Did Paul keep the Law...?

[Georges]

Did Paul keep the Law based on the wording of Acts 28...

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.
Act 28:18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let [me] go, because there was no cause of death in me.

Is Paul admitting here that he was still a Torah observant Jew? After all the Jews were clamoring for his death because they perceived he had preached against the Law...yet here Paul say's that he's always kept it....


Based on this....it's a YES or a NO......No, Yes buts or No buts......plain and simple....Did Paul claim to be Torah Observant in Acts 28?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Did Paul keep the Law based on the wording of Acts 28...

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.
Act 28:18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let [me] go, because there was no cause of death in me.

Is Paul admitting here that he was still a Torah observant Jew? After all the Jews were clamoring for his death because they perceived he had preached against the Law...yet here Paul say's that he's always kept it....


Based on this....it's a YES or a NO......No, Yes buts or No buts......plain and simple....Did Paul claim to be Torah Observant in Acts 28?

THAT is a very pertinent question in light of the many on this board who rely on Paul for having preached non-adherence to the law. I'll be watching with great interest at the responses to this question. By the way, observing the Torah would also include the seventh-day Sabbath.

 

[Georges]

Did Paul keep the Law based on the wording of Acts 28...

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.
Act 28:18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let [me] go, because there was no cause of death in me.

Is Paul admitting here that he was still a Torah observant Jew? After all the Jews were clamoring for his death because they perceived he had preached against the Law...yet here Paul say's that he's always kept it....


Based on this....it's a YES or a NO......No, Yes buts or No buts......plain and simple....Did Paul claim to be Torah Observant in Acts 28?

THAT is a very pertinent question in light of the many on this board who rely on Paul for having preached non-adherence to the law. I'll be watching with great interest at the responses to this question. By the way, observing the Torah would also include the seventh-day Sabbath.

I won't get a response on this....because it forces people to realize a couple of ugly possibilities...

1. That the Paul of Acts is a Torah observant Jew. If this is the case, then what they've learned about the Law being abolished at the cross is false, making Christian theologians (mainstream) who teach that, false promoters (liars).
2. or, that the Paul of Acts abstains from the Torah. If this is the case, then, Luke the writer of Acts, is a liar because he records that Paul is a Torah observant Jew.
3. or, that Paul is a Chameleon, or he is two faced. The Paul of the Letters promoted that he was all things to all men. It seems he puts on his Jewish Torah observant mask while in Jerusalem, and then when he is with Gentiles, he puts his Jewish Torah abstinence mask on. That makes Paul a liar...
4. or, that the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of the Letters. It is generally accepted that Paul is not the author of all the letters attributed to him. It was a common practice for students (or others) to write under Pseudo names...If this is the case then what part of the Acts and Letters can you believe?
5. or, the NT has been edited by translators down through the centuries to accomodate their theology....it is clear, the Paul of Acts is different than the Paul of the Letters....and, it is common knowledge that there are edits to the orginal NT texts.


which is it....? Can anyone provide an apology for the above?

 

[gingercat]

I voted yes, because I thought you meant the ten commandments.

I don't believe he kept all of the law in the OT.

 

[Georges]

I voted yes, because I thought you meant the ten commandments.

I don't believe he kept all of the law in the OT.

Thanks for your response,

Correct....nobody can keep the whole Law....an argument can be made that Jesus kept the Torah completely...whether he did or not, it is possible that he achieved righteousness by the means prescribed by God in the Torah, the Law Jesus obeyed.

Paul, as everyone, could not keep the Torah completely...that doesn't mean that he didn't try (as everyone should). Just because you can't keep Torah, doesn't mean you can't be considered righteous according to Mosaic Law....you just have to follow atonment proceedures.

A little off subject.....Ginger...the Mosaic law is the 10 commandments fine tuned....in other words the 10 commandments are a generalization of the Torah Law. If you keep the 10 commandments, chances are you are keeping Torah Law.

 

[gingercat]

George,

you are absolutely right on your analysis.

No one can keep the law completely but He wants us to do our best and Jesus fill up the rest. :wink:

 

[SputnikBoy]

I'm quite amazed - but then, maybe not - why there haven't been more responses to this thread. Where, for instance is Heidi? Come on you biblical scholars, what is YOUR take on this topic?

 

[JM]

EW Bullinger taught the Church was founded at this point, Acts 28, when Paul admitts he turns from the Jews. He believers water baptism, the Lord's supper and whatever was written before this point to be the Church made up of Jewish believers. The prison epistles of Paul are for the Church and this age, he wrote, and a few people still believe that today. We know from Hebrews that the system of belief found in the Old Covenant faded away. It's gone now.

 

[Klee shay]

Is Paul admitting here that he was still a Torah observant Jew?

Paul was renoun for observing the customs of the particular society he was teaching in. While in the company of the Jews he kept Jewish custom. He even had one of his charges circumsized as a man - even though he didn't believe in circumcision for the new covernant - but he had him circumcised nonetheless, so that no Jew would be offended.

He never claimed to do away with the old but to merely build upon it with the new. He encouraged all men to seek the Lord, whether Jew, Roman or otherwise.

 

[Heidi]

Did Paul keep the Law based on the wording of Acts 28...

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.
Act 28:18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let [me] go, because there was no cause of death in me.

Is Paul admitting here that he was still a Torah observant Jew? After all the Jews were clamoring for his death because they perceived he had preached against the Law...yet here Paul say's that he's always kept it....


Based on this....it's a YES or a NO......No, Yes buts or No buts......plain and simple....Did Paul claim to be Torah Observant in Acts 28?

Paul was talking about criminal law. He had been delivered into the hands of the Romans for what reason? What law had he broken to be considered a criminal by the Romans and be given the death penalty? Then the Romans seeing that he had done nothing to deserve death, let him go.

 

[Georges]

EW Bullinger taught the Church was founded at this point, Acts 28, when Paul admitts he turns from the Jews.

Acts 28 is hardly an admittance of rejection......JM, what you are suggesting is Paul, in the last year (s) of his life admitted that he was wrong in maintaining that he was Torah observant from the Damascus road incident until that point and then realizes his mistakes? Are you suggesting that Paul realizing his mistake, writes his prison letters to counter his admitted Torah observence? If that were the case why didn't he suggest that in Acts? Then there would have been a harmony between his letters and his actions in acts....

Again, I will restate the possiblities of Paul....

1. That the Paul of Acts is a Torah observant Jew. If this is the case, then what they've learned about the Law being abolished at the cross is false, making Christian theologians (mainstream) who teach that, false promoters (liars).
2. or, that the Paul of Acts abstains from the Torah. If this is the case, then, Luke the writer of Acts, is a liar because he records that Paul is a Torah observant Jew.
3. or, that Paul is a Chameleon, or he is two faced. The Paul of the Letters promoted that he was all things to all men. It seems he puts on his Jewish Torah observant mask while in Jerusalem, and then when he is with Gentiles, he puts his Jewish Torah abstinence mask on. That makes Paul a liar...
4. or, that the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of the Letters. It is generally accepted that Paul is not the author of all the letters attributed to him. It was a common practice for students (or others) to write under Pseudo names...If this is the case then what part of the Acts and Letters can you believe?
5. or, the NT has been edited by translators down through the centuries to accomodate their theology....it is clear, the Paul of Acts is different than the Paul of the Letters....and, it is common knowledge that there are edits to the orginal NT texts.

I think a combination of all 5.....

He believers water baptism, the Lord's supper and whatever was written before this point to be the Church made up of Jewish believers. The prison epistles of Paul are for the Church and this age, he wrote, and a few people still believe that today. We know from Hebrews that the system of belief found in the Old Covenant faded away. It's gone now.

Hmmm....which Paul to believe....the Paul of the Acts....or the possible "Pseudo" Paul of the Letters......

JM....Hebrews (if you can believe it) says "Fadeth away"....not "Faded"....big difference. It is quite clear using "New Covenant", based on the OT prophecy for "New Covenant" that it won't be realized until the Messianic Kingdom on Earth period.

I will admit that this is the first time I had heard of the late change in Paul as you suggest Bullinger suggested....It still makes Paul out to be untrustworthy....Kind of like Constantine being a supporter of Mithraism, converting to Christianity, and being baptized on his deathbed don't you think?

 

[Georges]

Is Paul admitting here that he was still a Torah observant Jew?

Paul was renoun for observing the customs of the particular society he was teaching in.

He was?

While in the company of the Jews he kept Jewish custom. He even had one of his charges circumsized as a man - even though he didn't believe in circumcision for the new covernant - but he had him circumcised nonetheless, so that no Jew would be offended.

Doesn't that make Paul kinda like a used car saleman (no offense to them)? Was he a huckster? Tell them anything they want to hear, as long as we hook them in? Actually, if Paul was Torah observant, he would have had Tim circumsized...because he (Paul of Acts) was Torah observant...and Tim was Jewish. He didn't do it to please the Jews...he did it because it was Torah Law.....go figure...Paul didn't have Titus circumsize because as a Gentile it wasn't required

I can see the scene now.....Paul says to Tim...

Paul: Sorry Tim, but I'm going to have to cut off some of your manhood.
Tim: But why, I thought you preached I didn't have to do that?
Paul: Yeh, I did, but you are Jewish and although I preach against the Law and circumcision, there are some hard headed Jewish believers I have to convince that I'm still Torah observant....that way I can look legit.
Tim: But it will hurt real bad...
Paul: Stop being a baby about it and take one for the team......


I'm not sure I would help Paul out with something that would hurt that bad....to make him look good.......especially if it didn't matter......know what I mean?



He never claimed to do away with the old but to merely build upon it with the new. He encouraged all men to seek the Lord, whether Jew, Roman or otherwise.

I will agree with that statement....and that is very likely...

 

[Georges]

Paul was talking about criminal law.

Of course he was......it must be, cause if it wasn't criminal law....then.....gasp......Paul would be lying.....or someone would be....It certainly can't be Torah law Paul was talking to the Jews of Acts 28 about. Paul didn't believe in the law......The Nazarite sacrifice of Acts 21, the circumcision of Tim.....all things he did but didn't believe in.....right?

He had been delivered into the hands of the Romans for what reason?

He had asked for a hearing (in Rome) to escape the fate he would have recieved in Israel...because for him, the jig was up.....He had both the Sadducean Priests...and the Messianic Jews hacked off at him for preaching a percieved teaching of Torah abstinence to the Gentiles....that is why he went to Rome....

What law had he broken to be considered a criminal by the Romans and be given the death penalty?

He wasn't considered a criminal by the Romans.....he was considered a criminal by both Jews, and Messianic Christians......he escaped to Rome to avoid his fate with the Christians in Israel....call it a self created witness protection plan, not to mention the fact he was a major opportunist. As far as being killed...he was in the wrong place at the wrong time...

Then the Romans seeing that he had done nothing to deserve death, let him go.

Criminal Law?

 

[Georges]

5 votes.....WOW.......there are only 5 people who are on the forum?

I think only 5 read my threads..... :


Thanks to you 5....... for the rest.........does the sound......Bauwk...come to mind?

Fox in the henhouse.....the chickens are scatterin....... :-D


Come on and vote......it's anonymous

 

[JM]

G, just keep in mind it's not what I believe, it's what Bullinger taught concerning Paul. I was just trying to help out the thread.

JM

 

[Georges]

G, just keep in mind it's not what I believe, it's what Bullinger taught concerning Paul. I was just trying to help out the thread.

JM

That's why I put in the "Bullinger" in there.....I didn't want to state you thought one way or the other.....I realize you were initiating more discussion...BTW is that your picture (avatar)? I thought you'd be taller....ha ha. :D

 

[Klee shay]

Is Paul admitting here that he was still a Torah observant Jew?

Paul was renoun for observing the customs of the particular society he was teaching in.

He was?

While in the company of the Jews he kept Jewish custom. He even had one of his charges circumsized as a man - even though he didn't believe in circumcision for the new covernant - but he had him circumcised nonetheless, so that no Jew would be offended.

Doesn't that make Paul kinda like a used car saleman (no offense to them)? Was he a huckster? Tell them anything they want to hear, as long as we hook them in? Actually, if Paul was Torah observant, he would have had Tim circumsized...because he (Paul of Acts) was Torah observant...and Tim was Jewish. He didn't do it to please the Jews...he did it because it was Torah Law.....go figure...Paul didn't have Titus circumsize because as a Gentile it wasn't required

I can see the scene now.....Paul says to Tim...

Paul: Sorry Tim, but I'm going to have to cut off some of your manhood.
Tim: But why, I thought you preached I didn't have to do that?
Paul: Yeh, I did, but you are Jewish and although I preach against the Law and circumcision, there are some hard headed Jewish believers I have to convince that I'm still Torah observant....that way I can look legit.
Tim: But it will hurt real bad...
Paul: Stop being a baby about it and take one for the team......


I'm not sure I would help Paul out with something that would hurt that bad....to make him look good.......especially if it didn't matter......know what I mean?



He never claimed to do away with the old but to merely build upon it with the new. He encouraged all men to seek the Lord, whether Jew, Roman or otherwise.

I will agree with that statement....and that is very likely...

May I suggest if you have problems with the way Paul did things, you take it up with Jesus who did nothing but support his walk and strengthen him in the Spirit. :wink:

It's good to question but try not to mock so much. None of us really have all the answers do we?

 

[Georges]

[quote="Klee shay":66547]

Is Paul admitting here that he was still a Torah observant Jew?

Paul was renoun for observing the customs of the particular society he was teaching in.

He was?

While in the company of the Jews he kept Jewish custom. He even had one of his charges circumsized as a man - even though he didn't believe in circumcision for the new covernant - but he had him circumcised nonetheless, so that no Jew would be offended.

Doesn't that make Paul kinda like a used car salesman (no offense to them)? Was he a huckster? Tell them anything they want to hear, as long as we hook them in? Actually, if Paul was Torah observant, he would have had Tim circumcised...because he (Paul of Acts) was Torah observant...and Tim was Jewish. He didn't do it to please the Jews...he did it because it was Torah Law.....go figure...Paul didn't have Titus circumcise because as a Gentile it wasn't required

I can see the scene now.....Paul says to Tim...

Paul: Sorry Tim, but I'm going to have to cut off some of your manhood.
Tim: But why, I thought you preached I didn't have to do that?
Paul: Yeh, I did, but you are Jewish and although I preach against the Law and circumcision, there are some hard headed Jewish believers I have to convince that I'm still Torah observant....that way I can look legit.
Tim: But it will hurt real bad...
Paul: Stop being a baby about it and take one for the team......


I'm not sure I would help Paul out with something that would hurt that bad....to make him look good.......especially if it didn't matter......know what I mean?



He never claimed to do away with the old but to merely build upon it with the new. He encouraged all men to seek the Lord, whether Jew, Roman or otherwise.

I will agree with that statement....and that is very likely...

May I suggest if you have problems with the way Paul did things, you take it up with Jesus who did nothing but support his walk and strengthen him in the Spirit. :wink:

You can suggest anything you like:wink: :wink: ...I present questions that need answers to, and for you or anyone to say "take it up with Jesus" is a generic cop-out answer.... If Paul doesn't support what Jesus supported....Paul is a false apostle, period. Jesus supported Torah observance and never indicated that it would ever be abolished....did Paul teach the same thing?

Am I to believe, based on what you say, that Jesus gave Paul the "go ahead" and teach Torah abstinence? Why didn't the other "more important" Apostles get that message also?


It's good to question but try not to mock so much.

I'm not mocking anyone....what I stated can't be argued as you have just shown.....you can mildly scold me and say I mock, but you do so 'cause you don't have any better answer....I provided a very plausible scenario.

None of us really have all the answers do we?

Agreed, but some answers make more sense than others..... 8-)

[/quote:66547]

 

[Klee shay]

[quote="Klee shay":43155]

Is Paul admitting here that he was still a Torah observant Jew?

Paul was renoun for observing the customs of the particular society he was teaching in.

He was?

While in the company of the Jews he kept Jewish custom. He even had one of his charges circumsized as a man - even though he didn't believe in circumcision for the new covernant - but he had him circumcised nonetheless, so that no Jew would be offended.

Doesn't that make Paul kinda like a used car salesman (no offense to them)? Was he a huckster? Tell them anything they want to hear, as long as we hook them in? Actually, if Paul was Torah observant, he would have had Tim circumcised...because he (Paul of Acts) was Torah observant...and Tim was Jewish. He didn't do it to please the Jews...he did it because it was Torah Law.....go figure...Paul didn't have Titus circumcise because as a Gentile it wasn't required

I can see the scene now.....Paul says to Tim...

Paul: Sorry Tim, but I'm going to have to cut off some of your manhood.
Tim: But why, I thought you preached I didn't have to do that?
Paul: Yeh, I did, but you are Jewish and although I preach against the Law and circumcision, there are some hard headed Jewish believers I have to convince that I'm still Torah observant....that way I can look legit.
Tim: But it will hurt real bad...
Paul: Stop being a baby about it and take one for the team......


I'm not sure I would help Paul out with something that would hurt that bad....to make him look good.......especially if it didn't matter......know what I mean?



He never claimed to do away with the old but to merely build upon it with the new. He encouraged all men to seek the Lord, whether Jew, Roman or otherwise.

I will agree with that statement....and that is very likely...

May I suggest if you have problems with the way Paul did things, you take it up with Jesus who did nothing but support his walk and strengthen him in the Spirit. :wink:

You can suggest anything you like:wink: :wink: ...I present questions that need answers to, and for you or anyone to say "take it up with Jesus" is a generic cop-out answer.... If Paul doesn't support what Jesus supported....Paul is a false apostle, period. Jesus supported Torah observance and never indicated that it would ever be abolished....did Paul teach the same thing?

Am I to believe, based on what you say, that Jesus gave Paul the "go ahead" and teach Torah abstinence? Why didn't the other "more important" Apostles get that message also?


It's good to question but try not to mock so much.

I'm not mocking anyone....what I stated can't be argued as you have just shown.....you can mildly scold me and say I mock, but you do so 'cause you don't have any better answer....I provided a very plausible scenario.

None of us really have all the answers do we?

Agreed, but some answers make more sense than others..... 8-)

[/quote:43155]

First of all, forgive me if you thought I was scolding you. I did not mean to brand your spirit with such misgivings of your fellow breathren. I endeavoured to answer your questions without realising you had a specific agenda for it.

I present questions that need answers to, and for you or anyone to say "take it up with Jesus" is a generic cop-out answer

Praying for the Lord's understanding is often greater than pursuing our own. I was hoping to inspire you towards that goal alone. If you believe this is a cop-out; then I hope you will reconsider.

 

[Georges]

[quote="Klee shay":87984]

[quote="Klee shay":87984]

Is Paul admitting here that he was still a Torah observant Jew?

Paul was renoun for observing the customs of the particular society he was teaching in.

He was?

While in the company of the Jews he kept Jewish custom. He even had one of his charges circumsized as a man - even though he didn't believe in circumcision for the new covernant - but he had him circumcised nonetheless, so that no Jew would be offended.

Doesn't that make Paul kinda like a used car salesman (no offense to them)? Was he a huckster? Tell them anything they want to hear, as long as we hook them in? Actually, if Paul was Torah observant, he would have had Tim circumcised...because he (Paul of Acts) was Torah observant...and Tim was Jewish. He didn't do it to please the Jews...he did it because it was Torah Law.....go figure...Paul didn't have Titus circumcise because as a Gentile it wasn't required

I can see the scene now.....Paul says to Tim...

Paul: Sorry Tim, but I'm going to have to cut off some of your manhood.
Tim: But why, I thought you preached I didn't have to do that?
Paul: Yeh, I did, but you are Jewish and although I preach against the Law and circumcision, there are some hard headed Jewish believers I have to convince that I'm still Torah observant....that way I can look legit.
Tim: But it will hurt real bad...
Paul: Stop being a baby about it and take one for the team......


I'm not sure I would help Paul out with something that would hurt that bad....to make him look good.......especially if it didn't matter......know what I mean?



He never claimed to do away with the old but to merely build upon it with the new. He encouraged all men to seek the Lord, whether Jew, Roman or otherwise.

I will agree with that statement....and that is very likely...

May I suggest if you have problems with the way Paul did things, you take it up with Jesus who did nothing but support his walk and strengthen him in the Spirit. :wink:

You can suggest anything you like:wink: :wink: ...I present questions that need answers to, and for you or anyone to say "take it up with Jesus" is a generic cop-out answer.... If Paul doesn't support what Jesus supported....Paul is a false apostle, period. Jesus supported Torah observance and never indicated that it would ever be abolished....did Paul teach the same thing?

Am I to believe, based on what you say, that Jesus gave Paul the "go ahead" and teach Torah abstinence? Why didn't the other "more important" Apostles get that message also?


It's good to question but try not to mock so much.

I'm not mocking anyone....what I stated can't be argued as you have just shown.....you can mildly scold me and say I mock, but you do so 'cause you don't have any better answer....I provided a very plausible scenario.

None of us really have all the answers do we?

Agreed, but some answers make more sense than others..... 8-)

[/quote:87984]

First of all, forgive me if you thought I was scolding you. I did not mean to brand your spirit with such misgivings of your fellow breathren. I endeavoured to answer your questions without realising you had a specific agenda for it.

Sorry about being so touchy.....

I present questions that need answers to, and for you or anyone to say "take it up with Jesus" is a generic cop-out answer

Praying for the Lord's understanding is often greater than pursuing our own. I was hoping to inspire you towards that goal alone. If you believe this is a cop-out; then I hope you will reconsider.

I wish you would have said that in the first place....I wouldn't have responded the way I did....I can appreciate what you stated here in explanation. I don't consider that a cop-out.....but the previous post (maybe the wording) I considered it (as it appeared to me) to dodge the issue, with a cover-all answer....again, if it was my misconception, sorry.

[/quote:87984]