Lets talk about Paul

[Rainrider]

The Dead Sea scrolls have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the NT book of Hebrews.
What you have provided is not an explanation but a fudge...

The book of Hebrews, in common with the rest of the NT was written in Koine Greek - no argument.

Good does that mean your done?

 

[graceNpeace]

Good does that mean your done?

]
Does this mean you're done making untruthful claims...

 

[MarcR]

Is it not proper to start with a mans life from the same place that he started to live it? i.e. From where his story is first seen.

Paul as we know was the man that held the coats of them that stoned Stephen. Acts chapter 8. So why was Paul in agreement with him? To skip over this would be to dismiss a Part of Pauls life that helped to make him into the man he was. It would also force one to read Paul with out an understand of his mind. Lets face it, Paul was a Pharisee, Acts 23. From the tribe of Benjamin, Philippians 3. Studied under a man named Gamaliel, Acts 22.
So what does any of this tell you of the man? From this what can you see in the thinking of this man, or find out about his use o0f wording, and expressions. Does it give you an insight at all into how to understand him? What about his teacher? What do you know of Gamaliel, anything? This all plays a big part in understanding who Paul is, how he thinks, and why he speaks as he does. You see, we all follow the teachings we gain as a child. For good or bad, they make us who we are. The boot in the USA means the thing you put on your feet in winter, or when going to work. Yet in England the same word means the trunk of a car in the USA. SO yes to learn the things of Pauls is much the same way.
If we remove Paul from who he was, and try to place on him ideas that would be foreign to him, then we also place foreign thoughts into his writing. This as can be seen leads to misunderstanding. SO rather than jump to a place that gives room to introduce our way of thinking into Paul, it is wise to first learn how Paul thought, and why, would you not agree?

Gamaliiel was a disciple of Hillel, who is also known as Rambon. Hillel was the least legalistic of all the rabbis who wrote tractates in the Mishna. We also know that Gamaliel urged against persecution of the apostles.

Ac 5:34-39
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
KJV

 

[MarcR]

The last we need to cover before we look at Paul's writings is what did Paul call Scripture? If this is misunderstood, then an understanding of Paul becomes clouded in misinformation, and uncertainty. As was pointed out in my first post Paul used what many today call the OT. Quoting, or alluding to it 111 times.
Next we face the question of whether or not Paul any of the writings of what we now call the TN. Were any of them at that time circulating and being called scripture? This as we know would be a matter of timing. As the Gospel of John was not written until after the death of Paul, that one can be ruled out. Though there is on going debate about the Synoptic Gospels, the consensus is that Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke used it in their compositions. Even if one follows that this is not the case, no one suggests the existence of a recognized Gospel until 65 Ad or after. There may have been some written sayings of Yeshua circulating, The Gospels as we have them today were not extant in Paul's day, so he could not have seen them as scripture.
One thing we must keep i mind is that Paul's letters may well have been written before any of the Gospels or the book of Acts for that matter.
We must also look at what Paul thought of his own writings. After all the question of what Paul called scripture has been placed before us. It is clear that Paul seen his writings as authoritative, at lest in some instances like 1Corinthians. Though it is hardly likely that he seen them on the same level as the Torah. If He had, why would feel a need to quote the Torah?
One thing that brings difficulty is what Peter has to say.
2Pe 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,


2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

It may seem odd to find that if Paul's letters were so highly prize, there are not one of his 13 epistles is referenced. A book that holds as it's majority the life and mission of Paul. In fact aside from Peter, the first mention we have of Paul's letters being collected would be from Clement at the end of the 1st century. Yet even then it was not until the 4th century that we find Paul's letter showing any firm consistency.

From this, we can only conclude that Paul had the Tanakh, what we call the OT. Paul seen this as the inspired Word of HaShem. Infallible, truth, from which we can get to know HaShem, holding the righteousness for living, as well as unfailing truth. He seems to have no other writings he seen as scripture. He seem to not have held his own writings as scripture. Yet he said,
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

If as we have seen Paul held only the Tanakh as scripture, can we say that Paul taught the abolition of his own sacred scripture? The vary writings he loved, and held dear. I am going to give some time for answers on this. As I know their is going to fallout, yet from it all, I foresee no rebuttal that can remove the facts.

There are many commentators of excellent scholarship (Especially those of the 19th century. but also FF Bruce) who date John's gospel much earlier. The lack of any mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD in any of John's writings is evidence that the entire NT was written before 70 AD

 

[MarcR]

I did state that I am not Jewish. It may not have ben in direct reply to you, though it did answer that question.

The so called Messianic movement has two unrelated parts:

1) Jewish believers who mostly recognize no need to observe much of the Law

2) Gentiles who tor some reason try to put the Church back under Law with little or no real understanding of the Law.

When Paul says " I am not under Law , but under Grace; he means exactly that.

Of the first group we find Friends of Israel, Chosen People, and American Board of Mission to the Jews.

They generally observe the Sabbath and the appointed times of Lev chapter 23 in Messianic congregations; while they are also active in mainstream churches on Sunday and Wednesday.

 

[MarcR]

My question i, if people don't agree with what the thread, why do find it necessary to follow it? Just follow what Yeshua told us and kick the dust from your feet as you walk away. You will not find me disrupting a thread that doesn't agree with my understand, I simply walk away rather than be rude and show an unchristian spirit (as some do) by being disrespectful and disruptive.

Speaking for myself:

I hope that I am not rude or disrespectful or disruptive. I follow the thread in the hope of balancing potential false teaching with another point of view. I have not yet found any major teaching from you that I find objectionable; but I see a strong likelihood that you are going there.

 

[tourist]

I think that he's the guy who met Jesus traveling to Damascus. He was blinded by the light. Wrote a book on relationships. It's a good read.

 

[MarcR]

All Jews today call God Hashem..

I am a Jew who does not and I know many others.

 

[graceNpeace]

Speaking for myself:

I hope that I am not rude or disrespectful or disruptive. I follow the thread in the hope of balancing potential false teaching with another point of view. I have not yet found any major teaching from you that I find objectionable; but I see a strong likelihood that you are going there.

I agree!
There is nothing unbiblical or unchristian about confronting error.

 

[MarcR]

Yes Yeshua means God is salvation. Jesus as you call him. Don't get me wrong, I have always said that If He created all language, He understand them all. SO the title one uses IMHO doesn't really matter. One should use what they know, and He will know what is in your heart.
As for me, after many years of studying with many Jewish leaders, it has became a habit I have not tried to brake.

Although HaShem in all truth means, THE NAME

Joshua Yoh hah shoo ah' means God is the Savior.

Jesus Yeshua means Salvation

 

[MarcR]

Yes Yeshua means God is salvation. Jesus as you call him. Don't get me wrong, I have always said that If He created all language, He understand them all. SO the title one uses IMHO doesn't really matter. One should use what they know, and He will know what is in your heart.
As for me, after many years of studying with many Jewish leaders, it has became a habit I have not tried to brake.

Although HaShem in all truth means, THE NAME

While shem does in fact mean name; the primary meaning of Shem is Authority.

When Jesus speaks of praying in His name; He means to pray under His authority.

Ha Shem means The Authority.

 

[JaumeJ]

About the "Name," Yahweh or yod hay vav hay has a translation, Self-Existing.

It is grammatically akin to a gerund in English. (A gerund is the noun form of an infinitive.)

The Almighty will manifest Himself as He chooses, not according to the minds of man, but as
is His will. His will always pleases His children whether they understand all He does or not.
None do, but all who believe know this.

Actually no one yet knows Yahweh's name. The word,name, in Hebrew is also fame, and this
is the reference ususally intended when ever referring to Yahweh's name, His fame.

His fame is to be proclaimed among the nations. Yahweh is to be proclaimed, and if
one wishes to say so, he may say the Self-Existing God, but the important point is
we are proclaiming our Maker.

According to Zephaniah's writings, depending on the translationj, come the Kingdome a pure language will be given to all nations
so we may all call upon Yahweh with One Name. I believe that Name is yet to be revealed, meanwhile let us proclaim Him, amen

 

[miknik5]

It also seems clear that Paul was taught by direct revelation from JESUS as evidenced in Acts.......

Yep!

lets not overlook that TRUTH

That might be the most important part of understanding what Paul meant and said !

 

[miknik5]

I think that he's the guy who met Jesus traveling to Damascus. He was blinded by the light. Wrote a book on relationships. It's a good read.

And by direct revelation from THE LORD so powerfully at work in him!

 

[miknik5]

The odds are good that Paul seen much of what was written in the NT.

Paul saw nothing in the NT because it had t been written yet

paul was around when the ministry of the first eye witnesses and apostles began

they were very busy openly preaching verbally THE GOSPEL

Im not sure they had put pen to paper just then

 

[Grandpa]

Paul saw nothing in the NT because it had t been written yet

paul was around when the ministry of the first eye witnesses and apostles began

they were very busy openly preaching verbally THE GOSPEL

Im not sure they had put pen to paper just then

I bet it was pretty important to people to get the gospel written down.

Thankfully, Paul wrote his letters.

I wouldn't doubt that Paul had read some of what was written about the Lord Jesus Christ. I wouldn't be too sure that it was compiled the way that we have it today.

This is mostly conjecture and kind of pointless, much like this whole thread.

 

[miknik5]

Actually...can't we just believe what Paul said?

that what he has received he did not receive from men

just as he explained in Galatians 1

 

[miknik5]

Another thing, I don't think Paul would want us discussing him as if he were necessary


as if we could somehow be baptized into him

i mean who is paul anyway?
only a man through whom some have heard THE GOSPEL and have believed

Paul knew there was only ONE NECESSARY FOUNDATION

And he would have pointed to THAT FOUNDATION only

if he wree here maybe he would have said :

folow me as i folow CHRIST

Bur he's not
and we can follow and keep our eyes on CHRIST

 

[miknik5]

I bet it was pretty important to people to get the gospel written down.

Thankfully, Paul wrote his letters.

I wouldn't doubt that Paul had read some of what was written about the Lord Jesus Christ. I wouldn't be too sure that it was compiled the way that we have it today.

This is mostly conjecture and kind of pointless, much like this whole thread.

Paul wrote letters because and as issues arose within the young baby believing body

thankfully we have those letters of instruction and correction and exortation

these lwtters aoply today to the chirch snd help us to siscern what is foundational truth


and what is soeculation and ipinion and opinion and ideas and thoughts and suggestions of men

 

[miknik5]

And yes, Grandpa

i agree

what I said:

i dont think there was a NT that Paul was referring to

was also speculation on my part

yet the word of truth clearly states that Paul did not receive the TRUTH from men nor did he go seeking the apostles direction right after his conversionhe didn't need ro

he had THE BEST TEACHER