Jump to content
IGNORED

Why Is The Torah Important?


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357
Paul's 'Jewish' actions were entirely to make it impossible for Jews to accuse him or Timothy of law breaking, which would have unnecessarily prevented them from preaching the gospel. His Nazirite vow was presumably taken before his conversion, and there is no evidence whatever that Paul celebrated any Jewish festival. He may well have wanted to have been in Jerusalem when there were festivals, as it gave him enormous scope due to Jews from all over the diaspora being present at these times.

Absolutely wrong. Paul performed sacrifices on two separate occasions, in one case it was to prove that he was not teaching against the Law of Moses (contrary to what you teach). There is absolutely no evidence that Paul ever stopped being a Jew. Secondly, His Narize vow took place into Acts 18 long after his conversion. Given Paul's non compromising personality it is unlike he would do anything to compromise the gospel just to appease the Jews, if indeed he taught that circumcision was an antogonist to the gospel. If Paul was anti-Torah, he would not have done anything to appease the Jews especially if it meant violating and contradicting his preaching. Paul proved in Acts 21 that he was not teaching against the Torah, so it is more likely that he was in Jerusalem for the Festival of Sukkot as any Jewish man would have done. Much of what you offer is nothing but meaningless speculation. Paul was a Jew, lived as a Jew and died as a Jew. Paul was never accused by his enemies of forsaking the Torah. Not even his enemies found fault with him in that area.

To find out what Paul really thought, see this:

Phil 3:4-9 NIV

Paul was not repudiating his Jewishness. Even in Acts 23, he said "I am a Pharisee." He did not say "I WAS a Pharisee." Paul is comparing his Jewish pedigree and worldly accomplishments to knowing Christ. He is not calling his Jewish heritage "rubbish." He is saying that all of his accomplishments, all of his honors, great as they may be, are nothing but garbage WHEN COMPARED to knowing Christ.

QUOTE

You have only provided verses like the passage in Col 2, and Romans 6 which do not pertain to the Torah of Moses. You have only provided your assumptions.

How is it that you have taken this long to object? What else can Colossians refer to but Mosaic Law?

It refers to the charges against us, not to the Torah itself. You have yet to explain why "loving the Lord with all of your hear, soul and strength, needed to be nailed to the cross. You are also confusing the Torah with legalism. Much what Paul condemned relative to the law was the tendancy to pervert the Torah into a legalistic system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  636
  • Content Per Day:  0.10
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/11/2006
  • Status:  Offline

Paul's 'Jewish' actions were entirely to make it impossible for Jews to accuse him or Timothy of law breaking, which would have unnecessarily prevented them from preaching the gospel. His Nazirite vow was presumably taken before his conversion, and there is no evidence whatever that Paul celebrated any Jewish festival. He may well have wanted to have been in Jerusalem when there were festivals, as it gave him enormous scope due to Jews from all over the diaspora being present at these times.

Absolutely wrong. Paul performed sacrifices on two separate occasions, in one case it was to prove that he was not teaching against the Law of Moses (contrary to what you teach).

Like the whole Jerusalem church, Paul taught that circumcision was unnecessary, so whatever he did, or said, to keep the Jews happy, he was certainly no Jew.

Secondly, His Narize vow took place into Acts 18 long after his conversion.

That we do not know. Moreover, even if Paul made the vow after conversion, he may have made it in order to persuade Jews that such things were not forbidden, to be 'all things to all men'. Or, the vow may not have been a Nazirite one, but an entirely personal one, as was the habit of some Jews. Nothing at all can be reliably adduced from this event.

Given Paul's non compromising personality

:thumbsup:

'Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 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. 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. 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. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.' 1 Cor 9:19-23 NIV

To find out what Paul really thought, see this:

Phil 3:4-9 NIV

Paul was not repudiating his Jewishness. Even in Acts 23, he said "I am a Pharisee."

To whom? :emot-heartbeat:

What else can Colossians refer to but Mosaic Law?

It refers to the charges against us, not to the Torah itself.

Not so. The word used is 'dogmasin' (decrees, rules), as used in Ephesians 2:15.

You have yet to explain why "loving the Lord with all of your hear, soul and strength, needed to be nailed to the cross.

I don't need to. The law that decrees loving is abolished. One cannot ever understand Christianity while one does not understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
QUOTE

Absolutely wrong. Paul performed sacrifices on two separate occasions, in one case it was to prove that he was not teaching against the Law of Moses (contrary to what you teach).

Like the whole Jerusalem church, Paul taught that circumcision was unnecessary, so whatever he did, or said, to keep the Jews happy, he was certainly no Jew.

Paul was not trying to keep the Jews "happy." Paul taught that circumcision played no part in salvation. He did not forbid Jewish believers to circumcise their children. Paul was condemning the judaizing heresy that had infiltrated a Gentile congregation. Paul was from beginning to end, a Jew. He proclaimed that there was no need for Gentiles to become physical Jews in order to enter the Kingdom. That is the extent of his condemnation of circumcision. No place in the NT states that circumcision is wrong for a Jewish believer.

QUOTE

Secondly, His Narize vow took place into Acts 18 long after his conversion.

That we do not know. Moreover, even if Paul made the vow after conversion, he may have made it in order to persuade Jews that such things were not forbidden, to be 'all things to all men'. Or, the vow may not have been a Nazirite one, but an entirely personal one, as was the habit of some Jews. Nothing at all can be reliably adduced from this event.

QUOTE

Given Paul's non compromising personality

'Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 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. 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. 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. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.' 1 Cor 9:19-23 NIV

Paul was not "compromising." Paul did not stay kosher with the Jews, and eat pork with the Romans. Paul is simply making the point that he empathizes with his audience. He did not debate the Talmud with the Greeks, nor did he use Greek philosophers while reasoning in the synagogues. Paul's only point is that his approach is governed by the needs of his audience. Only in his mind does he become like his audience so that he can better bring the gospel to them in a way they can both understand, and clearly see how it meets their needs. In our modern vernacular, we call that "being culturally relevant."

QUOTE

It refers to the charges against us, not to the Torah itself.

Not so. The word used is 'dogmasin' (decrees, rules), as used in Ephesians 2:15.

Yes, but it is the way it is used and context. It is those decrees which bring charges against us. The charges are lawful, and were placed upon Christ. at the cross. Furthermore, Paul is drawing from the image of Roman crucifixion which clearly illustrates the intent, and the point he was truly making. Paul also calls the Torah holy, just and good. The Torah was not the problem, it was man's sin in the presence of the Torah. You clearly lack the hermeneutic skill to see your error.

QUOTE

You have yet to explain why "loving the Lord with all of your hear, soul and strength, needed to be nailed to the cross.

I don't need to. The law that decrees loving is abolished. One cannot ever understand Christianity while one does not understand that.

That is completely absurd and is nothing but sloppy theology. There are commandments given to Christians concerning love all over the New Testament, but both Jesus and the apostles. All of them are based on the Torah of Moses. Try reading your Bible. As for Love and the Torah re-read the OP
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  113
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/15/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/30/1984

I've read through every post so far, and I must say that while Shiloh has made considerable points about Paul, the opposition seems to think Paul has a "dual purpose" compromising his message to gain converts.

Paul didn't have to trick people into having Faith in Christ. This is not like mormonism where people are permitted to "lie for G-d". Paul certainly didn't preach two gospels. He taught one. Was Paul a Torah Observant Jew? Of course he was. James and the Council decreed Paul was observant of the law in this passage:

"And they were informed about you, that you teach falling away from Moses, telling all the Jews throughout the nations not to circumcise their children, nor to walk in the customs. What then is it? At all events, a multitude must come together, for they will hear that you have come. Then do this, what we say to you: There are four men who have a vow on themselves; taking these, be purified with them, and be at expense on them, that they may shave the head. And all shall know that all what they have been told about you is nothing, but you yourself walk orderly, keeping the Law."

Acts 21:21-24

Now Paul was accused by unsaved people, of not keeping the Law or Customs, but the Council (Majority of which were Jews), told Paul to go "be purified with them" which means to offer up the sacrifices (Review Numbers Chapter 6 To see what those sacrifices are), and to be at expence on them (help them pay for THEIR sacrifices), that they may shave the head (to end the Vow of the Nazirite). So the Council wanted Paul to show everyone, that what the Unsaved had said about him (That he wasn't following the Law) was false, and that he really DID follow the Law.

Now Paul, if the thought that to observe the Law was to be "in Bondage" why would he submit himself to "bondage" for the sake of men? He wouldn't. Paul wasn't a hypocrite who preached one thing, and practiced another, no if the Council had said something about him that wasn't true, he would have said something. How do we know this? Because he scolded Peter the Apostle himself, for acting oppositional to truth. So if he didn't like what James and the elders said about him, he would have said something.

Now if you don't believe Christians can be Christian and follow the Law, then here's another example. The Guy that came to Paul by order of Christ, was Ananias. A Believer. He himself was obedient to the Torah, so much that even the JEWS spoke highly of him.

""In that city was a man named Ananias, a religious man who obeyed our Law and was highly respected by all the Jews living there. He came to me, stood by me, and said, 'Brother Saul, see again!' At that very moment I saw again and looked at him."

Acts 22:12-13

(Remember in that verse, he's speaking HEBREW to a Jewish crowd. When he says "our Law" he's referring to the... TORAH! Yay!)

(In reference to this:)

"And there was a certain disciple in Damascus named Ananias. And the L-rd said to him in a vision, Ananias! And he said, Behold, L-rd, I am here. And the L-rd said to him, Rising up pass along on the street being called Straight and seek a Tarsian, Saul by name, in the house of Judas. For, behold, he is praying. And he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in and putting a hand on him, so that he may see again. And Ananias answered, L-rd, I have heard from many about this man, how many bad things he did to Your saints in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all the ones calling on Your name. And the L-rd said to him, Go, for this one is a chosen vessel to Me, to bear My name before nations and kings and the sons of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of My name. And Ananias went away and entered into the house. And putting hands on him he said, Brother Saul, the L-rd has sent me, Jesus, the One who appeared to you in the highway on which you came, that you may see and be filled of the Holy Spirit."

Acts 9:10-17

It's not too hard to see that Paul, and even believers in this day were Torah observant.

Shalom for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:

'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 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 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.' Phil 3:4-9 NIV

It seems clear to me that Paul isn't saying anything about the Torah being "rubbish" as you are trying to impose upon the text.

He was only saying that our righteousness is not in our works. This doesn't mean that God's instruction for righteousness is thus made null and we can all go our own way.

Anything you do that breaks the spirit of what is said in Torah is lawlessness.

period.

You want to eat paint? Go ahead...no law against it but you will reap what you sow. Sow to the flesh and you will reap in your flesh. The dietary laws were written 5,000 years ago and modern science has finally caught up with it. These things wreak havoc on your digestive system and body.

The spirit of this law is that we shouldn't ingest things that are "unclean" (physically or spiritually)

Yes...ALL things are permissable...but not all things edify.

You could commit adultery and then murder to cover it up. You could be forgiven of even that....but it is still gonna cost you in the flesh.

You do yourself a great disservice to ignore the blessings and preventive words of the Torah.

It is like telling a teenage girl that she would be forgiven if she has sex outside of marriage. Yes, that is true!

But it would be better to tell her "the instruction of God is NOT to have sex before marriage"

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  636
  • Content Per Day:  0.10
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/11/2006
  • Status:  Offline

It refers to the charges against us, not to the Torah itself.

Not so. The word used is 'dogmasin' (decrees, rules), as used in Ephesians 2:15.

Yes

Indeed. No amount of casuistry can change that.

'He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.' Col 2:13-15 NIV

QUOTE

You have yet to explain why "loving the Lord with all of your hear, soul and strength, needed to be nailed to the cross.

I don't need to. The law that decrees loving is abolished. One cannot ever understand Christianity while one does not understand that.

There are commandments given to Christians concerning love all over the New Testament, but both Jesus and the apostles. All of them are based on the Torah of Moses.

In that case, they are doomed to failure. Moses was not allowed into the promised land. Otoh Abraham, who knew no Mosaic Law, is the father of those who are saved through faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Sep 25 2006, 01:22 PM)

It refers to the charges against us, not to the Torah itself.

QUOTE

Not so. The word used is 'dogmasin' (decrees, rules), as used in Ephesians 2:15.

QUOTE

Yes

Indeed. No amount of casuistry can change that.

'He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.' Col 2:13-15 NIV

The key is the first part, which states that our sins were forgiven. Seondly it was the regulations that were against us. That precludes that the Torah is being spoken of. The Torah is not "against" us. The Torah does not condemn man. The Torah only shows God's standard of righteousness. We are condemned by our sin, when we see ourselves in the light of God's Torah.

In that case, they are doomed to failure. Moses was not allowed into the promised land. Otoh Abraham, who knew no Mosaic Law, is the father of those who are saved through faith.
Nonsense. The Abrahamic covenant is the convenant of promise. The Torah protects the promise. The Torah teaches how to live in the promise. The two are equally important.

Moses did not go into the Promised Land, but that is completely irrelavant. Moses failure to enter into the promise was because of his sin, not because of the Torah. Had Moses obeyed the Lord, He would have entered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  636
  • Content Per Day:  0.10
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/11/2006
  • Status:  Offline

'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 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 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.' Phil 3:4-9 NIV

It seems clear to me that Paul isn't saying anything about the Torah being "rubbish"

Quite so. It is true that Paul considered his advantages, as supposed, that derived from his Jewish heritage and culture were rubbish, though.

He was only saying that our righteousness is not in our works. This doesn't mean that God's instruction for righteousness is thus made null and we can all go our own way.

Cain needed no instruction to know that murder was wrong. The antediluvians needed no instruction to know that adultery and rape were wrong. The Sodomites needed no instruction to know that sodomy was wrong. No-one at all needs instruction to know that theft is wrong. A baby, made in God's image, knows that.

Please do not add emphasis or otherwise tamper with my quotes in future, yod. It is arrogance and misrepresentation imv, which is a form of theft. Thank you for your co-operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
It is true that Paul considered his advantages, as supposed, that derived from his Jewish heritage and culture were rubbish, though.
No, he only considered them rubbish in comparison to knowing Christ. He did not consider his heritage rubbish in and of itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  636
  • Content Per Day:  0.10
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/11/2006
  • Status:  Offline

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Sep 25 2006, 01:22 PM)

It refers to the charges against us, not to the Torah itself.

QUOTE

Not so. The word used is 'dogmasin' (decrees, rules), as used in Ephesians 2:15.

QUOTE

Yes

Indeed. No amount of casuistry can change that.

'He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.' Col 2:13-15 NIV

The key is the first part, which states that our sins were forgiven.

Who decides what is key? This is a very strange sort of translating principle. Proper translation uses words that are actually used, and does not change them because they suit a pre-determined interpretation.

Seondly it was the regulations that were against us. That precludes that the Torah is being spoken of. The Torah is not "against" us.

'Law brings wrath.' Rom 4:1 NIV

Moses failure to enter into the promise was because of his sin

Did the others not sin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...