Bible Study Galatians 2

[JM]

Galatians 2:11-16 What was Peter's problem, why did Paul have to confront him? The common understanding of Acts 10 seems to be that Peter understood the vision as breaking down the wall of ritual purity and the gentile believer, so how could Peter get it wrong again?

We see in v. 9 "When James, Cephas, and John, recognized as pillars, acknowledged the grace that had been given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."

Should be understand v. 11-16 in light of the commission each apostle was sent?


Peace,

JM

 

[wavy]

As far as your last question there, it's hard to say. Because we have Acts 15:7 to deal with also which seems in direct contradiction to Galatians:


As far as what is going on in Galatians 2? Very simple, imho. And take note: this is only my opinion (not that I didn't have outside influence from teachers, though).

I believe the evidence is overwhelming and I think it is an intelligent way to look at things. Only some one who's programmed with thoughts of anti-semitism, antominianism, and the doctrine taught by the church that the "law is done away with". This returns us to square one and gives us a different view from a different mindset and level of understanding.

Peter was eating with fellow believers (I believe they were Ephraimites, but that's besides the point), whom the Jews considered "gentiles".

Eating is symbolic of fellowship and acceptance. You don't eat with those considered unclean. Paul testifies of this:

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith YHWH, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

This was the reason for the Acts 15 "necessary things". The new believers, those returning from the nations, had to abstain from anything considered unclean so as pave the way for fellowship.

They told them to abstain from idols in Acts 15. Paul says:

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of YHWH with idols?...

Israel has a historic problem with idolatry.

They told them to abstain from blood and things strangled in Acts 15. These are shochet (ritual slaughterer of kosher meats) principles where the animal had to be slit at the throat, not strangled, so as to abstain from blood. This would go in the "touch not the unclean" category. And also, as Paul says:

2 Corinthians 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of YHWH.

They also told them to abstain from forinication. Again, Paul says:

1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:


Many associate the things mentioned in Acts 15 with the Noahide laws, but I believe this offers a better, more thorough explanation. This was for the purposes of fellowship so as not to prohibit the believing Jews from teaching the nations in the synagogues (Acts 15:20), and from teaching the good news and revealing the knowledge of Elohim through the tetsimony of Yahshua's death and resurrection and Torah:

Isaiah 8:20 To the Torah and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Redeemed Jews living in the light of Yahshua (see also Esther 8:16), and from whom salvation is (John 4:22), and who had Elohim:

Zechariah 8:23 Thus saith YHWH of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

Peter had shed all this suddenly (hypocritically) to join the "works of law" Judaizers when they came. This caused the separation again and an example of building up that same "middle wall".

So, Paul had to correct him:

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Why is Peter, a Jew in the light, teaching "gentiles" to live as Jews do when he himself is acting like a sinning gentile?

Galatians 2:15 We are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

They were supposed to be Jews, walking in the light and knowing the truth, and teaching the truth, not causing separation again, and thus, becoming like a sinning gentile. He continues:

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of law, but by the faith of Yahshua Ha'Moshiach, even we have believed in Yahshua Ha'Moshiach, that we might be justified by the faith of Moshiach, and not by the works of law: for by the works of law shall no flesh be justified.

These works of law, man's own dogma, makes rightful believers into second class citizens. Saying that unless they had become circumcised and kept the Torah (along with rabbinical commands which were considered just as authorative and no less significant/different from the Torah of Moshe), they wouldn't be saved (Acts 15:1).

Works of law, not true faithful obedience to Torah (like Abraham in Genesis 26:5). This mimicks the Qumran community:

Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q-255-264a, 5Q11 column 5, Lines 20-24:

"They are to be enrolled by rank, one man higher than his fellow-as the case may be-by virtue of his understanding and works:"

This is man's justfication for salvation and true citizenship as an Israelite or a Jew. This was used for the Jews to lord over new believers, establishing themselves as "teachers of righteousness", as these groups had. This is fleshly thinking. These are abominable lies. This is enslavement":

Galatians 6:12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Moshiach.
Galatians 6:13 For they themselves having been circumcised do not even keep Torah, but they desire you to be circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.

This is what Paul was protecting these Galatians against. This is exactly that same Pharisee-type mind that Yahshua warned against. These "works of law" groups were not even doing what they taught, as Paul states in those verses. Messiah says:

Matthew 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Matthew 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Matthew 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men:

The burdens they bind are not Torah, since Yahweh gave Israel Torah not the Pharisees and scribes. The burdens they bind on men are their dogmas and own standards of righteousness. Their "works". Not surprising that in Acts 10:5 the Pharisees were the ones who tried to lay their standards of true righteousness on the new believers. This is what Peter calls a "burden" that they or their fathers could not bear. This cannot be speaking of true Torah since everyone at the council was a Torah-keeper and continued to guard Torah. Also, YHWH never said it was a burden, but said it was in the heart to do it and that it was good (Deuteronomy 30:10-20, and several, dozens other places). We can make the Torah a burden in and of itself of course if we are willing to call Yahweh a liar.

Now, about Acts 10. You mentioned, JM, that middle wall as it pertains to Acts 10. And now I will attempt to prove further why this "middle wall" is not Torah.

Let's read about Peter and his vision as he was praying on the housetop before the three men from Cornelius came:

Acts 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
Acts 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

We won't get into why the sheet has four corners.

Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

This verse is key. This verse mentions ALL types of animals, not just unclean ones. Some of the animals were common, and some were unclean as defined in Leviticus (there's a difference). A clean animal can become common in many types of ways (one of the ways being meat sacrificed to idols).

Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What YHWH hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Notice that YHWH told Peter not to call COMMON what he had cleansed. He said nothing of unclean. Two different Greek words: koinos (common) and akathartos (unclean). YHWH said not to call koinos what he had made clean. These common and unclean beasts represent people. A certain people whom Paul also mentioned in Romans:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Again, as to who these people are specifically, we won't get into. I have my own opinions about this. But notice the comparison between this and Acts 10.

Back to Acts:

Acts 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Acts 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

This vision came THREE times, and yet Peter understood that it was not a reversal of Torah or kosher laws. He hadn't figured out the INTEREPRETATION of the vision yet. This further proves that it didn't indicate a reversal of kosher laws. Peter didn't exactly jump up and go look for shrimp in the market place.

A little further in this chapter, Peter reveals what this vision means:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but YHWH hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

No man common or unclean. Nothing about food. Many stop here and say that Yahweh would not have used a lie to represent a truth. Yahweh didn't use a lie to represent a truth. The question here is, did PETER lie?

Because YHWH didn't mention man in the vision. All he said was "kill and eat", and "what YHWH has cleansed don't call common". But no, since the vision was not real, it only represented something.

YHWH didn't lie here any more than when he told Hosea to take a "wife of whoredoms" to represent the whoredom of Israel in Hosea 1:2. Adultery and idolatry is not permissable now.

Notice also that Peter said that it was "unlawful" for a Jew to take company with "one of another nation". This also helps to prove what truly is the "middle wall" is as mentioned in Ephesians 2:15.

Nothing in Torah says this. This is strictly a rabbincal command. Instead, Torah says just the opposite:

Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am YHWH your God.

Torah cannot also be the thing in Ephesians that divided a Jew from others:

Leviticus 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of Torah, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am YHWH your God.

The only thing that is destroyed is enmity; man and his dogmas whether he uses Torah to push them or makes up his own "law" and "works of law".

 

[yesha]

Acts 15:5,10
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
..
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
(NIV)

It is man, not God that wills the yoke of law of Moses on disciples.

 

[wavy]

Again, the yoke is not the Torah in and of itself, but the dogma. And, as I pointed out, Yahweh called it the direct opposite of a burden.

And, I almost forgot to say, the Greek is in the past tense, as the YLT, for instance will testify of if you look it up. You have a biased translation going for you there.

 

[Heidi]

Galatians 2:11-16 What was Peter's problem, why did Paul have to confront him? The common understanding of Acts 10 seems to be that Peter understood the vision as breaking down the wall of ritual purity and the gentile believer, so how could Peter get it wrong again?

We see in v. 9 "When James, Cephas, and John, recognized as pillars, acknowledged the grace that had been given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."

Should be understand v. 11-16 in light of the commission each apostle was sent?


Peace,

JM

Peter was a human being and subject to the opinions of the people around him. I think it shows his humanity beautifully which I'm glad to see because we all can be deceived by the teachings around us.

 

[yesha]

Acts 15:5,10
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
..
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
(NIV)

Again, the yoke is not the Torah in and of itself, but the dogma. And, as I pointed out, Yahweh called it the direct opposite of a burden.

Come on. You don't really believe what you're saying do you? Both their fathers and them were unable to bear the same dogma? They were better at keeping this dogma, then the Law. Also this dogma was relatively new.
They are discussing whether of not the Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.
If I've understood you, you think the answer to this question is yes, and yes.
And more perplexing still is that is you think that they are discussing something else, and conclude with that keeping the Law was never in dispute, but rather some kind of dogma, and that Jews aren't gentile superiors, or whatever it is you're trying to say. If you believe this, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.", then read carefully the reply because it's directed toward your views.

And, I almost forgot to say, the Greek is in the past tense, as the YLT, for instance will testify of if you look it up. You have a biased translation going for you there.

Act 15:5 and there rose up certain of those of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying--`It behoveth to circumcise them, to command them also to keep the law of Moses.'
Act 15:10 now, therefore, why do ye tempt God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Always with the biased translation, and never questioning your own views.
I have no idea what your point is.
If your point has something to do with "behoveth" being past tense then I believe you are wrong. present indicative active.
If your point is the "were able" then again, again I believe you are wrong. aorist indicative active.
It appears it is your interpretation that is biased, not the translations.

 

[wavy]

Come on. You don't really believe what you're saying do you?

Don't insult me, please.

If you believe this, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.", then read carefully the reply because it's directed toward your views.

Again, read verse Acts 15:1 and see what the context is. Acts 15:21 would be necessary to read too.

If your point is the "were able" then again, again I believe you are wrong. aorist indicative active.

I stand corrected. Still, no difference is made...

Unless of course, you're prepared to call YHWH and the scriptures a lie.

 

[Georges]

Even Paul had Timothy (a jew) circumcised.

Titus (gentile) didn't have to be.

Paul observed Torah from a perspective of a Hillel Pharisee. Hillel was the Grandfather of Gamaliel (Paul's teacher).

The Pharisaic Christians who were former Shammite Pharisees held to a more stricter sense of the man made laws surrounding Torah (that included Proselyte (Gentile) conversion). Shammite Pharisees demanded Proselytes to undergo Circumcision and Baptism to become a Jew. They held the same ideology when they became Christians.

The Pharisaic Christians who were former Hillel Pharisees (ie James) were more tolerant of the Circumcision of Proselytes and of Gentile socializations.

 

[wavy]

Even Paul had Timothy (a jew) circumcised.

People skip over this fact, however, and the fact that Paul said he neither said nor did anything against the customs of the fathers (which means if he's teaching gentiles that the Torah is a "burden" and that he only kept Torah to satisfy the Jews is exposed as doctrine from satan and lies).

Also, this means, according to traditional Christian interpretation of this scripture:

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Galatians 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

...he put Timothy in bondage and made Christ of no value to Timothy!!!

Timothy is DOOMED!!! So funny to me...

Titus (gentile) didn't have to be.

He was not "compelled" to be. Not immediately out of necessity. Just like Abraham wasn't circumcised immediately out of necessity after his initial faith (Yahweh had him circumcised years after!!!).

I believe, however, that after faith comes along with knowledge and understanding in the Word, the realization of Torah is manifested in a believer.

 

[yesha]

Georges,

I'm not sure if you're just supplying some facts, or if you're supporting some side of this, debate.

Even Paul had Timothy (a jew) circumcised.

I'm not sure if you were making this point or not, but he was circumcised because of the Jews, not because God required it.

Acts 16:3
3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
(NIV)

Titus (gentile) didn't have to be.

Gal 2:3-4
3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.
4 [This matter arose] because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.
(NIV)

Again, we see that if there was any compelling to be circumcised and follow the law came from false brothers, not from the Lord.

Paul observed Torah from a perspective of a Hillel Pharisee. Hillel was the Grandfather of Gamaliel (Paul's teacher).

Paul, as a Christian, considered his past as rubbish.

Phil 3:8-9
8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
(NIV)

And lives, when best, like one not under the law.

1 Cor 9:21
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.
(NIV)

The Pharisaic Christians who were former Shammite Pharisees held to a more stricter sense of the man made laws surrounding Torah (that included Proselyte (Gentile) conversion). Shammite Pharisees demanded Proselytes to undergo Circumcision and Baptism to become a Jew. They held the same ideology when they became Christians.

This sounds like the house of Hillel, did not require Circumcision nor Baptism. Are you sure about this? I did a quick check and it appeared that Hillel stressed baptism, while Shammai streesed circumcision. But didn't they both require both?

wavy,

...he put Timothy in bondage and made Christ of no value to Timothy!!!

Timothy is DOOMED!!! So funny to me...

Timity was not circumcised to be saved, but because of the Jews.
It is not wrong for a Christian to be circumcised. Not is it wrong to live under Old Covenant Law. It is wrong to believe that one's salvation is dependant upon obediance to Old Covenant Law, rather then on Christ. I believe a Christian is free to live under the Law, where you believe that a Christian must. That small difference is a big one IMO.

 

[cj]

Wavy,.... how can you ask this,

Don't insult me, please.

And then come back and say this,

Unless of course, you're prepared to call YHWH and the scriptures a lie.

Try to see the hypocrisy in your words; you telling someone not to insult you and then you are turning around an attempting to insult the person.



Understand this Wavy, God says that a man's words exposes the condition of this man's heart.



In love,
cj

 

[JM]

Ga 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:"

What was 'another gospel?' Most will think it was a gnostic gospel, but I don't believe it is. We need to look at the context of Galatians to find out what this gospel was...I believe it was -- the mingling of law and grace; the teaching that justification is partly by grace, partly by law, or, that grace is given to enable an otherwise helpless sinner to keep the law. Against this error, the most wide-spread of all, the solemn warnings, the. unanswerable logic, the emphatic declarations of the Epistle to the Galatians are God's conclusive answer.

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal. 3:2- 3).

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another [there could not be another gospel]; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-8).

We need to be careful not to bring the yoke of the Law upon us after we are saved, for the Law never saved anyone.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20).

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16).

"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain" (Gal. 2:21).

"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith" (Gal. 3: 11).

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3).

"And by him, all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:39).

"For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God" (Heb. 7:19).

As Christian we are told to have faith, Paul makes this very, very clear.

HAVE FAITH, ABIDE ABOVE and test what folks tell you with the WORD!

What is the believers rule of life?

"He that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked" (I John 2:6).

"Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (I John 3:16).

"Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul" (I Pet. 2:11; see also verses 12-23).

"I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love" (Eph. 4:1-2).

"Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us" (Eph. 5:1-2).

"For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light" (Eph. 5:8).

"See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil" (Eph. 5:15-16).

"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16).

"For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have, done to you" (John 13:15).

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15: 10).

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you" (John 15:12).

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me" (John 14:21).

'And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment" (I John 3:22-23).

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them" (Heb. 10: 16).

And Grace?

"But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared . . . according to his mercy he saved us" (Titus 3:4-5). "That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:7).

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8).

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world: looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:11-13).

"That, being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:7).

"Being justified freely by his grace; through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24).

"By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand" (Rom. 5:2).

"And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified" (Acts 20:32).

"To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved: in whom we have redemption through f. his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" (Eph. 1:6-7).

"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need"(Heb. 4:16).

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work" (Rom. 11:6).

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:4-5; see also Gal. 3:16-18; 4:21-31).

"So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free" (Gal. 4:31).

Peace,

JM

 

[wavy]

I'm not sure if you were making this point or not, but he was circumcised because of the Jews, not because God required it.

Acts 16:3
3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
(NIV)

And so, what does his father being a Greek have to do with his circumcision "because of the Jews"? Explain that if you would please. And also explain why Paul did this if he didn't teach and was against Torah, or if he didn't think Timothy was ready for full Torah committment according to Galatians 5:3.

What did the Jews have to do with it? Did Paul do it out of fear of the Jews?Is that the explanation?

Is he only performing this Torah mitzvah to gain Jewish souls according to 1 Corinthians 9 (according to how people interpret that passage)??? Does this make sense in that passage?

What were the customs he taught in this same chapter in Acts 16:21 that he got beat for teaching?

And also tell me when Yahweh's will changes, because I was under the clear impression that circumcision was eternal according to Genesis 17:13.

Gal 2:3-4
3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.
4 [This matter arose] because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.
(NIV)

Again, we see that if there was any compelling to be circumcised and follow the law came from false brothers, not from the Lord.

In the wrong order for salvation, as you admit below, and that is what I've been saying for a while. Paul was merely restoring the order of faith for new believers. Abraham came from a pagan house (his father fell to paganism according to the book of Jasher, and this is why Yahweh told him to leave). After he believed and was justified then he performed: leaving his house, offering his son, circumcision, and obedience to more Torah as it was revealed according to Genesis 26:5.

The works of law group were putting Torah first, and thus, this degrades Messiah and destroys the way Yahweh established in Torah in Genesis with the fathers (and so the way of Torah cannot go away, otherwise Abraham and faith go along with it).

This was the way it was always supposed to be. Yahweh has always had grace and required faith. He required it at the foot of Sinai. The works of law group did it for the flesh's sake (Galatians 6:13) and if the Galatians, or the Romans or anyone else fell to this way of thinking, they were subject to the slavery of those who were preaching this. Who know's what doctrines could seep in and what ways believers would fall to if he allowed the Judaizers to teach "in order to be saved you must do works of law".

Paul, as a Christian, considered his past as rubbish.

Phil 3:8-9
8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
(NIV)

And lives, when best, like one not under the law.

So tell me why we see him keeping the moadim and shabbats? Why did he teach directly out of the Torah to the recipients of his letters?

The context of Philippians is that he did these things for his own personal, gain. To do what the works of law Jews were doing. Trying to establish themselves as superior to other men and enslave other men perpetrating their opinions on how Torah should be kept and it's role for true Torah after the ways of the fathers.

This is what Paul and everything he was on the inside and everything he thought was gain (for himself) threw away, calling it garbage/rubbish/dung.

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.

He wasn't talking about Torah itself being kept in faith, love and humility. Otherwise, he contradicts himself in Romans 7:12.

1 Cor 9:21
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.
(NIV)

He directly states here that he is not without Torah before YHWH. Therefore, we must reevaluate the meaning of 1 Corinthians 9:19-22. He made it clear that he was a Jew in several places (Romans 11:1; Galatians 2:15; Philippians 3:5, for examples). How could he become a Jew to win Jews if he was already a Jew?

He said he was brought up in the "perfect way of Torah" (Acts 22:3, and he also states yet again that he is a Jew).

He said he worshipped Yahweh according to and believing the Torah and Prophets (Acts 24:14).

He said he committed nothing against the customs of the fathers (Acts 28:17, which I believe refers to Talmud etc, it hardly matters).

So how could he be keeping Torah just to win Jews if he admits his way is Torah?

Why did he perform Torah and make sacrifices (or rather, supported the four men in ending their Nazarite vows with the days of cleansing and the offering that was required according to Numbers 6) if he did not teach Torah in Acts 21?

Was he trying to win Jews here? No, because the Jews he was doing this for were believing Jews according to Acts 21:20. So he was not doing it to win their souls. He was not doing it out of fear (he said he was ready to die for the name of YHWH in this very same chapter a few verses before) and he couldn't have been doing it just to go along with it because that would make him a lying hypocrite. His whole reason for doing this was to prove he didn't preach against Torah.

However, most people would like to expose him as a liar, hypocrite, and a coward according to how they interpret these verses.

So do we believe Paul or do we make him a liar?

Timity was not circumcised to be saved, but because of the Jews.

And can you explain what this means? I have my own opinions, of course, but what is your explanation?

It is not wrong for a Christian to be circumcised. Not is it wrong to live under Old Covenant Law.

Ah, so we must interpret passages like Galatians 5:1-5 in a different light other than the usual interpretation: "it is bondage. do not keep it or you are against the Messiah."

And, as JM says in essence below, "law" cannot be mixed with grace (this of course, is clearly a lie because Yahweh does not change and always has had grace; the Torah states he has grace; David knew Yahweh's grace and still "meditated" and believed, and sought after and with his whole heart obeyed Torah and got back on track when he messed up).

So how can a Christian still be free to keep the Torah without forsaking Messiah or losing unmerited favor/grace?

In truth, love, faith, etc, (the things most Christians believe are binding) ARE Torah and from Torah. They are stated directly from Torah as commandments (not just "feelings" that the Spirit puts within you once you believe; pagans and those without Messiah can still love and be moral).

Are we losing grace because we love one another? This is a commandment straight out of Torah.

It is wrong to believe that one's salvation is dependant upon obediance to Old Covenant Law, rather then on Christ.

Indeed. This was the exact error of the circumcision, works of law group according to Acts 15:1 (of course, "old covenant law" means different to me than it does to you).

I believe a Christian is free to live under the Law, where you believe that a Christian must. That small difference is a big one IMO.

A Christian should keep Torah just as a Christian should be baptized, stay in love, judge righteously, help the fatherless and the widow, stay faithful, be kind and merciful, abstain from fornication etc (each and every one of these things being Torah commandments).

 

[wavy]

Wavy,.... how can you ask this,

Don't insult me, please.

And then come back and say this,

Unless of course, you're prepared to call YHWH and the scriptures a lie.

Try to see the hypocrisy in your words; you telling someone not to insult you and then you are turning around an attempting to insult the person.

Understand this Wavy, God says that a man's words exposes the condition of this man's heart.

Well, you are free to say this if this is what you really think (I personally think you just want, as usual, to make me look stupid, and as a liar, and teacher of false doctrine, etc)

But anyway, that is the truth. Those are the options we are left with. That was not close to an insult, and I'm sure yesha didn't take it as such.

My point was that if we are prepared to call Torah "bondage" and say "don't keep it, you can't!!" and such things, when Yahweh directly states the opposite, then we must be prepared to call Yahweh a liar.

That is the essence of what I am saying. No insult, thus no hypocrisy.

 

[yesha]

And so, what does his father being a Greek have to do with his circumcision "because of the Jews"? Explain that if you would please.

He was probably not circumcised because his father was Greek. His uncircumcision would have caused tension in witnessing to the Jews (due to his Jewish mother), and rather then deal with all that extra trouble which distracts from the Gospel, he was circumcised because of the Jews who knew his history. He was not circumcised because he was now ready for full Torah obediance as you read into this passage. What is the criteria, btw, you have for being ready for Torah obediance?

And also explain why Paul did this if he didn't teach and was against Torah, or if he didn't think Timothy was ready for full Torah committment according to Galatians 5:3.

Paul was not against Torah, as you like to believe people think. The Jewish people remained Jewish. There was no requirement to abondon being Jewish. However there was also no requirement to become Jewish, and that's what the cousel was all about. The cousel was whether or not gentile Christians are required to obey the Law of Moses, not if Jews must still keep it.

What did the Jews have to do with it? Did Paul do it out of fear of the Jews?Is that the explanation?

Though that might be a valid point, it is hinderance of the Gospel I think he had in mind.

Is he only performing this Torah mitzvah to gain Jewish souls according to 1 Corinthians 9 (according to how people interpret that passage)??? Does this make sense in that passage?

Yes it makes sense.

1 Cor 9:19-23
19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.
22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
(NIV)

What were the customs he taught in this same chapter in Acts 16:21 that he got beat for teaching?

This for example:

Acts 17:7
7 They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus."
(NIV)

And also tell me when Yahweh's will changes, because I was under the clear impression that circumcision was eternal according to Genesis 17:13.

It is fulfilled in Christ.

Col 2:11
11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,
(NIV)

Quote:
Gal 2:3-4
3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.
4 [This matter arose] because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.
(NIV)

You will notice Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. How do you explain that? He wasn't ready?

In the wrong order for salvation, as you admit below, and that is what I've been saying for a while. Paul was merely restoring the order of faith for new believers. Abraham came from a pagan house (his father fell to paganism according to the book of Jasher, and this is why Yahweh told him to leave). After he believed and was justified then he performed: leaving his house, offering his son, circumcision, and obedience to more Torah as it was revealed according to Genesis 26:5.

Order for salvation? Order of faith? You'll have to make up your mind whether or not following the law is required for salvation. In any order.

Do you accept the book of Jasher as authentic?

Abraham was not under the Laws of Moses. For example:

Gen 20:12
12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.
(NIV)

Lev 18:9
9 "'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
(NIV)

The works of law group were putting Torah first, and thus, this degrades Messiah and destroys the way Yahweh established in Torah in Genesis with the fathers (and so the way of Torah cannot go away, otherwise Abraham and faith go along with it).

The works of law group were including Torah period. Paul refutes your order of begining with faith and ending with law.

Gal 3:3
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
(NIV)

So tell me why we see him keeping the moadim and shabbats? Why did he teach directly out of the Torah to the recipients of his letters?

Advance the Gospel. And although we are not under the law, it is still useful for learning about rightousness.

The context of Philippians is that he did these things for his own personal, gain. To do what the works of law Jews were doing. Trying to establish themselves as superior to other men and enslave other men perpetrating their opinions on how Torah should be kept and it's role for true Torah after the ways of the fathers.

This is what Paul and everything he was on the inside and everything he thought was gain (for himself) threw away, calling it garbage/rubbish/dung.

He was trying to attain rightousness on his own effort through obeydiance to the law.
As valuable such effort is, it is nothing compared to rightouesness through Christ.

Phil 3:9
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
(NIV)

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.

He wasn't talking about Torah itself being kept in faith, love and humility. Otherwise, he contradicts himself in Romans 7:12.

He was talking about whatever was to his profit, ie all that he achieved keeping the law.

Phil 3:7
7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.
(NIV)

Quote:
1 Cor 9:21
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.
(NIV)

He directly states here that he is not without Torah before YHWH. Therefore, we must reevaluate the meaning of 1 Corinthians 9:19-22. He made it clear that he was a Jew in several places (Romans 11:1; Galatians 2:15; Philippians 3:5, for examples). How could he become a Jew to win Jews if he was already a Jew?

He says he is under Christ's law, not the Law of Moses. His becoming a Jew means he lives like a Jew, in contrast to when he lives like one not under the law.

He said he was brought up in the "perfect way of Torah" (Acts 22:3, and he also states yet again that he is a Jew).

A Jew of Jews. But he counts that as rubbish.

He said he worshipped Yahweh according to and believing the Torah and Prophets (Acts 24:14).

Acts 24:14
14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,
(NIV)

He worships God as a follower of the Way, which is called a sect, which implies that the way the Way worships the father is different then other sects. Of couse he believes everything written. Who says otherwise?

He said he committed nothing against the customs of the fathers (Acts 28:17, which I believe refers to Talmud etc, it hardly matters).

Paul did not command that Jews stop being Jews.

So how could he be keeping Torah just to win Jews if he admits his way is Torah?

His Way is Christ.

Why did he perform Torah and make sacrifices (or rather, supported the four men in ending their Nazarite vows with the days of cleansing and the offering that was required according to Numbers 6) if he did not teach Torah in Acts 21?

Acts 21:20-25
20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.
21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.
22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come,
23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.
24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.
25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
(NIV)

We see here more evidence of Pauls teachings. One, he's preaching something that causes people to believe that he's teaching Jews not to be Jews. Could it be his preaching to gentiles not to be Jews? What do you think it is?
Two, we see, again, a distintion made between Jewish and Gentile believers. Three, we see Paul doing this because of the Jews. Would he have done this if there were no Jews who were hostile toward him. His actions bring peace, the way of the Lord.

So do we believe Paul or do we make him a liar?

I say we should believe Paul.

Ah, so we must interpret passages like Galatians 5:1-5 in a different light other than the usual interpretation: "it is bondage. do not keep it or you are against the Messiah."

Gal 5:1-4
1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
(NIV)

It is trying to be justified by law that alienates. Do you believe a man who does not keep Torah is justified?
You say we must keep it. I say we may. Regardless it is fullfilled in a Christian lifestyle.

Rom 13:8-10
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
(NIV)

 

[wavy]

He was probably not circumcised because his father was Greek.

Then why was that mentioned?

His uncircumcision would have caused tension in witnessing to the Jews (due to his Jewish mother), and rather then deal with all that extra trouble which distracts from the Gospel, he was circumcised because of the Jews who knew his history.

He was not witnessing to Jews in Acts 16. And it does not say "due to his Jewish mother", which is in the previous verse. It says "because of the Jews in the area for" (meaning by reason indicating a continuation of the sentence) "they all knew his father was a Greek".

He was not circumcised because he was now ready for full Torah obediance as you read into this passage. What is the criteria, btw, you have for being ready for Torah obediance?

Then Paul put him in bondage and made Messiah of no effect to him and contradicted his own principle based off Galatians 5:3. By the same logic also, I can say that you have "read into the passage" that he circumcised Timothy so he wouldn't deal with "all that extra trouble".

So basically, he was being a hypocrite. Jews were in the area of the Galatians too. Why didn't he circumcise the Galatians? Because they were not Jews? So it's okay or not okay depending on whether or not you are a Jew, even though within a believing congregation, there is no difference?

As far as criteria, the criteria is just like the criteria was with Abraham. After faith and growth. Timothy was ready to travel with Paul (a Torah-keeper) as opposed to Mark in the previous chapter.

Paul was not against Torah, as you like to believe people think.

Teachings of "yokes of bondage", and being "done away" and "abolished" and it being called "enmity" is not being against Torah?

Many Christians seem to dance around this alot. Either he was or he was not.

Paul at one point: "I have committed nothing against Torah. I was brought up in its perfect way. It is holy, just and good. I am not against it. I keep it. I use it to teach. Here, I will perform it for my believing Jewish brothers to show them it is profitbale to walk in Torah and that I said nothing about rejecting it."

Paul at a different point: "You foolish gentiles? Why are you keeping Torah? It is bondage! Christ abolished it! It is the dividing line and the middle wall between Jew and Gentile! It is enmity!!! It is against us!!! It is of the flesh!!! It is in contrast to grace and the Spirit!!! It's a burden!!! I'ts garbage/rubbish/dung!!! It's weak and beggarly!!! I only keep it to win Jewish souls!!!"

If this doesn't scream out "hypocrisy" and "double talk", then I don't know what does.

The Jewish people remained Jewish. There was no requirement to abondon being Jewish. However there was also no requirement to become Jewish, and that's what the cousel was all about. The cousel was whether or not gentile Christians are required to obey the Law of Moses, not if Jews must still keep it.

This didn't really answer my question, but no, one must not become a Jewish prosylete to be considered saved. However, they should have reached the same conclusion for themselves at the council (that Torah didn't need to be kept for Jews either) because there is to be NO DIFFERENCE between believers, as Peter stated in that very passage in Acts 15 and as is stated all over scripture. From Genesis to Revelation.

Torah is a "Jewish" thing that Jews, because of their heritage, can freely keep if they want to, but gentiles are strictly warned against it? It's in scripture and is inspired, yet it's bondage?

Though that might be a valid point, it is hinderance of the Gospel I think he had in mind.

Well, I don't see how I have read any more into the text than you have.

[quote:d9442]
Is he only performing this Torah mitzvah to gain Jewish souls according to 1 Corinthians 9 (according to how people interpret that passage)??? Does this make sense in that passage?

Yes it makes sense[/quote:d9442]

No, it doesn't. He didn't seemed concerned at the moment with witnessing to Jews who were in that area. Also, if Torah is to be kept hypocritically to win Jews, then this means it is really the lure of Torah works attracting them to Messiah (which would be error) and not the message of Messiah himself and his atonement.

So, by your own admission and view of Paul, Torah was used in the salvation and justification equation.

This for example:

Acts 17:7
7 They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus."
(NIV)

This doesn't make sense. This is not a custom that some one can "observe", persay. And, besides, now that I think about it, it really does not matter. Yahshua taught Torah anyway.

It is fulfilled in Christ.

Col 2:11
11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,
(NIV)

Genesis doesn't say it was forever until it was "fulfilled in Christ". Genesis says "in your flesh...". And since Messiah is Yahweh, this is no new thing because:

Deuteronomy 30:6 And YHWH thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love YHWH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

So it should have been done away or "fulfilled" a VERY long time ago in Torah.

You will notice Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. How do you explain that? He wasn't ready?

No. He was aware that justification was not dependent upon some one rushing to get circumcised.

Order for salvation? Order of faith? You'll have to make up your mind whether or not following the law is required for salvation. In any order.

You do too. Torah obedience is a sign of faith and love towards Yahweh. "Love your neighbor" is Torah. So, what happens, according to you, if you don't love your neighbor? Can you still claim being in Messiah? Torah is a sign. Just like the fruits of the Spirit (which are seen in Torah and all over the bible by Yahweh's actions and mouth) are a sign. We are protected and set apart from the rest of the pagan world by guarding Torah.

Do you accept the book of Jasher as authentic?

Yes, it is mentioned twice in scripture. Once in Joshua and once in Samuel.

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

2 Samuel 1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

Abraham was not under the Laws of Moses. For example:

Gen 20:12
12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.
(NIV)

Lev 18:9
9 "'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
(NIV)

I believe she is his daughter by relation or marriage. Not immediate family since she is not recorded as a daughter of Terah in Genesis 11 specifically.

Even if this is not true, I believe Torah was progressively revealed to him according to Genesis 26:5. But that is not the point (part of the point is that the Torah of Moshe didn't exists yet).

Let me ask you something? Do you think it is okay to sleep with your sister? Or kill? Or be homosexual? What Torot/laws was Abraham keeping in Genesis 26:5?

Doubtless, you'd answer no to most of these questions. They are all Torah commandments. So your argument that Abraham didn't keep Torah (although Yahweh said the opposite) is not a good one.

The works of law group were including Torah period. Paul refutes your order of begining with faith and ending with law.

Gal 3:3
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
(NIV)

No, wrong. You are equating "human effort" (more accurately "flesh") with true obedience to Torah. Torah is not "human effort" if it is kept in faith. These Galatians were doing this in slavery to the Jews who were preaching this dogma. Also, you are not telling the truth, because I never said "end with law". You grow in obedience to Torah. Faith is always a prerequisite. You stay in faith as long as you live. I never said begin with it and "end with law" as in faith is now gone.

You cannot find one scripture that says true obedience to Torah is mere, fleshly, "human effort". Therefore, you have taken this scripture out of context and biasedly applied it to the thing you yourself have already decided you are against (although you say you are not): Torah.

[quote:d9442]
So tell me why we see him keeping the moadim and shabbats? Why did he teach directly out of the Torah to the recipients of his letters?

Advance the Gospel. And although we are not under the law, it is still useful for learning about rightousness.[/quote:d9442]

Advance the gospel? This whole phrase is an oxymoron in itself. What does going into the synagogues on the sabbath teaching GENTILES and scriptures like Acts 18:21 and 1 Corinthians 16:8 have to do with "advancing the gospel"???

He was trying to attain rightousness on his own effort through obeydiance to the law.
As valuable such effort is, it is nothing compared to rightouesness through Christ.

And he was incorrect. It should have been known by such a man learned in the scriptures that righteousness is only imparted by Yahweh. You just believe and obey according to that knowledge, not use the wisdom of Torah for gain or to make yourself appear superiously righteous to some one else.

He was talking about whatever was to his profit, ie all that he achieved keeping the law.

Phil 3:7
7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.
(NIV)

No, he mentioned "all things" (Philippans 3:8), not just his zeal for thinking he was righteous by keeping Torah alone. You have, according to bias once again, applied this whole scripture as a scripture against Torah when it encompasses much more than that. The subject is not even Torah. He is making a point that no can boast in the flesh more than he can if boasting counted for anything.

You, seemingly, have changed this into "I don't keep Torah, it is dung, so you shouldn't do it either". You may deny this, but that is exactly what you are saying. Imo, you are just pussyfooting with the words.

He says he is under Christ's law, not the Law of Moses. His becoming a Jew means he lives like a Jew, in contrast to when he lives like one not under the law.

He does not say "I am under Christ law, not the Law of Moses." And, as I said, you keep asserting the opposite of what he said: "though not without Torah to Yahweh". His being like those without law does not mean he is without law, as he directly states.

Being "under law" and being "without law" are opposites. Now if being "under law" means keeping Torah, then being "without law" must mean not keeping Torah.

But he said "not without Torah of Yahweh, but subject to Torah of Messiah". Now, I haven't checked the Greek here in it's literal rendering, but I will (if I can remember to get around to it). But, he says he is not without Torah, but ("on the contrary", meaning contrary to being without Torah) he is subject to Torah for Messiah or Torah of Messiah (which isn't new and different from Yahweh's Torah, since he is Yahweh).

And if his becoming a Jew means living like a Jew, then what is his being "under the law"??? What does a Jew live like? And what does some one "under the law" live like?

So he has the liberty to switch up? He's a hypocrite? He can play one face to one type of people and then play another one with some one else? He can teach the "gentiles" against keeping Torah, but he himself can go off and do it? What kind of an example is this?

Why couldn't he just tell his followers, like the Galatians, if they were mature in faith, to go along with the works of law group so they could gain the works of law Jews? Why can he be a hypocrite and play two-faced when he condemns other people if they do it?

The only way he could is if, by your own admission, it was for salvation (the false dogma of the works of law Jews). So what I've been saying all along is correct. He's not preaching against Torah, but against dogma so as not to destroy the true order of the gospel with the example of faithful Abraham.

[quote:d9442]
He said he was brought up in the "perfect way of Torah" (Acts 22:3, and he also states yet again that he is a Jew).

A Jew of Jews. But he counts that as rubbish.[/quote:d9442]

So the perfect way of Torah is rubbish? An oxymoron in every sense of "clean pig in the mud". You are contradicting yourself and the scripture.

He worships God as a follower of the Way, which is called a sect, which implies that the way the Way worships the father is different then other sects. Of couse he believes everything written. Who says otherwise?

And historically, the followers of the Way were Torah keepers. Different from another sect does not mean Torah disobedient. You assert this notion into every single passage. I do not know why.

Paul did not command that Jews stop being Jews.

So, again, basically the scriptures are untrustworthy, and shaky, just like the way you view Paul. And I truly don't mean to be offensive but this is ultimately where you are going. Jews can keep Torah if they want. It's bad for others to keep it. Paul can keep or not keep Torah whenever he feels it pleases him to do so. Torah is a "Jewish" thing. He promotes it and yet is against it. There's a difference between Jew and Gentile although there is not.

Torah is the dividing wall in Ephesians and yet Paul plays part in building that wall by allowing Jews to keep it.

This doesn't sound like some one I should heed.

[quote:d9442]So how could he be keeping Torah just to win Jews if he admits his way is Torah?

His Way is Christ.[/quote:d9442]

And Messiah's way is Torah.

We see here more evidence of Pauls teachings. One, he's preaching something that causes people to believe that he's teaching Jews not to be Jews. Could it be his preaching to gentiles not to be Jews? What do you think it is?

I think you are dancing around. There were believing Jews who thought Paul taught against Torah for them. He performs this Torah mitzvah to show them he is not. Why didn't he tell them it was vain? Why didn't he tell them is was "obsolete" and that the way of Torah was "fading away" (according to the way you interpret Hebrews 8:13 and 1 Corinthians 3)???

He had all their attention. He had the attention of the Jewish leadership. Perfect opportunity to tell the truth and turn believers away from the "bondage" of Torah into freedom Christ. What special power or privilege do Jews possess within their blood that allows their Torah committment to be "just a Jewish thing" and so therefore okay if they want to keep it? This is sloppy theology.

Two, we see, again, a distintion made between Jewish and Gentile believers.

Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

It seems Paul has the liberty to even go against the Spirit of Yahweh, which puts no difference between believers. There is neither Jew or Gentile in Messiah.

All need Yahshua, all need Torah. Why can Jews keep Torah and it be okay? What would be the point? It would be vain worship. Paul doesn't care enough about his own flesh and blood to "liberate" them from Torah "bondage" even though he reveals to the "gentiles" the true spiritual aspect of Torah so that it need not be kept in the conventional, true way?

Three, we see Paul doing this because of the Jews. Would he have done this if there were no Jews who were hostile toward him. His actions bring peace, the way of the Lord.

So in essence, once again, he's a hypocrite. Doing it for these Jews? As I said, they were already believers. Nothing in the passage indicates they were hostile towards him. They were just wrongly informed about Paul and needed clarification. So Paul, instead of loving them as flesh/blood and spiritual brothers enough to tell them Torah was bondage and that there was to be no difference between Jew and gentile and that they could be free, rather perpetrated, for some vain reason (not to gain them, they are believers) that it was okay for them to continue in Torah. For what reason?

I don't know. Because they are Jews? I guess. Jews just have that magical touch where it's okay if they keep Torah, even if in the end it means absolutely nothing.

And if his ways bring about peace? He was trying to be peaceful and so kept the Jews from the truth that all are one in Messiah and need not keep Torah and do circumcision? Then why was he beaten and ready to die and got into all that trouble those other times for the truth, but when it comes to revealing liberty from Torah to his own flesh and blood who are believers and thus have the Spirit and wouldn't hurt him anyway, he can just go along with these things to gain a cheap sense of "peace"?

[quote:d9442]
So do we believe Paul or do we make him a liar?

I say we should believe Paul.[/quote:d9442]

Hardly. I say Paul, according to what you are saying, cannot get his message together.

It is trying to be justified by law that alienates. Do you believe a man who does not keep Torah is justified?
You say we must keep it. I say we may. Regardless it is fullfilled in a Christian lifestyle.

Double talk. Your first sentence I believe. But a man who has not come to Torah obedience can be justified in Messiah. A man who refuses to come to Torah obedience is exposed as an imposter who does not truly know Messiah and his true mission.

We should keep it, I repeat myself. We should heed it and grow in the lifestyle as evidence of our faith. You say it is bondage, and that Paul didn't care if silly "Jews" kept it, because they were "Jews" (as if this makes a difference). It's okay sometimes. Depends on the situation and if it is convenient to win souls, even if when you perform the Torah for some one that already believes. There's also a distinction between Jew and gentile according to Paul, as you say.

So basically, do or don't do. It's your choice. Why didn't Paul just say this? Why just not, since there is no difference, tell Jews and gentiles they could keep Torah as long as they understood it was not for salvation? Why do his best to fight it with all his strength, but then turn around and not care?

There's too many loopholes and inconsistencies and major elements of hypocrisy with the way you view Paul taught.

There's a simpler way: Paul believed Yahshua was the only means of salvation. He kept Torah himself. He said he was blameless in it. He committed nothing against it (and this must mean in word and deed, so, he can't have kept it at one point and stopped as a hypocrite in another just "for the Jews").

When he preached the good news of freedom from exile to the nations and the Jews, he made sure Messiah was rightfully placed first above all things. He didn't let people put Torah before Yahshua. He said he established (as opposed to saying Messiah abolished it because it was bondage and enmity) Torah for new comers to the faith after the way of Abraham.

He put faith in Messiah first before the obedience that comes after as a sign. He didn't let his audience and students believe Torah justified alone. Rather, he taught Messiah and the weightier matters of Torah that merit true heartfelt obedience to the rest as opposed to legalism and boasting in works at the expense of faith in Messiah.

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep Torah: but if thou be a breaker of Torah, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Romans 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of Torah, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Romans 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the Torah, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress Torah?

A few things here. He says Torah obedience is profitable. He says if the akrobustia keep the righteousness ("equitable deeds" according to the definition of "righteousness" in the Strong's), the uncircumcision is made circumcision (since circumcision is a Torah commandment). Circumcision is good and counted for something if you keep Torah as a lifestyle and don't continually break it.

And if Jews, some of which who boast in Torah, break Torah, then all their works are vain. But if the uncircumcision fulfills (the Greek is teleo, meaning "end" and "to perform" and "execute") the Torah (in faith of course), then their works are counted as righteousness and true profitableness in obedience to the commandment. And they, keeping the Torah, will judge those who break Torah.

Now, I don't doubt you believe and will claim that he is only speaking of the "moral" aspects of Torah. But my question is, how do you determine the good parts from the bondage parts without contradicting Yahweh? All Torah is one Torah. It is not divided into "moral" and "ceremonial" as some teach (I have learned to use this as an argument, since Walter Martin in his book The Kingdom of the Cults, contradicts himself while trying to explain to SDA's that all Torah is one, not divided into ten commandments as moral and then the rest as done away ceremonial aspects; he then appeals to the "moral law" as binding alone, quoting from the Torah in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 18:19, and thus contradicting himself for saying Torah is not divided into moral and ceremonial and then dividing it himself).

But this is not indicated in the context, because if he is speaking of only "moral" aspects of Torah that the Jews boast in, that means the rest of the book concerning the "deeds/works of law" not justifying a man must be speaking of these same "moral aspects". It seems Torah only means "moral aspects" when Paul promotes it. Yet when he explains we are not justified by Torah, he switches over to kosher and sabbaths and feasts and tassels etc...

Rom 13:8-10
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
(NIV)

Summation of how our heart should be towards are brother. The context here is duty to our brother, not whether or not to keep all Torah. This is how the Torah is "filled up" or fulfilled". By love. If we do all the rest (since they hang off of this) and lack this, all the rest is vain. Don't owe your brother anything but to love him. If you do this, Torah is fulfilled. The realization of Torah is reached in your heart.

This does not mean "love is all we have to do" (which is just manmade "morale" and his own definition of "love" according to traditional interpretation). This leaves out loving Yahweh if we do not interpret this passage right. This leaves out belief in Messiah. Messiah said even the sinners/publicans have love (Matthew 5:46-47).

All this passage is doing is summing up how to be in our heart (which will show on the outside) towards our brother. Otherwise faith is left out, loving Yahweh is left out, abstaining from idols, fornication, etc is left out too, because you can love some one and hate Yahweh (but not vice versa, of course) and you can love your brother and worship or make idols.

So this has to be interpreted correctly. And how do we know we love Yahweh and love our brother?

1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of YHWH, when we love YHWH, and keep his commandments.
1 John 5:3 For this is the love of YHWH, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

This is how we know who's in Messiah and who truly knows him. The fruits of the Spirit will be present in addition to works (since we are his workmanship according to Ephesians 2:10). We will walk in loving Yahweh and our brother by truly, with a circumcised heart, obeying the commandments, which are NOT a burden or "grievous" despite what religion teaches.

I don't see how some one can hop, skip, and jump all over the place in light of all this. They would rather make their beloved, lawless Paul a hypocrite and a man who contradicts himself frequently and plays two-face.

Not that it's you. You've just grown up with this, or was introduced into this interpretation of scripture at one point in your life because of the majority of Christianity for centuries.

I'm not judging, or anything. But the evidence is too overwhelming. Either Messiah contradicts Paul and the scriptures and Paul contradicts himself and the scriptures and the Father, or we have not been, according to traditional Christian interpretation, understanding this Jewish Rabbi.

 

[cj]

Well, you are free to say this if this is what you really think (I personally think you just want, as usual, to make me look stupid, and as a liar, and teacher of false doctrine, etc)

I don't need our words do a fine job.

But anyway, that is the truth. Those are the options we are left with. That was not close to an insult, and I'm sure yesha didn't take it as such.

Funny choice of words.... "not so close to an insult,....".

Anyway, no matter how you try to spin it, the fact is, to suggest that a believer is calling God a liar is to insult this believer.

My point was that if we are prepared to call Torah "bondage" and say "don't keep it, you can't!!" and such things, when Yahweh directly states the opposite, then we must be prepared to call Yahweh a liar.

Not necessarily Wavy,..... perhaps this believer simply interprets the scriptures in a different way to the way you do.

Every believer should know that God is not a liar, thus the worse that a believer should be found is ignorant of the truth.

Take your own experience,.... how often in your Christian walk/growth process have you believed something about God based on the measure of understanding you had at the time, only to later come to see that your understanding was in error?

Were you calling God a liar when you were abiding in the error of your understanding?

That is the essence of what I am saying. No insult, thus no hypocrisy.

No, your speaking was hypocrisy.

See, for you desire not to be insulted and yet attempt to insult.


In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

Anyway, no matter how you try to spin it, the fact is, to suggest that a believer is calling God a liar is to insult this believer.

But that's my whole point, cj. I know he's not suggesting that he is a liar (intentionally).

Therefore, he's left with two options: explain how Yahweh is not a liar or change view of the scripture. I'm waiting on either of these two (or, though I doubt he will, he can just skip the point altogether because he does not want to admit error).

Not necessarily Wavy,..... perhaps this believer simply interprets the scriptures in a different way to the way you do.

Of course he does. This is why he should explain why "it is in your mouth and it is in your heart that you may do it" does not contradict "it is a burden, do not keep it".

Take your own experience,.... how often in your Christian walk/growth process have you believed something about God based on the measure of understanding you had at the time, only to later come to see that your understanding was in error?

Were you calling God a liar when you were abiding in the error of your understanding?

I've done this many times. I've come up from a variety of beliefs and can clearly see the error of how I was before. But no, I did not call Yahweh a liar.

I'm didn't say what I said to him because I think he's calling Yahweh a liar. I said was I said because I see his word, based off his interpretation of the NT, go directly against Yahweh's words.

So, unless I am losing my mind again, I need to him to clarify why this is not true. Because inevitably some one is lying. Either Yahweh or the apostles, or Yahshua.

 

[cj]

Wavy, ow you insert your foot into your mouth....

Therefore, he's left with two options: explain how Yahweh is not a liar or change view of the scripture. I'm waiting on either of these two (or, though I doubt he will, he can just skip the point altogether because he does not want to admit error).

Again, your spinning ways won't work Wavy.

Yahweh shows no indication of laying hold of either of your two options, as Yahweh sees and believes in a third option, the option you refer to as calling God a liar.


Wavy, you can try and try and try to spin it around,.... but the words you spoke above were words of hypocrisy.


In fact, your words below prove my point...

I need to him to clarify why this is not true. Because inevitably some one is lying. Either Yahweh or the apostles, or Yahshua.

No Wavy, someone isn't lying, you are simply not seeing.


In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

Well, if I'm not seeing, cj, the goal would be to help me see. And that's what I'm waiting on.