the house of a "Gentile". "Entering the house of a Gentile" is not Torah Law....However, eating kosher food is Torah law. Cornelius (as a God Fearer (therefore Torah observant) would have had a kosher meal prepared for Peter.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Hi George!

Having trained in interdenominational evangelical Bible College, I'm used to different folk using the same words to mean different things - 'obey Torah' means different things to different folks & I think Stove gave very good answers

As ever, I just asked the Lord to make the complicated as simple as possible

Jesus said that the whole of the Law is summed up by 'Love the Lord with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind & all your strength' - & 'Love your neighbour as yourself'

Knowing you Texans have a good sense of humor, I can sure tell ya that's easier than sifting thru reams of minutiae in this heat!

 

[Georges]

Hi George!

Having trained in interdenominational evangelical Bible College, I'm used to different folk using the same words to mean different things - 'obey Torah' means different things to different folks & I think Stove gave very good answers

I think stove gave great answers....and you are right in your perception of definitions.

As ever, I just asked the Lord to make the complicated as simple as possible

That would be ideal....

Jesus said that the whole of the Law is summed up by 'Love the Lord with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind & all your strength' - & 'Love your neighbour as yourself'

...Did you know that Jesus was quoting a famous rabbinic teacher...? The Rabbi Hillel (a pharisee) is quoted by Jesus....

Knowing you Texans have a good sense of humor, I can sure tell ya that's easier than sifting thru reams of minutiae in this heat!

Amen...brudda

 

[stovebolts]

Hey Georges,

While I don't agree with your theology (and I know you don't agree with mine), I really liked your explanation. I'll re-read your initial post with that thought in mind.

 

[Georges]

Hey Georges,

While I don't agree with your theology (and I know you don't agree with mine), I really liked your explanation. I'll re-read your initial post with that thought in mind.

Hey...we both would have agreed 5 years ago....I was a staunch Paulinist Trinitarian....

Got hooked on the Jewish roots of Christianity.

 

[stovebolts]

Yeah Georges, sounds like ya did and you seem to know a lot about it.

I'd like to hear your views on the book of Hebrews some time :wink:

Take care!

 

[Vic C.]

1. God said "Thou shalt not eat catfish".
2. Gentiles eat catfish.
3. Rabbinic Law says "Since Gentiles eat catfish, you can't eat with Gentiles". That will make sure you don't eat catfish (accidently).

OH. those bottom-feeding, no scales scoundrels! :o

You forgot the crustaceans and molluscs. :-D