A forum to discuss Bible Translations

Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Discuss the Renewed Covenant and Paul's writings, or produce your own for discussion!
robdavid
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:36 am

Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby robdavid » Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:04 pm

Transcribed from a Brothers sermon he gave in Jerusalem

Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
Act 14:2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.

You see everywhere Paul went you got to realize something, Yahushua was not crucified and murdered because he had a message that everyone liked, the twelve apostles where not crucified and murdered because they had a message everyone liked. In that day they where not only fighting against the other Jewish religious sects of that day they where also fighting against the Roman Empire and all the paganism and Hellenize of the Greek culture they where trying to bring in their. So it was not an easy time to preach, and if they did not like what you preached what did they do, they stirred people up they made rumours about you. They did it about Yahushua, they tried to get rid of you and Paul was not only preaching in Jerusalem Paul was going to all the areas he was taking the Gospel out to the farther most parts of the roman Empire. Lets go to Acts 15 , this was the decision we where speaking about from the Acts 15 council.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Comment - this is the decision that James is talking about that the apostles made concerning what a gentile has to do to be able to meet with Jews in the congregation together.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, (we talked about close relation marriages) and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Comment - Now these where believers this is the new testament church setting this out and they where meeting every Sabbath in the Synagogue to preach and witness these things. So it doesn’t make any sense that Paul would be telling other people, you know you don’t have to keep this day anymore, when he was keeping it and all the church was keeping it and all the apostles where keeping it and all the Gentiles where keeping it. No not at all!

Act 16:12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.
Act 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.


Comment-
Now its very interesting to note cause some people will say well the reason why Paul went into the Synagogues on the sabbath was that’s where the Jews where meeting but He really wasn’t a Sabbath keeper. Well that’s an absolute lie and this proves it because in order technically from Jewish law in order to have a Synagogue you needed at least ten believing men, ten believing Jews to make a Synagogue and here it is because in Philippi it was a gentile city and there where not enough believing Jews to have a synagogue what did Paul do? They still kept the sabbath by riverside, they kept the sabbath by riverside. So paul was a sabbath keeper no doubt about it. You know its funny when you look at why certain beliefs in certain Christian sects today whether its Catholicism, Protestantism or whatever if you look at why they believe what they believe it is unbelievable how they’ll take one scripture and turn and twist it and have that belief from it and here we have reference after reference of Paul keeping these things and yet they will not admit that Paul was a sabbath keeper. That paul believed in the ten commandments, that’s their own problem because my guide is scripture and just like I would tell the Jews in Israel when we would discuss Yahushua or any matter for that matter I would be bold and tell them if you want to discuss from torah if you want to discuss from Prophets or the writings you know from any part of the tenack that’s fine, but if want to discuss things from your oral writings from your evil kabala, or you Talmud or your mishna I am not going to speak with you out of these things and it’s the same thing here my authority comes from holy scriptures that’s it and that’s all I can preach from and that’s where we should be getting all our answers from.

Act 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Comment - So once again we see that this was his custom this was his manner to go every sabbath to keep the sabbath to go to the synagogue every sabbath

Act 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Narrative- and that’s what he was doing that’s why they hated him boy! He was like that thorn in the side you know that every congregation has he came every week, and just kept preaching to them the things they didn’t want to hear about the resurrection which many of them did not believe in specially if they where part of the Sadducees

Act 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

Comment - so here it is it wasn’t just Jews it was many also gentiles that where believing.

Act 17:5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

Comment - So here it is, these people they didn’t believe Paul, again the ones who didn’t believe, these Jews they had an evil heart and they wanted to make up lies and they wanted to get rid of him. The same way with Yahushua, we have all read the Gospel accounts we know what the Jews did we know the lies and the false witnesses that they tried to bring against him and yet none of it worked

Act 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Comment - every Sabbath Day

Act 18:5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

Comment - that’s what he was preaching the resurrection and the Messiah.

Act 18:6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

Comment - The Jews didn’t want to hear this message, they where killing Christians, he was the ring leader and now they wanted to get him, because of what he was doing.

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

Narrative - and that feast if you look that up it was the winter of AD 52 or 53 it was the Passover. So here it was Paul was keeping Passover he was keeping the feast day. How else do we know that Paul not only kept Passover himself but taught it lets go to Cor 5.

1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.

Commentary - now here it is Paul was talking to Corinthians primarily Gentiles that he is telling them giving an analogy from unleavened bread and he is telling them they are already unleavened because they took the leaven out of their house

For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:


1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, (what feast ?the feast of Passover and unleavened bread) not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Comment - And literally if you look them words up it is literally the keeping of the feast of unleavened bread and like I said these so called scholars out their will go to scriptures far more ambiguous than this and build big, big doctrine around it and here it is, it is so clear that not only was he keeping Passover and unleavened bread, he was commanding them, to keep the feast. Now granted it may have been a little bit different, their was much more spiritual meaning to it, but he was still keeping it.

User avatar
sestir
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby sestir » Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:32 pm

A good speech! It must have felt very convincing.
To balance it a little bit:
So it doesn’t make any sense that Paul would be telling other people, you know you don’t have to keep this day anymore, when he was keeping it and all the church was keeping it and all the apostles where keeping it and all the Gentiles where keeping it. - sermon
... and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law ... - 1 Cor 9:20, nkjv
Everyone has reason to follow the principles behind the sabbath-law, because it reflects some of Gods insight. Some principles are: 1. rest regularly, 2. focus on spiritual matters regularly, 3. take a step back from a project to evaluate it. So, in case the first christian congregations were exempt from sabbath, they might still have treated the issue like that of meat sold in the market:
“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. - 1 Cor 10:23, RSV

Lassie1865
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Lassie1865 » Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:11 pm

The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week; it is not one day out of 7 . . .

No; not "all things are lawful . . . "

Paul spoke Torah to the Torah observant, and taught otherwise to the non-Torah observant . . . He was "all things to all people . . . "

Hephzibah
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:50 am

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Hephzibah » Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:09 am

I have to agree with Lassie. All the things that we argue about (circumcision, head coverings, the law, the feasts) are called into question because of Paul. With out him, things are certainly a lot clearer.

The thematic connections are really strong here as well. Eve was told not to eat, and the serpent told her it wouldn't kill her. The young prophet was told not to eat, and then here comes an old prophet who claimed Ya gave him a new revelation, and it was okay to eat. Balaam killed for teaching the children to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Then you have a Paul, who says that all things are lawful, and you can eat it if your conscience isn't weak.

Yeshua said the false apostle would be like Balaam, and teach this very same thing.

I can't help but wonder if Paul wasnt printed in every Bible, if the Jews would come to see the truth about Messiah. Just my 2 cents! :)

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Swalchy » Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:53 pm

Actually, Paul never said that "All things are lawful". The first verse to use this phrase verse is 1 Corinthians 6:12; but here's the rub: Paul is quoting the Corinthian's letter to him, not *actually* Paul saying that "all things are lawful" (I prefer to translate it as "permitted" rather than "lawful", to make sure that people aren't confused by the term apparently meaning "not forbidden by the Torah", which is incorrect); plus, this is all in the context of "sexual sin", and nothing to do with anything else here (The whole context of 1 Cor 6:12 goes all the way through to the end of 6:20). This is also the case in 1 Corinthians 10:23: Paul is quoting the Corinthian's words "All things are lawful", and then combating them ("to the contrary, all things aren't beneficial"; "to the contrary, all things aren't edifying").

Not to mention that Paul never says "go out and eat all the meat sacrificed to idols that you can!", nor did he go around throwing meat at people saying "here's some meat sacrificed to idols - eat it NOW!": no, he actually says the opposite: What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what the Gentiles sacrifice, they offer as a sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of Yahuweh and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Sovereign Master and the table of demons. (1 Cor 10:19-21). This of course goes back to 1 Corinthians 10:14: "On account of this, my highly regarded ones, flee from idolatry".

The reference to Revelation 2:14 and the mentioning of Balaam has the Messiah stating the following: "...who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons if Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practise sexual immorality", yet, Paul is quite clearly not teaching the Corinthians to be sexually immoral or go and eat food sacrificed to idols: he's doing the opposite.
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Hephzibah
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:50 am

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Hephzibah » Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:55 pm

If that were the case, then he should have corrected them by saying that not all things are lawful, because there are obviously plenty of things Torah prohibits.

Just because he says it's okay in one place, and then says it's not in another, does not make him right. And he does promote an act of *special immorality that Yeshua prohibits.

Edit:
Sexual not special. Texting on my phone, and it is auto correcting

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Swalchy » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:59 am

But he does tell them that though, and continues to correct them on upteen other things as well. There's a reason why 1 Corinthians is over 6,800 words in length.

Plus what act of "sexual immorality" does he promote that the Messiah prohibits?
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Hephzibah
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:50 am

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Hephzibah » Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:13 pm

In Matthew 19 Yeshua states that the is no lawful reason for divorce except adultery. He also states that Moses allowed it, but in the beginning it was not so.

Before the time of Yeshua, this topic was in debate by the different schools of thought. The Sages couldn't agree with each other on what Torah stated about the certificate of divorce. Shammai believed that the Torah meant only for adultery, where Hillel believed in divorce for any reason what so ever.

This statement from Yeshua is used by the Jews today, to show that he is a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 4, in that he has added to Torah and made it stricter. But that is not what He did, he clarified the disputed matter.

In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul states that you can divorce an unbelieving spouse and that you are no longer under bondage.

He doesn't have to shove meat sacrificed to idols in people's faces and force them to eat. He clearly said it was okay in one place, so the fact that he changed his mind later makes no difference.

Yeshua gave us plenty of clues as to who the ravenous wolf was, and they all point to a Paul. He is the one who killed the prey in the morning, and is now dividing the spoils. Gen 49

User avatar
sestir
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby sestir » Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:06 pm

I can't help but wonder if Paul wasnt printed in every Bible, if the Jews would come to see the truth about Messiah.
This seems to be the nitty gritty. Could you argue against the inclusion of Paul's letters without attributing offensive opinions to him?

For example: In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul states that you may not divorce an unbelieving spouse. (v12,13)

Let us look at the gothic text for fun:
(but) þaim (to them) anþaraim (others) ik (I) qiþa (say), ni (not) frauja (kyrios): jabai (if) hvas (there is) broþar (brother) qen (woman) aigi (owns) ungalaubjandein (unbelieving), jah (and) so (so) gawilja (agree) ist (is) bauan (live) miþ (with) imma (him), ni (not) afletai (leaveth) þo (the) qen (woman)

But to the others I command, not the Lord: If a brother has a woman who does not believe, and she agrees to live with him: Do not leave her.

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Swalchy » Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:54 pm

It must also be said that the Messiah spoke to Jews mainly - not Gentiles.

The Messiah didn't really talk much with regards to the marriage between a "believer" and an "unbeliever" - Paul on the other hand had to contend with this issue, especially in the ridiculously polytheistic and morally depraved Corinth.

Oddly enough though, Paul does say "do not get divorced" in 1 Cor 7:10-11 and 12-14. In 7:15, the words are with regards to the unbelieving partner "separating" from the follower of the Way, indicating it's the unbelieving partners choice in the matter, not the follower of the Way's choice.

So, Heph, your accusation against Paul is certainly false, as is the absurd appeal to Genesis 49 as anything to do with him.
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Hephzibah
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:50 am

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Hephzibah » Mon Nov 25, 2013 1:54 am

Swalchy,
Whether or not you agree, the majority of scholars believe that the ravenous wolf of Genesis 49 was Paul. Do you believe it was someone else?

The word so commonly used by Saul, bondage, is always in reference to the law. In corinthians 7, he was one again showing that we are not in bondage to the law anymore.

While Yeshua was here, it was still the time of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. Afterwards the Holy spirit told Peter that it was by his mouth the gentiles would hear the gospel.

Why is it that Saul misquoted the scriptures so often? He never quoted the Messiah. But he did misquote him. Why did he quote Greek plays about Zeus, instead of the patriarchs and prophets.

It only takes 1 mistake to be a false prophet. Eating meat sacrificed to idols in the temple of an idol, should be enough.

Hephzibah
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:50 am

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Hephzibah » Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:24 am

Is Allah, the same God we serve, only called by another name??? What about Budda, or maybe Zues??? This is an important question, that we all need to take some time to consider. Have you heard it before? I have.

Acts 17:22,23 Sha’ul stood up in the Council meeting and said, “Men of Athens: I see how very religious you are in every way! 23 For as I was walking around, looking at your shrines, I even found an altar which had been inscribed, ‘To An Unknown God.’ So, the one whom you are already worshipping in ignorance — this is the one I proclaim to you.

Who is Sha'ul proclaiming to them

I know that most people believe Sha'ul was simply trying to reach these people at their own level, in light of his statement that he "becomes all things to all people. But because we are searching for the false apostle that Yeshua warned about, I thougth
this deserved some further research.

Acts 17:28 For in Him we live and move and have our being, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring'.

But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever, For in thee we live and move and have our being. (Epimenides' Cretica)

Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken. For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.

Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity. Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus. For we are indeed his offspring... (Phaenomena 1-5).

Here we see that Sha'ul is in Athens and he comes to a pagan alter that has an inscription to an unknown god. These people were immersed in Greek culture, and philosophy. So when Sha'ul tells the people that he knows the unknown god, and is going to reveal him, and then quotes a famous Greek Poem about Zeus, who does it sound like he is worshipping?

Could the alter that they were sacrificing on belong to YHWH?

Exodus 20:25,26) If you do make me an altar of stone, you are not to build it of cut stones; for if you use a tool on it, you profane it. 23 (26) Likewise, you are not to use steps to go up to my altar; so that you won’t be indecently uncovered.’”

The scriptures are clear that alters are not to be made of cut stone or engraved with tools.

Why, out of all the beautiful scriptures and patriarchs that he could quote from to teach the people about YHWH, does he continuously quote Greek poets and playwrights about Zeus?

In Acts 9:5 and 26:14 he quotes Euripides play Bacchae, about the divine son of Zeus. The quote is about kicking against the goads, and can be found on line 790. It can also be found in Pindar's odes, Pythian 2 line 94, and Aeschylus's Agamemnon line 1904.

Titus 1:12 Even one of the Cretans’ own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons” — 13 and it’s true! Here we have the very reason that the word cretan is synonymous with liar. Besides the obvious problems with this verse, we have another example of Sha'ul quoting a greek poem by Epimenides about Zeus being eternal.

In Corinthians 15:33 he quotes Menander of Athens when he says "bad company corrupts good character".

In Philippians 2:12 he quotes the Mahaparinibbana-sutta 2.33; 6:10; from the Pali Canon, with "work out your own salvation".

1 Timothy 5:4 was taken from Publius Terentius Afer (Terence) (Latin comedy writer) 190 BC: "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home." Andria Act IV

what can be said about this?

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Swalchy » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:47 pm

Swalchy,
Whether or not you agree, the majority of scholars believe that the ravenous wolf of Genesis 49 was Paul. Do you believe it was someone else?
"Scholars"? What "scholars" do you refer to here?
The word so commonly used by Saul, bondage, is always in reference to the law.
Where?
In Corinthians 7, he was one again showing that we are not in bondage to the law anymore.
Again, where? There're quite a few words in 1 Cor 7 you see, and I find none that could be used to justify this statement of yours.
Afterwards the Holy spirit told Peter that it was by his mouth the gentiles would hear the gospel.
Where?
Why is it that Saul misquoted the scriptures so often?
Where?
He never quoted the Messiah. But he did misquote him.
This makes no sense. How can Paul have "never quoted the Messiah", but at the same time "misquote" him?

Also: where did Peter, James or Jude quote the Messiah in their letters?
Why did he quote Greek plays about Zeus, instead of the patriarchs and prophets.
He quotes from the Torah, the Prophets and the other writings of the Tanakh more than any other author in the RC writings combined. I honestly can't believe the ignorance in this statement.
It only takes 1 mistake to be a false prophet. Eating meat sacrificed to idols in the temple of an idol, should be enough.
You have evidence that Paul ate meat sacrificed to idols? I don't think so. Also, since when was this equal to being a false prophet?

False prophets makes false prophecies - you know, hence the name.

I'll answer your blatant copy and paste-job post later, which again has ignorance and stupidity dripping from it.
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Hephzibah
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:50 am

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Hephzibah » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:22 pm

No need to be rude or unkind.

Is there a reason you are against copy and paste. I may have pasted it, but I pasted it from an email that I also wrote.

Matthew Henry, John Gill, David Guzik, Tertullian, Jerome, and Hippolytus just to name a few.

Verse 15 of Corinthians 7

Acts 15:7 Peter is the apostle to the gentiles

Paul attempted to quote Yeshua 1 time, and that one time he quoted wrong. If you think he quoted the Torah so well, maybe you should proof text him, and see how many times he twisted it to suit his agenda.

Whether or not he ate meat sacrificed to idols is not the point, nor is it relevant. He leads the sheep down the wide path and to destruction. Yeshua said this practice was not okay through his true apostles and through the revelation.

We don't have to agree, but we should try to be civil. Take a deep breath and smile ;)

User avatar
sestir
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby sestir » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:15 pm

Verse 15 of Corinthians 7
The Mosaic law regulated matters in the nation of Israel, just like other nations have their own laws. Trying to follow the laws of several nations would overwhelm us with regulatory burden and impair our service of Yahuweh. Yet many Jews and Christians have tried just that by trying to obey the Mosaic law, Christ's law and the law of the land they live in. Now, some nation states have legal arrangements that are alternative to marriage, such as cohabitation and LAT. If an unbelieving spouse leaves a christian and enters into such a relationship, how much should the christian mock him/herself by inquiring about the unbelieving couple's sexual relation before being free to remarry, and how does that fulfill the purpose of the Mosaic law?

Paul writes:
"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. -- 1 Cor 7:15, KJV."

If we want to think Paul upheld the Mosaic law, we could say he assumed the departure involved a new sexual relation, could we not?

Your reference to the Corinthians was curious. It could mean the first or second epistle, but it seems to me these two are the only letters by Paul, having at least seven chapters, that do not suggest in their chapters 7 that the Mosaic law has been replaced. Maybe you are very good at trolling. :D

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." -- Rom 7:6

"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 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: 18, 19.

And in the next chapter he quotes prophets on the issue ...

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." -- Jer 31:33.

Hephzibah
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:50 am

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Hephzibah » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:53 pm

Do you believe this prophecy was fulfilled in Pauls time?

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Swalchy » Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:55 pm

No need to be rude or unkind.
I wasn't being rude or unkind. I was giving an accurate description of what I saw.
Is there a reason you are against copy and paste.
Yes, because it usually shows that the person who's done the C&P hasn't really thought about it at all, but just wants to regurgitate what someone else has written. This demonstrates a lack of thinking - I don't want to discuss a topic with someone, when I should be discussing it with the person they've decided to just C&P from.
I may have pasted it, but I pasted it from an email that I also wrote
If you'd said that you yourself had written that and were just pasting from an email, then I wouldn't have been nearly as blunt about it as I was.

Contrast your C&P job with Robdavids, who started this thread: He told us who wrote what he was about to share, and where it was from. I can't quibble with that.
Matthew Henry, John Gill, David Guzik, Tertullian, Jerome, and Hippolytus just to name a few.
Sorry, but didn't you say "scholars"? MH, JG and DG are Bible Commentators (not 'scholars'), and T, J and H are ECF (again, not 'scholars').

Furthermore, having read what this people have written regards to Genesis 49 and Paul, you're being quite deceptive, aren't you? All these people speak of the association in a very positive light, which you didn't care to mention. Also, they don't say that the 'ravenous wolf' was Paul, but all associate it with the tribe of Benjamin, of which Paul was.

I'll let you provide where these people talk about Genesis 49 and Paul. Again, lack of actual references doesn't help.
Verse 15 of Corinthians 7
1 Cor 7:15 mentions nothing of the law/Torah.
Acts 15:7 Peter is the apostle to the gentiles
Acts 15:7
Then, after a great deal of deliberation had come to be, having been caused to stand upright, Petros favourably said to all of them, “Men, brothers, all of you understand that concerning this, starting from ancient days, through all of you, God Himself picked the Gentile nations so they would hear the Word of the good news via my mouth, and so trust in the Trustworthy One.

Apart from the word "Gentiles", where is this "apostle to the Gentiles" mentioned here? Are you really trying to imply that Peter would be the sole person whom could only speak to the Gentiles concerning the Messiah?
Paul attempted to quote Yeshua 1 time, and that one time he quoted wrong.
Where? Seriously Heph, how many times do I have to ask you "Where?" before you start backing up your statements with actual references.

Stop making blanket statements, and actually provide evidence for them. It'll help massively when discussing topics.
If you think he quoted the Torah so well, maybe you should proof text him, and see how many times he twisted it to suit his agenda.
Having translated every single word of the books included in the modern 'New Testament' from the oldest known manuscripts, I'm afraid I don't agree with what you've said here at all
Whether or not he ate meat sacrificed to idols is not the point, nor is it relevant. He leads the sheep down the wide path and to destruction. Yeshua said this practice was not okay through his true apostles and through the revelation.
I vehemently disagree that Paul led anyone the wrong way. You've not provided a single shred of evidence for any of the things you've said/stated.
We don't have to agree, but we should try to be civil. Take a deep breath and smile ;)
I don't quite feel like smiling when I'm having to deal with someone whom, like sestir has said, is practically trolling.

I also asked a question that has yet to have an answer: where did Peter, James, or Jude quote anything the Messiah said in their letters? People like to accuse Paul of not including anything the Messiah said (as if he had access to copies of Matt, Mark, Luke or John from which he could just refer to at anytime) in his letters, but what about the rest of the letter writers included in the NT/RC?
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Hephzibah
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:50 am

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Hephzibah » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:50 pm

I do not know what trolling is, but because he put a smile after it I figured it wasn't negative.

I didn't say I pasted my own words because I didn't know you could tell what was pasted and what wasn't. I can't. If it wasn't my words though, I would have added quotations.

I am on a cell, not a computer, so it is not so easy for me to write freely and post links.

When I have time later tonight I will make a list.

But you have not answered anything that I have posted, you just deny everything I say, and it appears as wilful ignorance.

For example, 1st Corinthians 8. In these 13 verses, he says an Idol is nothing, and so you can eat meat sacrificed to idols. If your conscience is weak and you think an idol is something, than you shouldn't eat it, and don't let a weak person see you sitting in the temple of an idol eating meat sacrificed to idols, because he is weak and it will cause him to stumble.

Wide path there!

He added to Torah by saying a woman must cover her head, and then he said long hair was shame. He took away from Torah by saying we don't need to be circumcised. These are also signs of a false prophet.

What is your definition of a scholar Swalchy?

Hephzibah
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:50 am

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Hephzibah » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:58 pm

Did you translate ephesians 4:8

In the aramaic this is a misquote of the Holy scriptures. If he was inspired, this wouldn't be here. Not only did he misquote this, but he contradicts the Messiah. Messiah said we are all brethren and not to call people father, Shepherd... and so on. Paul set up the church hierarchy that we have today, and it is against Yeshua. He also said to have freely

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Postby Swalchy » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:23 pm

I didn't say I pasted my own words because I didn't know you could tell what was pasted and what wasn't. I can't. If it wasn't my words though, I would have added quotations.
I shall keep that in mind :)
I am on a cell, not a computer, so it is not so easy for me to write freely and post links.
I appreciate that, Heph, hence why I mentioned it might be wise to wait until you have access to a computer in order to take these discussions further. I personally wouldn't even be engaging in them if I was only able to use a mobile/cell phone.
But you have not answered anything that I have posted, you just deny everything I say, and it appears as wilful ignorance.
I've asked you to clarify your statements before I give a full answer. I don't know exactly what you're referring to, so I can't give a thorough enough response.

When that happens, I will give a full answer to any and all things brought up.
For example, 1st Corinthians 8. In these 13 verses, he says an Idol is nothing, and so you can eat meat sacrificed to idols. If your conscience is weak and you think an idol is something, than you shouldn't eat it, and don't let a weak person see you sitting in the temple of an idol eating meat sacrificed to idols, because he is weak and it will cause him to stumble.
No he doesn't. Firstly he quotes the Corinthians own arguments, "all of us possess knowledge", "an idol has no real existence", and "there is no God but one", things that they'd been using as an excuse for their behaviour.

The Corinthians had also been bragging about having higher "knowledge" than others, and so it was okay to do whatever it was that they wanted.

Paul then turns their argument on them, and points out that having "knowledge" that idols don't really exist is not an excuse to engage in eating in an idol's temple, because then others will follow their behaviour, and as Paul says, will "be destroyed". 'Destroyed' why? Because they'd be eating food offered to idols! So those that were eating meat sacrificed to idols were actually "sinning against the Messiah", which, as the rest of the letter shows, was not a good thing for the Corinthians to be doing.

Unfortunately, at this point, Paul goes off on a tangent with regards to not "making a brother stumble". 1 Corinthians Chapters 8 and 10 should be read as one continuous prose, because at the end, Paul, rather than implying that they shouldn't be eating food sacrificed to idols, makes it explicit when he says "do not be idolaters, as some of them were," and "what the Gentiles sacrifice, they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons." (1 Cor 10:7 & 20)

No Corinthian, after reading the letter in full, would have come away thinking that they should be eating food that had been offered to idols.
He added to Torah by saying a woman must cover her head, and then he said long hair was shame.
For the Greeks of Corinth, a woman with uncovered hair was not considered to be of high regard, and a man with long hair in Greek Corinth would've been implying even more.

I'll get the source for this above when I have more time.

I don't think people realise the cultural sensibilities that were around at such times, and how difficult it was to live in places that didn't look upon outsiders with much favour.
He took away from Torah by saying we don't need to be circumcised.
As per the numerous circumcision topics already on this forum, the Torah didn't require Gentile circumcision.
Did you translate ephesians 4:8
Yup. but as Paul didn't write Ephesians, this point is moot.
In the aramaic this is a misquote of the Holy scriptures.
I really don't care about the Aramaic. No matter whom the author of "Ephesians" is, it wasn't written in Aramaic, but in Greek. The Greek of Ephesians 4:8 quotes from the Septuagint, which was a translation of one of the different Hebrew text-types of the Tanakh which was around at the time (as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hebrew of the Tanakh is not without its divergent versions).
...he contradicts the Messiah. Messiah said we are all brethren and not to call people father, Shepherd... and so on.
*points to the question, "Where?"*
Paul set up the church hierarchy that we have today, and it is against Yeshua.
No, he really didn't. As evidenced by History, Ekklesia's in different geological locations had their own structures and ways of determining who was doing what. If it was true that Paul had "set up the church hierarchy that we have today", why is it that even today, different 'churches' have their own ways of doing things?
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)


Return to “Renewed Covenant”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron