Will the real Paul please stand up?

[Georges]

Paul.....hmmm.

Can someone please explain this passage that on the surface, makes Paul look like a deceiver?

1Cr 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Cr 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.


If the Law was abolished, why did he still act like a Jew to the Jews? Isn't that hypocritical? If the Law was abolished, and he was acting like a Jew, was he gaining Gentiles under false pretenses?


It certainly doesn't look like the Paul of 1 Cor is the same Paul of Acts 28. Is it? Did some of the Jewish Christians have a ligit complaint against Paul?

 

[BJGrolle]

It sounds a little clearer in the Good News translation:

1Co 9:19 I am a free man, nobody's slave; but I make myself everybody's slave in order to win as many people as possible.
1Co 9:20 While working with the Jews, I live like a Jew in order to win them; and even though I myself am not subject to the Law of Moses, I live as though I were when working with those who are, in order to win them.
1Co 9:21 In the same way, when working with Gentiles, I live like a Gentile, outside the Jewish Law, in order to win Gentiles. This does not mean that I don't obey God's law; I am really under Christ's law.


He wouldn't have had as much influence by walking in and trumping everything they'd been taught to believe in. The important thing was to gain their trust and respect first, before trying to change things.

 

[JM]

Paul.....hmmm.

Can someone please explain this passage that on the surface, makes Paul look like a deceiver?

1Cr 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Cr 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.


If the Law was abolished, why did he still act like a Jew to the Jews? Isn't that hypocritical? If the Law was abolished, and he was acting like a Jew, was he gaining Gentiles under false pretenses?


It certainly doesn't look like the Paul of 1 Cor is the same Paul of Acts 28. Is it? Did some of the Jewish Christians have a ligit complaint against Paul?

Didn't Paul have a another vision of Christ in Acts 20, maybe that has something to do with it. We also know that Paul revealed the mystery of the faith. Things that Differ, take a look: http://www.bijbel.nl/things_that_differ.htm This is considered an extreme view, but worth the read.

Peace

 

[Georges]

It sounds a little clearer in the Good News translation:

1Co 9:19 I am a free man, nobody's slave; but I make myself everybody's slave in order to win as many people as possible.
1Co 9:20 While working with the Jews, I live like a Jew in order to win them; and even though I myself am not subject to the Law of Moses, I live as though I were when working with those who are, in order to win them.
1Co 9:21 In the same way, when working with Gentiles, I live like a Gentile, outside the Jewish Law, in order to win Gentiles. This does not mean that I don't obey God's law; I am really under Christ's law.


He wouldn't have had as much influence by walking in and trumping everything they'd been taught to believe in. The important thing was to gain their trust and respect first, before trying to change things.

Or how 'bout this translation.....from the NLT courtesy of Blueletterbible.com.

NLT - 1Cr 9:20 - When I am with the Jews, I become one of them so that I can bring them to Christ. When I am with those who follow the Jewish laws, I do the same, even though I am not subject to the law, so that I can bring them to Christ.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

Is that being a hypocrite? Is Paul being honest? Legal loophole maybe?

Actually, I think Paul was a Torah observent Jew as seen in Acts 28. However, he did recognize that Gentiles didn't have to be Torah observant as put forth by the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15,21) so he tolerated the Noahide law required by Gentile Christians.

He did preach that it was important for Jewish Christians to keep their identity...as seen in Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:

He could very easily have lived a Torah life and lived among the Gentiles. After all it was the man made (middle partition) traditions surrounding the Torah that Paul preached against.

However, he did preach Torah observence....

NKJV - 1Cr 11:1 - Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.

States that Paul Imitated Christ. What did Christ do? Kept Torah perfectly. What did Paul do? Acts 28:17.

 

[wavy]

Or how 'bout this translation.....from the NLT courtesy of Blueletterbible.com.

NLT - 1Cr 9:20 - When I am with the Jews, I become one of them so that I can bring them to Christ. When I am with those who follow the Jewish laws, I do the same, even though I am not subject to the law, so that I can bring them to Christ.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

I haven't done the research yet, but maybe you could tell me why some bibles have (though I myself am not under the law) or some variation, such as above, and others do not.

Actually, I think Paul was a Torah observent Jew as seen in Acts 28. However, he did recognize that Gentiles didn't have to be Torah observant as put forth by the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15,21) so he tolerated the Noahide law required by Gentile Christians.

Well, I'd also like your opinion on Acts 15:21 concerning what they were learning. Because I am under the seemingly clear impression that this has to do with timing.

First, you have men in Acts 15:1 saying circumcision saves. Then you have believing Pharisees in Acts 15:5 talking about "needful" and "command"ing the nations to keep the Torah (which would have been a burden if the nations had Pharisees COMMANDING them to keep it, along with their inevitable added, extrascriptural laws).

So their being given the "necessary things" is followed up by James in verse 21 with "by reason" or "for" Moses is being taught in the synagogues on the sabbath (which means the nations would obviously be keeping the sabbath). This gives the impression that, rather than being commanded immediately, they are learning in understanding and faith and so therefore a Torah lifestyle is slowly engrafted into their way of conduct.

 

[cj]

Paul was not a Torah/law in ordinances keeper after His conversion.

To claim anything else concerning Paul is a lie from the pit of Hell; or in other words, an expression of Satan's corrupt and wicked mind.

How patient our Lord is with this ignorance of the believer; what a great mercy.


Yet, to a point it is understandable why some believers still worship and abide in their false concept of the religious habit of "keeping the Torah", for men will be men.

Isn't it shameful (really, an act of slapping Jesus in His face) that although the born-again believer possesses divine life many seek to continue living out of their dead and decaying natural life?

Any false "keeper of the Torah" is simply expressing death in the form of dead and decaying fleshly and fleshy natural desires.

The false "keeper of the Torah" is death personified.

The false "keeper of the Torah" believer is a consumer of rotting flesh, and a participant in the worse manner of insult and wickedness against the God that has saved them.

This is what Paul came to know, preach, and live his life by.

And any who would say that Paul was for the fales "keeping" of the Torah is a liar and does not know the truth contained in scripture.




Again,..... why would a person who possesses divinity as life seek to have a living and being out of the natural fallen self?

And yes,.... I know Jesus, that He was/is both God and Man, and that He kept the law in ordinances.

But therein lies the eternal answer for all believers.

See, this is why the greatest loss to the Christian believer's walk was the leaving of Paul's ministry by many early leading ones. For when these leading ones turned away from Paul (his ministry) they turned away from the ministry that God had given to us for the bringing of the believer out of the death of the cross and into the life of resurrection.

The false "keeper of the Torah" is today attempting to emulate a pre-death and resurrection Christ, but this is not the will of the Father for His many sons; rather, His will is that His many sons become the very expression of the resurrected Son.

When a believer attempt to "keep" the Torah this believe is in fact rejecting Christ's resurrection.



How Satan blinds the proud man.


In love,
cj

 

[Heidi]

Paul.....hmmm.

Can someone please explain this passage that on the surface, makes Paul look like a deceiver?

1Cr 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Cr 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.


If the Law was abolished, why did he still act like a Jew to the Jews? Isn't that hypocritical? If the Law was abolished, and he was acting like a Jew, was he gaining Gentiles under false pretenses?


It certainly doesn't look like the Paul of 1 Cor is the same Paul of Acts 28. Is it? Did some of the Jewish Christians have a ligit complaint against Paul?

Heavens no! All Paul means here is that since he is no longer bound by the law, he can become like the Jews in order to win them to Christ. He never denies his Lord or agrees with Jewish beliefs. Instead, he respects that they believe those things and doesn't want to show disrespect for their beliefs. But he never agrees with them. That is the same thing as not photographing Buddha, for example, because the Buddhists see taking a picture of Buddha as a desecration. One can still worship Christ and at the same time, honor the customs of another religion or culture. Not taking a pircture of Buhha never denies Christ. That's why Jesus sat with sinners but never condoned sin.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Paul's not deceiving anyone. He also taught that we are not to become stumbling blocks to those weaker in their walk.

example:

Paul knew that Jewish law was flawed
Recent Jewish Converts would not be as used to this fact

Therefore, if Paul had been disrepectful to the laws, he would have given the younger man in faith something to struggle with because he may appear to be disrespecting the person and not the flawed laws. Instead of flat out ignoring the laws, it is more correct to teach them why you do not need to follow such laws.

He talks about this principle in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 9.

 

[cj]

Heavens no! All Paul means here is that since he is no longer bound by the law, he can become like the Jews in order to win them to Christ. He never denies his Lord or agrees with Jewish beliefs. Instead, he respects that they believe those things and doesn't want to show disrespect for their beliefs. But he never agrees with them. That is the same thing as not photographing Buddha, for example, because the Buddhists see taking a picture of Buddha as a desecration. One can still worship Christ and at the same time, honor the customs of another religion or culture. Not taking a pircture of Buhha never denies Christ. That's why Jesus sat with sinners but never condoned sin.

1 Corinthians 8,

(Part 1...)

"Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

If anyone thinks that he knows anything, he has not yet come to know as he ought to know; But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but done. For even if there are so-called gods, either in heaven or on earth, even as there are many gods and many lords,

Yet to us there is one God, the Father, out from whom are call things, and we are unto Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we are through Him.

But this knowledge is not in all men; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat the food as an idol sacrifice, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; neither if we do not eat are we lacking, nor if we eat do we bound.


(Part 2).....

But beware lest somehow this right of yours become a stumbling block to the weak ones. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge reclining at table in an idol temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat the things sacrificed to the idols?

For the one who is weak is being destroyed by your knowledge, the brother because of whom Christ died. And sinning in this way against the brothers and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Therefore if food stumbles my brother, I shall by no means eat meat forever, that I may not stumble my brother."



To participate in Jewish "things" for the sake of gaining Jews for the kingdom of God is perfectly acceptable to God, for Jewish "things" are nothing to God (in the sense of my point).

But,..... to stumble a believer by your participation is to sin against Christ.


A present-day false "keeper of the Torah" does not attempt to "keep the Torah" that some might be saved into the Kingdom of God, they "keep the Torah" for themselves.

Because of this disposition they immediately place the weaker ones at risk of stumbling, and thus their actions are a sin against Christ.



Scriptures show us that even Paul suffered from this disposition, in the sense of his natural eagerness to "fit-in" with the Jewish/Christian leadership in Jerusalem so that he might gain them more for Christ, Paul agreed to re-take the vow of the Nazarite. But in doing so Paul ran the risk of stumbling the weaker believers. This action of his was completely against God, and thus God stopped in by causing an uproar among the Jews, and eventually caused Paul to be imprisoned so that Paul's natural tendencies would be severely limited.
 

In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

Paul was not a Torah/law in ordinances keeper after His conversion.

Explain the multiple references to his keeping it's ordinances and the fact he said that he commited nothing against it.

This is what Paul came to know, preach, and live his life by.

And yet, according to you, he can pereptrate keeping this "false" and "flesh" and "death" way of life whenever it pleases him.

And yes,.... I know Jesus, that He was/is both God and Man, and that He kept the law in ordinances.

But therein lies the eternal answer for all believers.

I see that the scripture says we ought to walk as he walked. Why imitate some one walking in the flesh and in death?

 

[wavy]

Heavens no! All Paul means here is that since he is no longer bound by the law, he can become like the Jews in order to win them to Christ. He never denies his Lord or agrees with Jewish beliefs. Instead, he respects that they believe those things and doesn't want to show disrespect for their beliefs. But he never agrees with them. That is the same thing as not photographing Buddha, for example, because the Buddhists see taking a picture of Buddha as a desecration. One can still worship Christ and at the same time, honor the customs of another religion or culture. Not taking a pircture of Buhha never denies Christ. That's why Jesus sat with sinners but never condoned sin.

Let me tell you why your Buddah explanation doesn't hold up: Number one because Paul, or any righteous man, shouldn't be around pagans and their idols to take pictures of them anyway. Refraining from taking the picture is not adhering to their ways (and I can't believe you would equate Torah with paganism). Refraining from taking the picture is something you should be doing regardless.

There's a difference between refraining from something and doing something on purpose on the outside. What you are truly suggesting is that Paul could take pictures of Buddah or make sacrifices in a pagan temple or outwardly perform the pagan customs of another religion, but mix this in with the worship of Yahweh.

Anyway, regardless, Torah cannot be equated with this. Torah is not "another religion". The whole foundation of scripture and Messiah's teaching is a "Jewish" or a Hebraic concept. And as far as the sinners thing, that's totally different and that doesn't work as an excuse either.

He didn't sin to gain sinners. And the reason he sat with them is when they came to him to repent and learn from him. Or, such as in the case of Zaccheus, His work was healing and restoration to the nation (as was and is his whole mission). He didn't allow sinful living. So that is also a bad excuse. For this to be applied or compared with Paul, Paul would have had to openly taught against Torah, not condoned its righteous ways if this is what he was trying to get rid of.

You are applying a non-Hebraic mind to the scripture, especially considering dealing with a Jewish Rabbi who knew and used the scriptures and taught like a Jewish Rabbi. He was not trying to show "disrespect for their beliefs"??? He played that off hypocritically many times in his letters according to the supposed anti-law passages traditional Christiaity loves to use.

 

[Heidi]

Heavens no! All Paul means here is that since he is no longer bound by the law, he can become like the Jews in order to win them to Christ. He never denies his Lord or agrees with Jewish beliefs. Instead, he respects that they believe those things and doesn't want to show disrespect for their beliefs. But he never agrees with them. That is the same thing as not photographing Buddha, for example, because the Buddhists see taking a picture of Buddha as a desecration. One can still worship Christ and at the same time, honor the customs of another religion or culture. Not taking a pircture of Buhha never denies Christ. That's why Jesus sat with sinners but never condoned sin.

Let me tell you why your Buddah explanation doesn't hold up: Number one because Paul, or any righteous man, shouldn't be around pagans and their idols to take pictures of them anyway. Refraining from taking the picture is not adhering to their ways (and I can't believe you would equate Torah with paganism). Refraining from taking the picture is something you should be doing regardless.

There's a difference between refraining from something and doing something on purpose on the outside. What you are truly suggesting is that Paul could take pictures of Buddah or make sacrifices in a pagan temple or outwardly perform the pagan customs of another religion, but mix this in with the worship of Yahweh.

Anyway, regardless, Torah cannot be equated with this. Torah is not "another religion". The whole foundation of scripture and Messiah's teaching is a "Jewish" or a Hebraic concept. And as far as the sinners thing, that's totally different and that doesn't work as an excuse either.

He didn't sin to gain sinners. And the reason he sat with them is when they came to him to repent and learn from him. Or, such as in the case of Zaccheus, His work was healing and restoration to the nation (as was and is his whole mission). He didn't allow sinful living. So that is also a bad excuse. For this to be applied or compared with Paul, Paul would have had to openly taught against Torah, not condoned its righteous ways if this is what he was trying to get rid of.

You are applying a non-Hebraic mind to the scripture, especially considering dealing with a Jewish Rabbi who knew and used the scriptures and taught like a Jewish Rabbi. He was not trying to show "disrespect for their beliefs"??? He played that off hypocritically many times in his letters according to the supposed anti-law passages traditional Christiaity loves to use.

And let me tell you why your statements are hogwash. Number one, you're saying that Jesus shouldn't have been around sinners, which is not only blasphemy, but lacks complete understanding of why we Christians are supposed to be around unbelievers. He himself said; "I did not come for the healthy, but the sick." Anfd he specifically said this when the Jews (who were bound by Hebraic law as you are, or you wouldn't agree with the Jews here), asked him why he was around sinners. Jesus was around sinners to bring them to him just as Paul was around the Jews to bring them to Christ. So when you understand why Jesus was around sinners, you will understand why Christians are supposed to be around pagans.

Number 2: Until you understand what being "in the world but not of the world" means, you will also not understand why Paul said to be like the Jews to win them for Christ.

Number 3: You also do not understand that if one's heart is with Christ, and not with Buddha or the Jews, then he can be around others whose heart is not with Christ without compromising his principles. We worship the living God, not worldy things like temples,etc. Because I do not want to offend the cultural laws of India does not mean that I agree with them or worship them. Paul tells us this many times in the OT not to cause our weaker brother to stumble if he doesn't eat certain foods by eating them ourselves. We know we are no longer bound by the law but by our faith so we know we're not desecrating God by eating what some people think is sacred. You apparently don't know what he means there either.

Number 4: You are also saying that Paul doesn't know wht he's talking about and you do which is the most nonsensical implication you've made yet.

So yes, Paul is right, not you. Being in the world but not of the world means that we do not condone worldly beliefs, actions, or attitudes, but we have to be around them for as Paul also says, "in that case you would have to leave this world." So worshiping God has nothing to do with obeying rituals, rules, and regulations. By your reasoning, no one can ever dring a glass of wine because that's worshiping worldy things. Sorry, but I can use wordly things without worshiping them and so can Paul use wordly things without worshiping them.

 

[Georges]

Paul was not a Torah/law in ordinances keeper after His conversion.

CJ, To claim that Paul wasn't Torah observant is ignorance (not stupidity). Act 15 and 21 are evidence alone that 2 sets of standards were set for Christians....Messianic Christians still obeyed Mosaic Law, Gentile Christians a form of Noahide law, period. Paul circumcised Timothy (not a Gentile Christian practice). Paul observed and sacrificed for a Nazarite vow he had taken (not a Gentile Christian practice). Paul observed "Torah" required "feast days" (not a Genitle Christian practice) and the list goes on..

To claim anything else concerning Paul is a lie from the pit of Hell; or in other words, an expression of Satan's corrupt and wicked mind.

yeh...yeh......do your homework before you make the claim....the above paragraph should give you a place to begin. Please tell me how the claims I made in the first paragraph "aren't" Mosaic Law. On the contrary my friend, the Satanic Lie is that the Torah was abolished.

How patient our Lord is with this ignorance of the believer; what a great mercy.

Agreed......

Yet, to a point it is understandable why some believers still worship and abide in their false concept of the religious habit of "keeping the Torah", for men will be men.

Isn't it shameful (really, an act of slapping Jesus in His face) that although the born-again believer possesses divine life many seek to continue living out of their dead and decaying natural life?

Yeh...real shameful to want to copy Christ by following the Torah he observed and commanded us to keep......Brother, it's a slap in his face not to try and keep the Torah. Wake up CJ, the Torah is a great way to "try" and live a righteous life. If every nation lived under the Torah (BTW, as we will during the Messianic Millennium), in the freedom that Messiah provides, the world would be a much better place to live in. CJ, I'm talking about the pure Torah, not the man made laws surrounding it. Of course, I believe, as Jesus and Paul had taught am very much against that "middle wall of partition".

Any false "keeper of the Torah" is simply expressing death in the form of dead and decaying fleshly and fleshy natural desires.

Can't comment on your statement other than maybe you should go back and re-evaluate both Christ's and Paul's position. Don't buy into the replacement theology lie.

The false "keeper of the Torah" is death personified.

Jesus, James, Peter, Paul, et al are death personified? Hmmm.

The false "keeper of the Torah" believer is a consumer of rotting flesh, and a participant in the worse manner of insult and wickedness against the God that has saved them.

Do you use this scare tactic to those who seek the truth with everyone? and does it work? The simple premise of my opening thread was, is "the Paul of Acts the same Paul of the letters?"

This is what Paul came to know, preach, and live his life by.

Again, I refer you to Acts 28 and Pauls's claim to have kept the Torah, and don't forget all of the examples in the 1st paragraph of your post.

And any who would say that Paul was for the fales "keeping" of the Torah is a liar and does not know the truth contained in scripture.

Cj, you crack me up with the "liar, and the pits of hell talk". Again, better rethink that....and I won't think badly of you if you come back and say...."You know you may have a point"....

Again,..... why would a person who possesses divinity as life seek to have a living and being out of the natural fallen self?

Because it is a God given set of instructions on how to live a righteous life. CJ, Do we have laws in the USA that we have to, or should live by? Do we obey all of the Laws as set up by the Government? Do we keep them perfectly? Should we strive to keep the Governmental laws because it is a good thing to do and will make us better citizens? Same principle.....you might as well get used to it, cause that's the way it will be in the Messianic Millennial Kingdom.

And yes,.... I know Jesus, that He was/is both God and Man, and that He kept the law in ordinances.

But therein lies the eternal answer for all believers.

See, this is why the greatest loss to the Christian believer's walk was the leaving of Paul's ministry by many early leading ones.

Not so....it was because the Gentile believer's were swayed back to their pagan ways....

For when these leading ones turned away from Paul (his ministry) they turned away from the ministry that God had given to us for the bringing of the believer out of the death of the cross and into the life of resurrection.

The false "keeper of the Torah" is today attempting to emulate a pre-death and resurrection Christ, but this is not the will of the Father for His many sons; rather, His will is that His many sons become the very expression of the resurrected Son.

Tell that to the Apostles who kept Torah.....yes, even the Paul of Acts. CJ, The goal of Messianic Christianity is to obey Torah in the freedom that Christ provides. Why would someone want to shun an instructions to righteousness that God had provided, in written form even.

When a believer attempt to "keep" the Torah this believe is in fact rejecting Christ's resurrection.

CJ, your statement is the fatherest thing from the truth.....Chirstian Torah followers honor Christ by following his example in keeping observing Gods law.

How Satan blinds the proud man.

I'm not a proud man......you don't know me at all, so your statement is moot, unless you are referring to yourself. If that is the case, I can't judge as I don't know you personally....

In love,

Oh....that's nice, "you are a liar and spout lies from hell, but I luv ya". The love just oozes from your post.


cj

Hope this helps CJ......

 

[wavy]

Paul's not deceiving anyone. He also taught that we are not to become stumbling blocks to those weaker in their walk.

Hello, Timothy. We cross paths for the first time. Anyway, are you suggesting Torah keepers are "weaker in their walk"?

example:

Paul knew that Jewish law was flawed
Recent Jewish Converts would not be as used to this fact

Mistake #1: Paul said Torah was perfect, holy, just, good and spiritual. Yahweh said it was full of wisdom to set us apart along with many other good things. So the claim that he knew it was flawed is nowhere in scripture.

Mistake #2: Recent Jewish converts would have the Spirit guiding them to the truth. Why was Paul's conversion different from theirs in that he knew it was "flawed" and they did not? Also, if it was flawed and if the Jewish converts were not "used to this fact" (which is a lie, really, rather than a fact), why did he make it clear that they should not stop doing it in Acts 21? He did this to explicitly prove that he encourages them to continue and that he never said otherwise or anything about not keeping it. Why not just tell them the truth rather than lead them to vain Torah worship?

I guess he was being a hypocrite yet again.

Misake #3: You used no scripture. I don't see how this was an "example". You made a claim and then proceeded with an example to help back that claim. But you really didn't back it, you just asserted more claims to back up a claim without scriptural proof.

Therefore, if Paul had been disrepectful to the laws, he would have given the younger man in faith something to struggle with because he may appear to be disrespecting the person and not the flawed laws. Instead of flat out ignoring the laws, it is more correct to teach them why you do not need to follow such laws.

Sadly, this is not in scripture. And as far as teaching them why not to follow such "flawed laws", hem in truth, made it clear to everyone in Acts 21 that he taught just the opposite.

He talks about this principle in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 9.

Concerning things not in Torah. Romans 14 is about meats vs. vegetables (Romans 14:2) and certain days when to eat meat and certain days when people fast and don't eat meat. Why is this the context? We can figure it out by comparing 1 Corinthians chapters 8 & 10, yet again concerning whether to eat meats vs. vegetables. Why? Because of fear of meat being sacrificed to an idol making the meat "common" (which is translated improperly, or rather insignificantly as "unclean", in Romans 14 in most versions).

These scriptures have nothing to do with "choose your own sabbath day" or "eat whatever unclean foods you like" or Torah disobedience vs. Torah obedience.

Paul doesn't even mention Torah ordinances in these passages. So Paul made it clear that since Yahweh created food for us to eat (only clean food is considered food from a Hebraic mindset and according to Leviticus 11), we can eat meat without fear of whether or not it had been sacrificed to an idol. But we are not to judge our brother in this matter if we feel about it one way or another.

If a weaker brother refrains from meat sacrificed to an idol and eats only vegetables, don't create a stumbling block for him by eating meat it front of his face and judging him because you know he's "weak".

His point can be summed up here:

1 Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

This cannot be put into the category of hypocrite, since he is just explaining that he will refrain from meat. He is not teaching his weaker brother that he shouldn't eat meat. He's just refraining from it. So this can't be compared with the reason he keeps Torah because according to you guys, sometimes he did and other times he didn't, whereas here he stayed the same (by refraining from meat altogether).

He didn't go to the weaker and say "yeah, you shouldn't eat meat", but then turn around and say to the stronger, "yeah meat's o.k. to eat". Mixed messages. This is what you guys are telling me he did concerning Torah.

He proved to the Jews that they should keep Torah in Acts 21 by performing Torah (they were already believers). He said he was not against it and committed nothing against it. But according to you guys, he's telling gentiles that keeping Torah is bondage and death and "flawed" and that he secretly only keeps it to win Jews.

That's being obviously deceitful and two-faced. That's like him telling the weaker brother, "don't eat meat, it's bad", yet leaving him and telling the stronger brother, "i told him it was bad to eat meat, but only did so for his conscience sake".

So basically he's promoting lies.

 

[Georges]

I'm in Green....

Paul's not deceiving anyone. He also taught that we are not to become stumbling blocks to those weaker in their walk.

example:

Paul knew that Jewish law was flawed

Paul (as Jesus) knew that it wasn't the Torah, but rather the man made laws surrounding the Torah that was flawed....

Recent Jewish Converts would not be as used to this fact

That is partially true concerning Jewish believer's and Gentile believers....Jewish believers thought that the Gentile believers should obey Torah as they were doing. Paul was trying to knock down the "middle wall" that separated Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in social life.

Therefore, if Paul had been disrepectful to the laws, he would have given the younger man in faith something to struggle with because he may appear to be disrespecting the person and not the flawed laws.

You may need to rephrase your statement for clarification....I'm not following what you are getting at....Paul wasn't disrespectful to Mosaic Law...he kept it. Paul was against the man made law surrounding Torah law. An example of a man made law....

1. God said....."Don't put your hand on the oven burner, you will get burned".
2. Jews said..."Don't go into the kitchen" (why? so you can't put your hand on the burner".
3. Jews said..."Don't go into the hallway leading to the kitchen" (why? to keep you from going into the kitchen).
4. Jews said..."Don't go into the house leading to the hallway" (why? to keep you from putting your hand on the burner).

Law 1.....is a Law from God
Law's 2-4 are man made laws surrounding God's law like a fence.

In regard to Kosher food (dietary Laws)

1. God said..."You shall not eat _____".
2. Jews said...."Gentiles eat ____ which God commanded us not to, therefore we shall not "eat with Gentiles , just in case we accidently eat something God told us not to"".
3. Jews said..."You shall not enter the house of a Gentile because you may eat something that God told us not to....

Law 1 is from God (Mosaic Law) and is good.
Law 2, 3 are man made Laws protecting God's law.

Jesus and Paul were for Mosaic Law but against man made law....Paul taught about getting rid of 2 and 3 and fellowshipping with Gentile Christians.

Instead of flat out ignoring the laws, it is more correct to teach them why you do not need to follow such laws.

Man made laws...yes. Torah laws were obeyed by Messianic Christians.

He talks about this principle in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 9.

 

[JM]

Didn't Paul preach according to the mystery?

What's the mystery?

Did anyone else in scripture preach according to this mystery?

Maybe that's why he left Judaism, he was conforming to what was being revealed to Him by Christ Himself.

I don't know, maybe someone else can add.

Doesn't Rom. 16:25 speak of this? What about Eph. 3:5,9 'not made known' and 'hide in God?'

I don't believe anyone else knew this mystery, 1 Cor. 2:7-8.

We know that Peter preached, 'Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you' Acts 3:20. Maybe this was the difference between the Paul of his conversion and the Paul after the mystery was revealed.

Always willing to be corrected,

JM

 

[Blazin Bones]

Hello, Timothy. We cross paths for the first time. Anyway, are you suggesting Torah keepers are "weaker in their walk"?

Hi Wavy. I'm not one who likes to debate, so I'm only an occassional visitor to Apologetics. 8-)

I don't recall mentioning anything about the Torah. As Georges has suggested by his reply to me, I think I need to clarify my position.

God's laws and Jewish laws are two different things. By this time, the Jewish leaders had created numerous secondary laws that just weren't needed.

Mistake #1: Paul said Torah was perfect, holy, just, good and spiritual. Yahweh said it was full of wisdom to set us apart along with many other good things. So the claim that he knew it was flawed is nowhere in scripture.

Mistake #2: Recent Jewish converts would have the Spirit guiding them to the truth. Why was Paul's conversion different from theirs in that he knew it was "flawed" and they did not? Also, if it was flawed and if the Jewish converts were not "used to this fact" (which is a lie, really, rather than a fact), why did he make it clear that they should not stop doing it in Acts 21? He did this to explicitly prove that he encourages them to continue and that he never said otherwise or anything about not keeping it. Why not just tell them the truth rather than lead them to vain Torah worship?

I guess he was being a hypocrite yet again.

Misake #3: You used no scripture. I don't see how this was an "example". You made a claim and then proceeded with an example to help back that claim. But you really didn't back it, you just asserted more claims to back up a claim without scriptural proof.

This is why I don't come into apologetics... I did not say a single word refering to the Torah. Assumptions don't create anything accept unnessary discord.

1. Again, I never mentioned the Torah. Who is man to question the Laws given by God? Christ himself, however allowed his disciples to Pick grain on the Sabbath. This was against Jewish Law. It's right there in Matthew 12.

2. Still a point made on a faulty objection, but I'll exlain anyway. When Paul was converted in Acts 9, there were three days he neither ate or drank. We know that at some point he was Praying and God was showing his the Vision of Ananias. Who's to say what else God had revealed to Paul in this time. We also know that Paul taught of Christ when his sight was restored. If Christ had taught against Jewish Law, Paul, one of the leaders among the Jews would have known. Christ did, so it would not be far fetched at all for Paul to do likewise.

As for Converts, yes they would indeed have the Spirit as a guide. However, I would like to point out that it is common for any human to stray from what is taught. These Jews may have accepted Christ as Messiah, but that doesn't mean they had stopped following all of the Jewish codes. Again, this is not addressing the Torah.

3.Okay, one more time with scripture.

Example:Galatians 2:11-14

Paul knew Jewish laws were flawed. Paul would have had no problem eating with Gentiles, but Jewish law did as Peter plainly tells us in Acts 10:28.

Converts from James, scholars suggest they were Judiazers, did not know any better and convinced Peter and Barnabas to fellowship less with the Gentiles.

Sadly, this is not in scripture. And as far as teaching them why not to follow such "flawed laws", hem in truth, made it clear to everyone in Acts 21 that he taught just the opposite.

What isn't in Scripture? The passage Georges Started with shows that Paul did not disrespect Jewish law when he fellowshiped with the jews. However, he did teach against the flawed law as I presented in Galatians 2.

I would respond to the rest of your post, but it is all an attack based on something I never said. Wavy, It saddens me to know that you would rather attack someone than ask for a further explaination. I pray you do not take this same approach when witnessing.

I hope you realize that when you called me a liar "which is a lie, really, rather than a fact" you violate Pauls teachings in the latter part of Ephesians 4. I hope my explaination helps clarify my post, but I will not respond to a second post made in such a tone.

 

[Blazin Bones]

I'm in my usual red. 8-)

I'm in Green....

Paul (as Jesus) knew that it wasn't the Torah, but rather the man made laws surrounding the Torah that was flawed....

I did refer to Jewish law and not the Torah in my post. However, thank you for pointing out my need for the distinction.

That is partially true concerning Jewish believer's and Gentile believers....Jewish believers thought that the Gentile believers should obey Torah as they were doing. Paul was trying to knock down the "middle wall" that separated Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in social life.

I think it's a little more than partially true. As I mentioned to wavy, we have one example of Judaizers in Galatians 2. We also have other passages refering to disputes over the law. Some of these passages include Titus 3:9 and Colossians 2:16. It was by no means Pauls main focus, as this was clearly spreading the Gospel of Christ, but I think it is a rather common undertone.

You may need to rephrase your statement for clarification....I'm not following what you are getting at....Paul wasn't disrespectful to Mosaic Law...he kept it. Paul was against the man made law surrounding Torah law. An example of a man made law....

1. God said....."Don't put your hand on the oven burner, you will get burned".
2. Jews said..."Don't go into the kitchen" (why? so you can't put your hand on the burner".
3. Jews said..."Don't go into the hallway leading to the kitchen" (why? to keep you from going into the kitchen).
4. Jews said..."Don't go into the house leading to the hallway" (why? to keep you from putting your hand on the burner).

Law 1.....is a Law from God
Law's 2-4 are man made laws surrounding God's law like a fence.

In regard to Kosher food (dietary Laws)

1. God said..."You shall not eat _____".
2. Jews said...."Gentiles eat ____ which God commanded us not to, therefore we shall not "eat with Gentiles , just in case we accidently eat something God told us not to"".
3. Jews said..."You shall not enter the house of a Gentile because you may eat something that God told us not to....

Law 1 is from God (Mosaic Law) and is good.
Law 2, 3 are man made Laws protecting God's law.

Jesus and Paul were for Mosaic Law but against man made law....Paul taught about getting rid of 2 and 3 and fellowshipping with Gentile Christians.

I never said Paul was disrespectful of Mosaic law. I'm sorry if that's the way it appeared. I was speaking in terms of the laws created by the Jewish leaders. If he were witnessing to a Jew, and then he broke one of their "extra" laws, he would have hindered his ministry. That is why he said what he said in 1 Corinthians 9:20 and following. Does that Help?

Man made laws...yes. Torah laws were obeyed by Messianic Christians.

Again, this is due to the fact that I did not make a distinction between Jewish law, and God given law. Again, I'm sorry for the confusion.

 

[wavy]

And let me tell you why your statements are hogwash.

Touchy...

Number one, you're saying that Jesus shouldn't have been around sinners, which is not only blasphemy, but lacks complete understanding of why we Christians are supposed to be around unbelievers.

This is not the truth. I never said that. I said he was not around sinners just to be around them to show he would tolerate their sin, and that he did not become a sinner to indentify himself with them to "gain" them.

He himself said; "I did not come for the healthy, but the sick." Anfd he specifically said this when the Jews (who were bound by Hebraic law as you are, or you wouldn't agree with the Jews here), asked him why he was around sinners. Jesus was around sinners to bring them to him just as Paul was around the Jews to bring them to Christ.

"Agree with the Jews here"? I know why Yahshua was around the sinners. He was healing them, according to the scripture concerning the restoration of Israel in Hosea 6.

Your comparison of this with Paul is irrelevant, imo, because Yahshua did not become a sinner to gain sinners.

So when you understand why Jesus was around sinners, you will understand why Christians are supposed to be around pagans.

Christians are not supposed to fellowship with darkness. Messiah was healing those who had the heart to repent because it was his DUTY according to scripture for the his nation.

You are taking what he did out of context and assuming you have authority to go fellowship with pagans when scriptures, such as 2 Corinthians 6, go directly against that.

Number 2: Until you understand what being "in the world but not of the world" means, you will also not understand why Paul said to be like the Jews to win them for Christ.

Well, you haven't done the best job of explaining that to me.

Number 3: You also do not understand that if one's heart is with Christ, and not with Buddha or the Jews, then he can be around others whose heart is not with Christ without compromising his principles.

Now you are just spouting random, unsubstantiated, false accusations. I did not mean we are to sever all contact with the world and find a whole and keep out of site and reach of pagans.. I was talking about their ways. We don't want the appearance. We are to be set apart, not conformed to the ways of the world by going and honoring false ways of conduct to win souls.

Because I do not want to offend the cultural laws of India does not mean that I agree with them or worship them.

Yeah, and because you don't agree with the cultural laws of India, you should not MIMICK what they do to "win them for Christ" if what they do is wrong.

Paul tells us this many times in the OT not to cause our weaker brother to stumble if he doesn't eat certain foods by eating them ourselves.

Paul didn't exists in the OT. Secondly, he said nothing about "certain" foods. The context was whether to eat meat at all because of where the meat had been, not what type of meat it was.

We know we are no longer bound by the law but by our faith so we know we're not desecrating God by eating what some people think is sacred. You apparently don't know what he means there either.

Eating what some people think is sacred? What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with anything. You are right. I do not know what this means because it is irrelevant.

Number 4: You are also saying that Paul doesn't know wht he's talking about and you do which is the most nonsensical implication you've made yet.

No, I am saying YOU (and others) make Paul look like he does not know what he is talking about. You have not answered the points. Instead you have insisted on false accusations and misrepresentations of what I said. You also have used no scripture.

So yes, Paul is right, not you. Being in the world but not of the world means that we do not condone worldly beliefs, actions, or attitudes, but we have to be around them for as Paul also says, "in that case you would have to leave this world."

And now you are preaching mixed messages. I understand this. The problem is whether or not we CONDUCT ourselves after the way of the world even though we are in it. You, comparing paganism with Torah, have said we should do just that. Honor the laws of pagans to win them. That means you should be out worshipping God after the way of pagans to win pagans.

So worshiping God has nothing to do with obeying rituals, rules, and regulations.

Not pagan ones, but those sanctified by Yahweh (Torah), yes. It's amazing how we can take something like Christmas and use the excuse that "it's to celebrate Christ" but when it comes to the ones YAHWEH, not Jews, ordained, they are mere and detestable "rules and regulations"...

By your reasoning, no one can ever dring a glass of wine because that's worshiping worldy things.

This is irrelevant to anything I said. This makes no sense.

Sorry, but I can use wordly things without worshiping them and so can Paul use wordly things without worshiping them.

I'm not talking about physical things: food, drink etc. These are things Yahweh created. I'm talking about concepts. What we do in our life in practice, such as Christmas, Easter, what we wear, and other ways of the world that we do (which is what Torah guards us against).

You cannot drink the cup of Yahweh and the cup of devils. Please read 1 Corinthians chapter 10 and 2 Corinthians chapter 6.

And if you count the OT for anything (which most people do not for correction and doctrine) check Deuteronomy 12:29-32, Jeremiah 10:2, Psalm 106:32-40, and a variety of other ones I could give you.

 

[wavy]

I don't recall mentioning anything about the Torah. As Georges has suggested by his reply to me, I think I need to clarify my position.

:o

:-D

My fault. Really. If this is what you truly meant I feel very stupid. It's just that I'm so used to it, I automaticaly assume things like this. Not a good reason, still.

It just goes to show I need to quit being on the defensive so much.

God's laws and Jewish laws are two different things. By this time, the Jewish leaders had created numerous secondary laws that just weren't needed.

Indeed.

I would respond to the rest of your post, but it is all an attack based on something I never said.

Yes, it was sort of an attack (rather a very vehement defense). I'm truly sorry.

Wavy, It saddens me to know that you would rather attack someone than ask for a further explaination. I pray you do not take this same approach when witnessing.

Yeah. It's one of my flaws. I get overly worked up.

I hope you realize that when you called me a liar "which is a lie, really, rather than a fact" you violate Pauls teachings in the latter part of Ephesians 4. I hope my explaination helps clarify my post, but I will not respond to a second post made in such a tone.

Again, I can't say it enough. I am truly sorry. :